BoinoJulie CompFinal

INTEGRATING 21ST CENTURY LEARNING SKILLS 1
Integrating 21st Century Learning Skills and Virtual Reality into a CAD Course
Comprehensive Exam
Julie F. Boino
University of Oklahoma
Author Note
Julie Boino, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma.
Correspondence concerning this project should be addressed to Julie Boino, Department
of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma, 820 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, OK, 73109.
Email: julieboino@ou.edu
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Brief Overview................................................................................................................................ 5
Instructional Design Model......................................................................................................... 6
Subject Matter Experts ................................................................................................................ 8
Learning Domains and 21st Century Learning Skills .................................................................. 9
Virtual Reality........................................................................................................................... 10
Needs Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 12
Process of Research .................................................................................................................. 12
Results of Research ................................................................................................................... 13
Felt need. ............................................................................................................................... 16
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 16
Context Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 17
Orienting Context...................................................................................................................... 17
Instructional Context................................................................................................................. 18
Transfer Context ....................................................................................................................... 20
Learner Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 21
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 21
Research Methods ..................................................................................................................... 22
Results of Research ................................................................................................................... 22
General characteristics. ......................................................................................................... 23
Specific entry characteristics. ............................................................................................... 23
Academic information. ......................................................................................................... 24
Motivation and attitude. ........................................................................................................ 24
Design Implications .................................................................................................................. 25
Adult learners. ....................................................................................................................... 25
Culturally diverse learners. ................................................................................................... 26
Prerequisite knowledge. ........................................................................................................ 26
Task Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 27
Goal ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Learning Objectives .................................................................................................................. 28
Topic Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 30
Procedural Analysis .................................................................................................................. 38
Rational and Design Implications ............................................................................................. 43
Instructional Plan .......................................................................................................................... 44
Content Sequencing .................................................................................................................. 44

Instructional Strategies.............................................................................................................. 45
Constructivism. ..................................................................................................................... 46
Collaborative learning ....................................................................................................... 47
Cognitive apprenticeship .................................................................................................. 47
Motivation. ............................................................................................................................ 48
ARCS ................................................................................................................................ 49
Virtual reality in education. .................................................................................................. 50
Designing the Instructional Message ........................................................................................ 51
Class Period 1: Innovation Hub’s VR Space ........................................................................ 51
Class Period 2: Classroom in the Science, Math, and Engineering Building ....................... 54
Class Period 5: Innovation Hub’s VR Space ........................................................................ 67
Development of Instructional Materials ................................................................................... 68
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................. 69
Formative Evaluation Plan ........................................................................................................ 70
Summative Evaluation Plan ...................................................................................................... 71
References ..................................................................................................................................... 73
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 78
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix F.................................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix G ................................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix H ................................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix I .................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix J .................................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix K ................................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix L ................................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix N ................................................................................................................................. 101
Abstract
The intent of this instructional design document is to provide a plan to integrate 21st
century learning skills and virtual reality (VR) in to a course in the Computer-Aided Design
(CAD) program at a local community college. A needs assessment, context analysis, learner
analysis, and task analysis were conducted to ensure that the instructional content and skills to be
taught were applicable and designed for the intended learners. This project serves as the
submission item for the Comprehensive Examination for the Instructional Design and
Technology Program at the University of Oklahoma.
Keywords: 21st century learning skills, virtual reality, constructivism, collaborative
learning, cognitive apprenticeship, ARCS

Brief Overview
Central Oklahoma Community College (COCC) has recently launched an initiative
within its different departments to implement collaborative and student-centered learning
scenarios into the curricula. The goal of this initiative is to promote 21st century learnings skills,
such as critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration skills. The college has redesigned
several of its classrooms to be active learning classrooms. These classrooms are equipped with
visual displays and multimedia capabilities. COCC also has an Innovation Hub with
collaboration spaces and high-end technology resources including 3D printers, augmented reality
(AR) and virtual reality (VR) computer sets, and a fabrication lab. Additionally, the Innovation
Hub houses a computer lab with 25 iMacs for student use, all with the Abode Creative Suite,
Microsoft Office, and CAD software programs. COCC’s Innovative Learning and Professional
Development (IL&PD) Center has been tasked with implementing this initiative across the
college. IL&PD will provide professional development to the faculty with the goal of providing
innovative learning experiences to their students with the support of these new technology
resources.
Several professors expressed a desire to implement these new technologies and learning
strategies into their courses. Professor Kristopher Kinzie was particularly interested in
incorporating some of these new technologies and collaborative learning strategies into one of
his courses. Professor Kinzie is a professor in the Computer-Aided Design (CAD) program. This
program teaches students how to use CAD software in a variety of fields, such as engineering,
architecture, and construction. One of his courses, Applications in CAD, presents students with
learning situations that are typically found in industry settings. The topic for this course changes
each semester, allowing students to take the section more than once. For the Spring 2019
offering of this course, the content will be focused on designing floor plans for a home builder or
architecture firm. Professor Kinzie has partnered with Ed Hilliard, the Pre-Construction Manager
at a local home builder, to help generate practical problems and applications for his students to
work through.
Professor Kinzie spoke to the director of the IL&PD about his course. He felt that in the
current CAD program, students were not learning how design effective and functional floor
plans. They learn how to design floor plans, but not at a practical or operative level. The
upcoming topic in this Applications in CAD course had potential to address this problem. He felt
that his course would benefit from the use of virtual reality (VR) in order to allow students to
visualize floor plans better in order to understand their functionality. Professor Kinzie had also
never taught a class that focused on problem-based learning. Additionally, he had never used
collaboration strategies in one of his courses before. He had been wanting to, but he did not
know how to integrate these types of instruction into his course. After hearing Professor Kinzie’s
reasonings, the IL&PD director selected his course to be one of the initial courses to incorporate
collaborative learning and new technology. As a new instructional designer to IL&PD, I was
assigned to design and develop an instructional prototype, facilitation plan, and evaluation plan
for a learning module in Professor Kinzie’s class. I was given the autonomy to decide which
instructional approach to select, but the specific use of VR as supportive technology to the course
was required.
Instructional Design Model
Reiser (2001) defines the field of instructional design and technology as “the analysis of
learning and performance problems, and the design, development, implementation, evaluation
and management of instructional and non-instructional processes and resources intended to

improve learning and performance” (p. 53). Instructional design is intended to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of learning. It is the goal of an instructional designer to design and
develop instruction in an efficient and effective way (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp, 2013,
pp. 2-3). Instructional design is a systematic process that encompasses learning theories,
research, and systematic analysis. It starts with identifying a problem with performance and then
determining if instruction is a solution to the problem (Morrison et al., 2013, pp 6-7).
Instructional design is focused on intentional learning rather than teaching. Desired learning
outcomes require different methods of instruction, learning activities, and instructional materials
(Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005, pp. 2-3).
For this project, I used the instructional design model presented by Morrison, Ross,
Kalman, and Kemp (2013) (see Appendix A). The components of their instructional design
model are comprised of the instructional problems, the learner and context, task analysis,
instructional objectives, content sequencing, instructional strategies, designing the message,
development of the instruction, and the evaluation instruments (Morrison et al., 2013). Each of
these components will be explained throughout this project. This instructional design model also
includes processes that take place over the entire duration of an instructional design project.
These processes are planning and project management, support services, formative evaluation
and revision, implementation, summative evaluation, and confirmative evaluation (Morrison et
al., 2013). I chose to use this model due to its flexibility. It is designed in such a way in that it
does not have a designated starting or ending point (Morrison et al. 2013). The ongoing
processes that take place throughout the design provide support and a framework during the
project.
The instructional design model from Morrison et al. (2013) guides the design process to
answer four main questions, all of which will be addressed throughout this project.
1. For whom in the program developed?
2. What do you want the learners to learn or demonstrate?
3. How is the subject content or skill best learned?
4. How do you determine the extent to which learning is achieved? (p. 14)
Subject Matter Experts
For this project, I consulted three subject matter experts. A subject matter expert (SME)
is an individual who is “qualified to provide information about content and resources relating to
all aspects of the topic for which instruction is to be designed” (Morrison et al. 2013, p. 19).
Since I do not have experience in using AutoCAD 2019, designing and building floor plans, or
using VR systems, I needed to collaborate and work with individuals who were familiar with
these subjects. The three SMEs were integral in the instructional design process.
Kristopher Kinzie served as the SME for AutoCAD 2019 and designing floor plans.
Kristopher graduated from the University of Oklahoma’s School of Architecture in 2004 with a
bachelor’s degree in Environmental Design. He has worked for some of the nation’s largest
engineering and architecture design firms, filling roles as a drafter, designer, and CAD Manager.
He has attended the annual Autodesk University in Las Vegas multiple times, where he earned
the distinction of AutoCAD Expert. In 2015 Kristopher earned his Oklahoma real estate license
and began an interest in homebuilding. Currently, as the lead drafter for a local home builder,
Kristopher is an integral part of the team that develops and manages all new home plans.
Ed Hilliard’s background in home building and drafting qualified him as an SME in
building homes from floor plans and floor plan functionality. Ed is the Pre-Construction
Manager for a local home builder. He is responsible for plan design, drafting, estimating,
purchasing contracts, and logistically bringing customers’ house needs and wants to a complete,
detailed package that is ready to build. He has worked in the construction industry fulltime for
over 41 years. He started his career as a trim carpenter, building cabinets and trimming houses
for a home builder. Ed then started his own remodeling company a year later and started his own
home building company in 1982. He has always enjoyed bringing together the beauty of ideas,
design, architecture, operations, and construction process to create a finished project. He is
driven to find efficient logistic solutions, with products and people working together to bring
ideas to fruition. Ed enjoys consulting, teaching, and training new people who share his same
passion for home building and who are eager to learn in this industry.
John Lee served as the SME for using VR to view floor plans. John is the CEO and
founder of Rendering House, a visualization and digital marketing company for home sales. John
has worked at Rendering House since 2001 and is involved with the VR and AR services his
company offers to home builders and architects. John provided information on how VR and floor
plans work together. He has knowledge on VR software and the backend requirements needed.
Learning Domains and 21st Century Learning Skills
Bloom’s taxonomy classifies learning objectives and goals into three domains: cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor. The cognitive domain involves six levels of thinking: the lower-
order skills of remembering, understanding, and applying, and the higher-order skills of
analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Leonard, Noh, & Orey, 2007). The affective domain is
concerned with learners’ feelings, social development, and emotions (Martin & Reigeluth, 1999).
The psychomotor domain is focused on skills that are physical in nature, requiring physical
movements and motor skills (Romiszowski, 1999). Each of these three domains is present in this
instructional context; however, the focus will be on the cognitive and affective domains. The
psychomotor skills of using a computer are prerequisite skills the learners will have already
developed prior to Professor Kinzie’s course.
21st century learning skills include communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and
problem solving. These are the skills that businesses are looking for in their employees and are
encouraging schools to help learners to develop (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). These skills can be
divided between the cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal domains. 21st century learning
skills in the cognitive domain include “cognitive processes and strategies, knowledge, and
creativity,” with a focus on “critical thinking, information literacy, reasoning and argumentation,
and innovation” (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012, p. 4). Intrapersonal domain skills include self-
evaluation, work ethic, and intellectual openness, while interpersonal domain skills include
teamwork, collaboration, and leadership (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012, p. 4). These intrapersonal
and interpersonal skills a part of the affective domain. The 21st century learning skills that
leaners develop can be applied to situations outside of the classroom, such in the workplace. The
21st century learning skills that were focused on for Professor Kinzie’s learning module will be
explained in the Instructional Plan.
Virtual Reality
Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-generated environment where users experience a
simulated reality. It allows the user to immerse themselves into a simulated environment
(Portman, Natapov, & Fisher-Gewirtzman, 2015, p. 377). VR has a multitude of applications
including video games, home tours, simulations, and educational activities. For architecture and
floor plan design, it allows the designer to interact with a floor plan and explore it in a 3D
version, rather than just a 2D drawing (Portman et al., 2015). It provides the opportunity for team
members to collaborate on design ideas since they can all view it in the same VR environment.
VR also helps users to understand spatial conception and how to design interior spaces
effectively (Portman et al., 2015, p. 379).

Needs Assessment
Even though the IL&PD director allowed a learning module in Professor Kinzie’s course
to be improved as part of COCC’s initiative, a needs assessment was conducted to make sure that
instruction would lead to the desired outcome. Gagné, Wager, Golas, and Keller (2005) define a
need as “a discrepancy between a desired and current state of affairs” (p. 23). Several questions
needed to be answered about the need for the instruction such as, “What is the problem we are
asked to solve?” and “What is the purpose of the planned instruction?” (Morrison et al., p. 27). In
Professor Kinzie’s course, the importance that this course has for the students to be successful in
their future careers was also a significant factor (Gagné et al., 2005). Before instruction was
designed and developed for the learning module in the Applications in CAD course, we needed
to determine if and where any gaps were present. If gaps were not found, a new course would
then need to be selected as part of the initiative.
A needs assessment helps identify any discrepancies that exist and whether these
discrepancies warrant instructional intervention. It pinpoints the critical needs of the leaners and
the problems that are affecting their performance (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 30). It helps to
determine if instruction would be the solution to the problem, as well as what type of instruction
would be appropriate in the learning situation.
Process of Research
In order to determine that a need existed, research was conducted to pinpoint the need.
Professor Kinzie’s desire to improve the skills and performance of his students and Mr.
Hilliard’s interest in having drafting employees with more practical skills are examples of felt
needs, which will be explained below. Morrison et al. (2013) point out that “Felt needs are best
identified through interview and questionnaires” (p. 33), which are the methods I used to conduct
the needs assessment. I interviewed Professor Kinzie about his observations and insights on
students’ ability to design effective and functional floor plans (Appendix B). I also interviewed
Mr. Hilliard about his observations on his drafting employees and their skills (Appendix C). One
of Mr. Hilliard’s drafting employees graduated from the Computer-Aided Design program at
COCC. I designed a brief questionnaire for him to answer about his experiences in the CAD
program (Appendix D).
Results of Research
After conducting the interviews and receiving back the questionnaire, it was evident that
a gap did exist, and that the gap could be addressed through instruction. First, Professor Kinzie
and I met to discuss his course and why he wanted to incorporate new technology and different
learning approaches into it. Professor Kinzie mentioned that students have typically worked only
individually, not in groups or with a partner. From his experience, he knows working for a home
builder or architectural firm is not individual work. Drafters often work on a team, as well as
with other employees in the company, such as the interior designer or the construction managers.
It was important for Professor Kinzie that his students learned to collaborate and work together
to solve problems since these are skills they will need in their future jobs. He also wanted the
instruction to present authentic scenarios for the students to experience.
Currently, students are taught how to design floor plans and adhere to design aspects in
relation to engineering. They develop the skills to create a floor plan in CAD software. However,
they have never been taught all the variables that make a floor plan functional for people to live
in. There are residential building code requirements, as well as architectural standards different
home builders have adopted. He believed that teaching these requirements and standards will
improve the learners’ ability to design more functional floor plans in CAD software. In addition,
Professor Kinzie explained that students are often unable to visualize the functionality and
livability of floor plans when viewing them in only in 2D formats, either printed or on their
computer screen. They have never seen the floor plans they have designed in any other format.
Both of these issues have caused the learners to not be able to understand whether a floor plan
they have designed would be livable. Professor Kinzie saw this as an issue that becomes more
relevant once these students graduate and get jobs in the drafting and design field. They are able
to design floor plans in CAD software, but their floor plans might not be buildable, or sellable
once built. He felt that adding a VR component would help the students analyze the flow and
functionality of floor plans in order to determine and understand their effectiveness. They would
be to see how the rooms are laid out and how the floor plan flows.
Next, I focused on Mr. Hilliard’s involvement in Professor Kinzie’s course. He described
to me Mr. Hilliard’s involvement in his course and the reasons behind it. Professor Kinzie
explained to me that he worked for Mr. Hilliard in the past. They still communicated about
industry-related matters. Professor Kinzie sent several of his students to Mr. Hilliard for
internship and job opportunities. Mr. Hilliard is also serving as a consultant to the upcoming
Spring 2019 offering of the Applications in CAD course. Recently, Mr. Hilliard spoke with
Professor Kinzie about an issue that he had noticed when trying to hire on an additional
draftsperson for the home builder. I spoke with Mr. Hilliard to learn more about this issue. He
told me that he has been interviewing candidates to hire on as an additional draftsperson due to
the volume of homes the builder plans on building in the next year. However, the candidates he
had interviewed so far did not have much experience in designing floor plans following code
requirements and builder standards. They are all proficient in using CAD software, but they have
never designed floor plans based on certain guidelines, nor do they have an understanding of
these requirements or why they need to be followed. Mr. Hilliard brought this issue up to
Professor Kinzie to see if there was a way for these skills to be incorporated into one of the
courses in the CAD program. He needs to hire a draftsperson that already has knowledge and
proficiency in this area.
Mr. Hilliard’s current draftsman, Kaleb, had similar problems that are present in the
candidates he has been interviewing. Kaleb graduated from the COCC CAD program two years
ago. He completed the questionnaire (Appendix D) about his experience, and his answers further
indicated that there was a gap that needed to be addressed. Kaleb was hired by Mr. Hilliard to
work at the home builder a few months after graduation. He explained that the program did a
great job of teaching him how to use CAD software to create floor plans, but it lacked some of
the practical aspects of designing floor plans. When he started, he was not aware of the many
code requirements that needed to be incorporated into a floor plan. He also did not realize that
most home builders had developed architectural standards for their floor plans. Mr. Hilliard was
able to teach Kaleb these components when he was hired on since it was a slow time in the home
building cycle. However, this will not be possible to do for the new draftsperson to be hired since
business has picked up. He or she needs to already be skilled in designing floor plans with these
requirements. Kaleb suggested that these requirements be added to the courses, so students are
more prepared for jobs after graduation. He also mentioned that once a floor plan actually gets
built for the first time, there are generally always aspects of it that should have been designed a
different way, or that don’t build out the way they were designed to. It would help if the learners
could somehow visualize their floor plans in a different format to be able to analyze them for
these aspects.
Felt need. The responses from Professor Kinzie, Mr. Hilliard, and his draftsman, Kaleb,
indicated that they believed adding more collaborative and problem-based strategies and adding
a VR element into the instruction would be beneficial to the learners. If the learners want a career
in being a draftsperson for a home builder or architect, they need to have knowledge of how to
design functional floor plans that meet or exceed the building codes in their area. These opinions
are called felt needs. Felt needs are those desires an individual has to improve the performance of
the intended leaners (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 30). From the start of the talks with the IL&PD,
Professor Kinzie had a strong desire to incorporate new technology, specifically the use of VR,
into his course. He also felt the need to incorporate authentic scenarios and collaboration into the
instruction. Mr. Hilliard also needs to be able to hire employees who already have the
understanding and skills of designing effective floor plans.
Recommendations
Based on the needs assessment, I concluded that there was a need that warranted
instructional intervention. The students enrolled in the CAD program at COCC were not
developing the skills and understanding needed to design a functional and efficient floor plan
using CAD software. This lack of skills and understanding is the result of an absence of
instruction in this area. The students have not been able to practice and develop these skills
because they have not been given instruction on them. A module in Professor Kinzie’s
Applications in CAD course would be an applicable setting to implement this new instruction. I
informed the IL&PD director that applying the use of technology support and incorporating 21st
learning skills into Professor Kinzie’s class would be able to address the need presented.
Context Analysis
The actual setting and context of the instruction and where it will take place are important
factors when deciding on the instructional strategy. A contextual analysis provides information
about the instructional environment and how it will affect how the instruction is designed,
(Morrison et al., 2013). There are three types of context that Morrison et al. (2013) describe the
are necessary when designing instruction: orienting context, instructional context, and transfer
context.
Orienting Context
The orienting context focuses on the learners’ goals, their perceived utility of instruction,
and their perceptions of accountability (Morrison et al., 2013, pp. 61-62). Knowing the goal that
the learners have for taking this course is important. In this case, even though Applications in
CAD is a required course, the topic for the course changes each semester. Students who enroll
for Professor Kinzie’s Spring 2019 offering should have a goal of learning how design functional
floor plans. This ties into how the students perceive the usefulness of the instruction. If the
students do not plan on designing floor plans in their career, they will not see this instruction as
being worth taking. The amount of which the learners perceive the accountability of the content
in the course also needs to be considered. If the students do not believe that the instruction will
lead to a related job upon graduation, or if the course activities do not count towards their grade,
they will be less likely to transfer knowledge from the course (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 62). The
specific module for this instructional plan is primarily concerned with the learners’ developing
skills and understanding to design effective floor plans, which will be applicable in future careers
in drafting or plan design. More on the perceptions of the learners and their characteristics will
be expanded upon in the Learner Analysis.

Instructional Context
The instructional context includes all the information about the learning environment, the
tools to be used, and the schedule of instruction (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 62). This class takes
place once a week, on Thursday nights from 5:30pm to 8:10pm. The primary location of
Professor Kinzie’s course will be on the COCC main campus in the Science, Math, and
Engineering building. The classroom will be on the 3rd floor, right off the stairs on the west side
of the building. This instructional module will be spread across five class periods towards the
beginning of the semester. Three classes will take place in classroom in the Science, Math, and
Engineering building, and two classes will be held in the Innovation Hub’s VR space. This is
explained further in the Instructional Plan section.
For certain classes, when the VR computer sets will be used, the class will be held in the
Innovation Hub, which is located on the main campus in the same building as the library.
Professor Kinzie can reserve the area where the VR computer sets are located on the dates he
plans on using them. This will allow all his students the opportunity to use the VR sets during the
class hours, without having to share the sets with students outside his class during this time. He
has also requested that one of the Innovation Hub’s technology specialists demonstrate how to
use the VR computer sets to his class during their first class in the Hub.
The Innovation Hub has three sets of the Oculus Rift, a VR system. Each system is
connected to a Windows PCs that meets the requirements necessary to run the Oculus Rift
system. Each Oculus Rift system includes a headset, two touch controllers, and two sensors. The
headset is what the user wears to view a game or experience. The touch controllers allow the user
to move through the experience, and the sensors detect the user’s location and movement within
the experience (Facebook Technologies, LLC., n.d.). These components all work together to
create a virtual experience for the user.
Rendering House is an interactive visualization and digital marketing company. They
design and generate floor plan renderings and interactive models for home builders and
architects, using a variety of software including VR. Mr. Hilliard’s home builder uses Rendering
Houses’ services, and he put us in touch with their CEO, John Lee. We spoke with John about
the VR services his company provides. Their VR service operates on the Oculus Rift. They can
model a floor plan in VR so that users can visualize how the space functions and flows. Their
software can also display home finishes, such as flooring, cabinet, and paint choices, which are
selectable using the Oculus Rift’s touch controllers. We asked John if Rendering House would
partner with us for Professor Kinzie’s class. He agreed to have Rendering House generate the
students’ floor plans for Professor Kinzie’s class. John’s visual design team will use the CAD
files designed by the students to render them into the VR software. Professor Kinzie will send
John the CAD files his students design. Rendering House will turn the 2D CAD files of the floor
plans into scalable, walkable floor plans in VR. It will take one week for John’s team to generate
the floor plans in VR. They will choose stock flooring, cabinet, and paint colors for all the plans.
The main CAD software program the students will be using is AutoCAD 2019.
AutoCAD 2019 is an Autodesk product. It is an CAD software with a variety of drafting and
drawing tools for architecture, engineering, and construction (Autodesk Inc., n.d.). AutoCAD
offers a free subscription to college students, so the students will not have to purchase the
software. Additionally, all the computers in the Innovation Hub’s computer lab have AutoCAD
2019 installed. Students can reserve one the computers ahead of time to ensure that one will be
available for use if they need it. We wanted to make sure all the students had access to the
software program used in the class.
Transfer Context
The transfer context “considers the opportunities for transferring the knowledge and
skills to new situations” (Morrison et al. 2013, p. 61). The instruction needs to provide ways for
the learners to apply their new knowledge and skills. They need to believe that they will be able
to apply the skills and knowledge learned in this class towards a job. Since the students will be
presented with various scenarios on designing functional floor plans, they will have many
opportunities for application of their newly acquired skills and knowledge. This specific offering
of the course is focused on designing efficient floor plans for a home builder. They also need to
have access to the practice using the tools, in this case AutoCAD 2019, that are needed to apply
their skills (Morrison et al. 2013, p. 61). The instruction will be focused on how to design
effective and functional floor plans using AutoCAD 2019. The students can use AutoCAD 2019
on their own computers or on the computers in the Innovation Hub’s computer lab.
Learner Analysis
Before the design and development of the instructional methods and materials, it is
essential to understand and define the characteristics of the learners for which the instruction is
intended. Various learner characteristics can be identified through a learner analysis (Morrison et
al, 2013). The learner analysis answers the question, “For whom is the program developed?”
(Morrison et al, 2013, p. 14). The results of a learner analysis pinpoint the critical characteristics
needed in order to design effective instruction. These characteristics help identify the appropriate
topics for instruction and the level at which those topics are taught. Learner characteristics
determine which instructional strategies are most appropriate for the group of learners, and they
also reveal any prerequisite knowledge the learners have. Learner motivation and attitudes are
important to consider, as well as are the personal, social, and demographic information about the
learners (Morrison et al., 2013).
Research Questions
Professor Kinzie and I needed to make sure that we understood what type of learners
would be in his upcoming course. We needed information on the learners before we determined
the level and complexity of content that needed to be taught. The learner characteristics would
also reveal an appropriate instructional approach to use for these learners. The following
questions were key in answering in order to ensure the design and development of the learning
module was effective for the intended learners:
1. What are the general characteristics of the learners?
2. What are the learners’ experience levels with AutoCAD 2019?
3. Have the learners designed floor plans in AutoCAD 2019 before?

