Throughout the span of this project, I have gained several valuable insights, as reflected in my eJournal entries. However, if I were to distill them into key takeaways, I could summarize them into three (3) most significant insights:

First, I realized how important it is to use established instructional design processes (i.e., ADDIE), frameworks (i.e., Bloom's Taxonomy, Dale's Cone of Experience, Biggs and Tang's Constructive Alignment, Kirkpatrick's Model of Evaluation), and theories (i.e., Paivio's Dual Coding Theory, Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory, Knowles’s Adult Learning Theory, Mayer’s Multimedia Learning Theory, and Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction). These theories and frameworks guided each decision I made over the course of the project (see Results of the Activities).

Second, I realized that proficiency in learning theories should be paired with proficiency in development tools. While understanding learning principles is crucial, the ability to execute and materialize instructional ideas through tools like Microsoft PowerPoint and Articulate Rise, is what brings these ideas to life.  I could have all these great ideas in my mind about how to design effective instructional materials, but if I don't have the skills to develop and bring them to life, then those ideas remain just that — ideas.

Third, I realized that working with people — with subject-matter experts, learners, and administrators from the partner organization — is just as critical as the design work itself. These interactions reminded me that collaboration, clear communication, and professionalism all contribute to the success of any instructional design project.

With these learnings, one overarching realization became clear to me: An instructional designer is someone who integrates theory, technology, and human insight to design purposeful learning experiences that meet learners where they are and move them toward their goals.

This project was largely smooth-sailing, but it still came with its share of challenges, which I documented in my eJournal entries. 

During the Analysis phase, one of the major difficulties I encountered was devising an effective interview guide for data collection (see eJournal 1). I was anxious about possibly overlooking important questions, which could compromise the accuracy of the needs analysis. To address this, I adapted a standardized interview instrument developed by Jordan (2016).

In the Design phase, I faced a challenge when I realized that the summative assessment I have in mind did not align with the initial course goals I wrote (see eJournal 5). This misalignment meant that what I expected learners to achieve by the end of the course was not clearly reflected in the course’s goals. To resolve this, I revised the goals to better align with the assessment.

The Development phase introduced a more technical set of challenges, particularly due to the limitations of the free tools I was using (see eJournal 3). For instance, in Canva, many elements were locked behind a paywall. To overcome this, I created elements in PowerPoint and imported them into Canva. 

Finally, in the Implementation and Evaluation phase, logistical delays and availability issues arose (see eJournal 13). My gatekeeper went on vacation, and that prevented us from conducting a face-to-face interview. Instead, I conducted an asynchronous interview via email. Moreover, the public rollout of the wayfinding map was postponed from July to late August or September. However, this delay did not significantly impact the project’s outcome, as a pilot implementation had already been conducted and provided sufficient data for evaluation.