AECT Standard 3 (Learning Environments)

Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.

The “Formative Evaluation Plan” was written during EDET 722, a course purposed towards learning about instructional design and assessment. I took this course during the fall of 2022; it was only the second course I took during my master’s program. This artifact was intended as a learning experience for understanding the Morrison, Ross and Kemp (MRK) instructional design model. 

The formative evaluation was written in four segments: needs assessment, analysis report, procedural task analysis, performance objectives/assessment items, and instructional strategy plan. Each segment was submitted for critique and then revised for improvement. My focus throughout this process was student success with finding the area of composite shapes. While I had a strong understanding of the instructional problem and the target audience leading into the evaluation, the process helped me learn further how I can plan to resolve the instructional problem. 

The purpose of conducting the formative evaluation plan was to support my students’ learning and to improve their success within finding the area of composite shapes. However, while this was a bonus to writing the plan, its main purpose was for my own learning during EDET 722. The final draft of my formative evaluation plan was a part of a larger unit that prepared me for developing a self-paced lesson on finding the area of composite shapes. To accomplish these tasks, I had to learn about the entire process of the MRK instructional design model. I studied each phase of the model, growing in my understanding of what each stage was and what it brought to the overall instructional design process. Additionally, I followed the advice of Morrison, Ross, and Kemp to understand how to conduct each phase in my own instruction and then recorded it through the formative evaluation plan. 

For this artifact I was the instructional designer and subject matter expert. I conducted the entire process on my own. This included me conducting a needs assessment, analyzing the results, performing a task analysis, determining the goals, and picking out the content for the lesson. While I completed this process on my own, the MRK instructional design model was created to also work within a group setting.  

Within the Morrison, Ross and Kemp (MRK) instructional design model, this artifact covers the first six stages. These stages are (1) Instructional Problem, (2) Learner Characteristics, (3) Task Analysis, (4) Instructional Objectives, (5) Content Sequencing, and (6) Instructional Strategies. The creators of the MRK process detail that, “the instructional design process requires attention to both a systematic procedure and specificity for treating details within the plan” (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 10). This artifact demonstrates the methodical process of determining needs and making a plan, while also focusing on the learner and the details needed within the instruction to help them learn more. 

Though the formative evaluation plan is based on the MRK instructional design process, this artifact can also be compared to the ADDIE instructional design model. The artifact can be grouped into ADDIE’s first two phases of analysis and design. According to the ADDIE model, the analysis phase is the goal-setting stage that is focused on the learner (Kurt, 2018). During the formative evaluation, goals were created for the development of the lesson based on the student needs assessment. This allows for the design phase to be focused on, “learning objectives, content, subject matter analysis, exercise, lesson planning, assessment instruments used and media selection” (Kurt, 2018). This was accomplished in the artifact by using the determined the goals to pick the content needed for finding the area of composite shapes, the outline of the lesson procession, assessment questions, and what resources would be needed.

This artifact is associated with standard 3 of the AECT standards. The reflected standard and the relevant indicators are listed below.

“AECT Standard 3 (Learning Environments): Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments. (p. 1, 41)

Indicator:

• Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates use multiple assessment strategies to collect data for informing decisions to improve instructional practice, learner outcomes, and the learning environment. (pp. 5-6, 53)”

The formative evaluation plan was the very beginning of my knowledge on the MRK instructional design model. I had previously never heard of the model or the process it entailed. This includes the process of conducting and writing a formative evaluation. Additionally, the period in which this artifact was written was early in my master’s program, which means my instructional design skills were brand new. 

Given that this artifact is early in my learning, I was still in need of a better understanding of the MRK instructional design model. Specifically, I saw flaws in my ability to conduct a needs assessment, with writing learning objectives, and planning for the assessment items. The needs assessment on the formative evaluation was mostly focused on student attitude prior to completing the lesson. To improve this, I would include questions that are in the practice materials to determine what they know before creating the content. For the learning objectives, I would have taken more time to learn the “ABCD” strategy of writing objectives to ensure that it was more specific to the goals. Lastly, I would adjust the final assessment items to better reflect the content presented during the lesson and real-world scenarios in which composite shapes are used. 

When reflecting on this artifact in comparison to AECT standard 3, the artifact fits within the indicator of “Assessing/Evaluating”. The formative evaluation plan was based on a needs assessment that was used to determine how to best help students improve their understanding of composite shapes. This data was also used to determine improvements that could be created to support student learning. 

