Sub-Badge 1: Instructional design and development process

Challenge 1: Select or create an instructional design process based the nature of the project

Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of using an instructional design model (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Assure, Arcs, etc.) that aligns with a project.  Reflection must address: How you determined which instructional design model to use and why – list specific examples (state of development, using learning objectives as a reference point, resources available, input from your company, etc.).  

Examples: Demonstration of walking through an ID Model (ADDIE, Kirkpatrick, Backwards Design, etc.) on a project, The Evaluation Plan (EDCI 577), Case study (EDCI 672), Final Project (EDCI 572), Final Project (EDCI 569 if taken in Spring 2021 or later), work-related examples of using an ID model as a standard, starting point, or other projects, etc.

Reflection 

The competency challenge is to select or create an instructional design process based on the nature of the project. The artifacts I have chosen for this challenge are the Evaluation Plan Parts 1 & 2 that I completed with my partner, Ritika Bhargo Chari, in EDCI 577.  This Evaluation Plan Part 1 document showcases Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation Model in practice for Levels 1 & 2; the Evaluation Plan Part 2 document showcases Kirkpatrick’s Levels 3 & 4 in practice. These two documents exemplify following an instructional design model to accomplish a program evaluation. The program that was evaluated is a real-world breast cancer education and survivor support program.

The ability to follow a particular ID model is very important in this field. You can’t escape even the basic ADDIE model as it is so prevalently referenced in programs, course materials, and job postings. For purposes of showcasing this competency, Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation Model is a really great method to ensure a program is well designed and producing meaningful results not only for learners but for the organization itself. Evaluating a program against all four levels takes a program into a new era of viability, and being able to successfully use this ID model now and in the future will set me up for much success in this field. Across the Evaluation Plan Parts 1 & 2 artifacts, extensive justification for the use of Kirkpatrick’s model is provided as well as the actual assessment instruments by which the program will be validated are also provided. These two artifacts demonstrate the competency because they showcase not only the theoretical approach to using Kirkpatrick’s Model to evaluate the breast cancer education and survivor support program, but also the practical ways that the data will be collected, reviewed, and reported in order to ensure learner satisfaction and to meet organizational benchmarks.

I have some experience in formalized evaluation, having worked with an experienced instructional designer and having been mentored by an associate provost at my last university in order to create an assessment plan for my co-curricular student services office (i.e. the writing center). With the background I brought to the table through these experiences, I was able to successfully work with my partner, Ritika Bhargo Chari, in the conceptualization of the survey instruments especially. With that being said, despite working with an ID and the associate provost on assessments, I did not know anything about formalized evaluation models—both of them merely provided me with best practices, allowed me to create and develop, and helped me evaluate my results. In the case of developing the assessment plan with the associate provost’s mentorship, I was able to successfully do this and validate the existence of the writing center in line with the Higher Learning Commission’s expectations for co-curricular student services offices.  Now that I know Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels Model, I can accomplish much more in terms of program evaluation. I plan to do this in real life because the evaluation plan that is laid out in the artifacts is from my real-life job. I have already begun work adapting these artifacts into practical use.

These two artifacts work well for this challenge because they show prioritized work that adheres to Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation Model. Both artifacts are elaborate explanations about program components, how Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels will be evaluated, and the instruments to accomplish the evaluation. I am quite pleased with the final products that my partner, Ritika Bhargo, and I created in order to showcase these growing skillsets. I will continue to develop this competency by actually completing the program evaluation outlined therein in my actual job because with a few tweaks to make the survey instruments a little more manageable for the general public, these documents are ready to be used. Once I have begun the program evaluation, I will be able to collect and evaluate data in the real world and take this competency to the next level that could not be accomplished within the confines of the EDCI 577 course.

Artifacts

• Evaluation Plan Part 1 shows Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation Model for Levels 1-2, including assessment instruments. 

• Evaluation Plan Part 2 shows Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation Model expanded to include Levels 1-4, including assessment instruments. 

All artifacts copyright 2025 Cindy Spires Malerba and Ritika Bhargo Chari. All rights reserved.