4. What is their motivation for enrolling in the Spring 2019 section of Applications in
AutoCAD?
Research Methods
In order to answer these questions, a survey was created for the students enrolled in
Professor Kinzie’s upcoming course (Appendix E). The program coordinator of the CAD
program emailed the survey to the enrolled students on behalf of Professor Kinzie. The survey
was developed using Qualtrics, a web-based survey program the college subscribes to and uses.
A link to the survey was sent by email to the students’ COCC email accounts, with directions for
the students to complete the survey within 10 days. The survey answers were anonymous to
protect the identity of each student and to encourage the students to complete the survey without
fear of any repercussions for their answers.
Student records were also looked at to obtain academic information about each of the
students. The program coordinator acquired this information for us from the school’s
administration office. In order to protect the student’s identity, names were removed from all
records. This was done to ensure each of the students would be treated fairly, without bias.
Professor Kinzie already knew many of the students in the CAD program, and we did not want
this to interfere with our ability to accurately assess the students’ information.
Results of Research
The course capacity of Applications in CAD is 18 students. At the time the survey was
sent out, all 18 spots had been filled. All 18 students completed the survey within the allotted
timeframe. The program coordinator was able to obtain the necessary student records from the
administration office. The student records contained their transcripts and each student’s projected
program of study.
General characteristics. The surveys completed by the students provided their general
characteristics. General characteristics include the learners’ age, ethnicity, gender, education, and
work experience (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 53). Of the 18 students enrolled in the course, four
students are in between the ages of 18 to 24, 11 students are age 25 to 30, two students are age
31 to 35, and one student is between the age of 41 to 45. Ten students identified as male, six
identified as female, one identified as non-binary, and one student preferred not to answer. Eight
students are Hispanic / Latino, five students are White / Caucasian, four are Asian, and one
student is two or more ethnicities. There are three English as a Second Language (ESL) students;
two students’ first language is Spanish, and one student’s first language is Mandarin Chinese.
Twelve of the students have completed between 19 and 24 hours, three students have completed
13 to 18 hours, and three students have completed 31 – 36 hours. 12 students currently work full-
time, and the other six students work part-time. Occupations for the students vary: three are
baristas, three are servers, four work in retail, four work in an office doing administrative work,
two work in the school’s library, one student is a tutor, and one student is a real estate agent.
Specific entry characteristics. The surveys also identified the special entry
characteristics of the students. Special entry characteristics are “prerequisite skills and attitudes
that learners must possess to benefit from the training” (Morrison et al. 2013, p. 53). It is
important to know how much the learners already know and understand about the topic before
design the instruction. All 18 students indicated that they had used AutoCAD 2019 before and all
18 students had used it to design floor plans. Fifteen students answered that their skill level in
using AutoCAD 2019 was intermediate, two answered as advanced, and one answered as expert.
These special entry characteristics were important factors that will be used in the task analysis to
follow.
Academic information. The student records obtained from the administration office
provided the academic information on the students. Academic information can include the
grades, classes completed, test scores, and grade point averages (Morrison et at., 2013, p. 55).
The student records we used were the transcripts and programs of study for each of the learners.
Seeing a list of the courses each student has already completed gave us an idea of the skill level
the students will have coming into Professor Kinzie’s course. Professor Kinzie pointed out that
each student had earned either a grade of an A or a B in his course’s two prerequisite class,
Engineering Principles and Computer-Aided Design (CAD). This gave us an indication that the
students should already be proficient in using AutoCAD 2019, which aligned with their survey
responses. The students’ programs of study outlined the courses each student planned on taking
in the CAD program. Six of the students had already completed a different section of the
Applications in CAD course.
Motivation and attitude. Learners’ motivation and their attitude are important factors
that need to be considered when designing instruction. A learner’s motivation can be “considered
to be the most important determinant of success” (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 55). If a learner is not
motivated, he or she will not be as successful in developing the skills as those learners who are
more motivated to learn the content. Answers to the question on why each student enrolled in the
Spring 2019 section of Applications in CAD give some insight into the level of motivation the
students will come into the course with. Several students had similar answers. Eight students
answered that the topic seemed interesting. Six students expressed that working at a home
builder or architecture firm was something that they were thinking about doing as a career, so
they wanted to see if they enjoyed doing that type of work in this class. Two students answered
that they were taking the course since at least one section of it was required. Two students
responded that they had taken a class with Professor Kinzie previously and enjoyed the class and
wanted to take another course with him. These answers show a range of potential motivation
within the students. Ways to engage and motivate the students will be addressed in the
instructional plan.
The attitude of the learners towards the topic is different than their motivation, but the
two are related. Learner’s attitude refers to their perceived success in the course or with the topic
(Morrison et al., 2013). They need to have confidence in their abilities and believe they will
succeed. Based on their survey answers to their skill level in AutoCAD, we inferred that the
students will be confident in their abilities since they all answered that their skills were
intermediate or above. However, methods for encouraging and maintaining a positive attitude
towards the topic were used and will be further discussed in the instructional plan.
Design Implications
Adult learners. Based on the ages of the learners, they can all be considered adult
learners. Adult learners have different expectations in the classroom than younger students. They
want to know what will be expected of them and how the course will be beneficial to them
(Morrison et al., 2013, p. 58). The objectives for this learning module will be explicitly
communicated to the students upfront. Examples and references will be provided to show the
students how the content is relevant to their situations. Adult learners want a professor who is
knowledgeable and someone they can respect, as well as someone who is more of a facilitator
rather than a lecturer (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 58). Professor Kinzie has extensive experience in
this subject matter and will act as a guide to the students’ skill development and understanding.
Adults also have experiences that contribute to class discussions and their understanding of the
content. These experiences will help them relate to the new content being taught (Morrison et al.
2013, p. 58).
Culturally diverse learners. The ethnic backgrounds of the students are varied, with
several different ethnicities represented. Bias-free activities and materials will need to be
selected in order to be inclusive towards all the students (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 57). Consistent
language and terms will be used throughout the course to make sure all students have the same
understanding of the content. Professor Kinzie will work closely with the students and will
engage the students in conversation to help them learn. The learning will be situated in authentic
examples, so the students can relate the content to their own personal situations (Morrison et al,
2013. P. 57).
Prerequisite knowledge. Since each student has already completed the two prerequisite
courses and has used AutoCAD 2019 before, important prerequisite knowledge existed. This
knowledge determined the level and breadth at which the content needed to be taught. It helped
to establish the level of difficulty of the instruction (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 53). Professor
Kinzie will not need to spend class time instructing the students on content they have already
learned. Instead, the instruction will build upon the skills the students already possess.
Task Analysis
In order to determine what content was needed to address the gap found in the needs
analysis, a task analysis was conducted with Professor Kinzie. A task analysis is a “collection of
procedures for analyzing the information needed to achieve the objectives” (Morrison et al.,
2013, p. 438). A task analysis is conducted with the SME(s) since most instructional designers
are not familiar with the content being instructed. It requires the SME to explain and work
through the various steps of the process. The task analysis identifies the content that is needed
for the instruction to solve the performance need (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 74). The SME must
provide accurate steps and information so that the instruction given to the students is correct. The
learner analysis also influences the content needed for the task analysis. Their prerequisite
knowledge and background provide a starting point for the task analysis (Morrison et al., 2013,
p. 74). This ensures that the appropriate level of instruction is given to the students. Two types of
task analysis were conducted for the instructional module: a topic analysis and a procedural
analysis. A topic analysis defines cognitive knowledge; a procedural analysis is comprised of
cognitive sequences in a series of steps (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 75). These will be explained
further in this section.
The following questions posed by Morrison et al. (2013) were considered during the task
analysis:
1. What skills and information are necessary to address the specific needs?
2. What knowledge does the expert have that is essential for the task?
3. What information do I need to teach a concept?
4. How is a procedure analyzed to identify its components and then to sequence the
actions required? (p. 73)

Goal
Before the task analysis began, we first needed to identify the goal of the instruction. The
goal of the instruction helped guide the task analysis to be focused on the correct content. The
goal of the learning module in Professor Kinzie’s Applications in CAD course is for students to
be able to design functional and efficient floor plans using AutoCAD 2019 and following
building code requirements and architectural standards. They need to be able to analyze floor
plans to determine if any changes or improvements need to be made to them in regard to building
code requirements, architectural standards, or flow and livability. Students need to develop and
practice 21st century learning skills of collaboration, critical thinking, and problem solving.
Learning Objectives
Learning objectives are developed from the results of the task analysis. Learning
objectives “provide a framework for devising ways to evaluate student learning” (Morrison et al.,
2013, p. 102). They outline the observable performance of the students. Learning objectives also
communicate the intention of the instruction and what the learner should be able to do or know
after the instruction (Gagné et al., 2005). Learning objectives answer the question, “What do you
want the learners to learn or demonstrate?” (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 14). Cognitive learning
objectives encompass the intellectual aspects of learning, from the lowest level skill of
knowledge, to the higher-level skills of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation (Morrison et al, 2013, pp. 102-103). Morrison et al. (2013) recommend that learning
objectives include an action verb and the subject-content reference, as well as an optional
performance standard. The action verb explains how the learner is to complete the performance.
The subject-content reference is the focus of the action verb, such the product the students will
produce or the skill they will demonstrate. The performance standard is the minimum level of
acceptable performance by the learner (Morrison et al., 2013).
Similarly, there are five components suggested by Gagné et al. (2005) that are need in
order to develop learning objectives that communicate:
1. Situation
2. The type of learning being performed
3. The content or object of the performance
4. The observable part of the behavior
5. The tools, constraints or special conditions applied to the performance (p. 134)
The situation is the setting or contextual environment the leaner will perform the task. The type
of learning being performed correlates to a learned capability verb. This verb communicates
what the learners need to be able to do. The content or object of the performance “contains the
new content to be learned” (Gagné et al., 2005, p. 136). The observable part of the behavior is
the action verb that explains how the students need to complete the performance. The tools,
constraints, or special conditions are those factors such as specific software to be used or
conditions under which the performance must be conducted (Gagné et al., 2005).
For Professor Kinzie’s instructional module, the goal of the instruction and the task
analysis described below indicated that the learners need to develop the cognitive skills of
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The prerequisite knowledge of the learners
included knowledge and comprehension of AutoCAD and the elements of a floor plan; therefore,
the learning objectives did not need to reflect on these skills. Rather, the focus of the instruction
and the objectives needed to be on the higher-order skills. These higher-order skills are also
connected to the 21st century learning skills of critical thinking and problem solving. The
learning objectives criteria proposed by both Morrison et al. (2013) and Gagné et al. (2005) were
applied when developing the learning objectives for this learning module.
Based on the goal of this instructional module, as well as on the task analysis described
below, the following two objectives were developed for the instruction:
1. Given an already designed floor plan, the learner will evaluate the floor plan for
functionality and effectiveness based on architectural standards and residential
building code requirements, providing written rationale for their findings.
(Analysis and Evaluation)
2. Given homesite lot specifications and floor plan specifications, the learner will
design a floor plan in AutoCAD 2019 by applying architectural standards and
residential building code requirements. (Application and Synthesis)
Topic Analysis
A topic analysis helps “define the facts, concepts, principles, and rules that will make up
the final instruction” (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 77). It distinguishes what content needs to be the
instruction’s focus as well as the structure of the different elements. Facts are what the learners
need to focus on in order to generate an understanding. Concepts are groupings of similar
objects, and the relationship between concepts are described by principles and rules (Morrison et
al., 2013, pp. 75-76). A topic analysis needed to be conducted for this learning module to
determine the content that needed to be included in the instruction.
For the topic analysis for the learning module in Professor Kinzie’s Application in CAD
course, I asked him to describe all the different components that make up a complete floor plan.
These are the facts and concepts that the learners will need to know to incorporate into a floor
plan. Even though the students have designed floor plans in other CAD courses, these are the
elements that are essential for a floor plan to be functional and livable. The topic analysis
includes residential building code requirements that are applicable to plan design (Appendix F),
as well as architectural standards developed by Mr. Hilliard’s home builder (Appendix G). These
requirements and standards are key in ensuring a floor plan will be well-designed and buildable.
Next, he grouped the related facts and concepts together. We then arranged them into a cohesive
and meaningful order. We also determined any perquisite knowledge the students need to have.
Objective 1: Given an already designed floor plan, the learner will evaluate the floor plan for
functionality and effectiveness based on architectural standards and residential building code
requirements, providing written rationale for their findings.
Prerequisites
1. Students will be able to define the term homesite lot and related terms.
2. Students will be able to define the term interior room and related terms.
3. Students will be able to define the term interior space and related terms.
4. Students will be able to define the term exterior space and related terms.
5. Students will be able to define the term door and related terms.
6. Students will be able to define the term window and related terms.
1. Homesite Lot
a. Depth of lot, measured in feet
i. Floor plan must be at least 20 ft from front lot line

b. Width of lot, measured in feet
i. Floor plan must be at least 5 ft from the side lot lines
c. Utility Easements
i. Electric lines
ii. Water lines
iii. Cable lines
iv. Sanitary sewer lines
v. Floor plan must be at least 14 ft from any utility easements on the back of
the house
2. Floor plan specifications, as specified by home builder or architect
a. Square footage
b. Number of bedrooms
c. Number of bathrooms
d. Number of stories
e. Number of garage spaces
f. Width of plan
3. Interior Rooms
a. Bedrooms
i. Master
1. Attached Master Suite
ii. Secondary
1. Minimum size: 11 ft by 10 ft 6 in.
2. Closet
a. Minimum depth: 2 ft 4 in.
b. Clothes hanging rods
b. Bathrooms
i. Master Suite
1. Shower stall
a. Minimum size: 900 square inches
b. Must have at least 23 in. clearance area in front of opening
2. Bathtub
3. Water Closet
a. Toilet
i. Must have at least 21 in. clearance area in front of
toilet
ii. Must have at least 18 in. from the middle of toilet to
nearest wall
b. Head knocker (cabinet) over toilet
4. Vanity
a. Minimum depth: 21 in.
b. Two sinks
i. Must be at least 30 in. in between drains
ii. Center of drain must be at least 15 in. away from
any walls
c. Cabinet storage
5. Closet
b. Clothes hanging rods
c. Shoe shelves
ii. Secondary
1. Minimum size: 42 sq. ft
2. Shower/bathtub combo
a. Must have at least 23 in. clearance area in front of opening
3. Toilet
a. Must have at least 21 in. clearance area in front of toilet
b. Must have at least 18 in. from the middle of toilet to nearest
wall
4. Head knocker above toilet
5. Vanity
a. Minimum depth: 21 in.
b. Sink (two if possible)
i. Must be at least 30 in. in between drains
ii. Center of drain must be at least 15 in. away from
any walls
c. Cabinet storage
iii. Powder/Half
2. Toilet
a. Must have at least 21 in. clearance area in front of toilet

b. Must have at least 18 in. from the middle of toilet to nearest
wall or vanity
4. Pedestal sink
c. Kitchen
i. Island
2. Must have at least 36 in. clearance area around all sides
ii. Sink
iii. Pantry
1. Must have at least 5 shelves
iv. Oven, cooktop, or slide-in range
1. Must have at least 12 in. counterspace on one side, 15 in. on other
side
v. Microwave
vi. Dishwasher
vii. Refrigerator space
viii. Upper and lower cabinet storage with drawers
d. Dining
e. Utility
i. Minimum width: 5 ft 6 in.
ii. Upper cabinets
1. Drip rod when possible

iii. Washer and dryer stall
iv. Mud bench
f. Living
i. Fireplace
4. Interior spaces
a. Hallways
i. Minimum width: 36 in. wide, but should be 42 in. wide when possible
b. Closets
i. Linen
b. 5 shelves
ii. Coat
b. Hanging rods
c. Stairs
i. Minimum width: 36 in.
ii. Minimum headroom: 6 ft 8 in.
iii. Maximum riser height: 7.75 in.
iv. Minimum step depth: 10 in.
v. Handrails
1. Minimum grip size: 1.25 in.
2. Maximum grip size: 2.25 in
3. Minimum height: 34 in.

4. Maximum height: 38 in.
d. Entry
i. Minimum width: 60 in.
5. Exterior spaces
a. Front Porch
b. Back Patio
c. Garage
i. Minimum depth: 21 ft.
ii. Minimum width of 2 car garage door: 16 ft
iii. Minimum width of 1 garage door: 8 ft
6. Doors
a. Direction of swing
b. Minimum width: 2 ft 4 in.
c. Minimum height: 6 ft 8 in.
7. Windows
a. One operable window per bedroom
b. Fixed
c. Single-hung
d. Tempered
i. Windows must be tempered if within a 2 ft radius from a door
ii. Windows must be tempered if less than 18 in. from floor on the first floor
iii. Windows must be tempered if less than 25 in. from floor on the second
floor
iv. All bathroom windows must be tempered
Procedural Analysis
In addition to the topic analysis, a procedural task analysis was also necessary to
complete for the instructional module. A procedural analysis identifies all the steps required to
complete a task. It focuses on observable tasks, as well as the unobservable, cognitive tasks that
take place. The SME walks the instructional designer through the all steps, in the environment
the task in performed (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 80). The procedural analysis identifies the actions
that leaners must perform and organizes them into a logical sequence.
Although the students have designed floor plans in AutoCAD 2019 previously, they have
only done so in a way as to become familiar with the different tools within the software and to
get an understanding of basic floor plan components. They have not designed floor plans in a
functional approach before. As such, Professor Kinzie will not be teaching them how to use the
AutoCAD 2019 software or the function of the individual tools. Instead, he will be teaching the
various steps that need to be completed to design an efficient floor plan for someone to live in.
For this instructional module, Professor Kinzie will be able to observe the students move from
step to step; however, he will not be able to observe the cognitive process that takes place within
the student during each step. That process will be only evident through the decisions each student
makes when designing a floor plan.
Professor Kinzie went through how to design a floor plan step-by-step with me, keeping
in mind the learners’ prerequisite knowledge. He was able to perform the task analysis in the
actual environment, using AutoCAD 2019. We utilized the facts and concepts from the topic
analysis to make sure all the required content was included.

Objective 2: Given homesite lot specifications and floor plan specifications, the learner will
design a floor plan in AutoCAD 2019 by applying architectural standards and residential
building code requirements.
Prerequisites:
1. Students will know how to create new files in AutoCAD 2019.
2. Students will know which tools to use in AutoCAD 2019 to design a floor plan.
3. Students will know how to dimension floor plan components in AutoCAD 2019.
1. Acquire the architectural standards list from home builder or architect.
2. Acquire the most recent version of the International Residential Code (IRC) for One- and
Two-Family Dwellings.
3. Open AutoCAD 2019 on computer.
a. Create a new .dwg file.
b. Use the preloaded template named acad.dwt.
4. Given the homesite lot specifications, draw a buildable homesite area.
a. Lot width
i. Add the width dimension in feet and inches
b. Lot depth
i. Add the depth dimension in feet and inches
c. Utility easements
5. Given the floor plan specifications, draw a buildable floor plan outline to use as a guide
for laying out rooms and spaces.

6. Within in the buildable floor plan area, draw the exterior rooms and spaces that have
minimum dimensions, referring to the architectural standards list and IRC for design
requirements.
a. Garage
7. Within the buildable floor plan area, draw the interior rooms and spaces that have
requirements.
a. Master bedroom
i. Master Suite
1. Shower stall
2. Bathtub
3. Water Closet
a. Toilet
b. Head knocker over toilet
4. Vanity
a. Two sinks
b. Cabinet storage
5. Closet
a. Clothes hanging rods
b. Shoe shelves
b. Secondary bedrooms
i. Closet
1. Clothes hanging rods

c. Bathrooms
i. Secondary
1. Shower/bathtub combo
2. Toilet
4. Vanity
a. Sink (two if possible)
b. Cabinet storage
ii. Powder/Half
1. Toilet
3. Pedestal sink
d. Utility
i. Upper cabinets
1. Drip rod when possible
ii. Washer and dryer stall
iii. Mud bench
e. Hallways
f. Closets
i. Linen
1. Shelves
ii. Coat
1. Hanging rods
g. Stairs
h. Entry
8. Draw the interior rooms and spaces that do not have minimum dimensions in remaining
available floor plan space, referring to the architectural standards list and IRC for design
requirements.
a. Kitchen
i. Island
ii. Sink
iii. Pantry
1. Shelves
iv. Oven, cooktop, or slide-in range
v. Microwave
vi. Dishwasher
vii. Refrigerator stall
viii. Upper and lower cabinet storage with drawers
b. Dining
c. Living
i. Fireplace
9. Draw the exterior rooms and spaces that do not have minimum dimensions in remaining
available floor plan space, referring to the architectural standards list and IRC for design
requirements.
a. Front porch
b. Back patio
10. Draw in doors, referring to the architectural standards list and IRC for design
requirements.
11. Draw in windows, referring to the architectural standards list and IRC for design
requirements.
12. Add a name and label on each room.
13. Add dimensions in feet and inches for each room and space.
14. Add dimensions in feet and inches for total floor plan depth and width.
15. Arrange the final floor plan on the buildable area, referring to the architectural standards
list and IRC for design requirements.
16. Save .dwg file.
Rational and Design Implications
The task analysis is a crucial element of the instructional design process. For the
instructional module in Professor Kinzie’s class, the topic analysis and procedural analyses
provided the content structure for the instruction. They both identified the required content for
the instruction, as well as a starting point to plan how to the content should be taught. The topic
analysis was needed to classify the required content into related principles, which was then used
to ensure the procedural analysis covered all the required content. The procedural analysis
outlined the steps that needed to be taught to the learners. The analyses were used to develop the
learning objectives. The learning objectives reflect the instruction that needs to be taught and are
focused on addressing the performance gap. The learning objectives helped to indicate the
method of instruction that should be used, as well as how to evaluate the students to ensure
learning has taken place and skills have been developed.

Instructional Plan
Once the task analysis was completed and the learning objectives were developed, I was
able to start working on the instructional plan for Professor Kinzie’s learning module. The design
of the instruction took place in several different stages. First the content needed to be sequenced
appropriately. Then the instructional strategies to be used needed to be established and defined.
Next, the instructional message was designed, and finally the instructional materials were
developed.
Content Sequencing
Content sequencing is the “efficient ordering of content in such a way as to help the
learner achieve the objectives in an efficient and effective manner” (Morrison et al., 2013, p.
122). For the sequencing of the content in Professor’s Kinzie’s class, I used Reigeluth’s (1999)
elaboration theory. The elaboration theory helps “select and sequence content in a way that will
optimize attainment of learning goals” (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 426). The elaboration theory is
composed of different sequencing methods based on the intended areas of expertise for the
students to develop. Two types of expertise are explained in elaboration theory: task and domain.
Task expertise involves the learner developing into an expert in a task, while domain expertise
involves a learner becoming an expert in a particular subject matter, but still related to tasks
(Reigeluth, 1999, p. 435). For Professor Kinzie’s learning module, the content was more focused
on domain expertise.
An elaboration sequence for domain expertise starts with the “broadest, most inclusive,
most general ideas” and moves to “more complex, precise ideas” (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 437).
Domain expertise is broken up into conceptual knowledge structures and theoretical knowledge
structures. Conceptual knowledge structures are concerned with understanding the what, and
theoretical knowledge structures are focuses on understanding the why (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 437).
Each area has its own elaboration sequence, but the two sequences can be used together. The
conceptual elaboration sequence is appropriate for learning related concepts and the theoretical
elaboration sequence is suited for learning related principles (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 426). Since the
learning module in Professor Kinzie’s course involves the learners understanding both concepts
and principles, the two sequences were used together to sequence the content.
For the learning module in Professor Kinzie’s course, the content is sequenced from the
general concepts and principles of floor plans and then to the more specific and detailed concepts
and principles. Supporting content and principles for each are taught with the content or
principles they are related to. Spiral sequencing is used to sequence the topics. Spiral sequencing
presents topics or tasks gradually by teaching the basic information about each first, then returns
to each one to teach more about it until all the information about each has be explained
(Reigeluth, 1999, p. 432). This method allows the learners to understand how the topics or tasks
are related. They learn similar aspects about each topic or task in close proximity to the other
(Reigeluth, 1999, pp. 432-433). The sequencing for this learning module is depicted in the
section Designing the Message.
Instructional Strategies
The instructional strategies used in an instructional situation answer the question, “How
is the subject content or skill best learned?” (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 14). The learning module
in the Applications in CAD course is focused on the concepts and principles of effective floor
plans, therefore the instructional strategies used need to be designed to best teach these concepts
and principles. Developing 21st century learning skills is another focus of the learning module.
Incorporating VR into the module also needed to be done purposefully and effectively in order to
enhance learning and understanding.
Constructivism. Instructional design approaches are based in ontological and
epistemological perspectives. Ontology is philosophical branch that addresses “What exists in
the world” and epistemology is a philosophy concerned with “How we come to know about what
exists” (Schuh & Barab, 2007, p. 68). An interpretivist epistemology states that “Virtually all
knowledge is local and contextual rather than universal and generalizable” (Willis, 2011, p. 8).
Constructivist learning environments are based in this interpretivist epistemology. The
constructivist paradigm holds that learners construct their own knowledge based on their own
experiences (Jonassen, 1999). The learners build their own interpretations and understanding of
the content. The instructor acts as a guide and facilitator in the learning, but the learners are
responsible for their own learning. A value of constructivist learning is that the content becomes
more relatable and relevant to learners when they can draw from their own experiences.
A constructivist approach is used in the learning module for Professor Kinzie’s course.
The students will use their own experiences to help them understand how and why designing
effective and functional floor plans is an important skill for them to learn. Jonassen’s (1999)
constructivist learning environments (CLEs) model was used to help design the instruction.
CLEs are focused on an authentic problem, case, or project for the students to focus on. Similar
examples are presented to help show different methods or approaches to the problem. CLEs
provide the learners an opportunity to collaborate on and discuss the problem. Scaffolding is
important component to CLEs. Scaffolding is a “systematic approach to supporting the learner,
focusing on the task, the environment, the teacher, and the learner” (Jonassen, 1999, p. 234). It
provided the learners with cognitive support from the instructor if and when they need it. CLEs
offer students opportunities to construct their own understanding, but there are instances when
the learners need help and guidance. Scaffolding provides a chance for the instructor to assist the
learners while still allowing the learners to active in their own learning processes. The CLE
problem designed for the learning module in Professor Kinzie’s class will be explained and
expanded upon the section Designing the Message below.
Collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is often a component of constructivist
environments. It involves students working together to solve a problem or find a solution.
Collaborative learning provides the learners opportunities to develop their communication,
critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Leonard et al., 2007). These are 21st century
learning skills. Through collaborative learning, learners are presented authentic situations for
solving problems on a team to come up with best solution. These are skills that the learners can
transfer to their future jobs. The students in Professor Kinzie’s class will be put into groups to
work together on the problem scenario presented to them in the CLE. Working in a group with
provided the students opportunities to practice and develop their communication skills. There
will be six groups, each with three students. The students in each group will have to work
together and discuss ways to solve the problem. This also requires the students to apply critical
thinking to determine the best ways to design the floor plan.
Cognitive apprenticeship. Providing the learners with an environment that is similar to
what they will experience in real-world scenarios engages them to participate more and increases
their motivation. Cognitive apprenticeship is a strategy that gives learners the opportunity to
participate in activities that mimic these real-world activities, making the learning authentic and
meaningful. Cognitive apprenticeship has six main characteristics: modeling, scaffolding,
coaching, exploration, articulation, and reflection (Leonard et al., 2007). These characteristics
will be present in the instruction and will be indicated in the Designing the Message section.
Cognitive apprenticeship is strategy established out of situated cognition theory. This learning
theory states that the learning of skills and knowledge is best accomplished through
environments and contexts that reflect how the skills and knowledge will be used in real-world
scenarios (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Authentic activities are those activities that
resemble the real-world situations the learners will experience outside of the instructional setting.
Cognitive apprenticeship uses these authentic activities to make the instruction more meaningful
and relevant to the students.
For the Applications in CAD learning module, the students will be given a project that
simulates a real-world situation that they could encounter in their future careers. The situation
will place them into the role of a draftsperson at a home builder. The home builder has a need for
a new floor plan with specific elements and specifications. The students will be tasked with
designing this new floor plan for the home builder. This situation makes the instruction and the
skills to be developed relevant. It shows how their skills can be used in real life.
Motivation. A key factor in learners’ success and understanding depends on their
motivation. Motivation can be defined as “an internal state that arouses us to action, pushes us in
particular directions, and keeps us engaged in certain activities” (Ormrod, 2016, p. 424).
Motivation affects what the learners pay attention to, their effort into the learning activities, and
their persistence (Ormrod, 2016, p. 425). Motivation can happen intrinsically or extrinsically.
Intrinsic motivation takes place when “the source of motivation lies within the individual and
task: The person finds the task enjoyable or worthwhile in and of itself” (Ormrod, 2016, pg.
425). This can be from an interest in the content or wanting to develop more skills in a particular
area. Extrinsic motivation take place outside of the learners, such as wanting to earn a reward
from their parents earning a good grade, or not wanting to get punished by their parents for
receiving a bad grade (Ormrod, 2016).
Based on the students’ responses to why they enrolled in the Spring 2019 offering of the
Applications in CAD course, we determined that the majority of the students will be intrinsically
motivated. They are interested in the topic of designing effective and functional floor plans.
However, some students will need to be motivated by other means. A few students indicated that
they are only taking this class because it is required. One way to motivate these students is to
develop their self-efficacy in the content. Self-efficacy is when learners believe that they can be
successful in completing the tasks or understanding the content (Ormrod, 2016, p. 130). If the
students have confidence in their abilities to design effective floor plans, their motivation for
learning and wanting to develop these skills will increase. Another way to increase their
motivation is to generate their interest in the content. This can be accomplished through the Self-
Determination Theory (SDT). SDT is “an overarching theory that explains growth oriented
aspects of motivation and personality integration” (Heddy, 2017, Self-Determination Theory,
slide 4). A main component of SDT is intrinsic motivation. Showing how the content is relevant
to the students’ lives can increase their interest in the content. If they become interested in it,
they will become intrinsically motivated and their desire to want to learn will increase. They will
have a positive attitude towards the content and wanting to learn. The students’ confidence in
their ability to master the content (self-efficacy) and their interest in wanting to master the
content (intrinsic motivation) will provide the motivation they need to be successful in the
learning module.
ARCS. The ARCS Model of Motivational Design provides support to instruction for
increasing and maintaining learners’ motivation. The ARCS Model has a foundation in the
Theory of Self-Efficacy and Self-Determination Theory (Keller & Kopp, 1983). The ARCS
Model uses the motivational strategies of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction to
incorporate into the design of the instruction. It supports the instruction by stimulating and
sustaining the learners’ motivation (Keller & Kopp, 1983, p. 289). The first step in the ARCS
Model is gaining the learners’ attention. This helps to increase interest in the topic and generate
motivation. The next step in the ARCS Model is explaining the relevance of the content being
taught. The students need to understand the value and importance of the content to stay
motivated (Keller & Kopp, 1983, pp. 293). The following step in the ARCS Model is confidence.
The learners need to feel confident and successful in their learning to maintain their motivation
levels. The final step in the ARCS Model is satisfaction. Learners are motivated when they can
perform to their anticipated expectation (Keller & Kopp, 1983 pp. 294-295). The ARCS Model
was incorporated throughout the design of the learning module in Professor Kinzie’s class and
will be indicated as such in the Designing the Message section.
Virtual reality in education. Using VR in educational settings has many advantages.
Portman et al. (2015) explain that VR is a communication tool (p. 377). It allows for
explanations and examples that cannot be communicated as effectively through text or lecture.
Learners can visualize examples to get a better understanding of the content. For design courses,
it provides the learners a new way to view their floor plans and designs. The use of VR in
Professor Kinzie’s course offer the learners “a technology that adds the dimensions of immersion
and interactivity to three-dimensional computer generated models allowing ‘exploration’ that is
not possible with the traditional forms of representation” (Portman et al., 2015, p. 379). These
traditional forms include their 2D designs in AutoCAD. They are unable to see how the rooms
and spaces function by just looking at a 2D drawing. Being able to experience their floor plan
designs in VR will give the students a deeper understanding of the functionality of floor plans
and why effective floor plans are essential to those who will live in them. The support of VR in
the learning module in Applications in CAD will be explain the Designing the Message section.
Designing the Instructional Message
After the instructional strategies and the sequencing of the content had been determined,
the instructional message was designed. Professor Kinzie and I worked together to present the
instruction in a meaningful and effective way. The topic and procedural task analyses provided
the foundation and framework for the design of the instructional message. The learning module
takes place over five class periods. Two classes take place in the Innovation Hub’s VR space,
and three classes will be in the classroom in the Science, Math, and Engineering building. A
diagram of the instructional model can be found in Appendix H. Reference the supplemental
Prezi presentation for the detailed visual presentation of the instruction.
Class Period 1: Innovation Hub’s VR Space
1. Present the learning objectives of the learning module and ask if there are any questions
about the objectives. (5 minutes)
a. Given an already designed floor plan, the learner will evaluate the floor plan for
b. Given homesite lot specifications and floor plan specifications, the learner will design
a floor plan in AutoCAD 2019 by applying architectural standards and residential
2. Explain the location of each class period for the learning module. (5 minutes)
a. Class Period 1: Innovation Hub’s VR Space
b. Class Period 2: classroom in the Science, Math, and Engineering building
c. Class Period 3: classroom in the Science, Math, and Engineering building
d. Class Period 4: classroom in the Science, Math, and Engineering building
e. Class Period 5: Innovation Hub’s VR Space
3. Show the students a floor plan that is poorly designed, but do not mention the design quality
of it.
a. Display floor plan on the projection screens and TVs in the VR Space.
b. Pass out a paper handout of the floor plan to each student.
4. Ask the students what they think about the floor plan in terms of how it is designed. (30
minutes) (ARCS Model – Attention)
a. Ask the students to each write down five observations about the floor plan.
b. Once they are completed, ask the students to each share their observations with the
class. (Drawing from their own experiences)
5. Inform the students that they will now view that floor plan using the Oculus Rift VR system
to look for any additional observations. (ARCS Model – Attention)
6. An Innovation Hub technology specialist will demonstrate how to use the Oculus
Rift VR systems to the students. (20 minutes)
a. Demonstrate how the headset works.
b. Demonstrate how the touch controllers work and what each button does.
c. Inform student of the locations of the location sensors.
7. Each student will view the floor plan in the VR system. (30 minutes)
a. There are 3 VR headsets that will be shared amongst the 18 students.

