Project Details

Design Rationale

The decision to build this repository for the faculty I work with, I identifed where faculty felt least confident and built the "course" around those specific pain points. This ensured every minute of facilitation time addressed a genuine, self-identified need — increasing both relevance and engagement. I structured each activity around a task faculty would actually perform in their own courses, so learning transferred directly to real work rather than remaining abstract.

Theory & Pedagogy

This design draws directly on Knowles' principles of andragogy: adult learners are most motivated when training is immediately applicable to their professional context and addresses self-identified needs. By anchoring sessions to faculty-reported pain points, I honored the andragogical principle that adults bring experience to learning and respond best when that experience is respected and built upon. The ADDIE framework guided the full development cycle — from the needs analysis survey (Analysis) through iterative session revisions after each cohort (Evaluation).

Impact

Faculty who completed the training reported significantly increased confidence using Canvas tools, with [X]% indicating they felt "very confident" or "extremely confident" in post-session surveys, compared to [Y]% before training. Support tickets related to Canvas rubric setup decreased by approximately [Z]% in the semester following the training series. The workshop materials were subsequently adopted as the standard onboarding resource for all new adjunct faculty.

Design Rationale

A key design decision was organizing the course around real workflows rather than policy documents. Rather than presenting information as a list of rules, I mapped the course structure to the sequence of tasks a new team member would actually encounter in their first weeks — making the learning immediately actionable. Knowledge checks were embedded at each workflow milestone rather than consolidated at the end, allowing learners to self-assess understanding before moving forward.

Theory & Pedagogy

The course structure reflects Bloom's Taxonomy: early modules focus on foundational knowledge and comprehension, while later modules require application through scenario-based activities. This scaffolded progression ensures learners build competence at each cognitive level before advancing. The self-paced, asynchronous format aligns with Knowles' andragogical principle of learner autonomy — new team members can move at their own pace and revisit content as needed.

Impact

The course reduced average onboarding time from [X days/weeks] to [Y days/weeks], freeing supervisor capacity previously spent on repetitive orientations. New team members consistently reported feeling well-prepared for their first assignments, with [X]% completing the course and passing all embedded knowledge checks on first attempt.

Design Rationale

Introducing code to non-technical learners requires careful attention to cognitive load. I sequenced the workshop by starting with reading and identifying HTML (lower cognitive demand) before asking participants to write and modify it. Every example used a real Canvas scenario — a page they might actually build for their own course — so the learning felt immediately relevant rather than abstract. A printed quick-reference cheat sheet was distributed so learners weren't forced to memorize syntax on the spot.

Theory & Pedagogy

Workshop design drew on constructivist learning theory — learners built understanding by doing, not by watching. Each concept was introduced through a brief explanation, immediately followed by a hands-on activity where participants modified real code in a sandbox environment. This mirrors the constructivist principle that knowledge is constructed through active experience. Bloom's Taxonomy guided the activity sequence: remember → understand → apply, with the final activity requiring participants to build a short page section from scratch (application level).

Impact

[X] faculty and instructional designers completed Workshop 1. Post-workshop feedback indicated [X]% felt confident editing HTML in Canvas immediately after the session. Demand for a follow-up intermediate workshop (HTML Workshop 2) was driven entirely by participant requests, demonstrating the session's success in building genuine interest and confidence.

Design Rationale

Because Workshop 2 built directly on prior knowledge, I designed it with a "connect and extend" structure — each new concept was explicitly linked back to something participants already knew from Workshop 1. Accessibility was not treated as a separate module but woven throughout: every layout technique introduced was immediately paired with its accessibility implication, reinforcing that inclusive design is not a checkbox but an integrated practice.

Theory & Pedagogy

This workshop applied UDL (Universal Design for Learning) principles both in its content (teaching accessible HTML) and in its delivery (multiple means of representation — live demo, printed reference, hands-on practice). Bloom's Taxonomy guided the progression from understanding accessibility concepts to applying them in participant-built page layouts. The voluntary, participant-driven enrollment also reflects Knowles' principle of self-direction — these learners chose to be there, which shaped a more collaborative, peer-learning facilitation style.

Impact

Participants left with reusable HTML snippet templates — immediately deployable in their own Canvas courses — reducing the time cost of building accessible layouts from scratch. [X]% of participants reported using the templates within the following semester. The accessibility content specifically contributed to [X] courses meeting WCAG 2.1 compliance requirements.

Design Rationale

Short-form video was chosen deliberately over written documentation because the audience — faculty and staff navigating software — benefits from seeing a task performed rather than reading about it. I kept clips under [X] minutes to respect busy schedules and reduce the cognitive load of processing a long video for a single answer. Each video was scripted to follow a consistent structure: state the task, demonstrate it, summarize the key step. Captions were added to all videos to meet UDL and accessibility standards.

Theory & Pedagogy

This collection applies UDL's principle of multiple means of representation — offering visual and auditory learning pathways alongside the written documentation already available. The just-in-time delivery model aligns with Knowles' principle that adults are problem-centered learners: they seek information at the moment of need, not in advance. By embedding videos directly in Canvas pages where the relevant task occurs, the learning environment supports performance in context rather than requiring a separate training event.

Impact

The library now includes [X] tutorial clips covering [Y] distinct topics. Embedding videos contextually in Canvas reduced inbound support requests related to those topics by approximately [Z]%, as faculty could self-serve answers without submitting a ticket or waiting for a response.

