DANCE Design Framework
DANCE Design Framework
Embedded Files
The D.A.N.C.E. Framework
The D.A.N.C.E. Framework
Audience: L&D leaders, hiring managers, and stakeholders evaluating Antoinette's instructional design methodology and decision making approach.
Constraints: Single page infographic. Five framework stages, each with its own function, communicated without requiring narrative explanation or a follow up conversation.
Task: Document a proprietary instructional design methodology (Diagnose, Align, Navigate, Create, Evaluate) that connects performance gap identification, stakeholder alignment, and build decisions to measurable business outcomes.
Tone: Strategic and methodical. The five stage structure carries the philosophy, no embellishment needed.
Delivery: Static infographic, designed for Home page placement as a methodology overview.
Design Rationale:
D.A.N.C.E. draws on five frameworks the field already trusts and sequences them into one decision path: ADDIE, the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, Webb's Depth of Knowledge, Agile, and Kirkpatrick's Four Levels. None of them sits inside a single stage. They inform the process the way they inform an experienced practitioner's judgment: as needed.
Dove 3R Assessment Design
Dove 3R Assessment Design
Audience: Potential clients evaluating assessment design support across authoring platforms, alongside L&D leaders and recruiters assessing the underlying instructional design methodology.
Constraints: Single page diagram. Must show all four response pathways and the scoring and retry logic without requiring a separate walkthrough.
Task: Map a branching decision flow designed to diagnose learner understanding and route instruction (reteach, redirect, or remediation) based on response accuracy. The logic is authoring tool agnostic and has been applied in Articulate Storyline. The framework operationalizes all stages of the D.A.N.C.E. methodology.
Tone: Procedural and exact. The flowchart and key carry the logic.
Delivery: Decision flow diagram with key, applicable across authoring platforms.
Design Rationale:
The four-path split, Progress, Reteach, Redirect, Remediation, aligns the instructional response to the precision of what the learner actually demonstrates by distractor choice.
References
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1–12.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6),
4–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013006004
Brown, J. S., & VanLehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science, 4(4), 379–426.
Guskey, T. R., & Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 81(4), 197–216.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Pacaci, C., Ustun, U., & Ozdemir, O. F. (2024). Effectiveness of conceptual change strategies in science education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 61(6), 1263–1325. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21887
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.
Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. MIT Press.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse