ID 553: Introduction to the Principles of Instructional Design

A fully online, eight-module graduate-level introduction to instructional design. You will study the major ID models, analyze two realistic design cases, conduct learner and task analyses, write aligned objectives and assessments, plan and prototype an instructional intervention, and design its evaluation. The course follows the ADDIE arc (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) while treating it critically, and every module produces a component of a final instructional plan you can carry into practice.

Audience: Graduate students and practitioners new to instructional design: teachers, trainers, faculty developers, and technologists.
Duration: Eight modules over 8 to 15 weeks. Plan on 6 to 8 hours per module.
Instructor: Idowu David Awoyemi, The University of Alabama

Welcome to ID 553

Welcome to ID 553. This course introduces the principles and practice of instructional design (ID): the systematic process of analyzing learning needs, designing and developing instruction, and evaluating whether it worked. You will leave with a working knowledge of the major ID models, experience analyzing realistic design cases, and a complete instructional plan of your own.

Course description

An intensive introduction to the principles associated with designing instruction for classroom, workplace, and online settings. Topics include the history and models of instructional design, front-end analysis (learner, context, and task), learning objectives and aligned assessment, instructional strategies, multimedia and accessibility principles, rapid prototyping, and formative and summative evaluation. Two case analyses develop professional judgment; a staged instructional plan develops practical skill. Three credit hours.

Who this course is for

• Teachers who want to design instruction more deliberately.
• Trainers and faculty developers who build courses and workshops.
• Technologists and media specialists who work with subject-matter experts.
• Graduate students preparing for advanced ID coursework or research.

No prior ID coursework is assumed.

Course objectives

By the end of this course you will be able to:

1. Describe the origins, purposes, and major models of instructional design and select a model appropriate to a given context.
2. Analyze an instructional design case, identify the underlying design problem, and recommend a defensible course of action.
3. Conduct learner, context, and task analyses for a real instructional need.
4. Write measurable learning objectives and design assessments aligned with them.
5. Plan an instructional intervention that applies evidence-based strategies and multimedia and accessibility principles.
6. Design a formative and summative evaluation for the intervention.
7. Reflect critically on your own design decisions and on the limits of the models you use.

Course map

The numbering of assignments follows the order in which they were designed, not the order of modules; Assignment 4 sits in Module 5 because the second case is best analyzed after you have practiced front-end analysis.

Grading

A = 90% and above; B = 80 to 89%; C = 70 to 79%; below 70% does not earn graduate credit.

Required readings

All required readings are provided within the modules as pages or open-access links. No textbook purchase is required. Recommended for those who want a companion text: Brown and Green, The Essentials of Instructional Design (Routledge), any recent edition; and Ertmer, Quinn, and Glazewski, The ID CaseBook (Routledge), for additional cases.

Instructor

Idowu David Awoyemi, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies, The University of Alabama. Email: idawoyemi@crimson.ua.edu. Expect a reply within two business days; virtual office hours are announced in the course.

How to Succeed in This Course

This page tells you how the course runs week to week and what the instructor expects. Read it once now and again before your first case analysis.

The weekly rhythm

Each module follows the same pattern. Plan about six to eight hours per module.

1. Read the module pages and any linked readings. Take notes in your own words; you will reuse them in the assignments.
2. Check your understanding with the knowledge check. It is short, low-stakes, and can be retaken.
3. Discuss. Post in the module discussion by midweek and reply to peers by the end of the module. Discussions are where the field's judgment calls get argued out; treat them as seminar, not as a box to tick.
4. Produce. Complete the module assignment. Every assignment builds toward the final instructional plan, so keep your files organized in one folder.

The design project runs through the course

Choose an instructional problem in Module 1 and keep it for the whole course. Good problems are real, bounded, and involve learners you can actually talk to: a unit in your classroom, an onboarding topic at your workplace, a skill your colleagues keep asking about. Assignments 5, 6, and 7 all apply to this one problem. Choosing something too large ("a course on leadership") makes every later assignment harder. Choosing something concrete ("teaching new tutors to run a 30-minute writing conference") makes them easier and more useful.

Writing expectations

• Follow APA 7th edition for citations and references.
• Write in clear, direct prose. Headings help. Bullet lists are fine for analyses; use paragraphs for arguments.
• Cite the module readings when you use their ideas, and cite outside sources when you use those. A claim about what "research shows" needs a source.

Using generative AI in this course

You may use generative AI tools to brainstorm, outline, check clarity, and summarize readings for your own study. You may not submit AI-generated text as your analysis, reflection, or design rationale. Those are the evidence of your thinking and are the basis of your grade.

When you use AI in any assignment, add a one-line disclosure at the end: the tool, what you used it for, and what you did yourself. Undisclosed AI-generated submissions are treated as academic misconduct under university policy.

You are also welcome, and encouraged, to treat AI tools as a design topic: several assignments let you propose AI-supported instruction, and the second case is about AI literacy.

Late work and extensions

Assignments are due at 11:59 p.m. Central time on the date in the course schedule. One 48-hour extension per student is available on request, no reason needed, if requested before the deadline. Beyond that, late work loses 10% per day up to five days.

Accessibility

If you need accommodations, contact the Office of Disability Services and let the instructor know as early as possible. Course pages are built to WCAG 2.2 AA; if you encounter something that does not work with your assistive technology, report it and it will be fixed.

Getting help

• Course logistics: post in the "Questions" thread of the Introduction Discussion.
• Content questions: the module discussion.
• Private matters: email the instructor.
• Technical problems with the LMS: your institution's help desk.

Assignment 1: Introduction Discussion

Assignment 1 (25 points). Start a new thread titled with your name and answer the following:

1. Your current role and the kind of learners you work with or hope to work with.
2. One learning experience, as a learner, that was well designed. What made it work? Try to name a design decision, not just a good teacher.
3. One learning experience that was badly designed. What went wrong, and what would you change?
4. The instructional problem you are considering for your course design project. One or two sentences. It can change until the end of Module 1.

Reply to at least two classmates by the end of the module. In each reply, connect something in their post to your own experience or ask a question that would help them sharpen their project problem.

A thread titled Questions is pinned at the top for course logistics.

Grading: 15 points for a complete, thoughtful initial post; 10 points for two substantive replies.

Pre-Course Knowledge Survey

Ungraded. Answer from what you know now; you will see the same questions at the end of the course. One attempt.

What Is Instructional Design?

Estimated reading time: 25 minutes.

A working definition

Instructional design is the systematic process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, resources, and evaluation. Three words in that definition carry most of the weight:

• Systematic. ID proceeds through identifiable phases with outputs that feed the next phase. It is not a recipe, but it is not improvisation either.
• Principles of learning. ID rests on evidence about how people learn: cognitive load, retrieval practice, feedback, transfer, motivation. A designer who ignores that evidence is decorating, not designing.
• Plans. The product of ID is a plan that someone can implement, evaluate, and revise. The plan may be a lesson, a course, a job aid, a simulation, or a curriculum.

Instructional design is also a profession with its own standards. The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI) publishes competencies for instructional designers organized around professional foundations, planning and analysis, design and development, evaluation and implementation, and management. Keep those five areas in mind; this course visits each.

Where instructional design came from

The field has three roots that still shape it.

Military and industrial training (1940s onward). During the Second World War, psychologists including Robert Gagné were asked to train large numbers of people quickly and reliably on complex equipment. They developed task analysis, criterion-referenced testing, and the practice of specifying objectives before building instruction. The systems approach that emerged, in which instruction is a set of interacting components engineered toward a measurable outcome, is the ancestor of every ID model you will study.

Behavioral and cognitive psychology (1950s to 1980s). Skinner's programmed instruction contributed small steps, active responding, and immediate feedback. Mager's Preparing Instructional Objectives (1962) gave designers a format for writing measurable objectives. Gagné's Conditions of Learning (1965) argued that different types of learning outcomes require different instructional conditions, and his nine events of instruction became the most widely used lesson framework in the field. Cognitive psychology later reframed learning as the construction of mental models and drew attention to working memory limits, prior knowledge, and transfer.

Constructivism and learning sciences (1990s onward). Constructivist critiques argued that the systems approach could produce sterile, decontextualized instruction. Situated learning, problem-based learning, cognitive apprenticeship, and learner-centered design pushed the field toward authentic tasks, collaboration, and reflection. The learning sciences added design-based research and a closer partnership with cognitive science. Contemporary ID draws on all three roots and argues about their balance.

The systems view

The most durable idea in ID is that instruction is a system: a set of components (learners, content, methods, media, environment, assessment) whose interactions determine the outcome. Change one component and the others shift. Add a video and you change the cognitive load; move a course online and you change the social presence; shorten the practice and you change retention.

Two consequences follow. First, analysis comes before design because you cannot engineer a system you have not described. Second, evaluation is part of the system, not an afterthought; every ID model closes the loop with data.

What instructional designers actually do

A typical project involves:

1. Needs assessment. Is there a performance gap, and is instruction the right solution? Often it is not; a job aid, a process change, or a better incentive may fix the problem faster. Designers who skip this question build training nobody needed.
2. Front-end analysis. Who are the learners, what is the context, and what exactly must learners be able to do (Module 3)?
3. Design. Objectives, assessments, sequence, strategies, and media selection (Modules 4 and 6).
4. Development. Producing materials, often with subject-matter experts, media producers, and developers (Module 6).
5. Implementation. Delivering the instruction and supporting facilitators and learners.
6. Evaluation. Formative evaluation while building, summative evaluation after delivery, and revision (Module 7).
7. Project management. Scope, schedule, stakeholders, and budget. Rarely taught, always present.

