AECT Standard 1

Instructional Design Document:
The Properties of Polygons

Context and Conditions

Instructional Design Document: The Properties of Polygons was designed and developed for EDET 722 in the fall of 2024 as part of my graduate studies in Learning Design and Technologies at the University of South Carolina. This instructional design document was created to aid in the design and development of an instructional module, later made in Microsoft PowerPoint, that attempts to bridge the gap between fourth and fifth grade geometric reasoning. For this project, I applied newly acquired instructional design knowledge and skills such as writing and aligning objectives and organizing content in a way that is appropriate for upper elementary students. Additionally, my previous teaching of upper elementary mathematics for several years helped inform the content that was selected and incorporated into the final instructional unit.

The development of this design documentation was primarily guided by the MRK (Morrison et al., 2019) model because of its emphasis on front-end analysis, including identifying learner characteristics, utilizing a needs assessment, and aligning goals and objectives with instructional strategies. For example, I wrote and delivered a survey to collect data from fifth grade students revealing their levels of confidence across geometry topics, informing the goals and focus of the instructional unit in the end. I was also guided in part by the ADDIE (Branch, 2009) model. More specifically, I used processes related to the analysis and design phases of ADDIE.

Scope

The purpose of this documentation was to aid in the creation of an instructional module for fifth grade students. It was created for a graduate course project focused on utilizing the MRK model (Morrison et al., 2019) when creating instructional material. This project was my first hands-on experience with the model, creating context for future interactions with the model. However, the ultimate goal of the project was to create a product that could be used in my own working environment to aid students’ learning of geometry topics. The final module was intended to be used as an individual stand-alone unit that could be assigned by math teachers for fifth graders. This artifact reflects my ability to design an instructional unit, including the development of objectives, activities, and assessments. When creating this artifact, I relied on my knowledge of upper elementary and middle school learners, and this knowledge informed decisions about language, types of activities and assessments, and pacing decisions.

Role

This artifact was a part of an individual project. I served as the instructional designer and developer of the instructional unit, and I used my role as a fifth grade advisor at my school to obtain data about the target audience. I wrote all the documentation, including the objectives, learner survey, instructional content, and assessment items. Additionally, I made recommendations based on the results of the learner survey.

Instructional Design

This artifact strongly reflects the MRK (Morrison et al., 2019) model’s emphasis on front-end analysis through the use of a needs assessment to inform decision-making regarding instructional strategies and content. For example, I administered a survey to fifth grade students in my advisory to collect data on their confidence, interest, and understanding of geometry concepts. Students generally reported high confidence in identifying angles and basic shapes, but they demonstrated lower confidence in more complex topics such as classifying quadrilaterals and identifying the properties of shapes like kites and trapezoids. Additionally, the students’ responses indicated a lack of interest in geometry with 42.9% of respondents stating they have no interest in geometry at all. These findings informed the design of the instructional unit. In particular, the findings led me to prioritize specific content and include strategies that increase engagement and perceived relevance.

In addition to MRK, this artifact reflects elements of the ADDIE (Branch, 2009) model, more specifically the analysis and design phases. During the analysis phase, learner needs, contextual factors, and goals were identified through data collection and evaluation. During the design phase, this analysis was used to develop objectives, content sequences, and well-aligned instructional strategies. This particular artifact focuses primarily on earlier phases of instructional design, demonstrating my ability to plan and align instructional content, rather than implement and evaluate.

Related Performance Indicators

AECT Standard 1 (Content Knowledge): Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.

Performance Indicators:

Creating: Candidates demonstrate the ability to create instructional materials and learning environments using a variety of systems approaches.
Using: Candidates demonstrate the ability to select and use technological resources and processes to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy

Reflection

This artifact demonstrates my ability to apply instructional design principles in a structured and intentional way, particularly using data-driven decision-making. This project was completed earlier in my graduate program, and it reflects a developing understanding of instructional design, particularly the phases of instructional design involving analysis and design. While developing the module, I was relatively comfortable applying the MRK model (Morrison, et al., 2019) and portions of the ADDIE model (Branch, 2009) to shape decisions about learner needs and instructional strategies. One of the strongest aspects of this design document is the integration of a needs assessment to develop the goals and content of the final module. All design decisions were centered on the results of the needs assessment, including how to sequence content and which topics took priority. This artifact aligns with AECT Standard 1 through both the “creating” and “using” performance indicators. It shows my ability to create a comprehensive instructional plan using a systematic approach that includes a needs assessment, learner analysis, goal and objective development, and content prioritization. Also, it reflects my ability to use technologies such as Google Forms to collect student data, which directly influenced decisions during the design and development phases.

In retrospect, while this artifact represents a strong example of my instructional design skills, it also highlights areas of growth throughout the course of the graduate program. One limitation was the small sample size of the needs assessment, as I used my advisory as a representation of the entire fifth grade at my school. In the future, I would like to collect data from a larger and more diverse group of learners to better inform instructional design decisions. Additionally, the use of a formative evaluation during development would have given me the opportunity to improve my instructional unit, though it was not within the scope of the course I was taking. One-to-one evaluations and small group trials would provide valuable feedback, allowing for revisions that better support learning and student engagement. Overall, this artifact is a reflection of a developing ability to apply instructional design processes in a meaningful way. The experience of creating this design documentation contributed to my understanding of instructional design models and the use of data to inform decision-making.

Go to Artifact 2