Embedded Files
Process & Strategy
Pillar 1: Empathy & Evidence
Pillar 1: Empathy & Evidence
Human-Centered Design & The Learner
Human-Centered Design & The Learner
TOOLS: Survey Design (Google Forms), Stakeholder Interviews, Qualitative Synthesis
Front-End Needs Analysis
Front-End Needs Analysis
The approach: Before a single objective was written, I conducted a multi-source front-end analysis combining stakeholder interviews (trascripted and later reviewed and analyzed), bilingual volunteer surveys, organizational document review, and AI-assisted database research drawing on reports from ECPAT, UNODC, ASEAN-ACT, UNESCO, and the U.S. State Department to map the most prevalent scam and exploitation tactics in the Southeast Asian region.
Volunteer Student (Google Form)
Volunteer Instructor (Google Form)
What this revealed:
A critical programmatic gap: DEPDC's existing programs addressed palliative care (hygiene, shelter, informal education, etc.), not prevention. No structured curriculum existed to build cognitive defense skills against exploitation.
Organizational friction: leadership continuity, volunteer support, and administrative infrastructure gaps that required careful shifts outside the project scope.
Learner vulnerability patterns: stateless youth, interrupted education, digital access without digital literacy, and cultural barriers to questioning authority and understanding due process.
Design response: Scoped the intervention to what was actionable and designed a scalable, mobile-first prevention program built around my original framework: the S.C.A.M. model
Avatar and visual identity designed by Nicole L. Weber using AI-assisted generation and custom refinement.
Learner Empathy & Persona Development
Learner Empathy & Persona Development
The approach: Socio-culturally senstivce empathy mapping synthesized survey data, interview insights, and regional research into two distinct learner personas that examined beliefs, attitudes, community structures, hopes, and systematic barriers.
Key design insights from this process:
Shared strenghts & motivation, vulnerabilities, learning needs.
Compromised authority structures
Accessibility & Inclusive Design
Accessibility & Inclusive Design
The approach: Accessibility and cultural responsiveness were embed in the begining phases of design.
UDL application within real constraints:
Representation: Culturally accurate AI-generated visuals; Thai-familiar symbols (warning signs matching local traffic iconography); CEFR B1–B2 language level throughout
Engagement: Authentic problem-based scenarios rooted in familiar community contexts (markets, village offices, schools); addresses real biases, threats, and social pressures directly
Action & Expression: No multiple choice, rather decision pathways; confidence-based self-reflection replaces evaluative pressure; optional private reflection prompts
Additional accessibility decisions:
No video: bandwidth constraint turned into a design principle. Compressed, rich static, occasionally animated visuals with audio overlays.
Translanguaging: minimal on-screen text, bilingual glossary, culturally resonant character names and settings
Trauma-aware design: safe-pause prompts, optional reflections, no forced disclosure
WCAG 2.2 AA compliance
Pillar 2: Architecture
Pillar 2: Architecture
Strategic Alignment
Strategic Alignment
Design without structure is decoration. Every artifact in this pillar begins with a performance goal and works backward, identifying the skills, knowledge, and decisions learners must demonstrate before a single interaction is built.
UbD (Backwards Design) drives the sequencing.
ADDIE/SAM provides the structural framework.
Agile governs the execution: iterative, responsive, and never precious about early decisions when evidence points elsewhere.
DEPDC Safe Pathways
STORYBOARD
DEPDC Safe Pathways
STORYBOARD
Logic Mapping, Sequential Scaffolds & Instructional Engineering
Logic Mapping, Sequential Scaffolds & Instructional Engineering
Before a single objective was written, a critical programmatic gap was identified: DEPDC's existing programs addressed palliative care exclusively. No preventative curriculum existed to build cognitive defense skills against exploitation.
Applying Cathy Moore's Action Mapping methodology, I translated this finding into developing the S.C.A.M. Model that addressed observable performance requirements anchored to a measurable organizational goal.
This instructional design document (IDD) serves as the governing architectural document for the Safe Pathways program. Front-end analysis synthesized stakeholder interviews, bilingual volunteer surveys, and regional exploitation data drawn from ECPAT, UNODC, and ASEAN-ACT to inform every design decision.
The IDD the learning objectives written to Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, a four-component task analysis scaffolding foundational awareness toward higher-order decision-making, a blended delivery model optimized for low-bandwidth mobile contexts, key learner decision points, various criteria for inclusion, and a confidence-based evaluation strategy designed for a trauma-informed learning.
This storyboard documents the scene-by-scene interaction architecture for the Safe Pathways program, including scenario design rooted in culturally authentic community contexts, scaffolded question competency and embeded thinking skills across three lessons, and trauma-responsive strategies embedded throughout.
All iconography, navigation buttons, and UI elements custom designed with AI assistance to align with WCAG contrast requirements.
DEPDC Safe Pathways
ACTION MAP
DEPDC Safe Pathways
ACTION MAP
DEPDC Safe Pathways
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN DOCUMENT
DEPDC Safe Pathways
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN DOCUMENT
LOGIC BUILD EXAMPLE
Scalable Assessment Architecture in Articulate Storyline
LOGIC BUILD EXAMPLE
Scalable Assessment Architecture in Articulate Storyline
Engineering the 'A: ASK' defense in the S.C.A.M. Model:
To simulate the psychological pressure of a potential scam, I architected an interactive logic build focused on the 'Ask' phase of the S.C.A.M. model.
In scenario-based learning, conventional slide duplication creates bloated files, fragmented learner flow, and maintenance complexity that compounds as pathways expand. To solve this, I engineered a dynamic single-slide interaction architecture using 2 master variables, 7-text states, and 3 feedback layers on 1 base slide.
Rather than a binary right/wrong interaction, the result is a seamless learner experience with zero load latency between questions, replaced seven discrete interaction states with a single adaptive slide, and an architecture that scales by updating state lists and trigger logic rather than duplicating layouts.
Pillar 3
Pillar 3
Iteration & Impact
Iteration & Impact
Evaluation is not a phase - it is a core compentency. A commitment to asking whether the design is effective and being willing to change course when the answer is no. I design every project with instructional alignment. I begin with with the end in mind: success criteria defined before development starts, measurement instruments embed into the design, and iteration as a professional standard. Data-driven design iteration empowers evidence-based decision making.
Evaluation architecture
Evaluation architecture
This document makes the full measurement logic of the DPD Framework and DEPDC Safe Pathways program visible in a single view.
The nine behavioral dispositions, organized across primary personas and emergent competencies, were identified and developed as original design work for the DPD framework.
For each disposition, the architecture maps what was measured and at which LTEM tier and Kirkpatrick level, how data was captured, and which design decisions evaluation findings directly informed.
The DEPDC Safe Pathways section documents a formative usability pilot (one cycle of a longer evaluation arc) that surfaced friction points in Module 1 of the S.C.A.M. Awareness course and drove immediate design revisions.
Two contexts. Two evaluation approaches. One coherent argument.
Alignment & Quality Assurance (QA)
Alignment & Quality Assurance (QA)
A working QA and implementation rubric for the DEPDC Safe Pathways S.C.A.M. Awareness eLearning course.
Two layers: phase gate questions for design sign-off, and a slide-level execution checklist for development review. Status tracking built in — Pass, Flag, or Needs Revision — with a live progress bar across both layers.
Built directly from the IDD — every item traces back to a documented design decision, a pilot finding, or a published standard. Integrates Mayer's principles alongside an explicit translanguaging framework
Covers 5 execution domains:
Accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA + mobile)
Language and Readability (CEFR B1–B2 and translanguaging)
Interaction Integrity
Cultural Accuracy and Trauma-Aware Design
Objective Alignment
Designed for use in the field: selections save automatically in the browser, and the Export PDF button generates a clean snapshot for client or supervisor sign-off.
Iteration & Refinement
Iteration & Refinement
A practitioner reflection on the formative usability pilot conducted for Module 1 of the DEPDC Safe Pathways S.C.A.M. Awareness course.
Documents what design methodologies worked, such as culturally situated visuals, audio feedback, bilingual glossary entries, scenario-based consequences, and scaffolded cognitive load, and why those decisions held up under real learner conditions.
Surfaces the friction the pilot exposed: navigation and onboarding gaps, vocabulary risk at the CEFR B1–B2 threshold, and interaction design assumptions that were invisible until a real learner encountered them.
Identifies the root cause across every navigation failure: the Digital Convention Assumption Gap. The unspoken rules of how screens work that designers absorb so early they stop noticing them.
This is not a polished findings report. It is evidence of a designer responding to data and knowing what to do with it.
Explore how standards, inquiry, assessment, and metacognitive reflection are translated into learner-centered instructional experiences.
Frameworks: Backward Design (UbD), UK NC, IPC
Tools: Anthropic (Claude AI & Design)
Criterion-Referenced Asessment Design
Criterion-Referenced Asessment Design
Translating Standards into Learner-Centered Inquiry
Translating Standards into Learner-Centered Inquiry
Translating Standards into Learner-Centered Inquiry
Translating Standards into Learner-Centered Inquiry
Context & Scope
Designed a criterion-referenced assessment system within a transdisciplinary Year 6 inquiry unit integrating UK National Curriculum standards, thinking skills, and inquiry-based learning frameworks.
Instructional Challenge
The primary challenge was translating standards-aligned learning outcomes into learner-centered success criteria capable of supporting authentic assessment, metacognitive reflection, and visible evidence of conceptual understanding beyond rote recall.
Design Strategy
Applied backward design, inquiry-based learning, and formative assessment principles to align standards, inquiry questions, ATL skills, performance tasks, and criterion-referenced rubrics into a coherent instructional feedback system. Student-facing language, visible thinking routines, and self-assessment structures were intentionally designed to strengthen learner agency and metacognitive awareness.
Learner & Systems Thinking
Designed assessment as an ongoing instructional feedback loop rather than a terminal evaluation event. Success criteria, reflection prompts, and rubric structures were developed to support formative assessment for learning, student self-monitoring, and instructional responsiveness across diverse learner needs.
Evaluation & Iteration
Structured as a scalable assessment framework supporting continuous refinement of instructional practice, standards alignment, learner reflection, and evidence-informed curriculum design across inquiry-based learning environments.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse