AECT Standard 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills)

The “eLearning Planning Document” and “eLearning Instructional Module” are artifacts that were created together for EDET 703 during the fall of 2023. This class was part two of design and development tools; the same course in which artifact four was produced for. These artifacts are connected to artifact four but show more advancements and specific content focus.

To create the final product of an eLearning module, a long design process was followed to detail the information needed to be successful. The planning document began with an introduction to the topic of integers and the topic’s rationale along with an overview of the lesson’s structure. The module structure was also provided through a site map, wire frames, a style guide, and a storyboard. These elements were all vital to notate so that during the development process, no information was missed or presented in a confusing manner. To develop the eLearning module, the design document was followed meticulously while utilizing Articulate 360’s rapid eLearning tool.

These artifacts were initially written and developed for EDET 703; however, these artifacts also became purposeful in my personal career. There are moments in which digital learning is necessary or helpful with our students and I was able to demonstrate how rapid eLearning tools, like articulate 360, can be used in these situations. These artifacts were a way for me to demonstrate in both my academic and professional lives that I can design and develop meaningful learning experiences online. 

Given that these combined artifacts consisted of a learning module that came from scratch and that I was the only creator within this process, I served as the instructional designer and developer. While I am fluent in integer use, I do not consider myself a subject matter expert. There are things in this module, content wise, that I know could be improved. 

Within these artifacts, the planning document and its requirements were based on the expectations laid out in the Morrison, Ross and Kemp (MRK) instructional model. This means that the artifact is almost identical to both the design and development phases. The creators of the MRK model state how, “Translating the plan into an effective instructional unit requires more than simply ‘writing’ the instruction. Effective instruction is developed by carefully structuring and presenting materials that both engage the learner and signal the important points” (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 160). The eLearning planning document and eLearning instructional module are not only carefully written but structured so that the details within the plan are helpful to the developer as they build the instruction. 

On the other hand, these artifacts can also be compared to the ADDIE instructional model. The ADDIE model also contains a design and development phase that these artifacts can be connected to. The ADDIE model is built to ensure that, “This systematic approach makes sure that everything falls within a rational and planned strategy, or set of strategies, that has the ultimate goal of reaching the project’s targets” (Kurt, 2018). The eLearning planning document falls in line with the ADDIE design phase by writing out the goals and how they are to be met. The design phase prepares for development, in which the strategies laid out were used to pick the appropriate methods for the development of the module.  

This artifact is connected to AECT standard 4. The reflected standard and the relevant indicators are listed below.

“AECT Standard 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills): Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.

Indicator:

• Leadership - Candidates lead their peers in designing and implementing technology-supported learning.”

When writing and creating these artifacts, it was important that I brought a strong understanding of the MRK instructional design model and how it can be applied to rapid eLearning. This was something I gained an initial understanding of when creating the 3 C’s Treatment Report and eLearning Module (see artifact four for more details). This gave me prior experience with following the design process for development, while I was not quite an expert, it was a process that I was becoming more confident in. 

Between my initial application in artifact four and my next application in these artifacts, there is evident growth in my ability to effectively picture a design, make a plan, and use those details to develop instruction. The main evidence of this growth is simply in the outcome of the module and its success. However, while I have grown in these skills, there are improvements still to be made. The repetitive critique I have for myself is the lack of intentional planning for learner accessibility. This is partially because I had not taken the class yet to learn strategies for online accessibility, but there is significant importance for this to be included so that learning is equivalent for everyone. 

When connecting these artifacts to AECT standard 4 and the ways in which I made purpose of them, I can directly label them under the indicator of leadership. This process included me designing and developing instructional materials with the deliberate use of technology. Additionally, these artifacts were used later to help model possibilities of online learning and instruction for my colleagues and students. These strategies and resources are items that we have never used in our school setting, and I was able to introduce them to those who could benefit from them.

The artifact “Conducting a Formative Evaluation” was written during the Spring of 2025 for EDET 793, a class on advanced instructional design and development. This artifact was created by myself and two of my classmates. Our team was given an eLearning design document and module on the ASSURE instructional design model. The document and module on the ASSURE model were crafted by a past instructional designer. We were tasked with evaluating these items for effectiveness and using those results to write a formative evaluation. 

In order for my team and I to write this evaluation, we had to apply our knowledge of the Morrison, Kemp, and Ross (MRK) instructional design model. From the MRK model, we used the evaluation phase to evaluate the products. We began with examining the design document and module to understand the context, goals, target audience, and other foundational information. Then we conducted a small group trial from the target audience, worked with a subject matter expert, and analyzed the results to determine if the module was effective. From this, we gave feedback and recommendations for how to further improve the instructional module.

 The purpose of this artifact was for myself and my team to demonstrate our ability to evaluate instructional materials. As a class assignment, this artifact is one of our final assessments with the master’s program. It was vital for our team to showcase our professionalism as instructional designers and developers within our formative evaluation. It was an opportunity to prove our evaluation skills through applying everything we have learned throughout the program on real-time instructional materials.

As mentioned previously, this artifact was developed within a team setting. Within our team dynamic, I helped organize the evaluation process, outline the writing process, and equally contributed to the content written within the formative evaluation. Additionally, I aided our team in determining the project’s timeline so that we could ensure that course deadlines were met. 

Given that this artifact follows the MRK model, it is very closely aligned with its evaluation phase. The authors of the MRK model state that, “Formative evaluations are used to provide feedback to designers for making course improvements” (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 318). My team and I used the MRK formative evaluation process to determine the effectiveness of the ASSURE eLearning module so that suggestions for improvements could be made. 

In comparison to the ADDIE instructional model, this artifact can also be defined within the evaluation stage. Within the ADDIE model, “The main goal of the evaluation stage is to determine if the goals have been met, and to establish what will be required moving forward in order to further the efficiency and success rate of the project” (Kurt, 2018). In our formative evaluation, we were able to gauge the success of the module goals through a small group trial. This information was a part of the evidence for suggestions made for improvement.

This artifact is associated with AECT standard 4. The reflected standard and the relevant indicators are listed below.

“AECT Standard 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills): Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.

Indicator:

• Collaborative Practice - Candidates collaborate with their peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.”

As stated earlier, this artifact was one of my final assessments as I was near the end of my master’s program. It was a chance for me to demonstrate the expert skills and knowledge I gained over the previous three years while studying to become an instructional designer and developer. Even though the artifact was focused on conducting a formative evaluation, there were opportunities for me to show my understanding of theories for design, learning, and development as I evaluated the module. 

Within the AECT standards, this artifact fits within standard 4 and its indicator of “Collaborative Practice”. Throughout the development of this artifact, I worked with fellow peers to evaluate the learning product, consulted with a subject matter expert, and conducted a small group trial from the target audience. Through collaboration with my peers, we were able to collect, organize, and analyze the information and data collected to write the formative evaluation. 

Although this point in my degree I would consider myself at an expert knowledge level, I still showed moments of growth within this artifact. For instance, this was my first time evaluating instructional materials with a team of people. While we were all very familiar with the MRK process of evaluation, it was still a learning curve for us to determine a productive way to work together, respect each other’s ideas, and complete an evaluation that is consistent with three different authors. This opportunity to work with a team forced me to grow as an instructional design and developer; additionally, it opened me up to the possibility of future experiences of working with development teams.