AECT Standard 4

This section highlights my development in AECT Standard 4: Professional Knowledge and Skills, which reflects my ability to design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning experiences within a collaborative and reflective professional community. Throughout my graduate studies at the University of South Carolina, I have grown not only as a designer, but also as a collaborator, leader, and reflective practitioner committed to continuous improvement.

The three artifacts included here were intentionally selected to demonstrate my engagement with key aspects of this standard, including collaboration with peers and subject matter experts, leadership in the design and implementation of instruction, and ongoing reflection on practice. These projects showcase my ability to analyze data, evaluate the effectiveness of learning experiences, and make informed decisions to enhance both instruction and learner outcomes. Additionally, they reflect my commitment to ethical practice and respect for diverse learners in all educational contexts.

Click Here to Take Module

3Cs Scenario-Based Module Product

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Fall 2025 in EDET 703: Design and Development Tools II at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required the design and development of a fully functional scenario-based eLearning module using the 3Cs model (Challenge, Choices, Consequences). The project included both planning components (treatment report, storyboard, site map, and style guide) and a fully developed interactive product built using Adobe Captivate. The goal was to create an authentic, learner-centered experience that integrates instructional design theory with professional multimedia development practices.

At the time of creation, I brought strong foundational knowledge of instructional design and learning theory from previous coursework, along with developing technical skills in eLearning authoring tools. This artifact required me to apply principles from scenario-based learning, multimedia design, and cognitive processing in a much more sophisticated way than prior projects. For example, I applied the 3Cs Model (Kuhlmann) to structure the module around real-world digital dilemmas, such as evaluating online sources or composing professional emails. I also incorporated Merrill’s (2002) First Principles of Instruction , ensuring that learners engaged with authentic tasks, received immediate feedback, and practiced skills repeatedly. The design decisions were grounded in reducing cognitive load and supporting learner engagement through clear navigation, chunked content, and consistent visual design, as described in the treatment report.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to design and develop a 10-15 minute interactive eLearning module titled Digital Fluency 101: Create, Communicate, Collaborate, targeting middle school learners. The module focused on building digital literacy skills, including evaluating sources, detecting bias, composing professional communication, and understanding plagiarism. Within a broader instructional context, this artifact represents a complete instructional product, moving beyond planning into full development and implementation. For example, the module included multiple challenge points where learners had to make decisions (e.g., identifying whether a source is credible), followed by consequences and feedback that required them to revisit content before progressing. The site map visually shows how the module is structured into two main sections — Analyzing Sources and Digital Creation — with embedded challenge loops, reinforcing skill development through repetition and feedback. This demonstrates how the artifact functions as a standalone learning experience that could be used in a classroom or online learning environment.

Role

This was a collaborative project completed with one partner. I contributed to both the instructional design and development of the module, including the treatment reports, storyboard planning, and construction of interactive elements in Adobe Captivate. Specifically, I contributed to designing the instructional flow using the 3Cs model, ensuring that each challenge required meaningful decision-making and led to appropriate consequences. For instance, I helped design feedback loops where incorrect responses triggered review screens and required learners to reattempt tasks, rather than simply moving forward. I also contributed to visual and message design decisions, such as maintaining consistency in layout, color scheme, and navigation elements (e.g., progress bar, “Try Again” buttons), which supported usability and learner experience. My role reflects both conceptual design and hands-on development within a professional eLearning tool.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects all phases of the ADDIE model, with a strong emphasis on Design and Development, as well as detailed alignment with the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model.

From an ADDIE viewpoint, the project included Analysis, Design, Development, and Evaluation phases (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, we identified the need for digital literacy instruction for middle school learners and examined authentic tasks related to online behavior. During Design, we created detailed planning documents, including a storyboard, site map, and treatment report outlining instructional strategies and interface design. During Development, we built the interactive module in Adobe Captivate, incorporating branching navigation, feedback loops, and multimedia elements. For instance, learners encountered challenge screens where they selected responses, received immediate feedback, and were redirected to review content if needed. Evaluation was embedded through formative feedback within the module, as learners continuously assessed their understanding through repeated attempts.

Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates learner analysis, instructional strategies, message design, delivery systems, and formative evaluation (Morrison et al., 2019). Learner characteristics were considered by designing for middle school students, using age-appropriate language, visuals, and scenarios. Message design is evident in the consistent layout described in the treatment report, where each screen includes clear headings, minimal text, and aligned visuals to reduce cognitive load. The delivery system, an interactive eLearning module, was intentionally selected to allow for branching, feedback, and learner control. Formative evaluation is embedded through the “Incorrect → Review → Reattempt” sequence, which supports mastery learning and self-regulation. Furthermore, the design reflects Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) and Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2009), particularly through chunked content, signaling, and dual-channel processing.

Related Performance Indicators

Standard 4: Professional Knowledge and Skills

4.1 Collaborative practice.
4.3 Assessing and evaluating processes and resources.

Reflection

This artifact represents one of the most advanced demonstrations of my instructional design skills in the program. At the time, I was beginning to feel confident not only in designing instruction, but in fully developing interactive learning experience using professional tools. For example, I was able to design branching scenarios where learners made decisions and received meaningful consequences, rather than simply progressing linearly through content. This reflects a shift from static lesson design to dynamic, learner-centered experiences.

However, from my current perspective, I can identify areas for growth. While the module effectively incorporates feedback and interactivity, I would now strengthen accessibility and user experience. I would do this by including audio narration with captions consistently, alternative text for visuals, and more flexible navigation options to support a fluidity for diverse learners. I would also incorporate more explicit data collection or analytics (e.g., tracking learner choices) to evaluate effectiveness beyond embedded feedback.

This artifact strongly aligns with AECT Standard 4 because it demonstrates my ability to apply professional knowledge and skills in a collaborative, real- world design context. For example, I worked with a partner to design, build, and refine a fully functional eLearning module, integrating instructional theory, technical tools, and user-centered design principles. Compared to earlier artifacts, this work shows significant growth in my ability to move from theoretical understanding to professional-level execution, positing me as a capable instructional designer ready to develop complex, technology-supported learning environments.

References

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

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.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024

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

Technology Procurement and Life Cycle Management Plan

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Spring 2026 in EDET 746: Management of Technology Resources at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required the development of a comprehensive technology procurement and life cycle management plan for a selected instructional technology tool. Building on a prior module where I compared Canva and Newsela, this project required me to apply a systematic, research-based approach to technology selection, funding, implementation, and long-term sustainability planning.

At the time of creation, I brought strong classroom experience using instructional technology, but this assignment pushed me to think beyond classroom-level decisions and instead consider organizational, financial, and systems-level factors. I applied concepts related to technology management, resource allocation, and sustainability, as well as instructional frameworks such TPACK (Koelher & Mishara, 2009) and ISTE Standards (ISTE, 2026). This artifact also reflects principles of the ADDIE model (Molenda, 2015), particularly the Analysis and Design phases, as I identified instructional needs, evaluated tools, and designed a structured implementation plan. Tools used included research databases, prior evaluation criteria, and structured planning within a formal proposal format. This artifact represented my ability to bridge instructional design with leadership and resource management.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to design a technology procurement and life cycle management plan for Canva for Education within a middle school context. This plan was created for graduate coursework but is highly applicable to real-world educational leadership and instructional design roles. Within a broader instructional system, this artifact represents strategic planning and management of instructional technology, rather than direct instruction or content design.

The plan includes a full procurement process (needs assessment, evaluation, pilot, and rollout), funding strategies (internal, external, and creative fundraising), and a structured life cycle replacement plan. For example, I outlined a phased implementation timeline and 3-5 year evaluation cycle to ensure the technology remains aligned with instructional goals over time. This demonstrates my understanding that effective technology integration requires long-term planning, not just initial adoption.

