Process Documentation  ·  Full Lifecycle Case Study

ADDIE Case Study

Full lifecycle documentation from needs analysis through evaluation - showing the performance gap, design rationale, and honest reflection on what worked and what I would do differently.

Context
Higher Education - Community College
Audience
Adult Learners, Developmental Education
Modality
Blended (ILT + LMS-Delivered)
Outcome
98% First-Attempt Pass Rate (TSI 2.0)
1
ADDIE Phase: Analysis
The Performance Gap

El Centro College was preparing a large cohort of adult learners for the TSIA 2.0 - Texas's college-readiness assessment. Historically, first-attempt pass rates in developmental reading and writing hovered below 60%, and students who didn't pass on the first attempt were significantly more likely to exit the program without completing their credential.

Identified Performance Gap
Students were not failing because they lacked academic capability. They were failing because existing preparation materials were not aligned to the actual test structure, assessed skills at the wrong Bloom's level, and provided no mechanism for learners to practice and receive targeted feedback before test day.

The gap was a design gap, not a learner gap. That distinction drove every decision that followed.

2
ADDIE Phase: Analysis (continued)
Discovery Questions

Before designing anything, I conducted a structured needs analysis using SME interviews, learner surveys, and a review of existing materials. These were the questions driving discovery:

1
"What does the TSIA 2.0 actually measure, and how does that differ from what we've been teaching?"
2
"Where in the test structure do students most commonly lose points - and is that consistent across cohorts?"
3
"What do students say about the existing prep materials - specifically what's confusing or missing?"
4
"What constraints exist - time, technology, instructional capacity - that will shape what's actually deployable?"
5
"What does success look like at Kirkpatrick Level 4, and who owns accountability for measuring it?"
Key Finding from Discovery
Existing materials assessed recall (Bloom's Level 1–2). The TSIA 2.0 requires application and analysis (Levels 3–4). The entire curriculum needed to be rebuilt at a higher cognitive level - not supplemented with additional recall practice.
3
ADDIE Phases: Design & Development
Design Rationale

With the performance gap clearly defined, I designed a blended TSI Bootcamp using backward design - starting from the test structure and working back to the learning activities. Every objective was written to Bloom's Level 3–4 before any content was developed.

Design Decisions
Chunked content into 15-20 min modules matched to specific test skill domains. Built formative assessments that mirrored actual test item formats. Used spaced repetition logic in the LMS to reinforce weak areas. Included explicit metacognitive prompts - not just content questions.
What I Rejected
Rejected a full-day in-person workshop model - too passive for adult learners with work/family obligations. Rejected a test-prep workbook - no feedback mechanism. Rejected "more content" as the solution - the gap was cognitive level, not volume.
The Core Design Principle
Adult learners don't need more information - they need deliberate practice at the right cognitive level, with feedback that's specific enough to change behavior before the high-stakes moment. Every artifact was designed with that principle as the filter.
4
ADDIE Phase: Development & Implementation
The Finished Artifact

The TSI Bootcamp was delivered as a blended program: a structured in-person session for orientation and complex skill modeling, followed by a four-module self-paced LMS sequence that students completed in the two weeks before their test date.

Program Components
4 LMS modules (Reading Comprehension, Extended Response Writing, Grammar & Mechanics, Test Strategy). Each module: instructional content → worked examples → practice items → formative assessment with feedback. Total learner time: ~6 hours across 2 weeks.
Delivery Infrastructure
Deployed through Canvas LMS. Progress tracked at the skill-domain level so instructors could identify at-risk students mid-sequence and intervene. Assessment data fed back into content refinement for subsequent cohorts.
98%
First-attempt pass rate - Cohort 1
40+
Students completed the program in Year 1
L3–4
Bloom's level of all summative assessments
5
ADDIE Phase: Evaluation
Honest Reflection

The program exceeded its primary objective. A 98% first-attempt pass rate was a genuine outcome, not a reporting artifact - I had access to the assessment data directly and tracked it at the individual student level.

What Worked
Backward design from the actual test structure was the single most impactful decision. Aligning practice items to the exact cognitive demand of the assessment - rather than just the content topic - is what moved the needle. The LMS tracking also created an accountability loop that didn't exist with the previous paper-based approach.
What I Would Do Differently
I underinvested in Kirkpatrick Level 3 measurement - I tracked test scores (Level 2) and credential completion rates (Level 4), but I didn't systematically capture how students were applying reading and writing strategies in their other coursework after the bootcamp. That longitudinal data would have strengthened the program's case for replication across other departments. If I rebuilt this today, I'd design the Level 3 evaluation into the program architecture from day one, not as an afterthought.

This program was eventually adopted as a model by other faculty in the developmental education department - which is the version of "it worked" I'm most proud of. Replication by your colleagues is stronger validation than any single data point.

← Back to Portfolio