AECT Standard 2

This section highlights my development in AECT Standard 2: Content Pedagogy, which focuses on my growth as a reflective practitioner who can effectively implement educational technologies grounded in strong pedagogical practice. Throughout my graduate experience at the University of South Carolina, I have worked to ensure that my design decisions are not just technically sound, but instructionally meaningful—rooted in how students learn best.

The two artifacts included here were intentionally selected to demonstrate my ability to apply content pedagogy in authentic contexts. They reflect my capacity to create and implement learning experiences that integrate technology in purposeful ways, while also engaging in reflective evaluation of their effectiveness. Across these projects, I show how I make instructional decisions based on both theory and practice, striving to improve learning outcomes and create supportive, flexible learning environments.

Instructional Strategy Plan

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Fall 2024 in EDET 722: Instructional Design and Assessment at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required the development of a comprehensive Instructional Strategy Plan that aligned with previously created performance objectives and assessment items. This artifact was built directly upon prior work, including the Needs Assessment and Front-End Analysis, and focused on designing how instruction would be sequences, delivered, and practiced within a Civil Rights Movement instructional module.

At the time of creation, I brought strong pedagogical experience as an eighth grade English Language Arts teacher, particularly in designing engaging lessons and facilitating discussion-based learning. However, I was still developing my ability to intentionally align instructional strategies with formal instructional design models. This artifact required me to move beyond general teaching strategies and instead apply structured frameworks such as the ADDIE model (Molenda, 2015) and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model (Morrison, et al., 2019). I also applied sequencing frameworks from Posner and Strike (1976), specifically concept-related sequencing, to organize content in a way that builds conceptual understanding across the Civil Rights Movement. Tools used included Google Docs for structuring the plan and prior artifacts (goal analysis and performance objectives) to ensure alignment. This artifact reflects my growing ability to connect pedagogy, content, and instructional design theory into a cohesive instructional plan.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to design a detailed instructional strategy plan that outlines how learners will engage with content, practice skills, and achieve instructional objectives. This project was created for graduate coursework but directly applies to my classroom practice, particularly in designing structured, scaffolded learning experiences for complex historical content. Within a broader curriculum context, this artifact represents the instructional design phase of a larger unit, specifically focusing on how content is delivered and practiced within a 15-20 minute instructional module.

For example, the plan includes sequencing content from historical context to influential figures, legislation, and key events, ensuring that students build knowledge progressively. Additionally, it outlines specific generative strategies (e.g., graphic organizers, document analysis, timeline creation) and aligned learner practice items (e.g., multiple choice and true/false questions), demonstrating how instruction is structured to support both understanding and application.

Role

I served as the sole instructional designer and developer for this artifact. I independently designed the instructional sequence, selected appropriate pedagogical strategies, and created aligned learner practice items for each objective. My role required me to translate abstract instructional goals into concrete teaching strategies that support student learning.

For example, I determine how each objective would be introduced (initial presentation), how students would actively process content (generative strategies), and how they would practice and demonstrate understanding (learner practice items). This required both pedagogical knowledge and instructional design thinking, as I had to ensure alignment between objectives, instruction, and practice.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflect both the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model, with a strong emphasis on the Design phase of instructional development. From an ADDIE perspective, this work represents the Design phase (Molenda, 2015), as it outlines how instructional content will be delivered, practiced, and sequenced. For example, I explicitly planned initial presentations (e.g., multimedia instruction, primary source analysis), generative strategies (e.g., organization, integration, elaboration), and learner practice items (e.g., multiple choice and true/false questions) for each objective. These elements demonstrate how instruction moved from content delivery to active learner engagement and practice.

Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrated key components such as instructional strategies, sequencing, message design, and learner participation (Morrison et al., 2019). For instance, the use of concept-related sequencing reflects intentional organization of content so that learners build connections across topics, rather than learning isolated facts. Furthermore, the inclusion of generative strategies such as organization (graphic organizers), integration (document analysis), and elaboration (case student reflections) aligns with MRK’s emphasis on active processing of information. The pre-instructional strategy, including objectives and overview, reflects how learners are oriented to content before instruction begins. This artifact also reflects constructivist learning theory, as students actively construct knowledge through analysis, comparison, and reflection, rather than passively receiving information.

Related Performance Indicators

AECT Standard 2: Content Pedagogy

2.1 Applying content-specific pedagogical knowledge.
2.2 Using appropriate pedagogical strategies to support learners.

Reflection

This artifact represents a significant step in my development as an instructional designer, particularly in understanding how to intentionally plan instruction rather than rely on instinct or experience alone. At the time, I was beginning to recognize the importance of aligning instructional strategies with both objectives and assessment. For instance, I intentionally paired generative strategies such as document analysis and graphic organizers with specific objectives to ensure that students were actively engaging with content in meaningful ways. This reflects AECT Standard 2 because I applied pedagogical strategies that are appropriate for teaching complex historical content.

Now, I recognize that this artifact reflects an intermediate level of instructional design expertise. While the plan is thorough and aligned, I would strengthen it by incorporating more differentiation and accessibility consideration within the instructional strategies themselves. For example, I would integrate additional scaffolds such as sentence stems, multiple means of representation (e.g., audio supports), and flexible response options to better support diverse learners. I would also incorporate more interactive and technology-based strategies, such as collaborative digital tools or simulations, to further enhance engagement and application.

This artifact strongly aligns with AECT Standard 2 because it demonstrated my ability to select and apply pedagogical strategies that support learning within a specific content area. Compared to earlier work, this artifact shows growth in my ability to design instruction that is structured, intentional, and aligned with learning goals. It reflects my transition from a teacher who plans engaging lessons to an instructional designer who systematically designs learning experiences grounded in theory, pedagogy, and learner needs.

References

Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21461

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2019). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). Wiley.

Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1976). A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content. Review of Educational Research, 46(4), 665–690.

UDL Barriers to Learning Chart

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Summer 2025 in EDET 735: Technological Applications for Diverse Populations at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required me to analyze a previously developed lesson plan and proactively identify potential barriers to learning using a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. Rather than reacting to student needs after challenges arise the task emphasized anticipating variability in learners and embedding supports directly into instructional design.

At the time of creation, I brought both my professional experience as an 8th grade ELA teacher and developing knowledge of inclusive instructional design. Specifically, I drew on my classroom experience facilitating Socratic seminars and noticing common student challenges, such as difficulty generating written responses, anxiety during discussions, and inconsistent access to complex text. I applied the Universal Design for Learning framework (CAST, 2018), particularly its principles of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression. For example, I use my understanding of scaffolding and language support to design sentence stems and discussion frames, and I incorporated executive functioning support such as checklists and visual schedules. Tools used to create the artifact included Google Docs (table formatting) and my original lesson plan, which served as the foundation for aligning barriers and solutions. This artifact reflects an intentional shift from reactive teaching to proactive instructional design grounded in accessibility theory.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to redesign an existing 8th grade ELA lesson - focused on Claudette Colvin Twice Toward Justice - to ensure equitable access for all learners by identifying barriers and embedding UDL-aligned supports. This work was created for graduate coursework but directly applies to my professional classroom practice. Within the broader curriculum, this artifact represents a lesson-level instructional design refinement rather than full unit, specifically targeting a two-day Socratic seminar sequence.

For instance, within the scope of the lesson, I identified that the seminar format could create barriers for students with expressive language difficulties or social anxiety. In response, I embedded supports such as pre-writing opportunities, sentence stems, and alternative participation methods (e.g., written responses or small group discussion roles). Furthermore, I recognized that the complex historical text could present comprehension challenges, so I included chunked readings, audio options, and guided annotations. This demonstrates how the artifact fits within a larger curriculum by strengthening accessibility at a critical discussion-based assessment point.

Role

I served as the sole instructional designer and developer of this artifact. I independently analyzed my original lesson, identified potential barriers based on learner variability, and designed aligned UDL solutions. My role required both pedagogical decision-making and application of instructional design theory. For example, I determined which barriers were most likely to impact student success (e.g., difficulty processing auditory information during discussion) and designed specific supports such as written transcripts, anchor charts, and pre-teaching vocabulary. This process reflects my ability to translate theory into practical, classroom-based design decisions.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects both the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model through targeted analysis and design decisions.

From an ADDIE perspective, this artifact primarily represents the Analysis and Design phases (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, I identified learner needs and barriers by examining how students might struggle with specific components of the lesson, such as annotation, discussion, and comprehension of complex text. For instance, I recognized that students with executive functioning challenges might struggle to manage seminar roles and expectations, leading me to include visual schedules and role reminder cards. During the Design phase, I developed aligned instructional supports, such as sentences frames, audio text options, and structured discussion protocols. These decisions reflect intentional instructional planning but do not yet represent Development, as no digital tools or platforms were implemented at this stage.

Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates several key components, including identification of felt needs, learner characteristics, instructional problems, and message design (Morrision et al., 2019). For one, I identified a felt need for increased accessibility in discussion-based learning and analyzed learner characteristics such as language proficiency, confidence levels, and reading ability. Message design is reflected in how supports were structured. For instance, using sentence stems to guide student discourse and chunked text to reduce cognitive overload. Moreover, this artifact reflects formative evaluation, as it functions as a design revision process to improve the effectiveness of the lesson before implementation. The work is also informed by cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), as seen in reducing extraneous load through chunking and scaffolding, and constructivist learning theory, as students engage in meaning-making through discussion.

Related Performance Indicators

Standard 2: Content Pedagogy

2.2 Using appropriate pedagogical strategies to support diverse learners.

Reflection

This artifact represented a meaningful shift in my understanding of pedagogy because I went from designing for the “average” student to designing for variability from the start. At the time, I was begging to understand UDL conceptually, but this artifact pushed me to apply it concretely. For example, instead of simply acknowledging that some students struggle with discussion, I designed specific supports such as sentence stems, alternative participation options, and pre-writing structures to ensure all students could engage meaningfully. This directly reflects AECT Standard 2.2 because I used pedagogical strategies to support diverse learners within a specific instructional context.

Now at the end of my program, I recognized that while this artifact demonstrated strong design thinking, it represented an intermediate level of expertise. If I were to revise this artifact, I would deepen integration of technology to further remove barriers. For instance, I would incorporate tools such as text-to-speech software for reading support, collaborative platforms like Google Docs for real-time discussion contributions, and discussion apps that allow anonymous or asynchronous participation. Furthermore, I would more explicitly align each support to UDL checkpoints and include student choice in how they demonstrate understanding, strengthening both engagement and ownership.

This artifact also reflects my growth in anticipating learner needs rather than reacting to them. Earlier in my teaching, I might have addressed barriers only after students struggled. I would have possibly given help during the seminar instead of designing supports beforehand. Now, I approach instruction with a proactive, systems-level mindset rooted in instructional design. This shift demonstrates my development as an instructional designer who integrates pedagogy, accessibility, and theory to create more inclusive learning environments. Ultimately, this artifact shows my progression toward designing instruction that is not only effective, but equitable and responsive to all learners.

References

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21461

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2019). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). Wiley.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4