Instructional design and teaching

Teachers design instruction every day. What distinguishes ID as a discipline is the explicitness and the systems view: objectives are written, assessments are aligned before activities are chosen, and the design is documented so others can implement and evaluate it. Many teachers find that learning ID makes their tacit expertise visible, and that visibility is what makes it improvable.

Key terms

Check yourself

Before the next page, write one paragraph answering: what would go wrong in a project that skipped needs assessment and front-end analysis and went straight to building a course? Use a real or plausible example. Bring it to the discussion.

References

Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Fearon.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.

Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

A Survey of Instructional Design Models

Estimated reading time: 35 minutes. Read the ADDIE overview and Merrill's First Principles (linked in this module) before this page.

Why models?

An instructional design model is a representation of the design process: what to do, in what order, and what each step produces. Models serve three purposes. They communicate the process to clients and teammates. They structure the work so nothing essential is skipped. And they embed assumptions about learning and about how design should proceed, which is why choosing a model is a design decision in its own right.

No model is the field's official one. Practitioners adapt, combine, and abandon models as projects demand. Your job in this course is to know the major models well enough to choose and adapt deliberately.

ADDIE

ADDIE is less a specific model than a family name for the generic systems approach: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation. The label was applied retroactively in the 1990s to processes that had existed since the 1970s.

Strengths: universally understood, complete, adaptable. Weaknesses: often practiced as a rigid waterfall with evaluation stuck at the end, slow when requirements change, and easy to bloat with documentation. Most later models are responses to those weaknesses.

Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model

Walter Dick and Lou Carey's model (first published 1978, now in its eighth edition with James Carey) is the most detailed articulation of the systems view. It has ten interconnected components:

1. Identify instructional goals
2. Conduct instructional analysis
3. Analyze learners and contexts
4. Write performance objectives
5. Develop assessment instruments
6. Develop instructional strategy
7. Develop and select instructional materials
8. Design and conduct formative evaluation
9. Revise instruction
10. Design and conduct summative evaluation

Two features matter most. First, objectives are written before assessments, and assessments before strategies, which guarantees alignment. Second, revision is a loop, fed by formative evaluation, that touches every earlier component. Dick and Carey is the model behind Modules 3, 4, 6, and 7 of this course.

Morrison, Ross, Kemp

The Kemp model (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp) presents nine elements in a circle rather than a line: instructional problems, learner characteristics, task analysis, instructional objectives, content sequencing, instructional strategies, designing the message, instructional delivery, and evaluation instruments. The circular layout signals that a designer can start anywhere and that the elements are interdependent. Surrounding the circle are ongoing processes: planning, project management, support services, and formative and summative evaluation. Kemp is well suited to classroom teachers and to projects where constraints, not objectives, drive the design.

Successive Approximation Model (SAM)

Michael Allen's SAM (2012) is an agile alternative to ADDIE. After a brief preparation phase (information gathering and a "savvy start" kickoff), the project cycles through iterative design (prototype, review, design) and iterative development (develop, implement, evaluate) with stakeholders reviewing working prototypes early and often. The core commitment is that a rough prototype reviewed in week two teaches the team more than a design document approved in week six. SAM fits e-learning projects with uncertain requirements and available stakeholders; it fits poorly where sign-off must precede any building.

Backward Design (Understanding by Design)

Wiggins and McTighe's Understanding by Design (1998, 2005) is a curriculum design framework rather than a full process model, but its three stages reorganize how designers think:

1. Identify desired results (enduring understandings, essential questions, objectives).
2. Determine acceptable evidence (assessments, especially performance tasks).
3. Plan learning experiences and instruction.

The insight is the order: evidence before activities. Teachers frequently plan activities first and assessments last, which produces engaging lessons that do not teach what was intended. Backward Design shares this commitment with Dick and Carey but expresses it in language closer to classroom practice.

Merrill's First Principles of Instruction

David Merrill (2002) reviewed the major instructional theories and models and extracted five principles they share. Learning is promoted when:

1. Learners are engaged in solving real-world problems (problem-centered).
2. Existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge.
3. New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner.
4. New knowledge is applied by the learner.
5. New knowledge is integrated into the learner's world.

First Principles is not a process model; it is a set of criteria any instruction should meet. Use it as a checklist against your designs. Instruction that only demonstrates (a lecture) or only applies (an unguided project) fails the principles.

Rapid prototyping and design thinking

Beyond named models, two broader movements shape current practice. Rapid prototyping (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990) argues that in ill-structured domains, building a quick working version and testing it with learners is a better form of analysis than more analysis. Design thinking, imported from product design, emphasizes empathy with users, reframing the problem, ideation, prototyping, and testing. Both push against the linear reading of ADDIE and both appear in Module 6.

Comparing the models

Choosing a model

Ask four questions:

1. How well defined is the problem? Well defined favors Dick and Carey or ADDIE; ill defined favors SAM or rapid prototyping.
2. How available are stakeholders and learners? Iterative models need them often.
3. What does the client expect? Some organizations require design documents before development; others want to see something working.
4. What is the risk of getting it wrong? High-stakes performance (medical, safety) favors the rigor of Dick and Carey; low-stakes exploration tolerates iteration.

In practice, most designers use an ADDIE skeleton with iterative development inside it and Merrill's principles as a quality check. That hybrid is a legitimate answer in this course, as long as you can justify it.

References

Allen, M. W. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM. ASTD Press.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

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

Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Discussion: Which Model, and Why?

Describe the instructional problem you have chosen for your course design project in three or four sentences: the learners, the performance gap, the setting, and the constraints you already know about.

Then answer: Which model (or hybrid) would you use to design a solution, and why? Use the four "choosing a model" questions from the models page. Name at least one model you would not use for this problem and say what about the problem rules it out.

Reply to two classmates. For each, either challenge their choice with a specific feature of their problem that might favor a different model, or add a consideration they have not mentioned (a stakeholder, a constraint, a risk).

Module 1 Knowledge Check

Eight questions on the foundations and models of instructional design. Unlimited attempts; best score counts.

Assignment 2: Understanding Instructional Design Models

Demonstrate that you understand the major instructional design models well enough to compare them and to choose one for a real problem.

Part A: Comparison matrix (25 points)

Build a matrix comparing four models: ADDIE, Dick and Carey, SAM, and one more of your choice (Kemp, Backward Design, rapid prototyping, or another documented model). For each model, complete these rows in your own words, citing the module readings or the original sources:

Part B: Model selection memo (25 points)

Write a memo of 600 to 800 words to a hypothetical client or supervisor recommending a model (or a justified hybrid) for your course design project problem. The memo must:

1. State the instructional problem in one paragraph: learners, gap, setting, constraints.
2. Answer the four model-selection questions from the models page explicitly.
3. Recommend a model or hybrid and describe how the project would proceed under it, phase by phase, in a short table or list.
4. Name one model you rejected and explain what feature of the problem ruled it out.
5. Identify one risk of your chosen approach and how you would mitigate it.

Submission

One PDF or Google Doc link containing both parts. APA 7 citations and a reference list. Add an AI-use disclosure line at the end if applicable.

Rubric (50 points)

How to Analyze an Instructional Design Case

Estimated reading time: 20 minutes.

Why cases?

Instructional design is a profession of judgment. Models tell you what steps to take; they do not tell you what to do when the client wants a course but needs a job aid, when the subject-matter expert will not return your calls, or when the budget disappears halfway through development. Case analysis develops the judgment that models cannot supply. It is the method used in The ID CaseBook (Ertmer, Quinn, and Glazewski) and in professional preparation across law, medicine, and business.

A case is a realistic, incomplete, and messy account of a design situation. It has more information than you need and less than you want. Your task is not to find the right answer, because there usually is not one, but to construct a defensible analysis: one that identifies the real problem, weighs the constraints and stakeholders, and recommends action that a professional could justify.

The six-step framework

Use these steps for both case analyses in this course. Write a heading for each in your submission.

1. Summarize the situation

In one paragraph, state who is involved, what is being asked, and what has happened so far. Resist the urge to interpret yet. A reader who has not seen the case should understand the setup from your summary.

2. Identify the stakeholders and their interests

List every person or group with a stake in the outcome, and for each, what they want and what they fear. Include the learners, who are often absent from the conversation in the case. Note where interests conflict.

3. Frame the design problem

This is the heart of the analysis. The presenting request ("build us a course") is rarely the problem. Ask:

• Is there a performance gap, and is it caused by lack of knowledge or skill, or by something else (tools, incentives, process, environment)?
• What constraints are fixed (deadline, budget, policy) and which are negotiable?
• What is unknown that matters, and how could it be found out?

State the problem in one or two sentences. A good problem statement names the gap, the learners, and the constraint that makes it hard.

4. Generate and weigh alternatives

Propose at least three courses of action. One should be the obvious one the client asked for; one should be a non-instructional or partly instructional alternative; one should be something a less experienced designer would not think of. For each, list the main benefits, costs, and risks, and identify which stakeholders would favor or resist it.

