Artifact 3 - Treatment Plan

Scope

The purpose of this artifact was to develop a real-world scenario eLearning module. Since my partner and I are both teachers and first-year teachers, we both agreed on developing an eLearning module targeted at first-year teachers. One of the biggest issues that many first-year teachers deal with is classroom management. We decided to develop an eLearning module that focuses on Classroom Management and disruptive behavior. This artifact was created as part of the EDET 703 course. This product could potentially be a part of a larger curriculum for teachers as a resource, but based on our production, it was not intended to be a part of anything big. When developing the treatment plan, I had a pretty good idea of the skills that were being used. The only one that I struggled with for a little bit was the Kuhlmann’s 3C model, which focused on “Choice, Challenge, Consequence”. Once we fully developed the artifact, I understood what the Kuhlmann’s 3C model was, and I really think it is an effective model to use.

​

Role

This artifact was developed by another person in my group in the EDET 703 course. My partner and I equally divided the work as instructional designers. I worked on the initial learning objectives, and she worked on the instructional content. Afterwards, we both reviewed each other’s work and left comments and suggestions on how to improve it. Technically we did not use any subject matter experts (SMEs) in this artifact, however due to my partner being a classroom longer than I, and more importantly she is a elementary teacher, we discussed ways that she would go about it or different ideas that she has been told about for what is the best way to help first year teachers and classroom managements.

​

Instructional Design

The treatment plan aligns with the design phase of the ADDIE model by outlining the learning objectives and instructional content that will be provided in the final product. By taking the needs analysis data from phase one, we were able to design the objectives and instructional materials to support the learners while improving the performance gap of classroom management. These elements provide a clear blueprint of the objectives that will be used and instructional materials that will be used in the final product (Branch, 2009). This is important at this stage because we are making decisions on how to plan out what we want in our final product, and where the instructional materials are going to be the most effective for the individual’s learning while achieving the learning objectives.

 

 

Furthermore, this artifact aligns with the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (MRK) instructional design model because of the goals and the message design. This artifact identifies the goals that the learner needs to master by the end of the product. According to Morrison, it states, “The instructional objectives specify exactly what the learner must master. The objectives provide a map for designing the instruction and for developing the means to assess learner performance.” (Morrison et al., 2013). The treatment plan identifies the goals that the learner will need to learn by the end of the final product. Additionally, the goals are aimed at aligning the instructional materials to the problem that is trying to be improved through the eLearning module.

 

This artifact also represents cognitive load theory, which focuses on implementing subtle amounts of information at a time in a variety of ways. This is crucial because when designing goals, the instructions can be placed evenly throughout the module without overloading the brain when presenting the information to the learner.

​

Related Performance Indicators

Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates demonstrate an inquiry process that assesses the adequacy of learning and evaluates the instruction and implementation of educational technologies and processes (p. 116-117) grounded in reflective practice.

​

Reflection

I am proud of this artifact and, more importantly, the final product from this treatment plan. There was a big learning curve that took place because we had to focus on the accessibility, explaining the navigation style of our final product, understanding Kuhlmann’s 3C model, and integrating Mayer’s Multimedia Principles.

 

 

When developing the treatment plan, my partner and I had a good grasp on instructional design and several different theories, such as Mayer’s Multimedia Principles, constructivism, and Cognitive Load Theory. Additionally, both of us were able to design a blueprint and develop the instructional materials within our product. Plus, we are both proficient in using Microsoft PowerPoint for the development of the final product. One weakness that my partner and I both ran into was using Kuhlmann’s 3C model as our foundation for the product. Due to the product being focused on real-world scenarios, we had a difficult time creating instructional content based on Kuhlmann’s 3C model. We were able to overcome this barrier by talking about different experiences of classroom management that we dealt with in our time as teachers. We talked about different ways that we could go about our experience and what choices we had at that moment in time. Discussing it allowed us to develop different choices that a teacher normally has to make when it comes to classroom management. This foundation allows us to think about each consequence that would come from the choice that was being made. By discussing with each other, we’re able to form Kuhlmann’s 3C model that would help us later.

 

 

This artifact aligns with standard 2.1 in the AECT 2012 because we were focusing on assessing the learners in our treatment plan. By understanding our problem and identifying our target audience, we were able to develop an effective treatment plan that helped us design the learning objectives and instructional content that would be used in our final product.