Work Sample 2

Autism-Inclusive Travel Economy
Learning Series

Module 3

Module 3 Sensory Issues In Autistic Travelers.mp4

Project Context and Attribution

The content presented in Work Sample 2 does not require client permission.
The instructional design project presented below, Module 3, is part of the Autism-Inclusive Travel Economy (AITE) Learning Series developed by Dr. J. Sidney McAndrews, Founder of LogiXLearn.
The project was completed in Spring 2026 as part of OPWL 525: E-Learning Content and Learning Management Systems at Boise State University, in collaboration with the OPWL Program and Professor Rafael da Silva, Ph.D.

Overview: AITE Learning Series (Full Content)

Across the seven modules, the learning progresses from understanding inclusion and autistic traveler experiences to examining environmental conditions, identifying resources, learning from existing community practices, building partnerships, and applying those ideas to community-level planning. When complete, AITE will include seven instructional design modules that build on foundational knowledge of disability inclusion and autistic traveler experiences and apply it to tourism and municipal planning. For context, once the full AITE Learning Series is built out, the seven modules will follow the content structure outlined below.

Background

Work Sample 2 featured an instructional design (ID) project that examined sensory issues autistic travelers may encounter during air travel and how those experiences can affect accessibility, safety, and participation in tourism. Module 3: Sensory Issues in Autistic Travelers: Accessible Airports Benefit Travelers and Tourism was designed for municipal leaders, city planners, tourism commissions, and others involved in destination development and visitor experience.

Module 3 was part of Autism-Inclusive Travel Economy: First Steps for Municipal Leaders (AITE), a seven-module pilot learning and training series. AITE grew from a question that had followed me through several parts of my career: What happens when accessibility is considered before someone encounters a barrier, rather than after?

AITE began with ADA requirements for state and local governments and moved into proactive planning for autistic visitors. Title II requires state and local governments to provide people with disabilities equal opportunity to participate in programs, services, and activities (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). The series extended that legal foundation into tourism, transportation, public spaces, programs, and services, while connecting accessibility to visitor experience, organizational risk, and the economic importance of travelers with disabilities.

The seven AITE modules were not developed sequentially. Module 3 was the first completed during OPWL 525 and carried one part of the larger series through the full instructional design and development process. The completed module stood independently as an OPWL 525 project while demonstrating the larger AITE approach: identifying sensory barriers, examining practical supports, and considering accessibility during travel and tourism planning rather than after a barrier had already occurred.

Module 3

Sensory Issues in Autistic Travelers: Accessible Airports Benefit Travelers and Tourism moves from foundational concepts into a specific travel environment. Using a scenario that begins at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) and follows travel to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, learners examine how noise, crowds, lighting, movement, announcements, delays, unfamiliar spaces, and other sensory conditions can accumulate throughout a travel experience.

Challenge

One challenge shaped the project from the beginning. AITE was a pilot, not a client-commissioned learning series.

Without a specific city, airport, tourism organization, or other client, I could not conduct a client-specific needs assessment, collect organizational performance data, interview local participants, or establish a performance gap based on one community's conditions. I also could not assume that one destination's infrastructure, transportation systems, tourism resources, partnerships, policies, or accessibility practices would represent another's.

The AITE Learning Series also includes enough specificity to give learners realistic situations to examine without suggesting that the content was based on findings from a particular organization. Module 3, for example, uses an airport as a recognizable travel environment where transportation, public spaces, crowds, communication, sensory conditions, safety, and visitor services come together. The scenario provides a concrete setting for learners while leaving room to adapt to different communities and transportation environments.

With the content and learning context established, the next step was determining how to translate that material into an instructional experience for the intended audience. The sections that follow explain how Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Mayer’s multimedia principles, Canva, and guided discovery informed the design and development of Module 3.

Introduction to the Project

AITE was designed as a seven-module pilot, not a stand-alone training video. The broader series moves municipal learners from foundational information about disability access and autism-inclusive tourism toward applied consideration of sensory environments, community resources, visitor experiences, and municipal action.