b. Each student will have 5 minutes to view the floor plan in the VR.
c. What each student views in the VR headset is projected in real time onto the
projection screens and TVs in the VR Space.
d. While each student views the floor plan in the VR headset, the other students will
watch the screens to get another look at the floor plan.
8. Ask the students to write down any additional observations about the floor plan they saw
after viewing it in the VR system. (5 minutes)
9. Ask each student to share their additional observations with the class. (10 minutes)
a. Use a checklist (Appendix I) to make sure all the poor design aspects were covered.
b. Prompt the students with questions about any aspects they did not mention. (10
minutes) (Scaffolding)
10. Explain to the students that this floor plan was designed poorly. (40 minutes)
a. Provide the rationale as to why these are poor design choices.
b. Use specific examples.
i. Secondary bedrooms are too small.
ii. Hallways are not wide enough.
iii. Bathrooms are too cramped.
iv. The kitchen island does not have enough space around it.
v. Door swings are not functional.
vi. Closets are not deep enough for hangers.
11. Provide students with a brief summary of the next class period. (5 minutes) (ARCS Model –
Attention)
a. Building codes and architectural standards.

b. Components of functional floor plans.
c. Designing efficient and functional floor plans.
Class Period 2: Classroom in the Science, Math, and Engineering Building
1. Review the learning objectives with the class. (5 minutes)
a. Given an already designed floor plan, the learner will evaluate the floor plan for
b. Given homesite lot specifications and floor plan specifications, the learner will design
a floor plan in AutoCAD 2019 by applying architectural standards and residential
2. Provide an overview of the instructional topics that will be taught during this class period (5
minutes)
3. Explain the relevance and importance of functional and efficient floor plans. (10 minutes)
(ARCS Model – Relevance)
a. Functional floor plans sell quickly.
b. Poorly designed floor plans take too long to sell and incur additional costs for the
builder, such as interest and insurance fees.
c. Functional floor plans provide an effective space for families to live in.
4. Explain building codes. (10 minutes)

a. Building codes vary between states, counties, and municipalities.
b. Building codes provide the minimum building standards.
c. The intent of building codes is to meet the needs of code regulations that safeguard
the public health and safety.
5. Explain architectural standards. (10 minutes)
a. Architectural standards are developed by each home builder.
b. Architectural standards are often home features that buyers expect a new home to
have or are features that set builders apart from one another.
6. Explain the components of functional floor plans. (60 minutes)
a. Interior Rooms
i. Bedrooms
1. Master
a. Attached Master Suite
2. Secondary
a. Minimum size: 11 ft by 10 ft 6 in.
b. Closet
i. Minimum depth: 2 ft 4 in.
ii. Clothes hanging rods
ii. Bathrooms
1. Master Suite
a. Shower stall
i. Minimum size: 900 square inches

ii. Must have at least 23 in. clearance area in front of
opening
b. Bathtub
c. Water Closet
i. Toilet
1. Must have at least 21 in. clearance area in front
of toilet
2. Must have at least 18 in. from the middle of
toilet to nearest wall
ii. Head knocker (cabinet) over toilet
d. Vanity
i. Minimum depth: 21 in.
ii. Two sinks
1. Must be at least 30 in. in between drains
2. Center of drain must be at least 15 in. away
from any walls
iii. Cabinet storage
e. Closet
ii. Clothes hanging rods
iii. Shoe shelves
2. Secondary
a. Minimum size: 42 sq. ft

b. Shower/bathtub combo
i. Must have at least 23 in. clearance area in front of
opening
c. Toilet
i. Must have at least 21 in. clearance area in front of toilet
nearest wall
d. Head knocker above toilet
e. Vanity
i. Minimum depth: 21 in.
ii. Sink (two if possible)
1. Must be at least 30 in. in between drains
2. Center of drain must be at least 15 in. away
from any walls
iii. Cabinet storage
3. Powder/Half
b. Toilet
i. Must have at least 21 in. clearance area in front of toilet
nearest wall or vanity
c. Head knocker above toilet
d. Pedestal sink
iii. Kitchen
1. Island
b. Must have at least 36 in. clearance area around all sides
2. Sink
3. Pantry
a. Must have at least 5 shelves
4. Oven, cooktop, or slide-in range
a. Must have at least 12 in. counterspace on one side, 15 in. on
other side
5. Microwave
6. Dishwasher
7. Refrigerator space
8. Upper and lower cabinet storage with drawers
iv. Dining
v. Utility
1. Minimum width: 5 ft 6 in.
2. Upper cabinets
a. Drip rod when possible
3. Washer and dryer stall
4. Mud bench
vi. Living
1. Fireplace
b. Interior spaces
i. Hallways
1. Minimum width: 36 in. wide, but should be 42 in. wide when possible
ii. Closets
1. Linen
ii. 5 shelves
2. Coat
ii. Hanging rods
iii. Stairs
1. Minimum width: 36 in.
2. Minimum headroom: 6 ft 8 in.
3. Maximum riser height: 7.75 in.
4. Minimum step depth: 10 in.
5. Handrails
a. Minimum grip size: 1.25 in.
b. Maximum grip size: 2.25 in
c. Minimum height: 34 in.
d. Maximum height: 38 in.
iv. Entry
1. Minimum width: 60 in.
c. Exterior spaces
i. Front Porch
ii. Back Patio
iii. Garage
1. Minimum depth: 21 ft.
2. Minimum width of 2 car garage door: 16 ft
3. Minimum width of 1 garage door: 8 ft
d. Doors
i. Direction of swing
ii. Minimum width: 2 ft 4 in.
iii. Minimum height: 6 ft 8 in.
e. Windows
i. One operable window per bedroom
ii. Fixed
iii. Single-hung
iv. Tempered
1. Windows must be tempered if within a 2 ft radius from a door
2. Windows must be tempered if less than 18 in. from floor on the first
floor
3. Windows must be tempered if less than 25 in. from floor on the second
floor
4. All bathroom windows must be tempered
7. Explain through demonstration how to design efficient and functional floor plans using
AutoCAD 2019. (60 minutes) (Cognitive Apprenticeship – Modeling)

a. Acquire the architectural standards list from home builder or architect.
i. Pass out printed handout to students (Appendix G).
b. Acquire the most recent version of the International Residential Code (IRC) for One-
and Two-Family Dwellings.
i. Pass out printed handout to students (Appendix F).
c. Open AutoCAD 2019 on computer.
i. Create a new .dwg file.
ii. Use the preloaded template named acad.dwt.
d. Given the homesite lot specifications, draw a buildable homesite area.
i. Lot width
1. Add the width dimension in feet and inches
ii. Lot depth
1. Add the depth dimension in feet and inches
iii. Utility easements
e. Given the floor plan specifications, draw a buildable floor plan outline to use as a
guide for laying out rooms and spaces.
f. Within in the buildable floor plan area, draw the exterior rooms and spaces that have
requirements.
i. Garage
g. Within the buildable floor plan area, draw the interior rooms and spaces that have
requirements.
i. Master bedroom
1. Master Suite
a. Shower stall
b. Bathtub
c. Water Closet
d. Toilet
e. Head knocker over toilet
f. Vanity
i. Two sinks
ii. Cabinet storage
g. Closet
i. Clothes hanging rods
ii. Shoe shelves
ii. Secondary bedrooms
1. Closet
a. Clothes hanging rods
iii. Bathrooms
1. Secondary
a. Shower/bathtub combo
b. Toilet
c. Head knocker above toilet
d. Vanity
i. Sink (two if possible)

ii. Cabinet storage
2. Powder/Half
a. Toilet
b. Head knocker above toilet
c. Pedestal sink
iv. Utility
1. Upper cabinets
a. Drip rod when possible
2. Washer and dryer stall
3. Mud bench
v. Hallways
vi. Closets
1. Linen
a. Shelves
2. Coat
a. Hanging rods
vii. Stairs
viii. Entry
h. Draw the interior rooms and spaces that do not have minimum dimensions in
remaining available floor plan space, referring to the architectural standards list and
IRC for design requirements.
i. Kitchen
1. Island
2. Sink
3. Pantry
a. Shelves
4. Oven, cooktop, or slide-in range
5. Microwave
6. Dishwasher
7. Refrigerator stall
8. Upper and lower cabinet storage with drawers
ii. Dining
iii. Living
iv. Fireplace
i. Draw the exterior rooms and spaces that do not have minimum dimensions in
remaining available floor plan space, referring to the architectural standards list and
IRC for design requirements.
i. Front porch
ii. Back patio
j. Draw in doors, referring to the architectural standards list and IRC for design
requirements.
k. Draw in windows, referring to the architectural standards list and IRC for design
requirements.
l. Add a name and label on each room.
m. Add dimensions in feet and inches for each room and space.
n. Add dimensions in feet and inches for total floor plan depth and width.
o. Arrange the final floor plan on the buildable area, referring to the architectural
standards list and IRC for design requirements.
p. Save .dwg file.
8. Ask the students if there are any questions over the instruction.
1. Review the content from the previous class period and ask the students if they have any
questions. (20 minutes)
2. Explain the group project. (45 minutes) (CLE; Collaborative Learning; Authentic Activity)
a. Pass out a printed handout of the project. (Appendices J & K)
b. Explain the problem scenario. (Appendix J) (ARCS Model – Relevance)
c. Explain the tasks they need to complete (Appendix J).
i. Each student will be required to design a floor plan using AutoCAD 2019, but
the floor plan designed will be the same for each group; each student needs to
develop the skills in AutoCAD 2019.
ii. The group will provide written rationale for the design decisions they make.
d. Explain the rubric that will be used to grade the problem. (Appendix K)
3. Ask the students to form into 6 groups of 3 students. (5 minutes)
4. Have the students work on their project for the rest of the class period. (90 minutes) (21st
Century Learning Skills – Collaboration, Critical Thinking, Problem Solving)

