AECT Standard 3

This section highlights my growth in AECT Standard 3: Learning Environments, which focuses on my ability to design, implement, and evaluate learning environments that effectively support student learning. Throughout my graduate studies at the University of South Carolina, I have developed a strong understanding of how intentional design—grounded in research and learning theory—can shape meaningful and inclusive learning experiences.

The two artifacts included here were selected to demonstrate my ability to create and manage learning environments that are both purposeful and responsive to student needs. They reflect my use of research-based design practices, thoughtful integration of technology, and the application of multiple assessment strategies to improve both instruction and learner outcomes. Additionally, these artifacts highlight my commitment to fostering inclusive learning communities that support diverse learners, while maintaining ethical practices related to accessibility, safety, and responsible use of resources.

Accessibility Website Evaluation

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Summer 2025 in EDET 735: Technology Applications for Diverse Populations at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required me to evaluate the accessibility of a real-world website using both automated tools and manual testing methods, then compile findings into a professional report with actionable recommendations. I selected the Spirit Airlines homepage due to its relevance as a high-traffic, real-world platform with known accessibility challenges that impact a wide range of users.

At the time of creation, I brought my classroom experience working with diverse learners, including students with varying learning needs, but I was still developing my understanding of digital accessibility and inclusive design in online environments. This artifact required me to apply accessibility frameworks and tools, including WAVE (WebAIM) and Axe (Deque), as well as manual techniques such as keyboard navigation and screen reader testing using VoiceOver. I also drew on principles from Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and web accessibility standards (WCAG 2.1), focusing on how digital environments can either support or hinder equitable access. This work reflects my growing ability to evaluate learning environments not just content delivery, but for usability, inclusivity, and accessibility.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to analyze the accessibility of a single webpage and identify barriers that could impact users with disabilities, then propose actionable improvements. This project was created for graduate coursework but has strong-real world application in both educational and professional digital environments. Within a broader instructional design context, this artifact represents evaluation and improvement of a digital learning environment, rather than the creation of new instructional materials.

For instance, I analyzed key accessibility issues such as missing alt text, poor color contrast, inconsistent heading structures, and lack of keyboard navigation support. These findings highlight how design decisions directly affect user experience, particularly for individuals using assistive technologies. This artifact demonstrates my ability to critically evaluate an existing system and propose improvements that enhance accessibility and usability for all learners.

Role

I served as the sole evaluator and instructional designer for this artifact. I independently selected the website, conducted all accessibility testing, analyzed findings, and developed recommendations. My role required both technical and pedagogical thinking, as I had to interpret how design flaws impact user experience and learning access.

For example, I identified how missing form labels would cause screen readers to announce “edit text” without context, making navigation difficult for users with visual impairments. I then translated these findings into actionable recommendations, such as implementing proper HTML labeling and improving heading hierarchy. This demonstrates my ability to connect technical evaluation with user-centered design improvements.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model, particularly in the Analysis and Evaluation phases of instructional design. From an ADDIE perspective, this work represents both the Analysis and Evaluation phases (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, I examined how users interact with the website and identified barriers that prevent equitable access, such as poor navigation flow and lack of semantic structure. During Evaluation, I assessed the effectiveness of the website’s design in supporting diverse users and proposed improvements based on identified issues.

Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates key components such as learner characteristics, instructional problems, delivery systems, and formative evaluation (Morrison et al., 2019). For instance, I considered learners with visual and motor impairments as key user groups and identified instructional problems such as missing alt text and inconsistent heading structures that disrupt navigation. The delivery systems, the website itself, was evaluated as a learning and interaction environment, and my recommendations function as a form of formative evaluation to improve accessibility and usability. This work is also informed by Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018), as it emphasizes removing barriers and providing multiple means of access for all users.

Related Performance Indicators

AECT Standard 3: Learning Environments

3.1 Creating learning environments
3.2 Managing learning environments

Reflection

This artifact represents a meaningful shift in how I think about learning environments, particularly in digital spaces. At the time, I was beginning to understand that accessibility is not just a “nice to have,” but a fundamental component of effective instructional design. For example, I recognized that issues such as missing alt text or poor keyboard navigation are not minor inconveniences, but significant barriers that can completely prevent users from accessing content. This directly connects to AECT Standard 3, as it highlights my ability to evaluate and improve learning environments to support all users.

Now, I see that this artifact reflects an intermediate level of expertise in accessibility and learning environment design. While I effectively identified and explained accessibility issues, I would now expand this work by incorporating more user-centered testing, such as observing real users interacting with the site or using additional assistive technologies (e.g., JAWS or NVDA). I would also align my recommendations more explicitly with WCAG success criteria and include accessibility scoring or prioritization of fixes.

This artifact strongly aligns with AECT Standard 3 because it demonstrates my ability to analyze and improve a digital learning environment to make it more inclusive and accessible. Compared to earlier work, this artifact shows growth in my ability to think beyond content and consider the full user experience. It reflects my development as an instructional designer who understands that effective learning environments must be intentionally designed to remove barriers and support all learners, not just the majority.

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.