Module 3, Sensory Issues in Autistic Travelers: Accessible Airports Benefit Travelers and Tourism, focuses specifically on how airport and transportation environments can intensify sensory distress. Learners first revisit sensory concepts introduced earlier in the series and then examine noise, crowds, lighting, announcements, movement, delays, schedule changes, and unfamiliar spaces as environmental conditions rather than treating sensory distress solely as an individual issue.

The module then shifts from receptive learning to guided discovery. Learners enter a Detroit Metro Airport-to-Myrtle Beach travel scenario involving a nine-year-old non-verbal autistic child, cumulative sensory stressors, forgotten headphones, a meltdown, and an unexpected three-hour flight delay. Instead of immediately answering, the video asks learners to decide what they would do next.

Solutions

Because AITE was developed without a specific client or airport, the solutions presented in Module 3 are intentionally projective. The module does not claim to solve a documented performance problem at Detroit Metro Airport, Myrtle Beach International Airport, or another transportation system. Instead, it demonstrates how a municipal learning intervention can connect disability access, environmental conditions, traveler experience, and practical planning.

Gagné's instructional framework provided the structure for moving learners through that process. The module gains attention, states objectives, activates prior knowledge, introduces airport-specific content, provides guidance, elicits a response through the scenario, offers possible responses for comparison, directs learners to a knowledge check, and connects the lesson to future application (Gagné et al., 1992). The resulting learning experience in Module 3 does more than tell learners that airports can be difficult for autistic travelers, and that was the goal in its design approach.

Learners consider environmental barriers, work through a realistic situation, generate possible responses, and then compare their thinking with supports such as quiet spaces, headphones, comfort items, sensory rooms, and assistance from airport personnel.

Goals

My immediate goal was to create a pilot learning series that could translate autism-inclusive tourism from a broad concept into learning designed for municipal decision-makers. Module 3 needed to show how one familiar environment could be examined through an accessibility lens and then connected to practical planning.

The learning objectives were deliberately written beyond simple recall. By the end of Module 3, learners were expected to:

Analyze sensory challenges within real-world tourism environments such as airports;
Evaluate how environmental conditions contribute to sensory overload; and
Design practical municipal strategies to improve accessibility for autistic travelers.

Module 3 has broader potential because its design approach extends beyond airports. The same instructional approach could be adapted to city festivals, museums, public transportation, outdoor concerts, recreation facilities, convention spaces, and other environments where municipal planning influences how people experience a community.

Needs Assessment

AITE Learning Series Needs and Performance Analysis
For a future client engagement, the needs assessment would establish what the organization needs before customizing or developing instructional content. The process would begin by defining the project environment and scope, whether an airport, zoo, aquarium, community space, municipal program, tourist attraction, event, or another setting.

Data collection would be tailored to the client and could include interviews or surveys with employees and organizational leaders; review of relevant policies, procedures, accessibility practices, complaints, and available organizational data; observations or accessibility walk-throughs; and identification of existing community resources and partnerships.

Input from autistic people and others with direct knowledge of the environment would also be incorporated, when appropriate, into the project. The findings would then establish the client’s current state, help define the desired state, and identify any performance gap between the two. AITE would demonstrate what I can build; the needs assessment would determine what I should build for that particular client.

Basis for the AITE Learning Series

The process described in this section represents how a future client engagement would move through a full-cycle needs and performance assessment. For a municipality or other organization seeking ADA compliance and accessibility consulting for an airport, public facility, program, service, or tourism environment, the client's actual setting would determine the current state, desired state, and performance gap. The process would include stakeholder interviews and surveys, organizational and environmental data collection, review of relevant policies and practices, direct observation, and analysis and coding of the information collected. Findings would then provide the evidence needed to identify performance gaps, examine their causes, and determine whether instructional content, another performance intervention, or a combination of approaches was appropriate.

When I pitched the idea for AITE to Professor Rafael da Silva in OPWL 525, my goal was to create a pilot learning series that could also demonstrate my instructional design skills and subject matter expertise in autism-inclusive tourism. I wanted prospective municipal clients to have a finished product they could review rather than simply describing the type of learning I could develop for them. AITE would give potential clients an example of how I could take a specialized accessibility topic, develop it into structured learning, and then tailor that approach to their specific community, environment, audience, and needs.

I developed the AITE Learning Series and Module 3 as demonstration projects to showcase the instructional design and accessibility-focused learning I can create for municipal clients. Rather than being developed for one city or organization, AITE provides prospective clients with an example of how autism-inclusive tourism, accessibility, and municipal planning can be translated into structured learning.

Module 3 demonstrates that approach through an airport setting, but the same instructional design process could be tailored to other municipal and tourism environments, including zoos, aquariums, community spaces, public programs, tourist attractions, and events. A future client would not receive AITE as a one-size-fits-all training product. The existing series would serve as an example of what could be developed around the client’s specific environment, accessibility needs, organizational priorities, and intended learners. Because AITE was created as a demonstration project rather than for an existing client, the original development did not include client-specific stakeholder interviews, surveys, organizational performance data, or findings from a particular municipality. Those activities would begin when a prospective client engaged LogiXLearn to develop customized learning content.

Current State

The current state describes how the client currently addresses accessibility for autistic residents and visitors in the environment included in the engagement. Rather than assuming the conditions presented in the AITE pilot existed in every community, the analysis documents what was occurring in the client’s organization, programs, services, and physical spaces.

Depending on the project's scope, the current-state analysis could examine employee and leadership knowledge, existing accessibility practices, policies and procedures, environmental and sensory conditions, available supports and resources, communication practices, transportation or visitor-service processes, and how the organization distributes responsibility for accessibility. For an airport, zoo, aquarium, tourist attraction, public event, or other community setting, the analysis could also identify points where autistic visitors encountered barriers and how the organization currently responded. The current state would therefore be based on evidence collected from the client and the environment being studied (Cameron et al., 2022) rather than on assumptions made during development of the AITE pilot.

Desired State

The desired state defines what the client wants accessibility and performance to look like. The client would develop it and align it with the organization’s responsibilities, strategic priorities, accessibility goals, intended audience, and the needs assessment findings. Depending on the findings, the desired state could include employees and leaders who are better prepared to recognize sensory and environmental barriers, identify appropriate supports and resources, follow established procedures, and incorporate accessibility considerations into planning and service delivery. Environmental or organizational changes could also be part of the desired state when barriers cannot be addressed through employee knowledge or skills alone. The client would establish specific measures of successful performance to ensure the desired state reflects what the organization needs to accomplish, rather than applying a generic definition of success across every municipality or tourism environment.

Performance Gap
When customizing AITE content for a client, the performance gap is identified by comparing evidence from the current state with the client-defined desired state. The comparison shows where existing performance, practices, processes, resources, or environmental conditions differ from what the organization needs. Yet, identifying a performance gap does not automatically mean training is the appropriate solution (Rothwell 2017). Further analysis would examine why the gap existed. Potential causes could involve knowledge or skills, policies and procedures, unclear responsibilities, communication, resources, organizational processes, environmental conditions, or several factors operating at the same time. If knowledge or skill gaps contributed to the problem, customized AITE learning content could form part of the recommended intervention. If the analysis identified other causes, recommendations could include changes to policies, procedures, communication, resources, environmental design, partnerships, or organizational practices. The findings would determine the intervention, rather than assuming training would solve the problem.

Training Delivery and Facilitation

When training was identified as an appropriate intervention, AITE content could be delivered through a hybrid model combining online learning with in-person application in the client’s actual environment. The online component would introduce relevant concepts, scenarios, and strategies, while the in-person component would include a guided walk-through and environmental scan of the municipal setting, such as an airport, zoo, aquarium, public facility, or tourist attraction.

