AECT Standard 5

This section highlights my development in AECT Standard 5: Research, which emphasizes the use of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance. Throughout my graduate studies at the University of South Carolina, I have strengthened my ability to engage with research as both a consumer and a practitioner—using evidence to inform instructional decisions and design.

The two artifacts included here were selected to demonstrate my understanding of theoretical foundations and my ability to apply research methodologies in practice. They reflect my use of formal inquiry to assess and evaluate learning processes, as well as my commitment to conducting research in alignment with professional and ethical guidelines.

Lesson Plan Evaluation

Context & Conditions

This artifact was created during Spring 2025 in EDET 705: The Learning Experience at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required me to analyze a real-world lesson plan through the lens of learning science, connecting specific instructional moves to cognitive, developmental, and motivational theories. The structure of the assignment emphasized identifying key lesson components (e.g., Engage, Explore, Explain) and explicitly linking them to course concepts such as neuroplasticity, attention, memory, and motivation.

At the time of creation, I brought foundational knowledge of classroom instruction as an 8th grade ELA teacher, but I was still developing my ability to connect practice to theory. This artifact reflects my early attempts to apply concepts such as neuroplasticity, cognitive load theory, and Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to instructional design decisions. For instance, I analyzed how hands-on stations support memory encoding and how partner work fosters motivation through relatedness. I also applied Lev Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and Albert Bandura’s social learning theory to explain how modeling and peer interaction support learning. The artifact was created using a structured two-column format in Google Docs, allowing me to directly align lesson components with theoretical explanations. This work reflects my early integration of interdisciplinary learning science concepts into instructional analysis.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4th grade science lesson (“Making Waves”) by applying research-based learning theories to specific instructional strategies. This work was created for graduate coursework but mirrors authentic practices in instructional design, particularly in evaluating and improving curriculum. Within a broader curriculum context, this artifact represents instructional analysis and evaluation rather than lesson creation, focusing on how well a lesson supports learning processes.

For instance, I analyzed how the “Explore” phase uses hands-on stations (jump ropes, water, slinkys) to support experiential learning and reduce cognitive load by grounding abstract concepts in physical experiences. I also evaluated how the “Evaluate” phase incorporates retrieval practice through notebook responses and reflection, strengthening long-term memory. To complete this work, I had to develop knowledge of multiple learning theories simultaneously and determine how they intersect within a single lesson, which expanded my understanding of how theory informs instructional decision-making.

Role

I served as the sole analyst and instructional designer for this artifact. I independently selected and evaluated the lesson, identified key instructional components, and connected them to relevant learning science theories. My role required me to interpret both the lesson design and theoretical frameworks, then synthesize them into clear, evidence-based explanations. For example, I analyzed how the lesson’s use of partner work aligned with Vygotsky’s ZPD and how teacher questioning during stations functioned as scaffolding. I also evaluated how emotional engagement during the “Engage” phase (e.g., discussing real-world waves and videos) supports attention and memory formation. This demonstrates my ability to apply theory to practice, a key component of instructional design and research-based evaluation.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects the ADDIE model and Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) model through its emphasis on analysis and evaluation of instruction.

In regards to an ADDIE perspective, this artifact primarily represents the Analysis phase and aspects of the Evaluation phase (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, I examined how the lesson addressed learner needs, prior knowledge, and engagement. For example, I identified that the “Engage” phase activates prior knowledge by asking students about their experiences with waves, which supports schema activation and learning transfer. During Evaluation, I analyzed how instructional strategies supported or hindered learning outcomes, such as how interactive notebooks promote retrieval practice and memory consolidation. This artifact does not include Development, as no instructional materials were created, but instead focuses on evaluating existing instruction through a research lens.

Through the lens of the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, this artifact demonstrates identification of instructional problems, learner characteristics, and evaluation strategies (Morrison et al., 2019). For instance, I analyzed how the lesson supports diverse learners through multimodal instruction (visual, kinesthetic, social), which aligns with learner characteristics and needs. The artifact also reflects message design, particularly in how content is sequenced from concrete (hands-on exploration) to abstract (vocabulary and concepts), supporting effective knowledge construction. Additionally, this work incorporates formative evaluation, as I identified strengths and potential improvements in instructional strategies based on research. The analysis is grounded in multiple theories, including cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), and motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), demonstrating how research informs instructional design decisions.

Related Performance Indicators

Standard 5: Research

5.1 Theoretical foundations.
5.3 Research to improve practice.

Reflection

This artifact represents one of my earliest attempts to explicitly connect learning theory to instructional practice, and it highlights both my growth and initial limitations as an instructional designer. At the time, I was able to identify relevant theories and explain them accurately, but my analysis sometimes remained at surface level. For example, I noted that hands-on learning supports memory, but I did not fully explain how this reduces cognitive load or strengthens encoding pathways in the brain. This shows that I was beginning to understand theory, but I had not yet developed the depth of application I now possess.

Since completing this artifact, I have developed a much stronger ability to use research as a design tool rather than just an explanatory lens. If I were to revise this artifact, I would incorporate more precise applications of theory. For instance, I would explicitly redesign parts of the lesson using cognitive load theory by reducing extraneous information in the reading phase and incorporating guided note-taking to support working memory. I would also apply Self-Determination Theory more intentionally by embedding student choice in the “Elaborate” phase, such as allowing students to choose how they demonstrate understanding (e.g., CER writing, visual models, or verbal explanation). These changes would move the artifact from analysis to actionable instructional improvement.

This artifact strongly reflects AECT Standard 5 because it demonstrates my ability to apply theoretical foundations to evaluate and improve instructional practice. For example, I used theories such as neuroplasticity and social learning to explain why specific strategies (e.g., partner work, repetition, reflection) are effective. Now, I go beyond explanation and design with these principles in mind from the start. This shift represents my growth into a practitioner who not only understands research, but uses it intentionally to create more effective, engaging, and cognitively aligned learning experiences.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.

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

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Mini-Critique Research Paper

Context & Conditions

This artifact was developed during Summer 2025 in EDET 780: Research Seminar in Educational Technology at the University of South Carolina. The assignment required students to summarize and critique a recent empirical study in learning design and technologies and propose a methodologically sound follow-up investigation. The project emphasized scholarly analysis, research design, and evaluation practices central to instructional design decision-making.

At the time of creation, I applied developing knowledge in educational research methods, online learning environments, and evaluation of technology-supported instruction. Skills brought to this artifact included literature synthesis, methodological critique, survey and interview design, and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The work drew on mixed-methods research design, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), and principles of learner-centered online learning. Tools included Google Docs, academic databases, and APA scholarly communication practices. The artifact reflects early integration of research theory with instructional design thinking.

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate educational technology research and design an improved study addressing methodological limitations. The work was produced for graduate coursework but reflects authentic practices used in instructional design evaluation and learning analytics contexts. For example, this artifact analyzes limitations in sampling (a single institution of medical students) and data collection (exclusive reliance on self-report survey data) and proposes a revised mixed-methods study incorporating stratified sampling across five universities and semi-structured interviews to deepen understanding of student experience.

Within the broader program curriculum, the artifact represents analysis and evaluation competencies. It contributes to understanding how digital learning systems influence learner satisfaction and instructional effectiveness. For instance, the proposed study specifically examines how technical service quality—such as platform usability, connectivity, and responsiveness of support systems—impacts student satisfaction across disciplines, linking research findings to actionable improvements in online learning design.

Role

I served as the sole author, researchers, and instructional designer-in-training for this artifact. My responsibilities included selecting an empirical study, conducting critical analysis, synthesizing supporting literature, identifying methodological gaps, and designing a follow-up mixed-methods study. All researching planning, writing, and methodological decisions were completed independently, demonstrating my individual competency in research-informed instructional design.

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects components of both the ADDIE instructional design model and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, particularly within analysis and design activities. From an ADDIE perspective, the artifact primarily represents the Analysis and Design phases (Molenda, 2015). During Analysis, I identified instructional problems and learner needs by critiquing methodological limitations in the original study, including restricted sampling and reliance on self-report data. This functioned similarly to a needs assessment in instructional design. During Design, I developed aligned research questions, participant sampling strategies, data collection instruments, and procedures. Since no instructional product was created, Development activities were not represented in this artifact.

Within the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model, the artifact demonstrates identification of felt needs, clarification of instructional aims and goals, analysis of learner characteristics, and attention to message design through construction of survey items and interview protocols (Morrison et al., 2013). Planning for instrument validation and mixed-methods triangulation reflects formative evaluation processes. The iterative nature of critique and redesign mirrors the Kemp model’s non-linear systems approach. Constructivist perspectives also influenced the study’s focus on learner experience within technology-mediated environments.

Related Performance Indicators

AECT Standard 5: Research

5.1 Theoretical foundations
5.2 Research methodologies
5.3 Research to improve practice

Reflection

This artifact represents an important transition point in my development as an instructional designer. At the time, my understanding of research was primarily interpretive, meaning I was more comfortable summarizing and explaining research findings than critically evaluating methodology or designing original studies. This project required me to critique methodology and design a study capable of generating actionable evidence. The work demonstrates emerging proficiency in connecting research analysis with instructional improvement, particularly within online learning environments. For example, I moved beyond identifying that technical service quality was important and instead designed a study to investigate how and why factors like platform usability and support responsiveness influence student satisfaction across contexts.

From my current perspective near the end of the program, this artifact reflects intermediate rather than expert knowledge. While the proposed study shows logical alignment between research questions and methods, I would now strengthen theoretical integration by incorporating motivational frameworks such as the ARCS model (Keller, 1987) and cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988). For example, the study could examine how technical service quality supports learner attention and confidence (ARCS), or how poorly designed platforms increase extraneous cognitive load, negatively impacting satisfaction and learning outcomes. Integrating these frameworks would strengthen the connection between system design and learner experience beyond surface-level satisfaction measures. I would also integrate usability testing and learning analytics approaches that I have since learned through later coursework.

This artifact aligns strongly with AECT Standard 5 because it demonstrates application of research methods to improve technology-supported learning environments. Since completing this project, I have developed stronger skills in instructional alignment, accessibility, and learner-centered evaluation. The artifact marks a shift toward viewing research as a design tool rather than solely an academic exercise, such as using data to inform decisions about platform design, support systems, and instructional delivery methods that directly impact student experience and engagement, illustrating my growth into a practitioner-scholar who uses evidence to guide instructional decisions.

References

Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Wiley.