AECT STANDARD 2

I took class 722 in the Fall of 2020; it was one of my first assignments for the master's degree. The front-end analysis report was created in Microsoft Word. The skills and knowledge I brought were limited because I was starting out and was fortunate enough that the professor had great examples and lessons explaining what was required. The purpose of the front analysis report is to outline creating instruction. This artifact was for school and part of an all-semester-long project. It was the beginning of the semester, and it continued to grow into a formative evaluation plan. My role in the production was to get information on the topic and provide it with educational documents backing the info and also give questionnaires out to Athletes to get the perspective of the topic. It was a solo project, so I was the instructional designer in creating all the parts and analyzing the data.

The front analysis report reflects the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross, & Kemp model. In the ADDIE model, the first step is an analysis which is the goal-setting stage. Similar purpose to my report, but I labeled this section as the purpose. This section listed all that the report goals were. Another section that followed identical to the ADDIE model was the design section. The design section is about the tools used to get the information about the subject matter. "This stage determines all goals, tools to be used to gauge performance, various tests, subject matter analysis, planning, and resources." ((Morrison, Ross, and Kemp, 2013) In the report, I created a questionnaire and gave it out to different sports teams around the country. This was needed to get the information to analyze and plan for improvement.

In the MRK model, the instructional problems section reflected the front-end analysis. "The need of the client or the performance problem the client wishes to solve" (Morrison, Ross, and Kemp, 2013). This part reflects the process section of the report. This part lists the problems athletes face and things that their coaches would be better doing, similar to the MRK model. Another section that reflects the MRK model is the evaluation instruments. This section is about creating Instruments to benefit the learner ultimately. In the report, I made a questionnaire for the athletes to answer questions about their coaches. I was able to get valuable information and feedback to adjust the piece afterward.

The front-end analysis report reflects the AECT 2 standards and performance indicators. In the creating section. "Candidates apply content pedagogy to create appropriate applications of processes and technologies to improve learning and performance outcomes." (Januszewski, 2003 ) In this case, the best way to improve the learning and performance outcomes was to get a questionnaire out to the athletes. After getting this information back, I adjusted the plan to benefit their overall goals. Another way it reflects the AECT 2 standards is in the assessing/evaluating part. This was prevalent when after reviewing the results in the questionnaire, there was a section for recommendations and actions. This reflected the information in the questionnaire and created a plan moving forward.

In this project, I learned how to create a front analyst's report with multiple parts and sections going off each other. This artifact was a step in the major project at the end of the semester. Even though it wasn't my best work, I got better as the semester went on. As I have learned more information as I continued with this master's degree, I understood the artifact well from the start. However, I should've used more citations and better questions to ask the athletes.

References

Januszewski, A., Molenda, M., & Harris, P. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NLawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kurt, S. (2018, December 16). Addie Model: Instructional design. Educational Technology. Retrieved February 10, 2022, from https://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/

Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., Kalman, H.K.,& Kemp, J.E. (2013). Designing Effective Instruction, Seventh Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

The Instructional designer model paper was developed in 2021 in the EDET 703 class. It was created on a Microsoft word document, and some skills I brought were being familiar with the instructional design models I selected. I selected the ASSURE model, which I had learned in a previous class. The paper's purpose was to create a mini-research paper that will explore an instructional model of my choice. The artifact was made to understand instructional models and get background information on the development. It provided sources and discussed the pros and cons of the model. In the production, I was the instructional designer and developer. Figuring out the model I wanted to select and providing scholar resources backing the paper.

The ID model paper reflects both the MRK model and the ADDIE model. The Morrison, Ross & Kemp model reflects the content sequencing. "The efficient ordering of content in such a way as to help the learner achieve the objectives in an efficient and effective manner" (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2013) In the ID model paper was sequenced in a way for the learner to understand the goals and objectives in the best way possible. At the beginning of the design, make sure the reader is aware of what ASSURE model represents and gives background information about when it first was created—listing out the goals to make the paper organized for the learner to follow and understand the ID model easily. The felt need and message design are for the learner to understand the ASSURE model and adequate resources.

The ADDIE model reflects the analysis section. "Goal-Setting Stage" (Kurt, 2018) was essential for creating this assignment. The goal was that the learner would have an understanding of the ASSURE instructional model after reviewing the paper. The target audience would be Individuals looking for instructional models to implement and looking to get an understanding in a mini-research paper, including the background, pros/cons, and four sources. Another reflection of the ADDIE model was the development section. This is about the data collection of the project. Using the research articles and putting them into action gives the teachers another way to develop lesson plans in their classrooms. It is providing them with correct and credible documents.