5. Recommend and justify

Choose one alternative (or a sequence). Justify it with reference to the problem statement, the stakeholders, the constraints, and at least one principle or model from the course. Say what you would do in the first two weeks.

6. Anticipate consequences and plan evaluation

What could go wrong with your recommendation? What early indicators would tell you it is working or not? What would you do if it fails?

Common mistakes

• Solving the presenting request. The client asked for a course, so you design a course. Check first whether instruction is the right lever.
• Ignoring the learners. Cases are told from the designer's or client's perspective. Ask what the learners already know, what they need, and how they would experience each alternative.
• Treating constraints as fixed. Budgets, timelines, and formats are often more negotiable than the case implies, but you have to say how you would negotiate.
• Recommending without trade-offs. If your recommendation has no downside, you have not looked hard enough.
• Retelling the case. Summarize briefly; spend your words on analysis.

What a strong analysis looks like

A strong analysis is specific to the case, cites evidence from it (quote or paraphrase what people said and what the data showed), applies course concepts by name, and reads like a memo a designer would actually write for a client. It is usually 1,500 to 2,000 words. It takes a position and defends it while acknowledging what a reasonable colleague might do differently.

Practice

Before you read Case 1, take any situation from your own work where someone asked for training. Run it through steps 2 and 3 in ten minutes. Was the presenting request the real problem? Bring your example to the Case 1 discussion.

Reference

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (Eds.). (2019). The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional design (5th ed.). Routledge.

Case 1: Onboarding at Crestview Regional Hospital

This case is fictional. Any resemblance to real organizations or people is coincidental.

The request

Maya Okafor had been the sole instructional designer at Crestview Regional Hospital for fourteen months when the Chief Nursing Officer, Dr. Ellen Vance, stopped by her office on a Tuesday afternoon.

"We're going live with the new electronic health record on March 3," Dr. Vance said. "That's eleven weeks. I need every nurse trained before then. Four hundred and twelve nurses across three shifts, plus about sixty per-diem staff. The vendor gave us an eight-hour classroom course. I need you to make it work."

Maya asked what "make it work" meant.

"The vendor course is eight hours in a computer lab with a vendor trainer. We have one lab with sixteen seats. Do the math. And the last time we did a system change, in 2021, we ran classroom training for everyone and the help desk still got nine hundred calls in the first week. The unit managers are already telling me their people don't have time. I need something better than last time, and I need it in eleven weeks."

The organization

Crestview is a 380-bed regional hospital serving a mostly rural area. It employs about 2,100 people. Nursing turnover is 19% a year, slightly above the national average. About a third of the nurses have been at Crestview for more than ten years; about a quarter have been there less than two.

The hospital is replacing a fifteen-year-old electronic health record (EHR) with a modern system from a national vendor. The new system changes how nurses document assessments, administer medications (with barcode scanning at the bedside), and hand off patients between shifts. Physicians, pharmacists, and unit clerks are also affected, but their training is being handled by their own departments.

The nursing education department consists of Maya, a nursing professional development specialist named Carlos Reyes (a registered nurse with twenty years of bedside experience and no formal training background), and an administrative assistant. The hospital uses a learning management system for annual compliance modules; nurses generally regard it as a place where mandatory videos live. Each unit has a computer on wheels for every two or three nurses and a break room with one desktop.

What Maya learned in the first week

Maya spent the first week talking to people. Her notes:

Vendor training team. The eight-hour course covers every nursing function in the system. The vendor also offers a "train the trainer" program (three days, off-site, for up to twelve people) and a practice environment ("the playground") where users can log in and try workflows with fake patients. The vendor trainer said, "Honestly, most hospitals do the eight hours, and then everyone forgets it by go-live because it's six weeks later."

Unit managers. Of the eleven unit managers Maya reached, nine said they could not release nurses for a full day; the most any would commit was two four-hour blocks, and only if backfill was paid. Two managers asked whether training could be "done on the unit during downtime." One said, "My night shift people will not come in on their day off for a class, and I don't blame them."

Nurses. Maya shadowed on two units and talked informally with nineteen nurses. Themes: the old system is hated but familiar; barcode medication scanning is the biggest worry ("What happens when the scanner doesn't read the band?"); several younger nurses had used the new vendor's system at a previous employer or in nursing school; several veteran nurses said they "aren't computer people" and were anxious. Almost everyone said the 2021 training was "a waste of a day" because "you can't remember eight hours of clicking."

Help desk data from 2021. Maya pulled the ticket log from the 2021 change. Of the roughly 900 first-week calls, 61% concerned five workflows: logging in, finding a patient, documenting vitals, medication administration, and shift handoff. Most calls came from the day shift on medical-surgical units in the first three days.

Super users. Carlos suggested a "super user" program: two or three nurses per unit trained more deeply who then support their peers at go-live. In 2021 there had been super users, but they were chosen by managers based on who was available, and several told Carlos they "didn't feel like they knew any more than anyone else."

Budget. Dr. Vance has authorized overtime backfill for training up to $85,000. The vendor's train-the-trainer program costs $18,000 plus travel. There is no budget for additional instructional design staff. The LMS can host SCORM modules and videos and can track completion.

Timeline. The playground environment will be available in three weeks. Go-live is in eleven weeks. Vendor trainers are on site for the two weeks before go-live and the week after.

The complication

On Friday, Dr. Vance forwarded Maya an email from the Chief Financial Officer: "Our regulatory advisor reminds us that documented competency for each nurse on medication administration in the new system is required before they administer meds after go-live. Please confirm the training plan includes a completion record for every nurse." Dr. Vance added one line: "This is now a compliance issue. Whatever you design has to produce a record. Let's meet Monday."

Maya looked at her calendar. She had ten weeks and four days.

Questions to consider

These are prompts for your analysis, not the required structure. Use the six-step framework from the case method page.

• What is the actual design problem here, and how does it differ from "deliver the vendor's eight-hour course to 470 people"?
• What do the 2021 help desk data tell you about what the training should prioritize?
• Which of Maya's constraints are truly fixed? Which are negotiable, and with whom?
• How should the differences among nurses (experience with the vendor system, comfort with technology, shift) shape the design?
• What role could the playground environment, super users, and the LMS play, and what are the risks of each?
• How does the compliance requirement change the design, and how can it be satisfied without turning the whole program into a checkbox?
• What would you do in the first two weeks?

Case 1 Discussion: Framing the Problem

Before writing your full analysis, test your framing of the Crestview case against your classmates'.

Initial post (by midweek). In no more than 250 words:

1. State the design problem in one or two sentences, using the guidance on the case method page (name the gap, the learners, and the constraint that makes it hard).
2. Name the one piece of evidence in the case that most shaped your framing, and say why.
3. Identify one thing Maya does not know that you would want to find out before designing, and how you would find it.

Replies (by end of module). Reply to two classmates whose problem statements differ from yours. Say specifically where they differ and which framing you find more defensible, with reference to the case. Changing your own framing after the discussion is expected and is a sign the method is working.

Assignment 3: ID Case Analysis I

Write a case analysis of "Onboarding at Crestview Regional Hospital" using the six-step framework from the case method page. Your analysis should read as a memo Maya could hand to Dr. Vance on Monday.

Requirements

• 1,500 to 2,000 words, with a heading for each of the six steps.
• Cite evidence from the case (paraphrase or quote what people said and what the data showed) at every step.
• Apply at least two concepts from Modules 1 and 2 by name (for example: needs assessment, the systems view, a specific ID model, formative evaluation, Merrill's principles).
• Propose at least three alternatives in step 4, including one non-instructional or partly instructional option.
• In step 5, include a two-week action plan.
• In step 6, name at least two early indicators you would monitor after go-live.
• APA 7 citations for any outside sources. An AI-use disclosure line if applicable.

Submission

PDF or Google Doc link.

Rubric (100 points)

Learner and Context Analysis

Estimated reading time: 30 minutes.

Why analyze learners?

Every design decision assumes something about the learners: what they already know, what they can attend to, what motivates them, what tools they have, and how much time they will give you. If those assumptions are wrong, the instruction fails no matter how well built. Learner analysis replaces assumptions with evidence. Context analysis does the same for the settings in which learning and performance happen.

In the Dick and Carey model, this is component 3, "Analyze learners and contexts." In ADDIE it belongs to Analysis. In Kemp it is "learner characteristics." Every model has it because skipping it is the most common cause of instruction that is accurate, well produced, and useless.

What to find out about learners

Dick and Carey organize learner characteristics into categories. Adapted and consolidated:

Add for adult learners: competing demands on time, relevant experience that can be leveraged, and the degree of autonomy they expect (Knowles's andragogy).

How to find out

Use more than one method; each has blind spots.

• Interviews with a sample of learners and with their supervisors or teachers. Ask about the task, not about training: "Walk me through the last time you did this."
• Observation of learners performing the task or a related one. Watch for workarounds; they reveal what the current process fails to support.
• Surveys for breadth across a large population. Keep them short; ask about specifics (tools used, years of experience, prior exposure) rather than self-rated confidence alone.
• Existing data: performance records, help desk logs, assessment results, completion data, error reports. These are often the most objective evidence and the least used.
• Pre-tests or diagnostic tasks for entry skills when the stakes justify it.

Triangulate. If interviews say learners are confident and error logs say they fail, believe the logs and ask why the confidence exists.

Context analysis

Dick and Carey distinguish two contexts.

Performance context: where learners will use what they learn. Analyze the physical setting (space, noise, equipment), the social setting (alone or with others, supervision), the managerial support (is the new performance expected and rewarded?), and the relevance of the skill to the job. If the performance context does not support the new behavior, training will not produce it.

Learning context: where instruction will happen. Analyze the facilities and equipment (labs, devices, bandwidth, LMS), the compatibility of the site with your instructional needs, the constraints on time and scheduling, and the fit between the learning context and the performance context. The closer the two, the better the transfer; that is why simulation, practice environments, and on-the-job components matter.

From analysis to design decisions

Analysis is only useful if it changes the design. For every finding, write an implication. Examples:

Common mistakes

• Describing learners in demographics only ("adults aged 25 to 60") with no implications.
• Assuming homogeneity; most populations have subgroups that need different paths.
• Relying on self-report alone.
• Analyzing the learning context but not the performance context, and then wondering why nothing transferred.
• Treating "learning styles" as a basis for design.

Preparing for Assignment 5

Choose at least two methods and gather real data about the learners for your course design project, even if the sample is small (three interviews and a review of existing records is enough). If you cannot reach the learners at all, reconsider the project; a design built on imagined learners will not survive the later assignments.

References

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 5.

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner (8th ed.). Routledge.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.

Task Analysis

Estimated reading time: 35 minutes.

What task analysis is for

Task analysis answers the question: what, exactly, must the learner be able to do, and what does that performance consist of? It turns a goal ("nurses will administer medications safely in the new system") into a map of the knowledge, skills, and decisions the goal requires. That map determines the objectives (Module 4), the sequence and strategies (Module 6), and the assessments. Without it, designers teach what they happen to know rather than what the performance requires.

Dick and Carey call this "instructional analysis" and split it into two questions: what type of learning is the goal, and what subordinate skills does it require?

Step 1: Classify the goal

Gagné's taxonomy of learning outcomes is the standard classification. The type of outcome determines the analysis method and, later, the instructional conditions.

Most real goals combine types. A procedural task includes decisions (intellectual skills) at branch points and requires information at several steps. Classify the overall goal, then classify each component as you decompose it.

Step 2: Decompose the goal

Procedural analysis

For goals that are performed as a sequence of steps, list the steps in order, with the decisions at each branch. Use a flowchart or a numbered list with sub-steps. For each step, note the inputs (what the learner needs to see or know), the action, and the result that signals the step is complete.

Example fragment, medication administration:

1. Verify patient identity by scanning the wristband. - 1.1 If the scan succeeds and matches, proceed to step 2. - 1.2 If the scan fails to read, re-scan; after two failures, use the manual override procedure (step 1.3). - 1.3 Manual override: enter the medical record number, confirm two identifiers verbally, document the override reason.
2. Scan the medication barcode. - 2.1 If a mismatch alert appears, stop; do not administer; follow the alert workflow.

Procedural analysis reveals branch points, which are where errors happen and where practice should concentrate. It also exposes steps that the expert performs automatically and would never think to teach.

Hierarchical analysis

For intellectual skills, start with the goal and ask repeatedly: "What must the learner already be able to do in order to learn this?" Each answer is a subordinate skill; place it below the goal and ask the question again. Stop when you reach the entry skills the learners already have (from your learner analysis). The result is a hierarchy in which lower skills must be learned before higher ones.

Example: to decide whether a mismatch alert requires stopping, the learner must be able to interpret the alert type, which requires distinguishing wrong-patient, wrong-drug, and wrong-time alerts, which requires reading the alert display, which is an entry skill.

Cluster analysis

For verbal information, group the items into meaningful clusters (by function, by location, by time) so that they can be taught and remembered as sets. Clusters often map onto job aids.

Cognitive task analysis

Experts make decisions they cannot easily articulate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) uses structured interviews, think-aloud protocols, and critical-incident recall to surface the cues experts attend to, the decisions they make, and the errors novices make at the same points. CTA is expensive and is reserved for complex, high-stakes tasks, but even a light version (asking an expert to narrate a recent difficult case and probing at each decision) improves any analysis. Clark and colleagues summarize the evidence that instruction based on CTA outperforms instruction based on expert self-report.

Step 3: Identify entry skills

Draw a line across the bottom of your hierarchy. Everything below it is assumed; everything above it is taught. Where you draw the line comes from the learner analysis. If learners vary widely, you may need two lines and two paths.

Step 4: Check the analysis

• Completeness. Could a novice perform the goal using only what is in the analysis? Have an expert and a novice review it.
• Level of detail. Steps should be small enough to teach and assess, large enough to be meaningful. "Click OK" is too small; "administer medication" is too large.
• Accuracy. Observe the task performed. Analyses built from documentation alone miss workarounds and tacit steps.
• Decisions and errors. Every branch point should be explicit, and the common errors at each should be noted; they become practice items and assessment distractors.

Representing the analysis

Use whichever representation fits the outcome type:

• Flowchart for procedures with branches.
• Tree diagram for hierarchies.
• Table with columns for step, cues, action, decision, common errors, and outcome type.
• Outline for clusters of information.

Whatever the form, number every element so objectives can reference them in Module 4.

Common mistakes

• Listing topics ("the medication module") instead of performances.
• Stopping decomposition too early, so that the first objective is unteachable in one lesson.
• Omitting decisions and error handling; procedures are taught as the happy path and fail in practice.
• Analyzing from documentation without observing or interviewing performers.
• Ignoring the attitudes component; many performance failures are choices, not skill gaps.

Preparing for Assignment 6

Choose one goal from your course design project. Classify it, decompose it with the appropriate method to at least three levels, mark the entry-skill line, and have at least one performer review the result.

References

Clark, R. E., Feldon, D. F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K. A., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 577–593). Routledge.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson. Chapters 3 and 4.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Wadsworth.

Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Module 3 Knowledge Check

Eight questions on learner, context, and task analysis. Unlimited attempts; best score counts.

Assignment 5: Learner Analysis

Conduct and report a learner and context analysis for your course design project.

Requirements

Data collection. Use at least two methods (interviews, observation, survey, existing records, diagnostic task). Reach real learners or people who work closely with them. A small sample is acceptable; imagined learners are not. Describe your methods and sample in a short section.

Learner analysis. Address each category from the learner analysis page: entry skills, prior knowledge and misconceptions, attitudes toward content and delivery, motivation, educational and ability levels, learning preferences (as engagement information, not as a basis for matching), attitudes toward the organization, and group characteristics. For adult learners, add competing demands, relevant experience, and expected autonomy. Where you have no data for a category, say so and state what you would do to get it.

Context analysis. Describe the performance context and the learning context using the dimensions on the page, and assess the fit between them.

Implications. For at least eight findings, write a specific design implication in a two-column table (finding, implication). This table is the deliverable the rest of the course builds on.

Length. 1,200 to 1,800 words plus the implications table. Include your instruments (interview questions, survey items) in an appendix.

Ethics

Tell participants what the information is for and that it is for a course project. Do not collect names or identifying details you do not need. If your learners are minors or you are collecting sensitive information, talk to the instructor first; institutional review may apply.

Submission

PDF or Google Doc link. APA 7. AI-use disclosure if applicable.

Rubric (75 points)

Assignment 6: Task Analysis

Conduct and report a task analysis for one instructional goal from your course design project.

Requirements

1. Goal statement. One sentence describing what learners will be able to do, in what context, to what standard.
2. Classification. Classify the goal using Gagne's outcome types and justify the classification. If the goal combines types, say which dominates and where the others appear.
3. Decomposition. Use the method that matches the outcome type (procedural, hierarchical, cluster, or a combination) to at least three levels. Represent it as a flowchart, tree diagram, or structured table. Number every element. Include decisions, branch points, and common errors.
4. Entry-skill line. Mark where instruction begins, and justify the line with findings from your learner analysis (Assignment 5). If your learners split into subgroups with different entry skills, show both lines.
5. Verification. Have at least one person who performs the task review the analysis. Report what they added, removed, or corrected. If you used any cognitive task analysis technique (a narrated critical incident, a think-aloud), describe it.
6. Reflection. In one paragraph, describe what the analysis revealed that you would not have taught if you had designed from your own knowledge of the topic.

Length. The diagram or table plus 800 to 1,200 words of narrative.

Submission

PDF or Google Doc link. Diagrams may be hand-drawn and photographed if legible. APA 7. AI-use disclosure if applicable.

Rubric (75 points)

Writing Learning Objectives

Estimated reading time: 30 minutes.

What an objective is for

A learning objective states what the learner will be able to do after instruction, under what conditions, and to what standard. It is written for three audiences at once. It tells the designer what to teach and assess. It tells the learner what success looks like. And it tells the evaluator what to measure. An objective that cannot serve all three is not finished.

Objectives are derived directly from the task analysis: each numbered element above the entry-skill line becomes one or more objectives. That derivation is what keeps instruction tied to performance.