The environmental scan component would allow participants to apply the training to their workplace rather than consider accessibility only through generalized examples. Participants could examine barriers identified during the walk-through assessment, discuss possible solutions, and consider how changes to programs, services, policies, procedures, communication, or physical spaces could improve accessibility. In this model, online instruction would establish foundational knowledge, while the in-person component would move participants into direct application within their own organization.

Findings from the walk-through could be incorporated into facilitated training where participants examined barriers in their own environment, discussed possible solutions, and considered how changes to programs, services, policies, procedures, communication, or physical spaces could improve accessibility. In this model, online instruction would establish foundational knowledge, while the in-person component would move participants into direct application within their own organization. Essentially, the environmental walk-through can serve two purposes at different stages. During the needs assessment, it is a data-collection method used to identify conditions and barriers. During training, returning to, or using, findings from that environment becomes an applied learning activity, making the walk-through part of the full AITE learning series approach without confusing assessment with instruction.

Transition to Client Engagement
If a client saw AITE or Module 3 and hired LogiXLearn, what would the actual consulting and training process look like?

AITE was designed from the beginning to move from a demonstration learning series to customized work for municipal clients. The piloted modules give prospective clients a concrete example of my instructional design approach and subject-matter expertise (SME). A client engagement would mark where that demonstration becomes the starting point for work specific to an actual organization and environment.

For example, if another airport engaged LogiXLearn after reviewing Module 3, the existing module would demonstrate what I could create rather than serve as a finished product to transfer to the new airport. The client engagement would begin by examining that airport’s operations, employees, travelers, physical environment, accessibility practices, procedures, resources, and performance expectations. Findings from the assessment would identify what to address and whether instruction, another performance intervention, or a combination of approaches was appropriate.

The same client engagement transition could occur with a zoo, aquarium, community space, municipal program, tourist attraction, event, or other public environment. Existing AITE content could provide a starting point where appropriate, but the client’s organizational setting and assessment findings would guide what to retain, revise, expand, or develop anew. The goal of transitioning AITE to a client engagement as a learning series protocol would not be to reproduce the pilot for another organization. Instead, it would use the instructional design approach and subject matter expertise demonstrated through AITE as the foundation for developing a solution specific to the client, its environment, and the people it serves.

Approach

Instructional Design Process

I began with the learning problem rather than the authoring tool. Early planning in Google Docs helped me capture ideas and establish objectives. Handwritten notes helped me sequence the content, and Lucid sticky notes provided a visual storyboard to organize learning flow, interactions, and page-level objectives.

Development moved from brainstorming and handwritten sequencing to storyboarding, instructional planning, and then multimedia production.

From there, I structured Module 3 to progress from receptive learning to guided discovery. Receptive content establishes the sensory-processing foundation learners need. Guided discovery then asks them to use that information in a realistic airport scenario. Clark and Mayer (2023) described guided discovery as an eLearning architecture that supports knowledge construction, making it a strong fit for objectives that require learners to analyze conditions and think through possible responses rather than simply remember information.

Gagné's Nine Events provided another layer of instructional structure. The framework connected the opening objectives, prior learning, new information, scenario, learner response, feedback, assessment, and transfer, rather than treating the video as a sequence of informational slides (Gagné et al., 1992). Design decisions also reflected Mayer's (2017) multimedia principles.

Graphics supported the instructional content rather than serving as decoration. Essential information was visually emphasized, related words and graphics were kept together, and narration was planned to match the on-screen visuals (Mayer, 2017). The team made these decisions during the initial design process rather than adding them after production.

The Module 3 content sequence was intentional. The planning documentation shows the progression from orientation and prior knowledge through environmental analysis, escalation and safety, guided discovery, reflection, environmental supports, and assessment.

See Appendix G: Module 3 Design Decisions Snapshot for additional details.