Design Rationale

The core design challenge was sustaining engagement without adding to an already full workload. I chose Slack specifically because the team was already there — no new tool, no login, no friction. Keeping each installment to a single idea with a clear takeaway respects the audience's time and ensures the content is actually read rather than skimmed and dismissed. I intentionally varied formats — some posts are research summaries, some are practical tips, some pose a reflective question — to appeal to different learning preferences.

Theory & Pedagogy

IDea Boost is built on the principle of spaced practice — distributing learning over time rather than concentrating it in occasional workshops — which research consistently shows improves long-term retention. The campaign also reflects Knowles' principle of self-concept: by treating colleagues as capable professionals who can learn from a brief, respectful nudge rather than a formal training event, it positions ongoing development as a natural part of professional identity rather than a remedial obligation.

Impact

Published [X] IDea Boost installments over [Y] months. The series generated consistent engagement in the team's professional development channel, with [X]% of posts receiving replies or reactions — indicating active readership rather than passive scrolling. Several installments directly informed design decisions in ongoing course projects, demonstrating transfer from the campaign to practice.

Design Rationale

Each job aide was developed in response to a recurring support pattern — a question I answered repeatedly, which signaled a genuine, persistent need. Rather than answering the same question multiple times, I invested the time to create a durable resource that would answer it indefinitely. Extensive user testing informed the visual hierarchy: I tested early drafts with faculty to identify where their eyes went first and restructured layouts until the most important information was consistently found first.

Theory & Pedagogy

Job aides are a performance support tool grounded in the understanding that not all learning needs to happen before performance — some knowledge is best accessed exactly when needed. This aligns with Knowles' problem-centered orientation: adults seek information to solve an immediate problem, not to build a future knowledge base. UDL principles guided the visual design: clear heading hierarchy, sufficient color contrast, and print-friendly formatting ensure the aides are accessible to all users regardless of visual ability or device.

Impact

Created [X] job aides covering [topics]. Following distribution, support requests related to those processes decreased noticeably, as faculty and staff could self-serve the information they needed. Several aides were adopted department-wide and are now included in new employee orientation materials.

Design Rationale

The booth was designed with a faculty audience in mind — people who are experts in their field but may not fully understand what instructional designers do or how a collaboration works. Rather than displaying completed products behind glass, I created entry points that invited participation: a live demo station, a "before and after" course comparison, and a brief consultation area where faculty could ask questions about their own courses. The goal was to make instructional design feel approachable, useful, and worth pursuing.

Theory & Pedagogy

The booth design applied Knowles' principle that adults learn best through experience — visitors didn't read about good course design, they interacted with it directly. The consultation area reflected the ADDIE model's Analysis phase: by facilitating brief conversations about faculty needs, the Expo simultaneously served as informal needs assessment for future instructional design partnerships.

Impact

The booth engaged [X] faculty and staff across the event. Conversations initiated at the Expo led to [X] new instructional design consultation requests in the following semester — demonstrating that the event directly generated new collaborative partnerships and expanded awareness of the ID team's capabilities.

Design Rationale

Feedback from Booth 1 revealed that visitors wanted more hands-on interaction and specifically asked about accessibility. I used that feedback directly to redesign the booth's focus — this is the ADDIE model's Evaluation-to-Analysis loop in practice. The accessibility demos (screen reader simulation, contrast checker, keyboard navigation test) were chosen because experiencing inaccessibility firsthand is far more persuasive than reading about it. The goal was to create an "aha moment" that would motivate faculty to prioritize accessibility in their own courses.

Theory & Pedagogy

This booth embodied UDL principles in both content and method: the accessibility demonstrations modeled inclusive design while also being designed to engage visitors through multiple modalities (visual, tactile, conversational). The iterative design from Booth 1 to Booth 2 demonstrates the ADDIE model's evaluation cycle — evidence that I treat my own instructional design work with the same rigor I apply to the courses I support.

Impact

[X] faculty and staff participated in the accessibility demonstrations. Post-event, [X] faculty submitted requests for accessibility reviews of their existing courses — indicating the demonstrations successfully motivated action. Feedback collected at the booth also directly informed the ID team's priorities for the following academic year.

Design Rationale

Pursuing QM certification for courses I support is a deliberate quality assurance strategy, not a bureaucratic requirement. The QM rubric provides a shared, evidence-based language for conversations with faculty about course design — making it easier to advocate for learner-centered changes grounded in nationally recognized standards rather than personal preference. For each course, I conducted a gap analysis against the QM rubric before revision, prioritizing the areas most likely to impact student success and alignment.

Theory & Pedagogy

QM certification work inherently applies the full ADDIE model: each course undergoes analysis (gap review against rubric), design and development (revision of learning objectives, assessments, and materials), and evaluation (formal peer review). Bloom's Taxonomy is central to the process — QM Standard 2 requires that learning objectives be written at measurable cognitive levels, which I worked with faculty to revise and align throughout. UDL principles are embedded in QM Standards 6 and 8, requiring accessible technology and adequate learner support.

Impact & Certified Courses

Courses certified to HQ/QM standards demonstrate measurably stronger alignment between objectives, assessments, and materials — directly supporting student clarity and success. The following courses have achieved certification through this process:

• Course Code — Faculty Name — Term (e.g., MAN 6327 — Prof. Smith — Fall 2023)
• Course Code — Faculty Name — Term
• Course Code — Faculty Name — Term
• Course Code — Faculty Name — Term