Two formats

Mager's three components

Robert Mager (1962) specified that a useful objective contains:

1. Performance. What the learner will do, stated with an observable verb.
2. Conditions. The circumstances under which the performance occurs: tools available, information given, constraints imposed.
3. Criterion. How well the performance must be done: accuracy, speed, quality, or a standard to match.

Example: Given a patient wristband, a medication order in the EHR, and a handheld scanner (conditions), the nurse will verify patient identity and medication match (performance) with 100% accuracy across ten simulated administrations, including two with mismatch alerts (criterion).

The ABCD format

Heinich and colleagues' ABCD format adds the audience explicitly: Audience, Behavior, Condition, Degree. It is the same information reorganized; many organizations prefer it because it forces the writer to name who the objective is for. Use whichever your context expects, but include all components.

Observable verbs

The verb is the objective. "Understand," "know," "appreciate," and "be familiar with" describe internal states nobody can observe. Replace them with what the learner would do to show the state: list, describe, classify, compare, calculate, demonstrate, perform, diagnose, design, justify.

Bloom's revised taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001) organizes cognitive verbs by complexity:

The taxonomy is a vocabulary, not a hierarchy to climb in every lesson. Match the level to the task analysis. If the job requires applying a procedure, an "apply" objective is correct; adding "create" objectives to look rigorous misaligns the instruction.

For Gagné's other domains use verbs suited to them: for motor skills, perform, execute, assemble; for attitudes, choose, volunteer, comply with; for verbal information, state, list, describe.

Writing objectives from the task analysis

1. Take each element above the entry-skill line.
2. Decide whether it deserves its own objective or folds into a parent. Rule of thumb: if it will be practiced and assessed separately, it gets an objective.
3. Write the performance with a verb matched to the outcome type and level.
4. Add the conditions that will actually be present at assessment and, ideally, on the job.
5. Add a criterion that reflects the real standard. Not everything is 100%; not everything is "to the instructor's satisfaction."
6. Number the objective with the task analysis element it came from (for example, Objective 2.1.3).

Terminal and enabling objectives

The terminal objective describes the goal performance; there is usually one per unit of instruction. Enabling objectives describe the subordinate skills that build to it. The hierarchy from your task analysis gives you the structure for free. Learners see the terminal objective and the main enabling objectives; the designer works with all of them.

Common flaws and fixes

Objectives and motivation

Well-written objectives make relevance visible (Keller's R in ARCS) and give learners a standard to aim at, which supports confidence (C). Share the terminal objective and the assessment criteria with learners at the start of instruction. Hiding the standard helps nobody.

Preparing for the Objective Clinic

Write three objectives from your task analysis: the terminal objective and two enabling objectives. Post them in the clinic for peer critique before you use them in the instructional plan.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2002). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed.). Merrill.

Mager, R. F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives (3rd ed.). Center for Effective Performance.

Assessment Alignment and Rubrics

Estimated reading time: 30 minutes.

Assessment comes before strategy

In Dick and Carey, assessment instruments are developed immediately after objectives and before instructional strategies. Backward Design makes the same move: decide what evidence you will accept before you plan activities. The reason is alignment. If the assessment is designed last, it tends to measure what was convenient to teach rather than what the objective required, and learners learn to the test rather than to the performance.

An assessment is aligned when the performance it elicits, the conditions it imposes, and the standard it applies match the objective. Check all three, every time.

Types of assessment by purpose

Not every project needs all five. Every project needs the last two, and most benefit from embedded checks.

Criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced

Instructional design uses criterion-referenced assessment: each learner is measured against the standard in the objective, not against other learners. Grading on a curve makes no sense when the question is whether a nurse can administer medication safely. The criterion in the objective is the passing standard; if learners fail in large numbers, the instruction is the problem, not the learners.

Matching item types to objectives

The most common alignment error is testing a rule-use objective with a recall item. If the objective says "decide," the assessment must present a decision.

Writing good selected-response items

• Stem states a complete problem; the learner should be able to answer before reading the options.
• Options are parallel in length and grammar; the correct answer is not the longest.
• Distractors are plausible and, ideally, drawn from the common errors identified in the task analysis. A distractor no one chooses is wasted.
• Avoid "all of the above," "none of the above," and negatives in the stem.
• One item, one objective. Tag each item with the objective number so you can analyze results by objective.

Performance assessment and rubrics

When the objective is a performance or product, the assessment is a task plus a scoring guide.

Checklists list the required steps or features; each is present or absent. Use for procedures with a correct sequence.

Rating scales score each criterion on a scale (for example, 1 to 4) without describing the levels. Fast, but unreliable across raters.

Analytic rubrics describe each criterion at each level of performance. They are the most reliable and give the most useful feedback. Every assignment rubric in this course is analytic. Build one by:

1. Listing the criteria from the objective and task analysis (three to six is typical).
2. Describing the exemplary level for each criterion in observable terms.
3. Describing the beginning level.
4. Filling in the intermediate levels by naming what is present and what is missing.
5. Testing the rubric on two or three real or simulated samples with a second rater, and revising where you disagree.

Holistic rubrics give one overall score with a description per level. Faster to apply, less diagnostic. Use for large-scale screening, not for feedback.

Feedback

Assessment during instruction is only formative if the learner gets feedback they can use. Effective feedback is specific to the criterion, tells the learner what to do next, and arrives while the learner can still act on it. Automated feedback in quizzes should explain why the correct answer is correct and why the chosen distractor is wrong; the knowledge checks in this course model that pattern.

Validity, reliability, and fairness

• Validity: the assessment measures the objective. Alignment is the main validity check for instructional assessment.
• Reliability: the assessment gives consistent results across items, occasions, and raters. Enough items per objective, clear rubrics, and rater training are the levers.
• Fairness: the assessment does not disadvantage learners for reasons unrelated to the objective (reading load, cultural references, inaccessible formats). Apply the UDL principle of multiple means of action and expression where the objective allows.

Preparing for the instructional plan

For each objective in your plan (Module 6) you will specify an assessment: the type, the item or task, and the scoring guide. Draft one now for your terminal objective and bring it to the Objective Clinic along with the objectives.

References

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 7.

Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Module 4 Knowledge Check

Eight questions on objectives and aligned assessment. Unlimited attempts; best score counts.

Objective Clinic

The Objective Clinic is a peer workshop. Everyone brings objectives; everyone leaves with better ones.

Initial post (by midweek). Post three objectives from your task analysis: the terminal objective and two enabling objectives. Number each with its task analysis element. For the terminal objective, also post a draft assessment: the type, a description of the task or a sample item, and the scoring approach.

Replies (by end of module). Critique two classmates' sets. For each objective, check:

1. Is the verb observable and matched to the outcome type and level?
2. Are the conditions stated, and do they reflect what will be present at assessment and on the job?
3. Is the criterion a real standard, not "correctly" or "to the instructor's satisfaction"?
4. Is the draft assessment aligned on performance, conditions, and standard?

Rewrite at least one of their objectives as you would phrase it, and explain the change. Be direct and specific; this is a workshop, and vague praise helps nobody.

Revision. Edit your original post to add a "Revised" section with your improved objectives before the module closes. Graded on the quality of your critiques and the improvement in your revision (part of the discussions and knowledge checks component).

Case 2: Scaling AI Literacy at Pinewood Community College

This case is fictional. Any resemblance to real organizations or people is coincidental.

The request

Pinewood Community College enrolls about 9,400 students across a main campus, two satellite centers, and a large online program. It employs 118 full-time faculty and roughly 310 adjuncts. In August, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Renee Castillo, announced an "AI Literacy Initiative" with three goals: every course syllabus would include an AI-use policy by January; every faculty member would complete "AI literacy professional development" by May; and the college would report to its accreditor, in the spring, on how it was "preparing students for an AI-influenced workforce."

Jordan Lee, the college's instructional designer in the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), was asked to design the professional development. The CTL has three staff: Jordan, a director named Priya Natarajan who also teaches two sections of English each term, and a part-time technologist who supports the LMS. The initiative has a $40,000 budget for the year, most of which Dr. Castillo expects to spend on "a platform or a partner."

What Jordan learned

Faculty survey (September, 241 responses of 428, 56%). Asked to describe their stance on generative AI in their courses:

Asked what they wanted from professional development, the top responses were "how to detect AI cheating" (63%), "how to write an AI policy" (58%), "examples from my discipline" (51%), and "how to use AI to save time on grading and prep" (47%). Only 22% selected "how to teach students to use AI well." Free-text responses included "I am not going to learn a tool that will be replaced next year," "I have 180 students and no time," and "Just tell me what the college policy is and I'll put it in the syllabus."

Focus groups (three, 24 faculty). Themes: fear of being blamed for student misconduct; resentment of past mandatory training ("the last one was a 45-minute video with a quiz that anyone could pass by guessing"); real curiosity among a minority who had experimented; frustration among nursing, welding, and automotive faculty that the initiative seemed aimed at "writing classes"; and strong doubt that AI detection tools work. Two adjuncts said they teach at three colleges and could not attend anything synchronous.

Students. A student government survey (n = 612) found 71% used generative AI for coursework at least monthly; 48% said they were unsure whether their use was allowed; 29% had received contradictory instructions from different instructors in the same term.