5. Spend 15 minutes with each group to observe their collaboration, problem solving, and
critical thinking skills. (21st Century Learning Skills – Collaboration, Critical Thinking,
Problem Solving)
6. Provide scaffolding and guidance to the students when needed. (Cognitive Apprenticeship –
Scaffolding, Coaching)
7. Provide positive feedback to the students on their performances. (ARCS Model – Confidence;
Self-Efficacy; Intrinsic Motivation)
1. Each group will continue to work on their project together. (160 minutes)
2. Spend 25 minutes with each group to observe their collaboration, problem solving, and
critical thinking skills. (21st Century Learning Skills – Collaboration, Critical Thinking,
Problem Solving)
3. Provide scaffolding to the students when needed. (Cognitive Apprenticeship – Scaffolding,
Coaching)
4. Provide positive feedback to the students on their performances. (ARCS Model – Confidence;
Self-Efficacy; Intrinsic Motivation)
5. Have each student submit their AutoCAD file and Word doc by email by 11:59pm that
evening.
a. It will take Rendering House one week to generate the floor plans into the VR
software.
Class Period 5: Innovation Hub’s VR Space
1. The students will view the floor plans they designed in the VR system. (90 minutes)
a. Each student will have 10 minutes to view their group’s floor plan in the VR.
b. While each student views their floor plan in the VR headset, the other students in
their group will watch the screens to get another look at their floor plan.
c. Once all the students in a group view their floor plan, they will watch the screens to
see the floor plans of the other groups.
2. Ask the students to discuss amongst their group their observations of their floor plan and any
changes they would like to make to make to their floor plan after viewing it in the VR. (30
minutes) (Cognitive Apprenticeship – Reflection; ARCS Model – Satisfaction; 21st Century
Learning Skills – Collaboration, Critical Thinking)
a. Have the groups type up their observations and any changes they want to make to
their floor plan in a Word doc.
b. Ask the students to submit their Word docs through email.
3. Provide the overall feedback of their projects in reference to their AutoCAD files. (20
minutes)
a. Explain the strengths of their floor plan designs. (ARCS Model – Confidence)
b. Explain any weaknesses or areas for improvement in the floor plan designs.
4. Explain the take-home assessment. (20 minutes)
a. Pass out a printed handout of the assessment. (Appendices M & N)
b. Explain the parts of the assessment. (Appendix M) (ARCS Model – Relevance)
c. Explain the tasks they need to complete (Appendix M).
d. Explain the rubric that will be used to grade the problem. (Appendix N)
Development of Instructional Materials
Once the instructional message was designed, the instructional materials were developed.
For the presentation of the instruction, a presentation using Prezi was developed (see
supplemental Prezi presentation). Prezi is an online presentation software program. Professor
Kinzie had used Prezi in previous classes and liked the program. He was comfortable in using it
during his classes for presentations and instruction. When explaining the poorly designed floor
plan, I developed a checklist for Professor Kinzie to use. This ensured that he did not leave out
any of the characteristics when explaining the floor plan to the students. A rubric was designed
to assess the group project. A rubric uses verbal descriptions to communicate the performance or
skill level the students exhibited (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 300). A numeric value was given to all
the required floor plan characteristics. For the written portion, a scale was used to evaluate the
rationale provided. Professor Kinzie is currently designing floor plan examples in AutoCAD
2019 to use for the learning module. He is designing a floor plan that is poorly designed to use in
the first class period. He is also designing a functional and effective floor plan so the students
can see an example of what one might look like.

Evaluation Plan
In order to answer the question, “How do you determine the extent to which learning is
achieved?” (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 14) an evaluation of the learners needs to take place to
ensure that they can meet the skills defined in the learning objectives. Two types of evaluation as
explained by Morrison et al. (2013) were designed for the learning module in the Applications in
CAD course: formative and summative. Formative evaluation “provides feedback to designers
for making course improvements” (Morrison et al., 2013, p. 318). It shows how the instruction
performed in terms of meeting the learning objectives. It identifies any areas of weakness within
the instruction to allow for redesign of materials to better meet the instructional goals and
learning objectives. Summative evaluation measures the degree to which the learners have
attained the skills and understanding defined in the learning objectives (Morrison et al., 2013). It
demonstrates the level the learners can perform the desired skills or the level at which they can
explain the content.
It is also important to make sure the assessments are reliable and valid. Reliability is the
“extent to which the observed score we want to use reflects a person’s true score on that
attribute” (Hennessey, n.d.). Each student has a different level of skill and an assessment is a way
to measure their skill level. However, just because a student performs poorly on an assessment
does not necessarily mean that they are not proficient in the content. There are many factors that
can contribute to a student’s performance on an assessment, such as the testing environment or
how the student is feeling that day (Hennessey, n.d). The assessment needs to be designed and
scored in such a way that these factors are mitigated as much as possible. Test validity is the
extent to which the assessment is measuring what the students should have learned based on the
learning objectives (Morrison et al, 2013, p. 261). The assessment should ask questions or
provide scenarios that will directly indicate whether the student has developed the skills or
knowledge as indicated by the learning objectives. If the learning objectives stated that the
students needed to be able to demonstrate, then the assessment needs to require some sort of
demonstration by the student. The assessment needs to reflect the content and the learning
objectives in order to be valid.
Formative Evaluation Plan
The following objectives will be addressed by the formative evaluation instruments:
residential building code requirements.
During the instruction, Professor Kinzie will monitor the progression of the students’
skills. He will be able to determine the effectiveness of the instruction based on what he observes
from the students. During the project phase, if students are struggling or asking numerous
questions, Professor Kinzie will reflect on those questions to determine if and where the
disconnect lies. If it is a problem with the way the instruction is presented, adjustments will be
made to prevent this from happening in future classes. The rubrics used to grade the projects the
students turn in (Appendix K) are also a form of formative evaluation. When each group turns in
their floor plans for the project, Professor Kinzie will use the scores from the rubric to assess the
progression of the learners. If the scores on the project are low across all the groups, Professor
Kinzie will provide further instruction on the areas with low scores. Or if there is an area that he
felt the students misunderstood, he can go back and give additional instruction in the area. Any
areas that needed further instruction need to be revised for future classes to try to avoid the same
problems from occurring again.
Additionally, Professor Kinzie and I developed a survey for the students to complete after
the completion of the learning module and once they complete the take-home assessment
(summative evaluation) for the module. This survey (Appendix L) will be emailed to the students
after they all turn in their assessment for the module. This survey will be developed in Qualtrics,
and all the answers will be anonymous. Their responses will indicate how they felt about
Professor Kinzie’s instruction in the learning module, the instruction itself, and the use of VR.
The comments will be taken into consideration for any revisions to the learning module.
Summative Evaluation Plan
The following objectives will be addressed by the summative evaluation instruments:
residential building code requirements.
While the students work on the project in their groups, Professor Kinzie will be able to
assess the 21st century learning skills the students demonstrate. These skills will be demonstrated
through group members’ interactions. He will observe how the group members communicate
with one another. He will sit with each group to listen to their discussions to see how they are
applying problem-solving skills to their project. The design choices the groups make will reflect
their critical thinking skills.
The students will also complete a take-home assessment after the instruction in the
learning module is completed. Professor Kinzie and I designed a project for the students to
complete to evaluate the skills and understanding developed (Appendix M). This assessment is
similar to the activities the students completed during the instructional period. It is important for
the evaluation method to match the target of the learning objective. This assessment requires the
student to evaluate an already designed floor plan for functionality and effectiveness and explain
the rationale for their findings. They will use the architectural standards and building code
requirements as support for the design choices. It also has the students design a floor plan in
AutoCAD 2019. Both of these activities directly demonstrate the students’ abilities to meet the
learning objectives. We also developed a rubric (Appendix N) to help communicate what the
student as able to demonstrate (Morrison et al., 2013). A numeric value was given to all the
required floor plan characteristics. For the written portion, a scale was used to evaluate the
rationale provided. The students will have seven days to complete the assessment. It will be
explained and given to them at the end of the fifth class. They will email their AutoCAD 2019
file and the written rationale as a Word doc to Professor Kinzie.

References
Autodesk, Inc. (n.d.). AutoCAD. Retrieved from https://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad/
features
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X
018001032
Facebook Technologies, LLC. (n.d.). Oculus Rift. Retrieved from https://www.oculus.com/rift
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional
design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Heddy, B. C. (2017). Self-Determination Theory [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://mymedia.ou.edu/category/Academics%3EColleges%3EJeannine+Rainbolt+Colle
ge+of+Education/14024982
Hennessey, M. N. (n.d). What is reliability? A classical test theory view. Unpublished
manuscript.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional
theory (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Keller, J. M., & Kopp, T. M. (1983). An application of the ARCS model of motivation design. In
C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their
current status (pp. 289-319). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leonard, K., Noh, E. K., & Orey, M. (2007). Learning theories and instructional strategies. In M.
K. Barbour & M. Orey (Eds.), The Foundations of Instructional Technology. Retrieved
from http://itfoundations.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Learning_Theories_and_
Instructional _Strategies
Martin, B. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Affective education and the affection domain:
Implications for instructional-design theories and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp.
485-509). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H.K., & Kemp, J.E. (2013). Designing effective
instruction. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.
Ormrod, J.E. (2016). Human learning. Boston: Pearson.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing
transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. https://doi.org/10.17226/13398.
Portman, M. E., Natapov, A. & Fisher-Gewirtzman (2015). To go where no man has gone
before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning.
Computers, Environments and Urban Systems, 54, 376-384. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbs
ys.2015.05.001
Reigeluth C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In
C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (pp. 425-453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of
instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64.
Romiszowski, A. (1999). The development of physical skills: Instruction in the psychomotor
domain. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new
paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 457-481). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Schuh, K., & Barab, S. (2007). Philosophical perspectives. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. van
Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (pp. 67-82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Willis, J. (2011). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part two:
Developments based on constructivist and critical theory foundations. Educational
Technology, 51(3), 3-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430002

Appendix A
Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp Instructional Design Model
Morrison et al., 2013, p. 12 (Figure 1-1)

Appendix B
Needs Assessment Questions for Professor Kinzie
1. What is the problem you are wanting to solve? (Morrison et al., 2013)
2. What is the purpose of the planned instruction? (Morrison et al., 2013)
3. What could be done to improve the learner’s skills and performance? (Morrison et al.,
2013)
4. How is the content currently being taught?
5. Why do you want to incorporate collaboration and problem-solving strategies in your
class?
6. How do you think the use of virtual reality (VR) will improve the performance and skills
of the learners?
Appendix C
Needs Assessment Questions for Mr. Hilliard
1. What is the problem you are wanting to solve? (Morrison et al., 2013)
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses you perceive in your drafting staff?
3. What do you think could be done within these courses to improve the work performance
of future drafting employees? (Morrison et al., 2013)
4. What prompted you to reach out for assistance from COCC’s Computer Aided Design
program?
Appendix D
Needs Assessment Questions for Mr. Hilliard’s Drafting Employee
1. How long have you been drafting floor plans for your current company? Did you work
anywhere before accepting the position with Mr. Hilliard?
2. When did you complete the Computer-Aided Design program at COCC?
3. How do you feel that the courses that focused on AutoCAD skills prepared you for your
current position?
4. What do you think could be done within these courses that would have improved your
work performance? (Morrison et al., 2013)

Appendix E
Survey emailed out to enrolled students in the Spring 2019 section of Applications in CAD
This survey is being sent out to students enrolled in Professor Kristopher Kinzie’s course
Applications in CAD for the Spring 2019 semester. Please complete the survey within 10 days of
this email. All answers will be anonymous. Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
1. What is your age? *

a. Under 18 years
b. 18 – 24 years
c. 25 – 30 years
d. 31 – 35 years
e. 36 – 40 years
f. 41 – 45 years
g. 46 – 50 years
h. 51 – 55 years
i. 56 – 60 years
j. 61 – 65 years
k. 66 – 70 years
l. 71 – 75 years
m. 76 years or above
n. Prefer not to answer
2. What gender do you identify with? *

a. Female
b. Male
c. Non-binary
d. Transgender
e. Gender non-conforming
f. Other
g. Prefer not to answer
3. What is your ethnicity? *

a. American Indian / Alaskan Native
b. Asian
c. Black / African American
d. Hispanic / Latino
e. White / Caucasian
f. Two or more ethnicities
g. Prefer not to answer
4. Is English your first language? *

a. Yes
b. No
5. If you answered No to question 4, what is your first language?

