# Instructional Design Best Practices

> **Plugin Reference** — This document is part of the ASU Canvas Builder plugin.
> Operational ID guidance for content generation, course design, and assessment calibration.
> Referenced by: `needs-analysis`, `course-build`, `syllabus-generator`, `quiz-generator`, `assignment-generator`, `discussion-generator`, `rubric-creator`, `interactive-content`, `alignment`, and `course-audit`.
> Section 13 (HPI Performance Diagnosis) is the diagnostic layer — apply it before the design sections whenever auditing or reviewing.

---

## 1. Backward Design (UbD) — Operational Workflow

**Framework**: Wiggins & McTighe (2005). Start with desired results, not activities.

### Three-Stage Process

**Stage 1 — Desired Results (What should students know/do/understand?)**
- Write 3–5 module-level objectives (MLOs) using measurable Bloom's verbs
- Map each MLO to one or more course-level objectives (CLOs)
- Identify the enduring understanding: "Students will understand that ___" (not just recall facts — the insight that transfers beyond this course)
- Flag essential questions: open-ended questions the module helps students grapple with

**Stage 2 — Evidence of Learning (How will you know students got there?)**
- Select assessment types before designing instruction
- Each MLO must be assessed by at least one graded item
- Match Bloom's level of the assessment to the Bloom's level of the MLO
- Rule: if you can't write a rubric criterion for it, the objective isn't assessable — revise it

**Stage 3 — Learning Experiences (What will move students from where they are to the objective?)**
- Choose activities, media, and readings that directly develop the targeted Bloom's skills
- Sequence: expose → explain → apply → reflect
- Remove content that doesn't serve any MLO (no matter how interesting)

### Objective Writing Rules
- **Format**: Action verb + content + context/condition
  - Weak: "Understand photosynthesis"
  - Strong: "Explain how light wavelength affects the rate of photosynthesis in C3 plants"
- **Verb bank by Bloom's level**:

| Level | Strong Verbs | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Remember | define, identify, list, name, recall, recognize, state | know, understand, learn |
| Understand | describe, explain, classify, compare, interpret, summarize, paraphrase | understand, appreciate, grasp |
| Apply | calculate, demonstrate, solve, use, implement, predict, apply, execute | apply (alone, without context), practice |
| Analyze | analyze, compare, differentiate, distinguish, examine, organize, deconstruct | think critically (vague) |
| Evaluate | assess, critique, defend, judge, justify, recommend, evaluate, appraise | evaluate (alone, without criteria) |
| Create | design, construct, develop, formulate, propose, synthesize, produce, compose | create (alone, without deliverable) |

- **One verb per objective** — compound objectives ("explain AND apply") are two objectives
- **3–5 MLOs per module** — fewer is better if each is substantial
- **CLO coverage check**: every CLO must appear in at least two module objectives across the course

---

## 2. Alignment Gap Classification (Post-Build)

**Source**: `scripts/alignment_graph.py` — the alignment graph builder produces gap data as part of course-audit. This section provides interpretive guidance for IDs and reviewers working with that output.

The gap classifier surfaces attention priorities, not enforcement gates. An ID may proceed past any severity level with documented rationale. Severity ranks how much attention a gap typically warrants — it does not determine whether a course can launch.

### Gap Types

| Gap Type | Description | Default Severity |
|---|---|---|
| **Orphaned CLO** | A course-level objective maps to no module objectives | Strong Recommendation |
| **Orphaned MLO** | A module objective maps to no CLO and no assessment | Strong Recommendation |
| **Assessment with no MLO** | A graded item cannot be traced to any module objective | Suggestion |
| **Bloom's ceiling mismatch** | Assessment Bloom's level is lower than the MLO's stated level | Suggestion |
| **Single-assessment MLO** | A module objective is assessed by only one item, leaving no redundancy | Suggestion |

### Severity Definitions

- **Strong Recommendation**: This gap commonly indicates a structural alignment issue. Surface for ID review before launch. ID may proceed with a written rationale.
- **Suggestion**: This gap is worth considering. It may be intentional (e.g., a CLO assessed entirely through summative work). No action required if the ID confirms the design intent.

### Using Gap Data in Practice

When `course-audit` surfaces alignment gaps, present the table above as context rather than a checklist. Ask the ID: "Does this gap reflect an intentional design choice, or would you like to close it?" Log the rationale in `course-memory.md` if the ID proceeds past a Strong Recommendation.

---

## 3. Module Design Pattern

The ASU Gold Standard 7-page module structure maps directly to the UbD three stages:

| Page | UbD Stage | Design Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Module Overview | Stage 1 | State MLOs explicitly. Frame the enduring understanding. Set time expectations. |
| Prepare to Learn | Stage 3 | Activate prior knowledge. Reduce cognitive load before new content. Audio primer (~5 min). |
| Lesson | Stage 3 | Core instruction. Expose → explain → model. Lecture video + key concept cards + resources. |
| Knowledge Check | Stage 2 (formative) | Quick evidence of understanding. Ungraded, immediate feedback, unlimited attempts. |
| Guided Practice | Stage 3 | Apply with support. Interactive, low-stakes, scaffolded. |
| Create an Artifact | Stage 2 (summative) | Graded evidence of MLO mastery. Must align to rubric criteria mapped to MLOs. |
| Conclusion | Stage 1 (revisited) | Connect back to enduring understanding. Bridge to next module. Self-assessment. |

**Design rule**: Every page must serve at least one MLO. If a page can't be traced to an MLO, cut it or revise the objectives.

---

## 4. Bloom's Taxonomy — Application Guide

**Levels**: Remember → Understand → Apply → Analyze → Evaluate → Create

### Calibration by Course Tier

| Tier | Dominant Levels | Avoid Over-indexing On |
|---|---|---|
| Introductory (100–299) | Understand, Apply | Remember only (surface); Evaluate/Create prematurely |
| Advanced (300–499) | Apply, Analyze, Evaluate | Remember/Understand only (surface) |
| Graduate (500+) | Analyze, Evaluate, Create | Apply only (too procedural for grad expectations) |

### Bloom's Progression Across Modules

- Early modules: ground in Remember/Understand for key concepts and vocabulary
- Mid modules: shift to Apply and Analyze — use scenarios, cases, comparisons
- Late modules: reach toward Evaluate/Create — defense, synthesis, novel application
- Final assessments should sit at the highest Bloom's level the course targets

### Matching Assessment Type to Bloom's Level

| Bloom's Level | Appropriate Assessment Types |
|---|---|
| Remember | Short quiz, vocabulary matching, identification tasks |
| Understand | Concept explanation prompt, paraphrase exercise, comparison table |
| Apply | Worked scenario, case study response, prediction task, calculation |
| Analyze | Case analysis, argument deconstruction, comparative analysis |
| Evaluate | Critique, recommendation with justification, policy evaluation, peer review |
| Create | Research proposal, design artifact, synthesis paper, original product |

---

## 5. Cognitive Load Theory — Canvas Applications

**Source**: Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga (2011).

Three load types:
- **Intrinsic**: Complexity inherent in the content — can't be eliminated, only managed through sequencing
- **Extraneous**: Load added by poor design — REDUCE this
- **Germane**: Effort that builds schemas — INCREASE this

### Reducing Extraneous Load in Canvas Pages

| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Wall of text | Chunk into 3–5 concept cards with headers |
| Multiple competing visuals | One focal image per concept, labeled clearly |
| Navigation confusion | Consistent module structure, task list at top of overview |
| Unclear instructions | Single-sentence deliverable statement before any context |
| Long video (>8 min) | Segment into 4–6 min clips with chapter markers |

### Scaffolding Progression

Match scaffolding level to Bloom's level and course tier:
1. **Worked examples** — fully solved, student studies process (early modules / introductory tier)
2. **Faded examples** — partial solution, student completes remaining steps (mid modules)
3. **Independent practice** — full problem with rubric/checklist only (late modules / advanced tier)
4. **Open-ended application** — goal + constraints only, no template (graduate tier)

### Scaffolding Fade Trigger (Position-Relative)

The scaffolding ladder above describes *types* of support. This subsection describes *when* to fade them across the course arc — a recommended default progression based on position in the course, not Bloom's level alone.

| Course Position | Recommended Scaffolding Level |
|---|---|
| First 25% of modules | Worked examples — fully modeled; student observes and applies with structure |
| Middle 50% of modules | Faded scaffolding — partial templates, guided prompts, checklist-only rubrics |
| Final 25% of modules | Independent practice — open prompt, rubric only, no structural support |
| Capstone (if present) | Open-ended application — goal and constraints only |

**6-module course example**:
- Module 1 (16% — first 25%): worked example assignment
- Module 2 (33% — first 25%): worked example with student-filled sections
- Modules 3–4 (middle 50%): faded template, guided checklist
- Module 5 (83% — final 25%): independent, rubric only
- Module 6 / Capstone (100%): open-ended, goal + constraints

**Override**: IDs may set a different fade schedule via `pedagogy.scaffoldingOverride` in `course-config.json`. This is the recommended baseline for linear courses with cumulative content. Courses with non-linear sequencing, modular electives, or competency-based progression may diverge from this pattern with rationale.

---

## 6. Mayer's Multimedia Learning Principles — Canvas Applications

**Source**: Mayer (2021). Applies to lecture videos, audio primers, interactive activities, and page design.

| Principle | Canvas Application |
|---|---|
| **Coherence** | Remove supplementary content from Lesson page — extra links go on Resources page |
| **Signaling** | Use bold text and section headers to highlight key terms. Use callout boxes for definitions. |
| **Redundancy** | Don't put full lecture script on screen — use short labels/phrases on slides |
| **Spatial Contiguity** | Place captions below video, not on a separate page. Label diagrams inline, not in a key. |
| **Temporal Contiguity** | Narration and animation should sync — avoid recording audio over static slides |
| **Segmenting** | One concept per video segment. Link to next segment, don't concatenate. |
| **Pre-training** | Prepare to Learn page defines key vocabulary before the Lesson video |
| **Modality** | Audio narration + visual (not narration + on-screen text). Audio primer preferred over text-only overviews. |
| **Multimedia** | Every lesson should combine words and visuals — even a simple diagram adds retention |
| **Personalization** | Conversational tone in all scripts and prompts. "You'll notice..." not "Students will observe..." |
| **Voice** | Human voice for all audio content. AI-generated voice is acceptable only with faculty approval. |

---

## 7. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

**Three principles**: Multiple means of Engagement, Representation, and Action & Expression.

### Plus-One Rule (minimum compliance)
For every content modality, provide one alternative:
- Video → captions + transcript
- Audio primer → transcript
- Image → alt text + inline description for complex diagrams
- PDF → accessible HTML alternative or tagged PDF

**ASU requirement**: WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 24, 2026. See `standards/canvas-standards.md` → FRAME framework.

### Multiple Means in Practice

| UDL Principle | Canvas Implementation |
|---|---|
| **Engagement** | Choice in discussion prompts, optional challenge problems, real-world application contexts students connect to |
| **Representation** | Lecture video + audio primer + written key concepts + diagram — same content, multiple formats |
| **Action & Expression** | Offer artifact choices where possible (written analysis OR recorded presentation OR annotated diagram) |

### Inclusive Language Checklist
- Asset-based framing ("students who are new to this topic" not "struggling students")
- Diverse examples and names in scenarios — not all examples from a single demographic
- Avoid jargon that excludes first-generation or non-traditional students
- Check: would a student from any background see themselves in this course?

---

## 8. Engagement & Motivation Design

### ARCS Model (Keller, 1987)

| Factor | ID Strategy |
|---|---|
| **Attention** | Open each module with a hook — a surprising fact, a real case, a contradiction. Audio primer tone should be conversational and curiosity-driven. |
| **Relevance** | Connect objectives to professional practice, real-world problems, or the student's stated goals. "Why this matters" section in module overview. |
| **Confidence** | Clear success criteria (rubric) before students start. Knowledge check as low-stakes rehearsal before graded assessment. |
| **Satisfaction** | Affirming quiz feedback ("You've identified the core mechanism — here's why that matters"). Module conclusion summarizes what was accomplished. |

### Pacing and Workload
- **Time estimate on every module overview** — state it explicitly ("~3 hours this week")
- Rule of thumb: 1 credit hour = ~3 hours of student work per week
- Distribute load: readings + video front-loaded, practice and assessment later in the week
- Flag heavy modules in the overview: "This is the most content-dense module — plan ahead"

---

## 9. Discussion Design

Five discussion types (mapped to Bloom's levels and course tiers):

| Type | Bloom's Level | Best For | Prompt Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Type A — Concept Application** | Apply | Introductory | "Describe a real-world example of [concept] and explain how [principle] applies." |
| **Type B — Critical Analysis** | Analyze | Advanced / Introductory late | "Analyze [case/scenario]. What factors explain the outcome? What would change if [variable] were different?" |
| **Type C — Perspective Taking** | Analyze / Evaluate | Advanced | "From the perspective of [stakeholder], evaluate [decision]. What are the tradeoffs?" |
| **Type D — Evidence Evaluation** | Evaluate | Advanced / Graduate | "Evaluate the claim that [statement]. What evidence supports or challenges this? What would you need to know to decide?" |
| **Type E — Reflection** | Understand / Apply | Any tier, Module 0 or Conclusion | "Reflect on how [concept] connects to your experience with [context]. What surprised you?" |

### Discussion Scaffolding by Tier
- **Introductory**: Provide sub-questions within the prompt. Specify word count explicitly.
- **Advanced**: Single scenario or question. Student determines analytical structure.
- **Graduate**: Open theoretical or professional question. No sub-questions. Peer critique expected.

### Peer Response Design
- Response should add new analysis, not just affirm
- Prompt the response type: "Engage with your classmate's reasoning — do you reach the same conclusion? What evidence would change your view?"
- At least 2 peer responses for higher-tier courses

### Peer Response Rubric Observability

When rubric criteria are used to grade peer responses, they should be observable and behavioral — meaning a TA can apply them by reading the student's text alone, without inferring tone or intent.

**Non-observable criteria (avoid as primary standard)**:
- "Responds respectfully to classmates"
- "Engages thoughtfully with the post"

**Observable criteria (recommended)**:
- "Identifies at least one specific claim from the classmate's post by quoting or paraphrasing it"
- "Offers a counter-example, alternative interpretation, or supporting evidence not present in the original post"
- "Poses a follow-up question that connects the classmate's idea to course content"

**TA test**: "Can a TA apply this criterion by reading the student's text alone, without inferring tone, attitude, or effort?"

**Note**: `rubric-creator` uses observable criteria as its default when generating discussion rubrics. IDs may override this for specific course contexts where process, presence, or community norms are the explicit learning goal.

---

## 10. Active Learning & Retrieval Practice

**Sources**: Roediger & Butler (2011); Dunlosky et al. (2013).

| Strategy | Canvas Implementation | Retention Benefit |
|---|---|---|
| **Retrieval practice** | Knowledge check after every lesson | High — testing > re-reading for retention |
| **Spaced practice** | Don't cluster all quizzes at end — one per module throughout | High — distributed practice beats massed |
| **Interleaving** | Mix question types and topics in quizzes | Moderate — improves transfer |
| **Elaborative interrogation** | Discussion prompts that ask "why" and "how" | Moderate |
| **Self-explanation** | Conclusion self-assessment reflection prompt | Moderate |

### Knowledge Check Principles
- Ungraded, unlimited attempts — low stakes, high frequency
- Immediate, explanatory feedback — not just correct/incorrect
- 5 questions per module (ASU standard) — can scale up for content-heavy modules
- Questions at Apply+ Bloom's — not just recall

---

## 11. Formative vs. Summative Balance

| Type | Purpose | Canvas Objects | Graded? |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Formative** | Check understanding, guide learning | Knowledge Check (quiz), Guided Practice (interactive), Discussion (some) | No (or low-stakes) |
| **Summative** | Evaluate MLO mastery | Create an Artifact (assignment), Graded Quiz, Discussion (graded) | Yes |

### ASU Gold Standard Balance per Module
- 1 formative knowledge check (ungraded quiz, 5 questions)
- 1 formative guided practice (interactive activity)
- 1 summative artifact (graded assignment with rubric)
- 1 graded discussion (every 2nd module, or per course design)

### Over-Assessment Warning Signs
- More than 3 graded items per module without strong pedagogical justification
- Every discussion is graded (discussion should sometimes be community-building, not always assessed)
- Quiz as the only assessment type across all modules (no authentic performance tasks)

---

## 12. Video and Audio Design

**Source**: Guo, Kim & Rubin (2014) — student engagement study across 6.9M video events.

### Optimal Video Length
- **6 minutes** — engagement drops sharply after 6 min for continuous video
- **Maximum 9 minutes** for complex topics with high engagement hooks
- For longer content: segment into 4–6 min clips, each with a clear sub-objective

### Video Structure (per segment)
1. **Hook** — surprising fact, case, question (30 sec)
2. **Objective** — what the student will be able to do (15 sec)
3. **Content** — core instruction (3–5 min)
4. **Check** — one embedded question or "pause and think" prompt (30 sec)
5. **Summary** — 3 key takeaways (30 sec)
6. **Bridge** — connect to next segment or next activity (15 sec)

### Audio Primer Design (Prepare to Learn page)
- 5 minutes, conversational tone — "Here's what's coming and why it matters"
- No technical depth — save that for the lecture video
- Faculty voice preferred — establishes instructor presence early
- Must have a transcript on the same page

### Production Hierarchy (engagement, highest to lowest)
1. Talking head + tablet/whiteboard drawing (Guo et al. — highest engagement)
2. Talking head + slide deck
3. Screencast with narration
4. Slides with audio only
5. Text-only (no video) — avoid as the sole instruction format

---

## 13. HPI Performance Diagnosis — Apply Before Section 1

Sections 1–12 cover **design** (how to build good instruction). This section covers **diagnosis** (why performance fails). Apply it *first* — whenever auditing, reviewing, or being asked why a course/module/learner is underperforming, diagnose the gap before prescribing design.

### Gilbert's Behavior Engineering Model (BEM)

Performance gaps have six possible causes. ~80% are **environment-side** — fix those before touching the individual.

| Side | Cell | Diagnostic question |
|---|---|---|
| **Environment** (fix first) | Information | Do learners have clear expectations, instructions, models, timely feedback? |
| | Instruments | Do they have the tools, materials, templates, scaffolds the task needs? |
| | Incentives | Do consequences/grading reward the target behavior, not punish it? |
| **Individual** (fix last) | Knowledge | Do they actually lack the skill/knowledge? |
| | Capacity | Can they physically/cognitively do it (load, accessibility, time)? |
| | Motives | Do they want to — is the work relevant, autonomy-supporting? |

Name the failing BEM cell(s) in every diagnosis. A finding of "students underperform" is incomplete until it names which cell.

### Mager & Pipe — Skill vs Will

Before recommending instruction, ask: **could the learner do it if their life depended on it?**
- **No → skill/knowledge gap** → instruction, practice, feedback are the fix.
- **Yes → will/environment gap** → instruction is the *wrong* fix. Look at incentives, clarity, task design, cognitive load. Adding more content to a will-gap wastes learner time.

### The Recommendation Contract

Every design recommendation this plugin makes must carry four parts — no taste-based advice:
1. **Performance gap** — what the learner cannot currently do, and the evidence for it.
2. **Data** — what in the course/Canvas/config shows the gap (verbatim quote, metric, missing element).
3. **Principle** — the named framework that predicts the fix works (BEM cell, Mager-Pipe branch, Backward Design, a Bloom mismatch, ARCS, CLT, SDT, a Hattie effect).
4. **Mechanism** — *why* the fix changes the behavior.

If a recommendation can't state all four, it is not ready to ship.

### Hattie Effect Sizes — Use as Decision Weights

When trading off where to spend limited build/revision effort, prefer high-leverage moves:
- Formative assessment ≈ d 0.90 · Feedback ≈ d 0.79 · Spaced/retrieval practice — high.
- Treat these as defaults to *add*; treat low-effect decoration as the first thing to *cut*.

### Kirkpatrick / Phillips — Name the Evaluation Level

When discussing whether a course "works," state which level the evidence speaks to: Reaction → Learning → Behavior → Results (→ ROI). Most course data is Reaction/Learning; do not claim Behavior/Results without behavior-change evidence.

### Terminal-Performance Test

Every course/module is **defective** if it lacks any of: (a) a stated terminal performance, (b) evidence that performance was reached, (c) a practice + feedback loop that develops it. Flag the missing piece by name.