Existing resources. The library had run four well-attended "AI 101" webinars. Three faculty (in English, business, and computer information systems) had already redesigned assignments around AI and were willing to share. The CTL's LMS could host self-paced modules with completion tracking. A vendor had pitched a "turnkey AI literacy course for faculty" (12 hours of video modules, generic across disciplines, $28,000 per year, completion certificates included). Dr. Castillo liked that it "solves the reporting problem."

Accreditation. The accreditor's request was open-ended: describe what the college is doing to prepare students for the workforce, including with respect to emerging technologies. There was no requirement that every faculty member complete anything.

Governance. The Faculty Senate had formed an AI committee that met twice and produced no recommendations. Its chair told Jordan, "If Academic Affairs mandates a training, we will fight it. If you ask us to help design it, we will."

The complication

In October, a well-publicized incident occurred: an adjunct instructor accused nine students of AI-generated work based on a detection tool's score; three of the accusations were later withdrawn after the students produced drafts and version histories. The college newspaper ran the story. Dr. Castillo emailed Jordan: "This is exactly why we need everyone trained, and soon. Can we move the faculty completion deadline to March? I would like to see a plan by the end of next week. The vendor option is still on the table and honestly it would be simplest."

Jordan has $40,000, a part-time technologist, a director with a full teaching load, a divided faculty, three willing champions, a hostile-but-persuadable Senate, a vendor, and eight days to produce a plan.

Questions to consider

Use the six-step framework. Additional prompts specific to this case:

• What is the performance gap? Whose performance? Is it primarily a knowledge and skill gap, or something else?
• The faculty asked for detection and policy; the initiative's stated goal is student preparation. How do you reconcile what learners want with what the organization needs, and with what the evidence supports?
• What are the risks of the vendor course, beyond cost? What are its genuine advantages?
• How would you handle the difference between full-time and adjunct faculty, and among disciplines?
• What role could the three champions, the library, and the Senate committee play, and what would it cost to involve them?
• What evidence would satisfy the accreditor, and does it require universal completion?
• How does the October incident change the priorities, if at all?
• What would you tell Dr. Castillo about the March deadline?

Case 2 Discussion: Stakeholders and Trade-offs

The Pinewood case has more stakeholders with more conflicting interests than Crestview. Map them before you analyze.

Initial post (by midweek). Post a stakeholder table with at least seven rows: stakeholder, what they want, what they fear, and what they could contribute. Then answer in no more than 200 words: which two stakeholders' interests are most in conflict, and what design choice would you make to manage that conflict?

Replies (by end of module). Reply to two classmates. Identify one stakeholder or interest they missed or characterized differently from you, and say whether the difference would change the recommendation. Comment on whether their conflict-management choice is realistic given the budget and the eight-day deadline.

Assignment 4: ID Case Analysis II

Write a case analysis of "Scaling AI Literacy at Pinewood Community College" using the six-step framework. Your analysis should read as the plan Jordan will send Dr. Castillo at the end of the week, with an executive summary she can read in two minutes.

Requirements

• 1,800 to 2,400 words, with an executive summary of no more than 200 words at the top and a heading for each of the six steps.
• Cite evidence from the case at every step, including the survey data.
• Apply at least three concepts from Modules 1 through 4 by name. Learner analysis and the distinction between what learners request and what the performance requires must appear.
• In step 4, propose at least three alternatives; one must include the vendor option and one must address the adjunct and disciplinary differences explicitly. For each, estimate cost against the $40,000 budget.
• In step 5, include a response to the March deadline and a plan for involving at least one of: the champions, the library, the Senate committee.
• In step 6, describe what evidence you would present to the accreditor and how you would know by May whether the initiative worked.
• APA 7 for outside sources. AI-use disclosure if applicable. Given the topic, you are encouraged to use an AI tool for some part of your process and to reflect briefly on what it contributed and where it was wrong.

Submission

PDF or Google Doc link.

Rubric (100 points)

Instructional Strategies: Gagne, Merrill, and Scaffolding

Estimated reading time: 35 minutes.

What an instructional strategy is

An instructional strategy is the plan for how learners will get from their entry skills to the objectives: the sequence of content, the events that happen in each lesson, the kinds of practice and feedback, the grouping, and the media. Dick and Carey place it after assessment so that every strategy decision can be checked against "does this help learners perform on the assessment, and therefore on the job?"

Three frameworks organize most strategy decisions: Gagné's nine events for the structure of a lesson, Merrill's First Principles for the quality of the whole, and the cognitive research on practice, feedback, and scaffolding for the details.

Gagné's nine events of instruction

Gagné argued that learning requires a sequence of internal processes (attention, expectancy, retrieval, encoding, responding, reinforcement, retrieval cues, generalization) and that instruction should supply external events that support each. The nine events:

The events are not a rigid script. A lesson may cycle through events 4 through 7 several times, and a problem-based lesson may start at event 6. But a lesson missing events 6 and 7 (practice and feedback) is a presentation, not instruction, and lessons missing event 9 rarely transfer.

Merrill's First Principles as a strategy check

Apply the five principles to the whole unit, not just each lesson:

• Problem-centered. Is the instruction organized around a progression of real tasks, from simple to complex, rather than around topics? Show the whole task early, even if learners cannot yet do it.
• Activation. Do learners recall or share relevant experience before new content? Do you surface misconceptions?
• Demonstration. Do learners see the skill performed, with the expert's reasoning made visible, and with examples matched to the outcome type (worked examples for procedures, examples and non-examples for concepts)?
• Application. Do learners perform the task with coaching that fades? Is practice varied across contexts?
• Integration. Do learners reflect on, discuss, defend, or adapt what they learned? Do they carry something back into their own world?

Evidence-based practice design

The cognitive research on learning is consistent on several points that strategy should honor:

• Retrieval practice. Recalling information strengthens retention far more than rereading it. Build low-stakes retrieval into every lesson.
• Spacing. Practice distributed over time beats the same practice massed. Return to earlier objectives in later lessons.
• Interleaving. Mixing problem types during practice improves discrimination and transfer, even though it feels harder.
• Worked examples and fading. Novices learn procedures faster from studying worked examples than from unguided problem solving; as expertise grows, fade the examples into completion problems and then full problems.
• Feedback. Specific, timely, and focused on the task and the process; not on the person. Delayed feedback can be as effective as immediate for retention if the learner engages with it.
• Cognitive load. Working memory is limited. Remove extraneous load (decorative graphics, split attention between text and diagram, redundant narration of on-screen text), manage intrinsic load (sequence from simple to complex, pre-teach component skills), and use the freed capacity for germane processing (self-explanation, comparison).

Scaffolding and cognitive apprenticeship

Scaffolding is support that lets learners perform beyond their current unaided ability and that is withdrawn as competence grows. Cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, and Newman) names the moves: modeling (the expert performs and thinks aloud), coaching (guided practice with feedback), scaffolding and fading, articulation (learners explain their reasoning), reflection (learners compare their process with the expert's), and exploration (learners frame and solve their own problems). This sequence is a strong default for complex skills and is compatible with Gagné's events.

Sequencing content

• Procedural tasks: sequence in the order performed, with branch decisions taught where they occur.
• Hierarchical skills: teach subordinate skills before the skills that depend on them, but show the whole task first so learners know why.
• Concepts: teach the defining attributes, then examples and non-examples with increasing subtlety, then classification practice.
• Whole-task approaches (van Merriënboer's Four-Component Instructional Design): sequence a series of complete tasks from simple to complex, with supportive information, procedural information, and part-task practice provided just in time. Preferred for complex skills where component practice alone does not transfer.

Grouping and delivery

Strategy includes who learns with whom and where: self-paced, instructor-led, cohort-based, blended. Decide based on the learner and context analysis. Collaboration helps when the task benefits from multiple perspectives or when articulation is a goal; it hurts when it adds coordination load to a task that does not need it. Online delivery requires deliberate design for social presence and for the self-regulation that self-paced learning demands.

Media selection

Choose media after strategy, not before. The question is not "should we use video?" but "what does event 4 (presentation) or event 6 (practice) require, and which medium supports it best at acceptable cost?" Clark's long-standing argument is that media do not cause learning; methods do. Media constrain which methods are feasible. A simulation is worth building when the practice it enables cannot be provided otherwise; a video is worth producing when demonstration of a dynamic process is needed and text cannot convey it.

Writing the strategy for your plan

For each lesson or unit in your instructional plan, specify:

1. The objectives covered.
2. The nine events (which are present, how each is done, how long).
3. The practice and feedback design (type, quantity, spacing, fading).
4. The grouping and delivery mode.
5. The media, with a one-sentence justification tied to the event it serves.

Then check the whole plan against Merrill's principles and against cognitive load.

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Wadsworth.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Ten steps to complex learning (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Designing E-Learning: Multimedia, UDL, and Accessibility

Estimated reading time: 30 minutes. Browse the UDL Guidelines and the WCAG at-a-glance page (linked in this module) alongside this page.

Multimedia learning: Mayer's principles

Richard Mayer's cognitive theory of multimedia learning rests on three assumptions: people process words and pictures in separate channels; each channel has limited capacity; and learning requires active processing (selecting, organizing, integrating). From decades of experiments Mayer derived principles for designing instruction that combines words and pictures. The most useful for practice:

These principles reduce extraneous cognitive load and direct attention. They apply to slides, videos, e-learning modules, job aids, and web pages. They apply with more force for novices; experts can tolerate, and sometimes prefer, denser presentations.