Methodology

Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction

Gagné's Nine Events gave Module 3 its instructional sequence, not its subject matter. The framework progresses from gaining attention and establishing objectives through recall, content presentation, guidance, practice, feedback, assessment, and transfer (Gagné et al., 1992). The Nine Events apply most strongly in the transition from receptive learning to guided discovery. In that section, learners first recall sensory concepts from earlier AITE modules. They then examine how airport conditions accumulate across parking, shuttles, TSA, terminals, boarding, aircraft, restrooms, and dining areas.

Finally, the airport scenario asks them to apply that information before seeing suggested supports. Appendix C provides an overview of the nine instructional events, while Appendix D maps all nine directly to Module 3 and identifies both planned instructional activities and anticipated learner activity.

Bloom's Taxonomy

Bloom's Taxonomy informed the level of thinking expected from learners (University of Arkansas, 2022). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning objectives. uark.edu. Module 3 was not designed around objectives such as identify or define. The three objectives use analyze, evaluate, and design, requiring learners to examine sensory conditions, judge how the environment contributes to overload, and consider practical municipal responses. The guided scenario supported that progression by asking learners to interpret a situation rather than repeat information from the preceding slides. The objectives therefore serve as more than introductory language. They establish the module's cognitive direction and shape scenario and assessment planning.

Mayer's Principles of Multimedia Learning

Mayer's principles influenced how we presented information visually and through narration. The project placed the greatest emphasis on the multimedia, coherence, signaling, spatial contiguity, temporal contiguity, segmenting, and modality principles (Mayer, 2017). Words and relevant visuals work together rather than relying on text alone. Decorative material was intentionally limited. Headings and concise labels signal essential information. Related text and graphics appear together, while narration corresponds with the visual content being presented. The lesson is also segmented into distinct stages rather than delivered as one continuous block of information. Those choices were intended to support cognitive processing while keeping attention on the information learners need to use later in the scenario.

Guided Discovery

Guided discovery became especially important once learners reached the airport scenario. Clark and Mayer (2023) distinguished learning architectures by the type of cognitive engagement expected from learners. A receptive approach worked for establishing foundational information, but Module 3 objectives required learners to do something with that information.

The scenario therefore stopped before supplying possible solutions. Learners first considered the environmental conditions, available supports, and their next move. Only afterward were possible responses presented for comparison. The intent was not to suggest that one response would work for every autistic traveler. It was to move learners from receiving information toward constructing a response based on the situation in front of them.

In the original Module 3 Canva video, guided discovery did not involve interactive branching. The scenario was presented through narration and visuals, then deliberately paused before introducing possible responses. Learners were asked to consider the environmental conditions, available resources, and what they would do next. The video then continued by presenting possible responses that learners could compare with their own thinking. The activity therefore provided guided decision-making within a linear video format; it did not record a learner’s decision, change the subsequent path based on that decision, or provide individualized feedback.

Canva Video and Accessibility

I selected Canva Video because it was the required ID tool in OPWL 525, and it is an affordable production option that gave me direct control over the individual visual and text elements used in the module. Its AI features had to be deliberately activated, rather than functioning as an unavoidable layer of the authoring process. Controlling the features mattered because of my professional background in ADA compliance and my knowledge of Section 508 and digital accessibility standards. I wanted to make deliberate decisions about text, graphics, hierarchy, narration, and other elements rather than turn those decisions over to automated generation.

Appendix E and Appendix F document that process from two different directions. Appendix E outlines the instructional purpose and design rationale behind the slide sequence, while Appendix F preserves the corresponding on-screen content and narration used in the finished video.

Rationale for Module 3 Being in the Portfolio Work Samples

Of the seven AITE modules, Module 3 offered the clearest opportunity to demonstrate how I translate an accessibility issue into a specific learning environment. Most people can picture an airport. They understand waiting in a TSA line, navigating a crowded terminal, hearing repeated announcements, dealing with a delay, or trying to find somewhere quiet. The setting makes an otherwise abstract discussion of sensory accessibility concrete.