Role

I served as the sole instructional designer and planner for this artifact. I independently conducted the needs assessment, selected the technology solution, developed the procurement plan, and designed the life cycle management strategy. My role required me to think as both an instructional designer and a decision-maker responsible for resource allocation. For example, I identified multiple funding sources, including Title I funds, grants, and community partnerships, and proposed a creative fundraising strategy through a “Student Digital Showcase Night.” This demonstrates my ability to consider both instructional impact and financial feasibility when making technology decisions.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects both the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model, with a strong emphasis on Analysis, Design, and Management of resources. From an ADDIE perspective, this work reflects the Analysis phase through identification of instructional needs (e.g., need for student engagement and multimodal expression) and the Design phase through development of a structured implementation and evaluation plan (Molenda, 2015). Unlike earlier artifacts focused on lesson design, this artifact expands ADDIE into a broader systems-level application.

Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact reflects components such as identifying instructional problems, considering learner characteristics, selecting resources, and planning delivery systems (Morrison, et al., 2019). For instance, the decision to adopt Canva was grounded in its alignment with constructivist learning principles and its ability to support student-created content across disciplines. Additionally, this artifact reflects principles of resource management and evaluation, including ongoing monitoring, data-informed decision-making, and planned replacement cycles. The inclusion of a structured life cycle plan and evaluation criteria demonstrates an understanding of instructional design as an ongoing, iterative process rather than a one-time implementation.

Related Performance Indicators

AECT Standard 4: Professional Knowledge and Skills

4.1 Applying project management techniques
4.2 Applying resource management techniques
4.4 Applying information management techniques

Reflection

This artifact represents a major shift in my thinking from classroom-level instruction to systems-level instructional design and leadership. At the time, I was beginning to understand that selecting a technology tool is not just about engagement or ease of use, but about sustainability, funding, scalability, and long-term impact. For instance, I moved beyond simply choosing Canva as a tool and instead developed a full plan that included procurement, implementation, evaluation, and replacement cycles. This reflects AECT Standard 4, as I applied professional knowledge and management skills to support instructional technology decision-making.

Now, I recognize that this artifact reflects an advanced level of thinking in instructional design, particularly in resource and project management. However, I would strengthen this work by incorporating more quantitative cost analysis, such as total cost of ownership (TCO), and by including stakeholder input data (e.g., surveys from teachers or students) to further justify decisions. I would also expand the evaluation plan to include more formal metrics for measuring impact on student learning outcomes over time.

This artifact strongly aligns with AECT Standard 4 because it demonstrates my ability to manage instructional resources, plan for implementation, and ensure long-term sustainability of technology integration. Compared to earlier artifacts, this work shows a significant growth in my ability to think strategically and systematically. It reflects my development as an instructional designer who can not only design learning experiences, but also make informed, data-driven decisions about the tools and systems that support those experiences.

References

Canva. (n.d.). Canva for education. https://www.canva.com/education/

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

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.

Formative Evaluation Report

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Spring 2026 in EDET 793: Advanced Instructional Design and Development at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required my team to plan and conduct a comprehensive formative evaluation of an eLearning module using both expert review and small group learner testing. The evaluation focused on an ASSURE model-based instructional module designed for graduate-level instructional design students.

At this stage in the program, I brought significantly more advanced instructional design knowledge compared to earlier artifacts, particularly in areas of evaluation, assessment, and data-driven revision. This project required the application of multiple evaluation frameworks, including the ADDIE model (Molenda, 2015), the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model (Morrison et al., 2019), and Kirkpatrick;s evaluation model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Specifically, we conducted a Level 1 (Reaction) and Level 2 (Learning) evaluation, collecting both qualitative and quantitative data through SME review, pre/post assessments, and learner attitude surveys. Tools used included Google Forms for data collection and analysis and Adobe Captivate as the platform for the instructional module. This artifact reflects my ability to apply formal evaluation frameworks to systematically assess and improve an instructional product.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of an eLearning module and generate actionable recommendations for improvement prior to full implementation. This project was completed as part of a collaborative graduate assignment but reflects authentic instructional design practice, as formative evaluation is a critical step in refining instructional products.

Within the broader instructional design process, this artifact represents the evaluation phase of a full design cycle, following prior work in analysis, design, and development. The evaluation examined whether learners demonstrated measurable gains in understanding, whether the module was appropriately paced, and whether it was engaging and accessible. For example, results showed a significant increase in learning, with mean scores improving from 67.11% on the pre-test to 93.42% on the post-test, indicating strong instructional effectiveness. At the same time, findings identified areas for improvement, such as limited engagement, over-reliance on text, and accessibility concerns.

Role

This artifact was developed as part of a collaborative instructional design team. My role included contributing to the design of evaluation instruments (e.g., SME Notes Form, attitude survey), supporting data analysis, and co-authoring sections of the final report, particularly those related to findings and recommendations.

I played a key role in interpreting both quantitative and qualitative data to identify patterns and translate them into actionable design improvements. For example, I contributed to analyzing pre- and post-test data to determine learning gains, as well as synthesizing learner feedback related to engagement, navigation, and accessibility. This role required collaboration, communication, and the ability to integrate multiple perspectives into a cohesive evaluation.

Instructional Design

This artifact strongly reflects the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model, with a primary focus on the Evaluation phase. From an ADDIE perspective, this work represents formative evaluation, where data are collected and analyzed to improve an instructional product before full implementation (Molenda, 2015). For instance, we measured learning gains through pre/post assessments, analyzed learner reactions through Likert-scale surveys, and examined usability through SME feedback. These activities demonstrate systematic evaluation of instructional effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal.

Within the MRK model, this artifact reflects key components such as formative evaluation, instructional alignment, and revision (Morrison et al., 2019). The use of an SME review aligns with MRK’s emphasis on expert feedback (connoisseur-based evaluation), while the small group trial reflects learner-centered evaluation practices. Furthermore, this artifact demonstrates alignment between objectives, instruction, and assessment, as evidenced by measurable learning gains across objectives. The findings also highlight areas where alignment could be strengthened, such as increasing cognitive rigor and improving accessibility. This work is further informed by evaluation theory, particularly Kirkpatrick’s model, as it integrates both learner reaction and learning outcomes to provide a comprehensive understanding of instructional effectiveness.

Related Performance Indicators

AECT Standard 4: Professional Knowledge and Skills

4.1 Collaborative practice
4.3 Assessing and evaluating

Reflection

This artifact represents one of the strongest examples of my growth as an instructional designer in this program. Unlike earlier artifacts, which focused primarily on planning and design, this project required me to critically evaluate an instructional product using real data from both experts and learners. For example, analyzing the increase from 67.11% to 93.42% in assessment scores allowed me to see concrete evidence of instructional effectiveness, while qualitative feedback revealed deeper issues related to engagement and accessibility. This reflects AECT Standard 4, as I applied professional knowledge and skills to assess and improve instructional design.

At this point in my development, I would describe my skills as approaching an advanced level, particularly in evaluation and data analysis. I demonstrated the ability to design and implement multiple evaluation methods, interpret both quantitative and qualitative data, and translate findings into specific, actionable recommendations. However, I also recognize areas for continued growth. If I were to revise this project, I would incorporate additional data sources, such as usability testing with assistive technologies or longitudinal data to measure retention and transfer of learning. I would also strengthen the connection between evaluation findings and iterative redesign by explicitly mapping each recommendation to specific revisions in the module.

This artifact strongly aligns with AECT Standard 4 because it demonstrates my ability to engage in collaborative, data-driven evaluation practices that improve instructional quality. Compared to earlier work, this artifact shows a clear shift from designing instruction to critiquing and refining it, which is a critical skills for professional instructional designers. It reflects my ability to think systematically about instruction, use evidence to guide decisions, and continuously improve learning experiences for diverse learners.

References

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.

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.