Click Here to Join Course

Canvas LMS Course

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Fall 2025 in EDET 755: Design and Evaluation of Information Access and Delivery at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required the full design and development of an online course within Canvas LMS, including modules, assessments, learning activities, and course structure. The goal was to create a cohesive, accessible, and engaging digital learning environment that supports student interaction, content delivery, and assessment.

At the time of creation, I brought strong experience as a classroom teacher and growing expertise in instructional design. However, this artifact required me to pivot from designing individual lessons to designing a full online learning course. I applied principles of online learning design, including structuring modules around “Absorb, Do, Connect” learning phases to support content acquisition, practice, and interaction. For example, each week included readings and mini-lectures (Absorb), quizzes, and blogs (Do), and discussions or collaborative tools like Padlet and Flip (Connect), ensuring multiple pathways for engagement. I also applied concepts related to learning interaction and engagement, drawing on constructivist principles and social learning theory to design opportunities for peer discussion and collaborative meaning-making.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to design a fully online undergraduate level course titled American Literature of the 1920s: Modernism, Jazz, and the Lost Generation. The course spans six weeks and includes multiple modules, assessments, and learning activities aligned to clearly defined objectives.

Within a broader curriculum context, this artifact represents a complete online course, not just a single lesson or unit. For instance, Module 1 focuses on modernism and The Great Gatsby, incorporating a quiz blog reflection and a discussion. While Module 2 includes a poetry worksheet, Padlet activity, and blog to explore the Harlem Renaissance. The course culminates in a final multimedia project where students synthesize learning across modules. This demonstrates how the course builds progressively from foundational law knowledge to higher order synthesis. Additionally, I had to develop knowledge of LMS specific design, such as organizing navigation, embedding multimedia, and aligning assessments with objectives within Canvas.

Role

I served as the sole instructional designer and developer of this online course. I was responsible for Designing the course structure, creating all instructional materials, developing assessments, and organizing the course within Canvas LMS. In more detail, I designed the course syllabus, created weekly modules, developed assessments such as quizzes and discussion prompts, and built the final project with clear guidelines and evaluation criteria. I also selected and embedded multimedia resources (e.g., mini-lectures, videos, playlists) to enhance content delivery. This role required me to integrate instructional design principles with a practical LMS implementation, ensuring that the course was both pedagogically sound and functional for learners.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects multiple phases of the DDIE model, particularly Design, Development, and Implementation, as well as key components of the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model. To connect to ADDIE, the Design phase is evident in the alignment of learning objectives, activities, and assessments. For instance, Objective 1 (analyzing major works of 1920s literature) is directly aligned with Module 1 quizzes, blogs, and discussions. The Development phase is reflected in the creation of course materials within Canvas. This includes multimedia content, discussion boards, and structured modules. The Implementation phase is represented by the deployment of the course in a fully online format, where learners navigate modules, complete assignments, and interact with peers. While formal evaluation was not conducted, formative elements such as quizzes and discussions provide ongoing feedback.

As for the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates learner characteristics, instructional objectives, instructional strategies, delivery systems, and evaluation (Morrison et al., 2019). For instance, learner characteristics were considered by designing for upper-level undergraduate students, incorporating advanced reading, discussion, and research tasks. Instructional strategies include a mix of individual and collaborative activities, such as blogs and peer discussions to support deeper learning. The delivery system, Canvas LMS, was intentionally used to organize content, provide navigation, and facilitate interaction. The course also reflects principles of Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2000), specifically through teaching presence (structured modules), cognitive presence (analytical assignments), and social presence (discussion boards and peer interaction).

Related Performance Indicators

Standard 3: Learning Environments

3.1 Creating learning environments.
3.2 Managing learning environments.

Reflection

This artifact represents a major step in my development as an instructional designer, particularly in creating full online learning environments rather than individual lessons. At the time, I was focused on ensuring that all required components were included (modules, assessments, and activities), but I was still developing a deeper understanding of how to optimize user experience and engagement in an online setting. For example, while I included multiple types of activities (blogs, discussions, Padlet, Flip), I did not always clearly scaffold these activities or provide explicit guidance for how students should engage at a high level.

Since completing this artifact, I have developed a stronger understanding of online course design and learning experience. If I would have revised this course, I would incorporate more intentional scaffolding and interaction design. For instance, I would provide stronger model discussion responses, sentence stems, or rubrics to guide high quality peer interaction. But also improve navigation by adding more consistent modules over reviews and checklists to reduce cognitive load and help to attract progress more effectively. Furthermore I would incorporate more accessibility features, such as captions for videos and alternative formats for readings, to ensure all learners can access content.

This artifact strongly aligns with AECT Standard 3 because it demonstrates my ability to create and manage a structured online learning environment that supports interaction, engagement, and learning. And of course that integrates multiple forms of interaction (student-content, student-student, student-instructor) through readings, discussions, and collaborative tools. Compared to earlier work, this artifact shows my growth and designing at a systems level, while also highlighting areas where I've continued to develop more advanced skills and usability, accessibility, and learner-centered design.

References

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

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.