Universal Design for Learning

UDL (CAST) is a framework for designing instruction that works for the widest range of learners from the start, instead of retrofitting accommodations. Its three principles map onto the affective, recognition, and strategic networks of the brain:

1. Multiple means of engagement (the "why"): options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort, and self-regulation. Examples: choice of topic within a task, relevance made explicit, clear goals and progress feedback.
2. Multiple means of representation (the "what"): options for perception, language, and comprehension. Examples: captions and transcripts, text alternatives for images, glossaries, multiple examples, background knowledge supports.
3. Multiple means of action and expression (the "how"): options for physical action, expression, and executive function. Examples: alternatives to mouse-only interaction, choice of product format where the objective allows, planning templates, checklists.

UDL is not "make three versions of everything." It is a set of checkpoints to consult during design so that the most common barriers are removed before anyone hits them. In your instructional plan you will pick two or three checkpoints and show how the design addresses them.

Accessibility: WCAG

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) define what makes digital content usable by people with disabilities. Version 2.2 is current; conformance at level AA is the standard in most institutional policies and in United States law for public entities. The four principles:

• Perceivable. Text alternatives for images; captions and transcripts for audio and video; content that can be presented in different ways without losing meaning; sufficient color contrast (4.5:1 for normal text); no information conveyed by color alone.
• Operable. Everything works with a keyboard; users have enough time; nothing flashes in ways that cause seizures; navigation is consistent and headings are meaningful.
• Understandable. Language is identified; behavior is predictable; input errors are identified and explained.
• Robust. Content works with current and future assistive technologies; use real headings, lists, and form labels rather than visual imitations.

Practical checklist for every e-learning asset:

1. Every meaningful image has alt text; decorative images are marked decorative.
2. Every video has accurate captions; every audio file has a transcript.
3. Headings are real headings in a logical order.
4. Color contrast passes; links are distinguishable without color.
5. All interactions work with keyboard alone; focus is visible.
6. Documents (PDF, Word, PowerPoint) are tagged and pass the built-in accessibility checker.
7. Any drag-and-drop, timed, or motion-based interaction has an alternative.

Accessibility and Mayer's principles reinforce each other more often than they conflict. Where they seem to (modality says narrate, accessibility says caption), provide both: narration with captions the learner can toggle.

Tools for e-learning development

Tool choice follows strategy and media decisions. Storyline is powerful and expensive; Rise is fast and constrained; H5P is free and good enough for most interactions. Match the tool to the interaction the strategy requires, the skills of your team, and the budget.

Standards for packaging

Modules built in authoring tools are delivered to an LMS as SCORM packages (older, widely supported, tracks completion and score) or xAPI statements (newer, tracks richer activity, needs a learning record store). Course-level content is exchanged among LMSs as IMS Common Cartridge. Knowing these names lets you talk to LMS administrators and vendors.

Preparing for the instructional plan

For the lesson you will storyboard, list the media assets you need and, for each, note which Mayer principles govern its design and which accessibility requirements apply. This list becomes part of Assignment 7, Part 1.

References

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

Storyboarding and Rapid Prototyping

Estimated reading time: 20 minutes.

Why prototype

A design document describes instruction; a prototype lets people experience it. Stakeholders who approve a document often reject the module built from it, because the document did not make them imagine what learners would actually do. Prototypes surface those reactions early, when changes are cheap. They also expose problems the designer cannot see from the inside: an interaction that is confusing, a scenario that feels fake, a page that takes three times longer than planned.

Prototyping is the core of SAM and of rapid prototyping models; it also fits inside ADDIE and Dick and Carey as the front half of formative evaluation (Module 7). Whichever model you chose, plan to prototype.

Fidelity: how finished should it be?

Start at the lowest fidelity that can answer your current question. Test the flow on paper before you write a single line in an authoring tool. Move up only when the lower-fidelity version stops producing useful findings.

Storyboards

A storyboard describes each screen or segment of instruction: what the learner sees, hears, and does, and what happens next. It is the handoff document between designer and developer and the primary artifact for stakeholder review. A useful storyboard row or page contains:

A storyboard for a 20-minute module runs 15 to 40 rows. Write it in a table (Word, Google Docs, or a spreadsheet) or in the authoring tool's own storyboard view.

Branching scenarios

Decision practice is where most e-learning fails to go beyond click-next. A branching scenario presents a situation, asks the learner to decide, shows the consequence, and continues. Design it from the task analysis: every branch point in your procedural analysis is a decision screen, and the common errors you recorded are the wrong options. Keep the structure manageable: three or four decisions with two or three options each and a few converging paths is plenty. Prototype it in Twine or on index cards before building.

Testing a prototype

Even a paper prototype should be tested with someone who resembles the learners. A one-to-one test takes 30 to 45 minutes:

1. Explain that you are testing the design, not the person.
2. Ask them to work through the prototype, thinking aloud.
3. Do not help unless they are stuck for more than a minute; note where and why.
4. Afterward, ask: what was confusing, what was too easy or too hard, what would they change, and can they perform the objective now?
5. Record findings and decide what to change before the next iteration.

Three one-to-one tests find most of the serious problems. Module 7 expands this into a full formative evaluation plan.

Working with subject-matter experts

Most designers build content with a subject-matter expert (SME) rather than from their own knowledge. Practical rules: give the SME a specific task with a deadline (review this storyboard for accuracy; provide three realistic error cases), not an open request; explain design decisions in terms of learner performance so the SME understands why the module is not a lecture; separate accuracy review (the SME's call) from design review (yours); and prototype early so the SME reacts to something concrete.

Preparing for Assignment 7, Part 1

Your instructional plan includes a storyboard for one complete lesson and a low-fidelity prototype of at least one interaction. Choose the lesson that best represents your strategy, and choose the interaction that carries the most decision practice.

References

Allen, M. W. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM. ASTD Press.

Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

Module 6 Knowledge Check

Ten questions on strategies, multimedia, accessibility, and prototyping. Unlimited attempts; best score counts.

Assignment 7, Part 1: Instructional Plan

Produce the instructional plan for your course design project. This is the major deliverable of the course; Parts 2 and 3 build on it. It integrates everything from Assignments 2, 5, and 6 and the Objective Clinic.

Components

1. Front matter (from earlier work, revised)

• Project title, intended learners, and setting.
• The instructional problem and needs assessment summary (one page).
• The ID model or hybrid you are following and why (one paragraph, revised from Assignment 2).
• Summary of learner and context analysis with the implications table (revised from Assignment 5).
• Task analysis diagram with entry-skill line (revised from Assignment 6).

2. Objectives and assessment plan

• Terminal objective and all enabling objectives, numbered to the task analysis, in Mager or ABCD format (revised from the Objective Clinic).
• For each objective: assessment type, a sample item or task description, and the scoring approach. Include at least one performance assessment with an analytic rubric.
• An alignment table: objective, outcome type, assessment, and the lesson(s) that teach it.

3. Instructional strategy

• Overall sequence and structure: lessons or units, duration, delivery mode, grouping.
• For each lesson: objectives covered; the nine events with a sentence on how each is handled; practice and feedback design; media with a one-sentence justification tied to the event it serves.
• A Merrill's First Principles check for the whole plan (one paragraph per principle).
• A cognitive load note: what extraneous load you removed and how you managed intrinsic load.

4. Multimedia and accessibility

• Media asset list for the storyboarded lesson, with the Mayer principles governing each asset.
• Two or three UDL checkpoints applied, with the specific design feature for each.
• Accessibility checklist completed for the storyboarded lesson.
• Tools you would use to develop the assets, and why.

5. Storyboard and prototype

• A complete storyboard for one lesson (15 to 40 screens or segments) using the fields on the prototyping page.
• A low-fidelity prototype of at least one interaction (a branching scenario, a practice activity, or a simulation), delivered as clickable slides, a Twine or H5P link, a paper prototype photographed, or an authoring-tool draft.
• A short note on what you learned from building the prototype.

6. Implementation notes

• What facilitators, learners, and administrators need in order to run the instruction (a facilitator guide outline, learner instructions, technical requirements).
• Project timeline and resources for full development, in a simple table.

Format

A single PDF or Google Doc with a table of contents, plus a link or attachment for the prototype. Expect 15 to 30 pages including tables and the storyboard. APA 7. AI-use disclosure if applicable.

Rubric (150 points)

Formative and Summative Evaluation

Estimated reading time: 30 minutes.

Two questions, two evaluations

Formative evaluation asks: how can this instruction be improved before it is finished? It happens during design and development and its audience is the design team.

Summative evaluation asks: did the finished instruction work, and is it worth continuing? It happens after implementation and its audience is the decision makers who fund and mandate the instruction.

Both are part of the design, not afterthoughts. Dick and Carey give each its own component and make revision a loop that formative evaluation feeds. Every plan you write in practice should say when and how both will happen.

Formative evaluation: three stages

Dick and Carey's three-stage sequence is the standard.

One-to-one evaluation

Work through the draft instruction with one learner at a time, three or so learners representing the range of the target population (one above average, one average, one below on entry skills). Sit beside them, ask them to think aloud, and note errors, confusions, pacing problems, and their reactions. Ask about clarity, impact, and feasibility. Give the posttest. This stage catches the gross errors: wrong content, unclear instructions, missing steps, examples that do not work.

Small-group evaluation

After revising, try the instruction with 8 to 20 learners under conditions close to real use, with the designer observing but not intervening. Collect the pretest and posttest, item-level results, time on task, and a short attitude survey. This stage tests whether the revisions worked and whether the instruction functions without the designer present. Analyze results by objective: which objectives were achieved, which were not, and what in the instruction accounts for it.

Field trial

Try the revised instruction with a full group (30 or more) in the actual setting, delivered by the intended facilitators or the intended self-paced system. The designer is absent or a distant observer. This stage tests implementation: facilitator guides, logistics, technology, and the effect of the real context. Collect the same data as the small group plus facilitator feedback.

Expert review

Alongside learner-based stages, have a subject-matter expert check accuracy, a second instructional designer check alignment and strategy, and an accessibility reviewer check conformance. Expert review is fast and finds things learners cannot name.

Analyzing and using formative data

• Build an item-by-objective table. An objective with low posttest success and adequate instruction time points to a strategy problem; low success with little time points to a coverage problem.
• Compare pretest and posttest by objective, not only overall. A high overall gain can hide one objective nobody learned.
• Pair every problem with a location in the instruction and a proposed revision. Revise, then retest the revised parts if the stakes justify it.
• Keep a revision log; it is evidence for the summative report and for your own learning.

Summative evaluation

Summative evaluation judges the instruction against its purpose. The classic framework is Kirkpatrick's four levels, updated as the New World Kirkpatrick Model:

Two cautions. First, level 1 alone tells you almost nothing about effectiveness; satisfaction and learning are only weakly related. Second, level 4 outcomes are affected by many factors besides instruction, so claim contribution, not sole cause, and design the evaluation so plausible alternative explanations can be addressed (a comparison group, a baseline, time-series data).

Summative evaluation has two phases in Dick and Carey's framing: an expert judgment phase (is the instruction congruent with the organization's needs, complete, accurate, and well designed?) and a field trial phase (does it produce the outcomes with the intended learners in the intended setting?).

Evaluation and the models

• ADDIE: Evaluation is the fifth phase and also runs across the others.
• Dick and Carey: components 8 (formative), 9 (revise), and 10 (summative).
• SAM: evaluation is built into every iteration; the "evaluate" step in each cycle is formative, and the final implementation is evaluated summatively.
• Backward Design: stage 2 (acceptable evidence) is the assessment design; program-level evaluation is added on top.

Designing an evaluation plan

For your project, the plan should specify:

1. Formative: which stages you will run (at minimum one-to-one and small group, or a justified adaptation), with participants, instruments, data, and the decision rules for revision.
2. Summative: the levels you will measure, the instruments, the timing, the comparison or baseline, and who receives the report.
3. Logistics: who does what, when, at what cost, and what happens to the data (consent, storage, privacy).
4. Reporting: the form of the report and the decisions it will inform.

An evaluation plan that can actually be carried out with the resources available beats an ambitious one that will not happen.

References

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson. Chapters 10 to 12.

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.

Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations. Kogan Page.

Peer Review Exchange

Peer review is an expert-review stage of formative evaluation, and it is also practice in giving the kind of feedback designers receive from colleagues.

Post (first three days of the module). Attach or link your Assignment 7, Part 1 instructional plan and prototype. Title the thread with your project title. Add three sentences telling reviewers where you most want feedback.

Review (by day seven). You will be assigned two peers' plans (see the pairing announcement). For each, complete the peer review form:

1. Alignment. Check three objectives against their assessments and lessons. Report any mismatch specifically.
2. Strategy. Pick one lesson. Which of Gagne's nine events are strong, which are weak or missing, and what would you add?
3. Multimedia and accessibility. Name one Mayer principle the storyboard applies well and one it violates. Check the accessibility notes on three screens.
4. Prototype. Work through the prototype as a learner. Where did you hesitate or get confused? Could you perform the objective afterward?
5. Two strengths, two priority revisions. Be specific enough that the author can act without asking you what you meant.

Post the completed form as a reply in the author's thread. Reviews are graded as part of Assignment 7, Part 2. Authors respond to each review with one sentence acknowledging it and one sentence saying what they will change or why not.

Assignment 7, Part 2: Evaluation Plan and Peer Review

Design the evaluation for your instructional plan and complete two peer reviews.

Part A: Evaluation plan (50 points)

Write an evaluation plan for the instruction described in your Part 1 plan. It must include:

1. Formative evaluation. The stages you will run (one-to-one, small group, field trial, expert review), or a justified adaptation for your context. For each stage: participants and how you will select them, instruments (attach or describe the observation protocol, think-aloud prompts, attitude survey, posttest), data you will collect, and the decision rules you will use to decide what to revise.
2. Summative evaluation. The Kirkpatrick levels you will measure and why; instruments and timing for each; a baseline or comparison strategy; who receives the report and what decision it informs. If you measure level 3 or 4, explain how you will address alternative explanations.
3. Logistics and ethics. Who does what, when, at what cost; consent, privacy, and data storage.
4. Reporting. An outline of the summative report.

Length: 1,200 to 1,800 words plus instruments in an appendix.

Part B: Peer reviews (25 points)

Complete the peer review form for your two assigned peers in the Peer Review Exchange, and respond to the reviews you received. Submit copies of your two completed forms with Part A.

Submission

One PDF or Google Doc link containing Part A and the two review forms. APA 7. AI-use disclosure if applicable.

Rubric (75 points)

Assignment 7, Part 3: Final Reflection on the Plan

Revise your instructional plan in response to peer review and write a reflection on the design.

Part A: Revised plan excerpt (20 points)

Submit the sections of your Part 1 plan that changed as a result of peer review and your own evaluation planning, with changes tracked or highlighted. Include a one-page change log: what changed, which review or insight prompted it, and what you chose not to change and why.

Part B: Reflection (30 points)

Write 800 to 1,200 words addressing:

1. The model in practice. You chose a model or hybrid in Module 1. How well did it describe the process you actually followed? Where did you deviate, and was the deviation an improvement or a shortcut?
2. Analysis to design. Trace one line from a learner analysis finding through a task analysis element, an objective, an assessment, and a strategy decision. Did the chain hold, or did something break along the way?
3. What the prototype and peer review taught you that the design document did not.
4. What you would do with more time, and what you would do with less. Which components are essential and which are refinements?
5. Your practice going forward. One habit from this course you will keep and one you doubt.

Submission

One PDF or Google Doc link. APA 7 where sources are cited. AI-use disclosure if applicable. The reflection must be your own writing.

Rubric (50 points)

Module 7 Knowledge Check

Eight questions on formative and summative evaluation. Unlimited attempts; best score counts.

Assignment 8: Course Reflection

Write a course reflection of 800 to 1,000 words. This is separate from the Part 3 reflection on your plan; here the subject is your learning across the whole course.

Prompts

1. Definition, revisited. Reread your answer to "what is instructional design?" in the pre-course survey. Write your definition now. What changed and why?
2. The cases. Compare your Crestview and Pinewood analyses. What did you do differently in the second one, and what does the difference say about how your judgment developed?
3. Objectives 1 to 7. The course listed seven objectives on the welcome page. Rate yourself on each (1 to 5) and give evidence from your work for the two you rate highest and the one you rate lowest.
4. Models and their limits. Which idea from the course do you now doubt or want to qualify? Every model in this course has critics; join them for a paragraph.
5. Next. What will you design next, and which two things from this course will you use first?

Submission

PDF or Google Doc link. First person. AI-use disclosure if applicable; the reflection must be your own writing.

Rubric (50 points)

Post-Course Survey

Ungraded. The same confidence questions you answered at the start, plus feedback on the course. One attempt.

Course Completion and Next Steps

You have analyzed two design cases, studied real learners, decomposed a task, written aligned objectives and assessments, planned and prototyped instruction, and designed its evaluation. That is the full arc of instructional design practice.

Completion checklist

Final grades are posted within one week of the last deadline.

Build your portfolio

Your instructional plan, storyboard, prototype, and evaluation plan are portfolio pieces. Before you file them away:

• Remove any identifying information about the learners you studied.
• Write a one-page project summary: the problem, your process, the design, and what the evaluation would show. Hiring managers read the summary, not the 30 pages.
• Export the prototype in a form that will still open in two years (PDF of the storyboard, a video walkthrough of the interaction).

Where to go next

• Advanced coursework. Courses in e-learning development (authoring tools, SCORM and xAPI), evaluation and assessment, learning analytics, and design-based research build directly on this one.
• Professional community. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) and the Association for Talent Development (ATD) publish standards, journals, and conference programs. AECT's Educational Technology Research and Development is the field's primary journal.
• Standards. Review the IBSTPI instructional designer competencies and rate yourself; the gaps are your next learning objectives.
• Practice. The fastest way to get better at instructional design is to design instruction, evaluate it, and revise it. Volunteer for a project in your organization within the next three months.

Thank you for your work this term. Keep the learners at the center, keep the analysis honest, and keep the loop closed.