AECT Standard 4
ASSURE eLearning Module Formative Evaluation
Context and Conditions
The ASSURE eLearning Module Formative Evaluation Document was developed for EDET 793 in the spring of 2026 as part of my graduate studies in Learning Design and Technologies at the University of South Carolina. This project involved conducting a comprehensive formative evaluation of a self-paced eLearning module designed to teach graduate-level students of instructional design about the ASSURE model. This module was created by a graduate student from a separate section of the graduate program. The artifact was created as a formal report, including an executive summary, methodology, data analysis, and recommendations for revisions. In order to complete this project, I needed to apply my knowledge of instructional design, assessment design, and data analysis.
The development of this artifact was primarily guided by Kirkpatrick’s evaluation (Peck, 2023) model and principles from the MRK (Morrison et al., 2019) model. Specifically, the evaluation focused on measuring the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of the instructional module through both qualitative and quantitative data collection, which included pre- and post-assessments, an attitude survey, and an SME notes form. The use of a small group trial and SME feedback reflects best practices in formative evaluation. This artifact demonstrates the use of evaluation as an important component of the instructional design process, showing the importance of data-driven decision-making in improving learning experiences.
Scope
Role
This artifact was developed as part of a collaborative group project, and my primary focus was the development of the evaluation instruments and the analysis of the collected data. I contributed to the group by designing the SME notes form, the objective assessments, and attitude surveys used to evaluate the eLearning module. I was also responsible for interpreting the qualitative and quantitative data gathered during the evaluation process and for writing the results section of the report, including creating the graphs and tables. This role reflects my ability to apply evaluation principles, analyze data, and contribute within a collaborative instructional design context. The other group members contributed to the executive summary and revision recommendations, and after they concluded their sections of the report, it was also my responsibility to take all our parts and synthesize them into a final document with correct formatting.
Instructional Design
This artifact reflects the MRK (Morrison et al., 2019) model’s emphasis on formative evaluation as a necessary part of the instructional design process. The purpose of this project was to evaluate an existing eLearning module and identify areas of improvement based on data collected from the experts and learners. As part of the process, evaluation instruments were designed to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of the instruction, which aligns with the principles of MRK. These tools reflect an intentional approach to gather qualitative and quantitative data to inform revisions.
This artifact also reflects the evaluation phase of the ADDIE model (Branch, 2009). The evaluation process included a small group trial, pre- and post-assessments to measure learning outcomes, and the use of Likert-scale surveys to assess learner attitudes toward the module. This methodology demonstrates the use of data-driven decision-making to improve instructional quality. This artifact does not necessarily represent the analysis, design, or development phases of ADDIE directly, but it supports those phases by providing actionable feedback that can be used to revise instructional materials. This artifact demonstrates how evaluation serves as a bridge between design and revision, which ensures that instructional decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumption.
Related Performance Indicators
AECT Standard 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills): Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a support community of practice.
Performance Indicators:
-
Reflection on Practice: Candidates analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development and implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth
-
Assessing/Evaluating: Candidates design and implement assessment and evaluation plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities
Reflection
This artifact demonstrates my ability to apply professional knowledge and skills related to evaluation and data-driven decision-making, which aligns with AECT Standard 4. One of the strongest aspects of this project is the intentional use of multiple evaluation methods to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of the eLearning module. For example, the combination of an SME review, objective assessments, and learner attitude surveys allowed for both qualitative and quantitative data to be collected and analyzed. My role in developing evaluation instruments and interpreting the data demonstrates my ability to design meaningful assessments and draw conclusions based on evidence. These skills are necessary for improving instructional materials and ensuring that learning experiences are effective and aligned with learner needs. This artifact also reflects significant growth in my understanding of evaluation as a critical part of the instructional design process. Earlier in this graduate program, my focus was primarily on designing engaging instructional materials, with little attention given to how those materials would be evaluated or revised. This project allowed me to develop a deeper understanding of how data can be used to identify strengths and areas for improvement, along with how different types of evaluation contribute valuable perspectives.
In retrospect, there are areas where this artifact could be strengthened. The evaluation provided meaningful data, but my role did not extend to the development of the executive summary or revision recommendations, which limited my opportunity to connect the data analysis to actionable design changes. If I could revisit this project, I would take a more active role in translating evaluation findings into specific, evidence-based revisions to the instructional product. Overall, this artifact represents an important step in my development as an instructional designer, which demonstrates my ability to apply professional evaluation practices and to contribute to the improvement of instructional materials.