The technology use and support survey reflect AECT 2 standards and performance indicators. In the reflection on the method section. "Candidates apply research methodologies to solve problems and enhance practice." (Januszewski, 2008). The research was designed to ensure valid and reliable information in the paper. Educate the learner on the data if unfamiliar with the instructional design. Some of the practice was creating a list of what teachers would use the procedure for—analyzing the student's needs, completing objectives, selecting strategies that you're going to use, utilizing the technology, requiring students to participate, then evaluating and revising your lesson plan. Another reflection was in the theoretical foundations, which are about "demonstrating foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology" (Januszewski, 2008)—finding the four scholarly articles about the ASSURE model describing the use of the model within the classroom. Describe how teachers would implement it into the lesson plans and benefit the students.

I learned a bunch of Valuable information while doing this project. This was my first time creating a mini research paper, and I figured out how much research goes into diving into finding research articles to back the information on the instructional design model. Looking back at it now, I should have organized the paper a bit better and focused on more of the structure of the paragraphs. Since this paper, I have learned and grown as an educational technologist and used this as a stepping stone to develop a research paper.

References

Januszewski, A., Molenda, M., & Harris, P. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kurt, S. (2018, December 16). Addie Model: Instructional design. Educational Technology. Retrieved February 10, 2022, from https://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/

Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., Kalman, H.K.,& Kemp, J.E. (2013). Designing Effective Instruction,

Seventh Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

This past fall semester in Reading, PA, the artifact that demonstrates my communication and collaboration was in my internship. I worked in a gym and was in charge of creating online content for online clients. Working with the SMEs and dealing with clients was the primary thing with my project. I made a progression lesson plan with videos and descriptions for every exercise for the athletes. This artifact was created on google slides then transferred to InDesign. The artifact's purpose was for the trainers to give them the progression sheet for athletes who don't know how to do the exercise correctly—providing a step-by-step with videos and descriptions exampling how to. This was a work project for my internship, and it covered a couple of things I have learned in my previous classes. This was my final project for my training. My role was to get videos of athletes doing the correct movements of the listed exercises. Then work with the head trainer to get descriptions of what he would tell his athletes how to do the exercise. Finally, compile everything into an InDesign document to then give to clients. It was my project, but I had a couple of the trainers help me with filming and miscellaneous things.

The progressions assignment reflects both the ADDIE model and the Morrison, Ross & Kemp model. In the ADDIE model, creating the progressions was based on the acronym. "A- Analyze, D- Design, D- Develop, I-Implement, E- Evaluation." (Kurt, 2018) I would watch and analyze the options and ways to do the project at the start. Then after finding the best route, I created the design of what I wanted everything to look like. Development happened after I had the blueprint of how everything should be set up. Implementation is when I asked questions and made sure the assignment was efficient and covered the tasks. The evaluation was giving it to the athletes and the gym trainers to get their opinion of the progressions and to make minor edits.

The progressions assignment also reflects the Morrison, Ross & Kemp model. The first step in the MRK model was "The need of the client or the performance problem the client wishes to solve" (Morrison, Ross, Kemp, and Kalman, 2013) in this case, at the gym was the people who were ordering online workout didn't know how to do the exercises. Another step that it reflected was "determine what knowledge and procedures you need to include in the instruction to help the learner master the objectives" (Morrison, Ross, Kemp, and Kalman, 2013). This was important in figuring out what to create to help the learners understand. This involved communicating with the learners to figure out the goals and design. The instructional objectives section would be for every step you can complete; you can move on and try the following progression until you can make the entire motion. These objectives are observable and measurable. "Formative evaluation is most valuable when conducted during development and tryouts. It should be performed early in the process before valuable time and resources are wasted" (Morrison, Ross, Kemp, and Kalman, 2013). During creating the progression sheet, the trainers would use a rough draft to teach the on-site clients. I was able to see the development and tryouts of how it will benefit the lifters.

The progressions artifact reflects the standards and performance indicators for the AECT 2. In the managing section, it showed when figuring out what to create to benefit the early beginner's lifters. This progression sheet grew into step-by-step how-to exercises and ques that the trainers would give to their athletes. This was flexible and diverse to cover many learners who are trying to exercise. Another performance indicator would be the creating section. "Candidates apply content pedagogy to create appropriate applications of processes and technologies to improve learning and performance outcomes" (Januszewski, 2008). At first, before joining the project, it was just a list of words sent to the first lifters who would message back and ask a bunch of confusing questions, after improving it and using different technologies like adding videos of the correct movements and putting them into one document. It has to lead to benefits in the performance.

Things that I have learned during this project are how to work with deadlines—having weekly meetings with my supervisor, and keeping me accountable for work due. I made sure that this project was progressing in the right direction and I had the right resources to succeed. During my internship, I saw growth and was prepared to take the next step as an instructional designer when I graduate. This artifact had a great design and accomplished the goals set out for the progression sheets. It shows the progress that I have made throughout my master's degree.

References

Januszewski, A., Molenda, M., & Harris, P. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kurt, S. (2018, December 16). Addie Model: Instructional design. Educational Technology. Retrieved February 10, 2022, from https://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/

Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., Kalman, H.K.,& Kemp, J.E. (2013). Designing Effective Instruction, Seventh Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.