Now that I am nearing the end of my time within the master’s program, I have gained a better understanding of the MRK instructional model and how to use it within planning instructional materials. However, I have also gained other pieces of knowledge that would improve the formative evaluation. One piece of new information I gained since the creation of this artifact was the use of rapid eLearning tools. If I had known about these resources prior to the planning process, I would have used the elements available to improve the design of the content. 

While there are certainly areas of growth needed within the formative evaluation plan, this was also a moment in which my instructional designer skills grew rapidly. I learned the entire process of the MRK model, the components needed for in-depth instructional planning, and I was prepared to learn more about other instructional design models. 

The artifact, “An Accessible Lesson Plan,” was created for EDET 735; this was a course on technology applications for diverse populations. I took this course during the spring of 2024 and was near the finalization of my master’s program. The goal of this course was to learn how create equitable learning environments for all students. This artifact was my final project to demonstrate everything I learned about making accessible learning opportunities. 

I chose to develop an accessible lesson for an Algebra I topic, classifying polynomials. I first had to recognize the learning barriers that were possible for students who have disabilities and possible applications that could be used to help overcome the barriers. Afterwards, I developed the lesson plan, the learning materials, all while ensuring that each element meets the accessibility guidelines so that learning is equitable for all students.

This artifact, as my final project, was purposed towards an assessment of my ability to create a lesson that is accessible for a set of diverse learners. The accessible lesson plan represents my learning throughout the entire instructional unit. I aimed to demonstrate that I understood what accessibility was, who accessibility applies to, characteristics of the universal learning design, how to use assistive technology, and general accessibility guidelines for online learning materials.

During the creation of this artifact, I served as a subject matter expert and the instructional developer. However, the focus of this artifact was to show my skills as a developer to create materials that allowed for equitable learning experiences. While it was helpful to be an expert on the content topic, it was not the concentration of what I was being assessed for within the assignment.

When comparing this artifact to the Morrison, Ross and Kemp (MRK) and ADDIE instructional design model, the lesson fits into both models’ development stages. While the MRK model does not emphasis the importance of creating lessons that are accessible for all learners, they do recognize that in the development phase that, “many principles apply to the development of the instruction regardless of the medium used to deliver it to the learner” (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 186). Student learning occurs in many different formats, and it is important that designers and developers keep this in mind when forming their instructional materials.

For the development stage within the ADDIE instructional model, it also does not directly address the significance of accessibility. However, accessibility could be considered a part of the planning process for addressing the learners’ needs. Dr. Serhat Kurt emphasizes that, “If the two previous stages required planning and brainstorming, the Development stage is all about putting it into action” (Kurt, 2018). This means all plans made to accommodate a learner being successful should be put into action during the development.

This artifact is linked within standard 3 of the AECT standards. The reflected standard and the relevant indicators are listed below.

“AECT Standard 3 (Learning Environments): Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments. (p. 1, 41)

Indicator:

• Diversity of Learners - Candidates foster a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. (p. 10)”

When starting EDET 735, I had no concept of creating accessible materials for online learning. This meant that I was constantly learning and applying new ideas while taking this course, such as, using the accessibility checkers through Microsoft, ensuring all graphics have alternative texts, and different technologies/applications that can be used to help assist the learning process. The development of this artifact was the final project, so it was my initial opportunity to culminate everything I learned throughout the course into one place. For it being my initial application of following accessibility guidelines, I feel confident in what I created and would not make any changes in that regard. However, I would make changes to the lesson so that it was more appealing and engaging for students while also continuing to meet accessibility guidelines.

In relation to AECT standard 3, the artifact appeals to the indicator of “Diversity of Learners”. This indicator highlights the importance of fostering learning opportunities for all learners, including those with diverse abilities. This artifact directly addresses that indicator by appealing to the universal design for learners’ recommendations and adhering to ease of access within the individual learning materials. 

This artifact demonstrates a major moment of growth for me within my master’s program. I gained a completely new understanding and perspective on creating instructional resources. Learning about teaching diverse abilities online expanded my knowledge beyond the basics of accommodation and modification for students with IEPs and 504s. This class and the production of this artifact opened the door to endless tools, tips, and guidelines to strengthen my capabilities as an instructional designer and developer.