Artifact 1 - Front-end Analysis

​​

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to conduct a front-end analysis on the learners to understand what the problem was at that high school that was occurring in the history department. This artifact was for a rural high school in the area where I live, and this artifact was designed to be an individual product; however, if I were to continue the creation of this artifact, it potentially could be added to a larger curriculum for the U.S. government for the state of South Carolina, for high school students. When creating this artifact, I had very little knowledge of what instructional design was, what the ADDIE model was, how to perform front-end analysis, and a limited understanding of the powerful functions that Microsoft PowerPoint had to offer. Even though I come from an educational background, my understanding of this program and what I was getting into was very minimal. I learned a lot from this course, especially in understanding the ADDIE model, learning about different instructional theories, and how powerful these new and improved rapid eLearning tools can be in changing how we make interactive lessons for students.

​

Role

I was the sole developer and instructional designer on this entire project. In this project, I was asked to independently create an eLearning module on the United States government while following the ADDIE model. There was one subject matter expert (SME), who was the head of the history department at that school during that time. This SME had been a history teacher for 25+ years for that school and had an outstanding record of students’ success in their history classes. This SME offered insightful information about the school, the students, the information that was taught at that school, how it was taught, the limitations that were present with this school, and insightful information on the US government functions and how it needs to be taught to students. From performing the front-end analysis, talking to a SME, which helped me during the design and development process, I was able to develop SMART learning objectives that supported the learners, develop instructional materials that aligned with the learning objectives, and were effective for the students to help improve the problem at hand.

​

Instructional Design

This artifact reflects the elements of the ADDIE model by focusing on the analysis phase of the eLearning module. As part of creating this product, we were asked to conduct a needs analysis, which helped identify gaps in learners’ ability to explain the roles and responsibilities of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, even though the learners could name each branch of the United States government. According to Branch, “The purpose of the Analyze phase is to identify the probable causes for a performance gap” (Branch, 2009). By conducting the needs analysis, I was able to use the data to help design effective learning objectives, determine appropriate instructional strategies that support the learner, and design useful instructional material and assessments that align with the objectives. This artifact aligns with the ADDIE model because the analysis and design phases were implemented to find what the performance gap was, take that data to form effective instructional goals that support the learners and improve the performance gap, and finally design instructional materials (Branch, 2009). The phases of the ADDIE were heavily relied on when developing this artifact.

 

Similarly, the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp  (MRK) instructional design model aligns with this artifact as well. During the needs analysis, learners were asked to take simple questionnaires on how they felt about what the three branches of the United States are, what their functions are, and what their responsibilities are. This aligns with the MRK model because emphasizing the identification of the learner’s felt and normative needs allowed me to define what the performance gap was (Morrison et al., 2013). The needs assessments highlighted the learner’s analysis result as well. The learner’s analysis also confirmed that the confidence of the learners’ understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the United States three branches of government was impacted by not only grades but also by their prior knowledge, the demographics of a diverse culture, and disabilities that had to be supported. Furthermore, the artifact reflects on the MRK’s message design based on the data from the needs assessments. When designing the instructional eLearning module, I was able to bring over the data from the needs assessments to create the self-paced eLearning module and the interactive assessments to support the learner and improve their understanding of the government’s three branches.

​

Related Performance Indicator

Assessing/Evaluation  - Candidates demonstrate the ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials.​

​

Reflection

This artifact was my very first instructional design creation ever made. When creating the product, I was very proud of myself because I learned a lot from that course. Now looking back and reflecting on this artifact, I am still proud of it. Yes, there are changes that I would make if I had the opportunity to redo it. But looking at this artifact, I had a lot of learning to do. Coming from an educational background as a teacher, a lot of information was like instructional design, but subtle differences as well. As an educator, our students are required to take assessments before and after to show the students’ growth, but not to the depth of an instructional design. Furthermore, before joining this program, I had not heard of the ADDIE or the MRK instructional design models. This created a mild learning curve because I was trying to learn what the ADDIE model was while trying to develop and design an eLearning product. Fortunately, I was skilled at using Microsoft PowerPoint and making it look interactive for the users.

 

Due to this being my first course ever in this program, there are a lot of changes I can and would make if I could redo it. For starters, I would improve on the sequencing schemes, such as those of Strike and Posner (1967), which would allow me to better scaffold my information to the learner. Additionally, I would implement Mayer’s 12 principles of multimedia learning. By focusing on the dual channels, such as visuals (which I did have) and auditory ( I did not have). By implementing both visual and auditory information, it allows the brain to leverage the dual channel processing, which helps improve the understanding and retention of the information being taught. Also, I would want to implement a real-world situation to help students grasp the responsibilities of each branch. While being cautious, using information from what is occurring in modern times, I could implement a real-world situation of how each branch works to allow the learner to see what the three branches are doing right now. Overall, there are a lot of modifications that I would do differently if I could revise it with the current knowledge that I hold now, but looking at it from where I started, I did have a somewhat decent first-time final product.

​