________________________________________________________________________
6. How many credit hours have you completed in the CAD program? *
a. 0 – 6
b. 7 – 12
c. 13 – 18
d. 19 – 24
e. 25 – 30
f. 31 – 36
g. 37 – 42
h. 43 – 48
i. 48 – 54
j. 54 – 60
k. 61 or more
7. Are you currently employed? *

a. Yes, part-time (under 30 hours/week)
b. Yes, full-time (over 30 hours/week)
c. No
8. If you answered Yes to question 7, please enter your occupation.

________________________________________________________________________
9. Have you ever used AutoCAD 2019? *

a. Yes
b. No
10. If you answered Yes to question 9, how would you rate your skill level in using
AutoCAD 2019?
a. Beginner
b. Intermediate
c. Advanced
d. Expert
11. If you answered Yes to question 9, have you designed floor plans in AutoCAD 2019?
a. Yes
b. No
12. The Spring 2019 section of the Applications in CAD course will be focused on designing
floor plans in AutoCAD 2019 for home builders or architecture firms. What is your
reasoning for enrolling in this section of the course? *
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Appendix F
Excerpts from 2018 International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings
The full code can be retrieved from: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2018
SECTION R307
TOILET, BATH AND SHOWER SPACES
R307.1 Space required.
Fixtures shall be spaced in accordance with Figure R307.1, and in accordance with the
requirements of Section P2705.1.
For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm.
FIGURE R307.1
MINIMUM FIXTURE CLEARANCES
SECTION R310
EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS
R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue opening required.

Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable
emergency escape and rescue opening. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, an
emergency escape and rescue opening shall be required.
SECTION R311
MEANS OF EGRESS
R311.6 Hallways.
The width of a hallway shall be not less than 3 feet (914 mm).
R311.7 Stairways.
R311.7.1 Width.
Stairways shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in clear width at all points above the
permitted handrail height and below the required headroom height. The clear width of stairways
at and below the handrail height, including treads and landings, shall be not less than 311/2 inches
(787 mm) where a handrail is installed on one side and 27 inches (698 mm) where handrails are
installed on both sides.
Exception: The width of spiral stairways shall be in accordance with Section R311.7.10.1.
R311.7.2 Headroom.
The headroom in stairways shall be not less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm) measured vertically
from the sloped line adjoining the tread nosing or from the floor surface of the landing or
platform on that portion of the stairway.
Exceptions:
Where the nosings of treads at the side of a flight extend under the edge of a floor opening
through which the stair passes, the floor opening shall not project horizontally into the required
headroom more than 43/4 inches (121 mm).
The headroom for spiral stairways shall be in accordance with Section R311.7.10.1.
R311.7.3 Vertical rise.

A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise larger than 151 inches (3835 mm) between floor
levels or landings.
R311.7.4 Walkline.
The walkline across winder treads and landings shall be concentric to the turn and parallel to the
direction of travel entering and exiting the turn. The walkline shall be located 12 inches (305
mm) from the inside of the turn. The 12-inch (305 mm) dimension shall be measured from the
widest point of the clear stair width at the walking surface. Where winders are adjacent within a
flight, the point of the widest clear stair width of the adjacent winders shall be used.
R311.7.5 Stair treads and risers.

Stair treads and risers shall meet the requirements of this section. For the purposes of this
section, dimensions and dimensioned surfaces shall be exclusive of carpets, rugs or runners.
R311.7.5.1 Risers.
The riser height shall be not more than 73/4 inches (196 mm). The riser shall be measured
vertically between leading edges of the adjacent treads. The greatest riser height within any flight
of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Risers shall be vertical or
sloped from the underside of the nosing of the tread above at an angle not more than 30 degrees
(0.51 rad) from the vertical. At open risers, openings located more than 30 inches (762 mm), as
measured vertically, to the floor or grade below shall not permit the passage of a 4-inch-diameter
(102 mm) sphere.
Exceptions:
The opening between adjacent treads is not limited on spiral stairways.
The riser height of spiral stairways shall be in accordance with Section R311.7.10.1.
R311.7.5.2 Treads.
The tread depth shall be not less than 10 inches (254 mm). The tread depth shall be measured
horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a
right angle to the tread’s leading edge. The greatest tread depth within any flight of stairs shall
not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm).
SECTION P2705
INSTALLATION
P2705.1 General.
The installation of fixtures shall conform to the following:
Floor-outlet or floor-mounted fixtures shall be secured to the drainage connection and to the
floor, where so designed, by screws, bolts, washers, nuts and similar fasteners of copper, copper
alloy or other corrosion-resistant material.
Wall-hung fixtures shall be rigidly supported so that strain is not transmitted to the plumbing
system.
Where fixtures come in contact with walls and floors, the contact area shall be water tight.
Plumbing fixtures shall be usable.
Water closets, lavatories and bidets. A water closet, lavatory or bidet shall not be set closer than
15 inches (381 mm) from its center to any side wall, partition or vanity or closer than 30 inches
(762 mm) center-to-center between adjacent fixtures. There shall be a clearance of not less than
21 inches (533 mm) in front of a water closet, lavatory or bidet to any wall, fixture or door.
The location of piping, fixtures or equipment shall not interfere with the operation of windows or
doors.
In flood hazard areas as established by Table R301.2(1), plumbing fixtures shall be located or
installed in accordance with Section R322.1.6.
Integral fixture-fitting mounting surfaces on manufactured plumbing fixtures or plumbing
fixtures constructed on site, shall meet the design requirements of ASME A112.19.2/CSA B45.1
or ASME A112.19.3/CSA B45.4.
SECTION P2708
SHOWERS
P2708.1 General.
Shower compartments shall have not less than 900 square inches (0.6 m2) of interior cross-
sectional area. Shower compartments shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) in minimum
dimension measured from the finished interior dimension of the shower compartment, exclusive
of fixture valves, shower heads, soap dishes, and safety grab bars or rails. The minimum required
area and dimension shall be measured from the finished interior dimension at a height equal to
the top of the threshold and at a point tangent to its centerline and shall be continued to a height
of not less than 70 inches (1778 mm) above the shower drain outlet. Hinged shower doors shall
open outward. The wall area above built-in tubs having installed shower heads and in shower
compartments shall be constructed in accordance with Section R702.4. Such walls shall form a
water-tight joint with each other and with either the tub, receptor or shower floor.
Appendix G
Architectural Standards
Interior Standards
 10' Ceiling Entry, Living, Master, Kitchen, Dining; all others 9'
 Garage 8' ceiling
 9' Ceiling all rooms in plans that are 1800 or less
 Sheet rock opening with arch top ATSO (standard); straight top STSO; cased opening
STCO *12'0" max ATSO*
 Hallway 3'2" minimum width
 Rooms: Living, Kitchen, Dining/Breakfast, Utility, (front) porch, (back) patio, Bed 2 &
3, Master, Flex, Entry
 Soffit clips per pitch
 Hatch interior and exterior
 Windows to be 2' from corner of frame
 Windows over 28 sq. ft or 2' radius of a door should be tempered
 Line thickness 0.15 for page 1 & 2, appliances, hatch/notes, door, windows, mill
 Line thickness 30.00 for walls, case/garage, elevations, roof
Living
 Fireplace face width set at 6' 0" inset fireplace or between windows with no standard
hearth
 Fireplace depth 8"D box X 35-1/4"W 35 3/8"H
 Living windows to be fixed and Breakfast windows operable (SH)
 Windows to be tempered within 2' R of door
 NO twin windows; box windows okay
 Living windows labeled with dimensions, temp, fixed. (3050 at 6'-8") unless under porch
(3060 at 7'-8")
 Flooring change labeled with dash dot line and carpet/tile
Bedrooms
 Bedroom doors 2 6 x 6 8
 Bedroom closet doors 2 4 x 6 8
 Flex room 2 8 x 6 8 if across from utility otherwise 2 6 x 6 8. double door 2- 2 0 x 6 8
 No double doors on closet unless needed, closets 2' reach in on sides of closets, then 2- 2
0x68
 No pocket doors
 Secondary Bedrooms 10'6" x 11' minimum
 Closets 2'-4" minimum
 All bedroom closets to have long and short hanging 1RS 2RS, rods, brackets
 Side rods 2' from others for hanging space (brackets EQ spaced between 4-5')
 Master closet to have 2 shoe shelves units 2'x1' labeled 5S
 Windows labeled with dimensions, tempered, fixed, operable (SH). Dims (3 0 x 5 0 set at
6'-8")
Kitchen
 Back doors- single 2 8 x 6 8, slider 60, 2868 double (garden) with 5'-4" r.o. note
 Barn door 3068 Max with 34" opening, 2068 Min. with 22" opening. Bigger opening
needs 2 doors (plan specific)
 Pantry door 2068 except walk-in is 2468
 60/40 stainless sink. Farm sink upgrade
 Cooktop with built in oven/microwave cabinet OR range with microwave vent hood
 Range/cooktop min. clearance- one side: 12" other 15"
 Dishwasher- right side- 24"x24" 35"H or placed where no obstructions
 Pantry to have 5 shelves 1'D and labeled 5 shelves
 Island tops 4x7, 4x6, or 3x8 with dimensions (24-28 sqft)
 Island has dashed line for cabinetry with a 20" overhang with 6 x 6 column
 Island with just bar and no cabinetry 18" D
 Dining windows set at 7'-8" if under patio otherwise set at 6'-8" 3050 (sh) 3060 (sh) 5050
(Fixed) 4040 (Fixed)
 42"in the clear from counter to adjacent object
 36"in the clear around islands
Bath
 Bathroom doors 2 4 x 6 8
 Hinged shower door 2 6; min 2 4
 Water Closet door 2 4 x 6 8
 (1) 4 shelf 12" D linen in Hall bath area with header at standard door height (if possible)
Labeled 4s
 4S door 2 0 x 6 8 min is 1 6 x 6 8
 If 4S door not possible, it becomes a cabinet and is labeled Linen
 Water Closet room min. 5'-6" preferred; 5' min.
 6' or 5' Rough Opening for master tub with inside dimension line
 42" wall with glass above noted in Master bath between tub/shower. 48" between
sink/shower
 Standalone shower typ. 36" x 48"; 36" preferred, 32" min. Label dims.
 Shower and toilet door to have 6" from each other for tile
 Walk-in shower L shaped (highland) 4'-6" x 5'-8" with a 2'-4" opening for door and 3'-0"
for shower head
 Shower clearance 23" in front of opening
 2 sinks in Master 15 from wall, 30 between drains min. 21" vanity min. depth
 Master vanity dimensioned
 Sink in secondary baths (2 if possible) 15-30-30. 21" vanity min. depth
 15" between wall to sink and sink to counter linen
 Pedestal sink in Powder bath
 Elongated toilet in Master and powder baths
 Round toilet in secondary baths

 Bath windows to be tempered, obscure, and fixed at 6'-8" H ( 4 0 x 4 0 master) (2 0 x 3 0
guest)
 Head knockers (cabinet) over all toilets-dashed
 Min. 21" clearance in front of toilet and sink
 18" middle of toilet to exposing sides; 15" min.
 Min. 1/2 Bath 25-27 sq ft
 Tight baths add 1" for sheet rock from the 15-15-30 rule
 Min. secondary Bath 5'-1"x8'-4" (42 sq ft)
 Min. Jack and Jill Bath 5'-1"x11'-5" (57 sq ft)
 No plumbing connections (I.e. shower heads) on outside walls
Garage/Utility/Entry
 Entry door to be 3 0 x 6 8 with transom above window 3 4 x 1 6 (10' clg) 3 4 X 1 0 (9'
clg)
 Utility Room/Garage door 3 0 x 6 8
 Utility room min. width 5'-6"
 Utility room standard upper cabinet over washer and drip rod with shelf over dryer
 Washer located on left side of dryer
 Garage doors 16' x 7' on double and 8' x 7' on single Garage doors
 Single story garage is 16" frame wall; two story is 24" frame wall- on 2 car garages
 Garage Depth of 2 car, Min 21' interior. If WH closet in garage that side can be 18'
Upstairs:
 Bonus rooms without bath or closet (will be an option)
 Stair min. Riser: H 7 3/4"
 Stairs have a min. head room of 6'-8"
 Stairway no less than 3'-2" W
 Window for egress typ. 4040 slider 3050 SH if possible
 Bonus floor is 17" above lower floor ceiling. (i.e. 10' lower ceiling)
Plots:
 Driveway has 2' wider than the total span of both garage doors. (1' on each side)
 Roof and concrete cannot extend easement (unless uncovered concrete)
 Back of house 14" from U/E (roof overhang)
 Home can be on build line
 Driveway extends 12' from property line to road with a 5' radius (7' off of property line
+5'R= 12')
 Home must be 5' from side property lines with dash line noted 5' B/L
 Sidewalk is 4' W and a foot off of the property line
 Show street line as well
 Sidewalk follows curved road
 Dimension to plot line
 Dimension depth of driveway
Appendix H
Diagram of Instructional Model

Appendix I
Checklist for Poorly Designed Floor Plan
X Floor Plan Characteristics

Secondary bedrooms are too small
Hallways are not wide enough
Bathrooms are too cramped
The kitchen island doses not have enough space around it
Door swings are not functional
Closets are not deep enough for hangers
Appendix J
Project Specifications and Tasks
Scenario:
You are on a drafting team at a local home building company. The home builder is going to
begin building houses in a new neighborhood. The lot sizes in the new neighborhood are smaller
than the other neighborhoods they are currently building in. The company does not have many
floor plans already designed that will fit on these lots. Your manager asks your team to design a
new floor plan that will fit on these lots.
Homesite Lot Specifications:

 Lot width: 60 ft
 Lot depth: 120 ft
 Utility easements: 15 ft from back lot line
Floor Plan Specifications:

 1800 – 2200 sq. ft
 Minimum of 3 bedrooms
 Minimum of 2.5 bathrooms
 Single story
 2 car garage
Tasks:
 Design a floor plan in AutoCAD 2019 that follows the specifications of the homesite lot
and the floor plan.
 Each team member is responsible for designing a floor plan in AutoCAD 2019; however,
the floor plan each group designs must be the same.
 Use the attached Architectural Standards (Appendix G) and follow the Residential
Building Code found at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2018
 Each group must provide written rationale for their design choices as a Word doc (one
paper per group).
 Due at 11:59pm on the day of Class Period 5. Please email your AutoCAD 2019 files and
your written rationales to kkinzie@cocc.edu.
Virtual Reality:
Each group’s floorplan will be provided to Rendering House. They will generate your floorplans
into their VR software. In the next class, we will “walk” your floorplans in the VR Space in the
Innovation Hub!
Appendix K
Group Project Rubric
Score Floor Plan Component

Homesite Lot Specifications
-/1 Depth of lot dimensioned and accurate
-/1 Width of lot dimensioned and accurate
-/1 Utility Easements accurately located
Floor Plan Specifications
-/1 Square footage of floor plan within specified range
-/1 Minimum of 3 bedrooms included
-/1 Minimum of 2.5 bathrooms included
-/1 Single story
-/1 2 car garage
Interior Rooms
Bedrooms
-/1 Master
-/2 Secondary x2
-/2 Minimum size: 11 ft by 10 ft 6 in.
-/2 Closet
-/2 Minimum depth: 2 ft 4 in.
-/2 Clothes hanging rods
Bathrooms
-/1 Master Suite
-/1 Shower stall
-/1 Minimum size: 900 square inches
-/1 Must have at least 23 in. clearance area in front of opening
-/1 Bathtub
-/1 Water Closet
-/1 Toilet
-/1 Must have at least 21 in. clearance area in front of toilet
-/1 Must have at least 18 in. from the middle of toilet to nearest wall
-/1 Head knocker (cabinet) over toilet
-/1 Vanity
-/1 Minimum depth: 21 in.
-/1 Two sinks
-/1 Must be at least 30 in. in between drains
-/1 Center of drain must be at least 15 in. away from any walls
-/1 Cabinet storage

-/1 Closet
-/1 Shoe shelves
-/1 Secondary
-/1 Minimum size: 42 sq. ft
-/1 Shower/bathtub combo
-/1 Toilet
-/1 Head knocker above toilet
-/1 Vanity
-/1 Sink (two if possible)
-/1 Cabinet storage
-/1 Powder/Half
-/1 Toilet
-/1 Must have at least 18 in. from the middle of toilet to nearest wall or vanity
-/1 Pedestal sink
-/1 Kitchen
-/1 Island
-/1 Must have at least 36 in. clearance area around all sides
-/1 Sink
-/1 Pantry
-/1 Must have at least 5 shelves
-/1 Oven, cooktop, or slide-in range
-/1 Must have at least 12 in. counterspace on one side, 15 in. on other side
-/1 Microwave
-/1 Dishwasher
-/1 Refrigerator space
-/1 Upper and lower cabinet storage with drawers
-/1 Dining
-/1 Utility
-/1 Minimum width: 5 ft 6 in.
-/1 Upper cabinets
-/1 Drip rod when possible
-/1 Washer and dryer stall
-/1 Mud bench
-/1 Living
-/1 Fireplace
Interior spaces
-/1 Hallways
-/1 Minimum width: 36 in. wide, but should be 42 in. wide when possible
-/2 Closets
-/1 Linen
-/1 5 shelves
-/1 Coat
-/1 Hanging rods
Exterior spaces
-/1 Front Porch
-/1 Back Patio
-/1 Garage
-/1 Minimum depth: 21 ft.
-/1 Minimum width of 2 car garage door: 16 ft
Doors
-/1 Minimum height: 6 ft 8 in.
Windows
-/3 One operable window per bedroom
-/1 Windows must be tempered if within a 2 ft radius from a door
-/1 Windows must be tempered if less than 18 in. from floor on the first floor
-/1 Windows must be tempered if less than 25 in. from floor on the second floor
-/2 All bathroom windows must be tempered
Labels
-/5 Name and label on each room
-/5 Dimensions on each room and space
TOTAL SCORE
-/117
Score Written Rationale and Support

Provided rationale for all components with support from building code and
10
architectural standards.
Provided rationale for some components with support from building code and
8
Provided rationale for some components with limited support from building code and
6
Provided rationale for components but did not include support from building code
4
and architectural standards.
2 Only listed the components included.
0 Did not provide written rationale.
Appendix L
Formative Evaluation Survey for the Students
Please complete this survey within 10 days of this email. All answers will be anonymous.
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
1. The content for this learning module was sequenced in an organized manner. *
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
2. Professor Kinzie explained the concepts and principles clearly and effectively. *
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
3. Professor Kinzie provided help and guidance when needed. *

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
4. Professor Kinzie provided meaningful and useful feedback on the group project. *
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
5. Professor Kinzie provided meaningful and useful feedback on the take-home assessment.
*
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
6. Professor Kinzie encouraged collaboration and discussion on the content presented. *

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
7. This learning module increased my skills in the content area. *

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
8. The skills I developed in this learning module will be useful and applicable in my future
career goals. *
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
9. This learning module provided opportunities to practice the skills learned. *

a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
10. The use of virtual reality (VR) enhanced my knowledge and skills in the content. *
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
11. Please indicate the strengths, if any, of this learning module.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
12. Please indicate the weaknesses, if any, of this learning module.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
13. Please explain any other comments about this learning module.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Appendix M
Take-Home Assessment
Part 1:
Given the attached floor plan (to be developed) provide written rationale on any areas that are not
functional and/or are poorly designed. Use the Building Code found at
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2018 and the attached architectural standards (Appendix G)
to support your findings.
Part 2:
Redesign the floor plan from Part 1 in AutoCAD 2019 to make it functional and effective. Use
the Building Code and the architectural standards. Provide written rationale for the changes you
made, using the building code and the architectural standards to support your changes.
Homesite Lot Specifications:

 Lot width: 55 ft
 Lot depth: 120 ft
 Utility easements: 15 ft from back lot line
Floor Plan Specifications:

 1800 – 2000 sq. ft
 Minimum of 3 bedrooms
 Minimum of 2.5 bathrooms
 Single story
 2 car garage
Due at 11:59pm on date. Please email your AutoCAD 2019 file and your written rationale to
kkinzie@cocc.edu.
Appendix N
Rubric for Take-Home Assessment
Part 1:
Score Floor Plan Components Identified
-/1 Floor plan less than 5 ft from lot lines
-/1 Closet in Secondary Bedroom #1 is less than the minimum depth
-/1 Secondary Bedroom #2 is less than the minimum size
-/1 Shower Stall in Master Suite is less than the minimum size
-/1 The shoe shelves are missing from the Master Bedroom closet
-/1 Head knocker is missing from the Master Suite Water Closet
The clearance area in front of the toilet in the Powder Bathroom is less than the
-/1 minimum area
-/1 The sinks in the secondary bathroom are too close together
-/1 The Kitchen is missing a space for the refrigerator
-/1 The island is less than the minimum size
-/1 The counterspace on the left side of the range is less than the minimum size
-/1 The back patio is missing
-/1 The shelves are missing in the pantry
-/1 Garage is less than the minimum depth
-/1 The hallway leading to the secondary bedrooms is less than the minimum width
TOTAL SCORE
-/15

Provided rationale for all components that are not functional with support from
10
building code and architectural standards.
Provided rationale for some components that are not functional with support from
8
Provided rationale for some components that are not functional with limited support
6
from building code and architectural standards.
Provided rationale for components that are not functional but did not include support
4
from building code and architectural standards.
2 Only listed the components that are not functional.
Part 2:
Score Floor Plan Component
Homesite Lot Specifications
-/1 Depth of lot dimensioned and accurate
-/1 Width of lot dimensioned and accurate
-/1 Utility Easements accurately located
Floor Plan Specifications
-/1 Square footage of floor plan within specified range
-/1 Minimum of 3 bedrooms included
-/1 Minimum of 2.5 bathrooms included
-/1 Single story
-/1 2 car garage
Interior Rooms
Bedrooms
-/1 Master
-/2 Secondary x2
-/2 Minimum size: 11 ft by 10 ft 6 in.
-/2 Closet
Bathrooms
-/1 Master Suite
-/1 Shower stall
-/1 Minimum size: 900 square inches
-/1 Bathtub
-/1 Water Closet
-/1 Toilet
-/1 Head knocker (cabinet) over toilet
-/1 Vanity
-/1 Two sinks
-/1 Cabinet storage
-/1 Closet

-/1 Shoe shelves
-/1 Secondary
-/1 Shower/bathtub combo
-/1 Toilet
-/1 Vanity
-/1 Sink (two if possible)
-/1 Cabinet storage
-/1 Powder/Half
-/1 Toilet
-/1 Must have at least 18 in. from the middle of toilet to nearest wall or vanity
-/1 Pedestal sink
-/1 Kitchen
-/1 Island
-/1 Must have at least 36 in. clearance area around all sides
-/1 Sink
-/1 Pantry
-/1 Must have at least 5 shelves
-/1 Oven, cooktop, or slide-in range
-/1 Must have at least 12 in. counterspace on one side, 15 in. on other side
-/1 Microwave
-/1 Dishwasher
-/1 Refrigerator space
-/1 Upper and lower cabinet storage with drawers
-/1 Dining
-/1 Utility
-/1 Upper cabinets

-/1 Drip rod when possible
-/1 Washer and dryer stall
-/1 Mud bench
-/1 Living
-/1 Fireplace
Interior spaces
-/1 Hallways
-/1 Minimum width: 36 in. wide, but should be 42 in. wide when possible
-/2 Closets
-/1 Linen
-/1 5 shelves
-/1 Coat
-/1 Hanging rods
Exterior spaces
-/1 Front Porch
-/1 Back Patio
-/1 Garage
-/1 Minimum depth: 21 ft.
-/1 Minimum width of 2 car garage door: 16 ft
Doors
-/1 Minimum height: 6 ft 8 in.
Windows
-/3 One operable window per bedroom
-/1 Windows must be tempered if within a 2 ft radius from a door
-/1 Windows must be tempered if less than 18 in. from floor on the first floor
-/1 Windows must be tempered if less than 25 in. from floor on the second floor
-/2 All bathroom windows must be tempered
Labels
-/5 Name and label on each room
-/5 Dimensions on each room and space
TOTAL SCORE
-/117

Provided rationale for all components and changes with support from building code
10
and architectural standards.
Provided rationale for some components and changes with support from building
8
code and architectural standards.
Provided rationale for some components and changes with limited support from
6
Provided rationale for components and change but did not include support from
4
2 Only listed the components and/or changes included.

BoinoJulie CompFinal

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BoinoJulie CompFinal

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INTEGRATING 21ST CENTURY LEARNING SKILLS 1

Julie Boino, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma.

Correspondence concerning this project should be addressed to Julie Boino, Department

Content Sequencing .................................................................................................................. 44

Technology Program at the University of Oklahoma.

Keywords: 21st century learning skills, virtual reality, constructivism, collaborative

learning, cognitive apprenticeship, ARCS

Central Oklahoma Community College (COCC) has recently launched an initiative

within its different departments to implement collaborative and student-centered learning

Instructional Design Model

and management of instructional and non-instructional processes and resources intended to

determining if instruction is a solution to the problem (Morrison et al., 2013, pp 6-7).

(Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005, pp. 2-3).

instructional objectives, content sequencing, instructional strategies, designing the message,

and revision, implementation, summative evaluation, and confirmative evaluation (Morrison et

1. For whom in the program developed?

2. What do you want the learners to learn or demonstrate?

3. How is the subject content or skill best learned?

Subject Matter Experts

Ed Hilliard’s background in home building and drafting qualified him as an SME in

design, architecture, operations, and construction process to create a finished project. He is

Learning Domains and 21st Century Learning Skills

developed prior to Professor Kinzie’s course.

explained in the Instructional Plan.

Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-generated environment where users experience a

(Portman, Natapov, & Fisher-Gewirtzman, 2015, p. 377). VR has a multitude of applications

effectively (Portman et al., 2015, p. 379).

then need to be selected as part of the initiative.

would be appropriate in the learning situation.

program (Appendix D).

instruction to present authentic scenarios for the students to experience.

Next, I focused on Mr. Hilliard’s involvement in Professor Kinzie’s course. He described

proficiency in this area.

understanding and skills of designing effective floor plans.

be expanded upon in the Learner Analysis.

explained further in the Instructional Plan section.

create a virtual experience for the user.

Rendering House is an interactive visualization and digital marketing company. They

software program used in the class.

learners (Morrison et al., 2013).

module was effective for the intended learners:

1. What are the general characteristics of the learners?

2. What are the learners’ experience levels with AutoCAD 2019?

3. Have the learners designed floor plans in AutoCAD 2019 before?

fear of any repercussions for their answers.

Applications in CAD course.

analysis. A topic analysis defines cognitive knowledge; a procedural analysis is comprised of

further in this section.

3. What information do I need to teach a concept?

actions required? (p. 73)

knowledge, to the higher-level skills of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and

acceptable performance by the learner (Morrison et al., 2013).

order to develop learning objectives that communicate:

2. The type of learning being performed

3. The content or object of the performance

4. The observable part of the behavior

functionality and effectiveness based on architectural standards and residential

building code requirements, providing written rationale for their findings.

(Analysis and Evaluation)

design a floor plan in AutoCAD 2019 by applying architectural standards and

residential building code requirements. (Application and Synthesis)

need to focus on in order to generate an understanding. Concepts are groupings of similar

determine the content that needed to be included in the instruction.