For portfolio purposes, the airport also demonstrates the transferability of my instructional design process. The subject is not limited to aviation. The same process can begin with a city event, museum, outdoor concert, public transportation system, recreation facility, or other location and ask: Where does the environment create barriers, what happens when those barriers accumulate, and what can be designed differently?

Module 3 also brings together several elements I want this portfolio to demonstrate: Bloom's higher-order learning objectives, Mayer's multimedia principles, Gagné's instructional sequence, guided discovery, and accessibility. Rather than separating instructional design from my ADA work, the module shows how I use learning design to help organizations examine the environments, policies, programs, and experiences they create.

Training Video Content

The Module 3 instructional design project produced a completed Module 3 training video and documented the instructional design process within the larger seven-module AITE pilot series.

Module 3 Produced:

A 12-slide multimedia training sequence focused on sensory issues in airport environments;
Three higher-order learning objectives addressing analysis, evaluation, and design;
A progression from receptive learning into guided discovery;
In-depth scenario-based learning requiring viewers to consider cumulative sensory barriers and possible responses within Detroit Metro Airport-to-Myrtle Beach;
Examples of immediate supports, airport resources, and environmental accessibility strategies;
A SurveyMonkey knowledge check;
A Gagné-based lesson plan mapping all nine instructional events to the module;
Narration planning and a complete narration script; and
Supporting pre-planning, content outlining, and instructional-design documentation.

The finished module does not demonstrate post-training behavior change, municipal implementation, increased tourism revenue, or reduced ADA risk. Because AITE was a pilot developed without a specific client, those would require implementation and evaluation in an actual organizational setting. Likewise, the video introduces municipal design as an objective but does not require learners to submit a completed municipal design proposal.

For Module 3, the result is therefore the learning intervention itself and the instructional design process behind it, not an unsupported claim about organizational outcomes.

Results

Training Video Content

The Module 3 ID project produced a complete training video as part of the larger seven-module AITE pilot learning series. The project also documented the instructional design process used to advance Module 3 from initial planning through development and production.

Module 3 Produced:

A 12-slide multimedia training sequence focused on sensory issues in airport environments;
Three higher-order learning objectives addressing analysis, evaluation, and design;
A progression from receptive learning into guided discovery;
In-depth scenario-based learning requiring viewers to consider cumulative sensory barriers and possible responses within Detroit
Metro Airport-to-Myrtle Beach;
Examples of immediate supports, airport resources, and environmental accessibility strategies;
A SurveyMonkey knowledge check;
A Gagné-based lesson plan mapping all nine instructional events to the module;
Narration planning and a complete narration script; and
Supporting pre-planning, content outlining, and instructional-design documentation.

The finished module does not demonstrate post-training behavior change, municipal implementation, increased tourism revenue, or

reduced ADA risk. Because AITE was a pilot developed without a specific client, those would require implementation and evaluation in

an actual organizational setting. Likewise, the video introduces municipal design as an objective but does not require learners to submit

a completed municipal design proposal.

For Module 3, the result is therefore the learning intervention itself and the instructional design process behind it, not an unsupported

claim about organizational outcomes.

AirportAutismSensoryScenario

Reflections

The pilot ultimately produced a polished video and an ID framework I can adapt. An airport was the setting for Module 3, but the larger method is applicable wherever people, place, policy, and accessibility meet.

Module 3 confirmed for me that ID processes work best when the learner can see where the information matters. An airport gave me a contained environment in which sensory barriers could be examined across an entire experience rather than discussed as isolated characteristics of autism. The shift from receptive learning into guided discovery was especially important. Learners first received enough information to understand the problem, but the scenario then required them to stop and think before possible responses appeared.

Gagné's model helped make that progression visible. The strongest fit was in presenting content, guiding attention, activating prior knowledge, and eliciting a response. The design also exposed its own limitations. Slide 9 allows learners to compare their ideas with possible responses, but it does not provide individualized feedback.

The SurveyMonkey quiz provides the stated assessment, and the video introduces municipal strategies, but learners do not complete a municipal design exercise within Module 3.

Looking Back, Looking Forward: Design Changes

If I were developing Module 3 today, I would make several significant production changes:

Change the narration process

Although I was paying for Canva Pro, the available voiceover options were limited. A recent digital accessibility training I completed through the Great Lakes ADA Center also raised concerns about AI-generated voices for some people with hearing and other disabilities because synthetic speech may lack the natural pacing, vocal range, tone, and inflection of human speech.
In future client work, I would invest in equipment to record my own narration, use an organizational speaker when appropriate, or select a higher-quality narration tool after evaluating its accessibility.

Change the narration process

Develop all seven modules within one primary authoring environment. OPWL 525 required students to demonstrate multiple authoring tools, which made sense within an academic environment designed to build experience across technologies. A consulting project has a different requirement.
A seven-module learning series should present a consistent visual identity, navigation structure, learner experience, and brand. I would still use another tool when it offered a clear instructional advantage, but variety would no longer be a design goal in itself.

Extend the Guided Discovery

Clark and Mayer (2023) describe metacognition as learners' awareness and control of their own learning processes. A stronger final activity could allow learners to select a municipal setting, identify environmental barriers, work through possible responses, and explain the reasoning behind their choices.
Such an activity would move the design objective beyond consideration and into observable performance.

References (Module 3 and Work Sample 2 Content)

ADA National Network. (n.d.). ADA passed House: July 26: ADA signed. https://adata.org/ada-timeline/ada-passed-house-july-26-ada-signed

ADA National Network. (n.d.). Timeline of the Americans with Disabilities Act. https://adata.org/ada-timeline

Berkowitz, E. (2017). George Bush and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Social Welfare History Project. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/recollections/george-bush-and-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/

Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., Degraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2022). Competing values leadership (3rd ed.). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Catio23. (2015, March 3). Portrait of a theorist - Robert Mills Gagné [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgDcUnObLqI

Center for Instructional Technology and Training. University of Florida. (2018). Gagné’s 9 events of instruction. https://citt.ufl.edu/tools/gagnes-9-events-of-instruction/

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2023). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace & Company.

Grandin, T., & Moore, D. (2021). Navigating autism: 9 mindsets for helping kids on the autism spectrum. Norton.

International Board of Credentialing and Continuing Education Standards. (n.d.). Become a certified autism destination: Stand out to visitors + enhance accessibility. https://ibcces.org/certified-autism-destination/

Khadjooi, K., Rostami, K., & Ishaq, S. (2011). How to use Gagne’s model of instructional design in teaching psychomotor skills. Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench, 4(3), 116–119.

Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e‐learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 33(5), 403-423.

Rothwell, W. J. (2004). Beyond training and development: The groundbreaking classic on human performance enhancement. AMACOM.

Northern Illinois University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2020). Gagné’s nine events of instruction: An instructional guide for university faculty and teaching assistants. https://www.niu.edu/citl/resources/ guides/instructional-guide

Open Doors Organization. (2024, December 3). $50 billion in annual spending highlights impact of travelers with disabilities. PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/50-billion-in-annual-spending-highlights-impact-of-travelers-with-disabilities-302321017.html

University of Arkansas. (2022, July 26). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning objectives. uark.edu

U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). State and local governments. ADA.gov. https://www.ada.gov/topics/title-ii/

Appendices

Appendix A: Pre-Planning Module Content (Brainstorming)
Appendix B: Outline for Training Video Content
Appendix C: Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction
Appendix D: Module 3 Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction Lesson Plan
Appendix E: Narration Content Planning Documentation
Appendix F: Module 3 Narration Content Planning Documentation
Appendix G: Module 3 Design Decisions Snapshot

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse