Process Case Study
KeelWorks Foundation | KeelMaster Assertiveness Course | Instructional Design Process
KeelWorks Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation focused on helping people prepare for sustainable employment. Its KeelMaster solution uses a three-phase approach to support unemployed and under-employed participants in addressing barriers to sustainable employment.
This case study shows how I worked within a collaborative instructional design cohort to move an assertiveness course from needs analysis and objective alignment into scenario scripting and course authoring. It documents the design and development process, not measured learner or business impact.
Performance Goal
Learners will recognize violations of personal space and apply the assertive response process in a realistic situation.
My Contribution
I worked within a collaborative instructional design team. The signed artifacts document my ISD review and sign-off on the needs analysis and course objectives. Within my cohort, I was the only designer who progressed to the Designer phase and worked in KeelMaster.
In KeelMaster, I wrote module scripts, selected and added supporting images, and assembled learning components. The upstream planning artifacts were collaborative; this authoring work was my individual contribution within the cohort.
The Process
Define the need
The needs analysis recorded the stakeholder, performance problem, audience, technology considerations, delivery approach, and project risks. Design decision: establish relevance before detailed instruction.
Translate the need into performance
One terminal objective and five enabling objectives moved learners from recognition to application. Design decision: end with observable application, not factual recall alone.
Structure the learning
The course map progressed from orientation to personal space, response types, the assertive-response process, and realistic practice. Design decision: present the big picture before procedural detail.
Plan the evidence
The assessment strategy mapped objectives to scenario-based identification and a realistic response evaluated against performance criteria. Design decision: design evidence before teaching content.
Set the strategy and author the course
The strategy defined each concept's learner change. I then wrote scripts, selected images, and assembled components in KeelMaster. Design decision: use the approved concept purpose as the build brief.
Alignment Snapshot
Need: Participants lacked a constructive method for responding to violations of personal space.
Required performance: Recognize a violation and apply the assertive response process.
Learning experience: Study response types, examine their effects, practise each process step, and respond to realistic violations.
Evidence of learning: Produce an assertive response that describes the behaviour, expresses the feeling, explains the reason, listens, and restarts the process when needed.
Key Design Decisions
Relevance before instruction; concept before procedure; consistency across like concepts; scenario-based performance practice; and build decisions tied to the intended learner change.
Result of the Design Work
The project produced connected planning artifacts and progressed into course authoring. In KeelMaster, I turned the approved design direction into module scripts and visual learning content. The available evidence does not include measured performance change, so this case study reports a design and development outcome rather than validated learning impact.
What I Learned
Strong learning design depends on a visible connection between the performance problem, objectives, practice, feedback, and assessment. Defining the learner change before writing a screen gave me a clear target for judging whether each script, image, and component supported the lesson purpose.
Evidence Note
This case study refers to internal planning and development artifacts without publishing them. No internal documents, document crops, or authoring-environment screenshots are shared.