In New Jersey, the Department of Education (DoE) has mandated several inclusive curricula to amplify the voices of underrepresented groups in history and culture (see Figure 1). While legislation requires the integration of African American history (Amistad Law), Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) contributions, Holocaust/genocide studies, LGBTQ+ history, and the contributions of persons with disabilities, there remains a significant gap in preservice preparation and professional development (PD) to support educators in this work. To address this gap, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) established the Consortium through a grant with the mission to extend beyond "heroes and holidays" and foster a continuous celebration of diversity (Pinckney, n.d.). However, the project faced a unique design challenge: how to rapidly deploy resources to thousands of members while simultaneously building a sustainable, pedagogically sound learning ecosystem within pre-existing technological constraints. This article presents a design case (Boling, 2010) detailing the iterative, three-phase process used to translate these mandates into a scalable practitioner-focused learning environment.
Figure 1
NJEA Consortium-supported mandates
The NJEA is a justice-centered union representing approximately 200,000 public school and higher education employees. The Consortium acts as a bridge between the organization’s social justice mission and classroom practice. The project involves a complex web of stakeholders: the National Education Association (NEA) (grantor), NJEA leadership, external content experts (museums, universities), and Design Team Ambassadors (DTAs) (practitioner-educators who co-design and pilot materials).
Design always occurs within constraints (Stefaniak, 2021). A primary constraint and tension for this project was the predetermined platform: the NEA’s existing Learning Management System (LMS), powered by LearnUpon, with the initial intention to engage in rapid resource curation. However, the robust LMS platform affords a depth of learning opportunities and exploratory learning for end users. Curating resources when there is a dearth is a good step forward to bridging existing gaps. However, resources are not equivalent to training, nor do they ensure deep learning or transfer to practice. Rather than viewing this as a limitation, the design team approached it as an "unforeseen opportunity" (Stefaniak, 2025) to leverage the platform's stability for rapid curation (Phase I) while developing richer external content using Articulate Rise 360 for subsequent phases.
The Consortium Lead faced a dilemma common to practice: balancing client requests with best pedagogical practices (Stefaniak, 2020). As designers and practitioners, we must honor the felt needs of clients and stakeholders as articulated within contracts, while simultaneously building trust to approximate to a more appropriate learning solution (Pinckney & Lynch, 2024; Stefaniak, 2020). Making the decision to honor the initial grant commitment (the "felt need" or internally requested solution), they simultaneously crafted the multi-phased plan that would also honor best practices in performance improvement. In essence, the decision to proceed with the less-ideal, "80% solution" as obligated was not the stopping point but was strategically incorporated into the larger iterative design scheme (Tessmer & Wedman, 1990). The Consortium Lead socialized the need for additional phases and gained buy-in for creating interventions beyond the initial solution, leveraging the flexibility inherent in the iterative design model to bridge the gap between initial constraints and long-term goals (Yanchar & Faulconer, 2011).
Another tension arose from the critical need to select appropriate pedagogical frameworks to do justice to the ethical weight (Moore, 2021b) of inclusive curricula. The Consortium was faced with a range of instructional design models, but the content, addressing identity, historical trauma, and systemic inequity, demanded a design approach that transcended mere procedural compliance. Curating resources alone can lack substance without pedagogical rigor, a persistent challenge in online resource development.
The Design Team anchored the project in three synergistic frameworks to operationalize equity (Moore, 2021b). To honor the complexity of the mandated content, Dr. Gholdy Muhammad's (2020, 2023) Culturally and Historically Responsive Education (CHRE) framework was foundational, specifically its five pursuits: 1) self and identity, which emphasizes being true to oneself and developing critical consciousness; 2) skill, which prioritizes mastery of those skills which are required for success in life; 3) intellect, which encourages deep thinking; 4) criticality, where both students and educators problematize the world and stand up for that which is right; and 5) joy, which emphasizes love of self, humanity, and solving social problems (Freire, 1970; Muhammad, 2020, 2023).
This was coupled with the structural rigor of Understanding by Design (UbD) to ensure a focus on learning transfer and enduring understanding rather than rote memorization (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Finally, the project integrated Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles from the outset to address the ethical imperative of accessibility, treating human variability as the norm rather than the exception, and moving beyond the common practice of accessibility as a post-hoc checklist (CAST, 2024; Rao, 2019). The decision to integrate these three high-bar, evidence-based frameworks was an intentional design choice to manage the tension between rapid deployment and the moral imperative of designing deep, culturally responsive, and inclusive learning. They interact cohesively, with UbD establishing the structural path for learning transfer, UDL removing barriers to ensure equitable access, and CHRE providing the cultural depth and purpose required for identity-centered learning. Together, they transform inclusive mandates from superficial content coverage into a holistic ecosystem where learning is accessible, purposeful, and deeply connected to students’ lived experiences (Pinckney, 2026).
These frameworks were not abstract ideals but functional design specifications. Each framework served as a blueprint for decision-making, ensuring that every resource aligned with principles of equity, accessibility, and pedagogical rigor.
Fundamentally rooted in equity, or fairness in how people are treated (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), the Consortium recognized that, within the context of the increasingly diverse public education landscape, equity for students and their learning is essential (Muhammad, 2020). Paolo Freire (1970) cautioned that traditional models in which teachers merely impart information to their students perpetuate cycles of oppression. Muhammad’s (2020, 2023) equity framework expands this work by challenging deficit models (Liu, 2024) that are often inadvertently implemented in education. If a resource did not actively cultivate any of these pursuits, it was excluded. This ensured that equity was the default setting of the design (Moore, 2021a). Applications of these key components are featured within the Consortium Macro-Curriculum in Figure 2.
Figure 2
NJEA Consortium Macro-Curriculum
The Consortium views the mandated curricula not merely as requirements, but as a moral imperative. Sometimes mistaken for a rigid binary (Moore, 2021a; Whitbeck, 1996), ethics is a practice of confronting complex moral problems that require thoughtful design and response. In the context of inclusive education, this means intentionally designing to counter systemic inequities rather than allowing them to persist by default (Moore, 2021a). By prioritizing ethical considerations alongside instructional goals and engaging stakeholders to reveal and address assumptions, we ensure that our work is a direct response to the call for justice in education (Gray & Boling, 2016; Moore, 2021b).
Specifically, our design process directly confronts a major ethical blind spot in traditional instructional design models: accessibility (Gilbert, 2019; Moore, 2021a; Rieber & Estes, 2017). Standard instructional design (ID) models often treat accessibility as a post-hoc checklist (Rieber & Estes, 2017) or as a separate concern to be handled by specialists (Estes et al., 2020; Rieber & Estes, 2017). In fact, the 2024 needs assessment results showed that the program had previously been operating with “accessibility as an afterthought.” In contrast, the Consortium Lead's revised approach integrates Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles from the outset. This framework assumes, welcomes, and honors human variability by default (Estes et al., 2020; Fovet, 2019; Kirsch & Luo, 2023; Moore, 2021a; Persson et al., 2015; Rao, 2019; Redstone & Luo, 2024) and ensures that the instructional materials are not just compliant, but are flexible and usable for learners, maximizing agency and autonomy (Freire, 1970; Gray & Boling, 2016; Moore, 2021a; UDL Guidelines 3.0 Full Draft, 2024) . This ethical stance contends that a resource cannot be inclusive if it is inaccessible. Consequently, UDL principles were woven into the templates provided to DTAs, ensuring that human variability was honored in every lesson plan created.
To move beyond rote memorization and ensure deep learning transfer, the Consortium operationalized UbD to provide structural and pedagogical rigor. This framework directly influenced the design decision to adopt the GRASPS model (Goal, Role, Audience, Situation, Product, Standards), which served as the blueprint for creating performance tasks that require students to apply knowledge in novel, authentic contexts (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). By standardizing templates, the Consortium Lead ensured that every educator's output prioritized enduring understandings over isolated facts, effectively addressing the initial needs assessment findings regarding a lack of tangible outcomes and pedagogical traction.
Another tension emerged between designing for one's own classroom and designing instructional materials for students and stakeholders beyond it. The DTAs faced a serious transition: not merely a shift in task but also in mindset to explore a different set of design considerations. Based on a fall 2024 needs assessment conducted by the Consortium Lead, DTAs were "passionate and skilled" in their areas, but data showed a "lack of results" and "lack of traction" with the CHRE, UbD, and UDL frameworks. While these practitioner-educators routinely engage in instructional planning and lesson planning for their known students, curricula, and contexts (Clark & Estes, 2008; Richey et al., 2011), their Consortium work requires them to practice instructional design (ID). In contrast to personal planning, ID is a systematic approach aimed at creating detailed specifications that facilitate learning and performance for diverse, unknown users in various contexts (Richey et al., 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008). The core challenge for the DTAs was moving from the specific (i.e., designing for my students with their unique needs and local resources) to the general (i.e., designing for all NJEA members and their diverse students).
To address the needs assessment findings and support the DTAs in this transition, the Consortium Lead provided professional development on the main frameworks leveraged within the Consortium design process and specifically crafted facilitated design sessions so the DTAs could design alongside someone with ID expertise. These supports helped DTAs to externalize their pedagogical expertise and adopt a systems perspective (Clark & Estes, 2008). The consortium's templates and frameworks, such as the incorporation of UbD, UDL, and Muhammad’s pursuits, served as essential design scaffolding to guide DTAs through this transition, helping them account for the variability and ethical considerations of designing for the other (Gilbert, 2019; Moore, 2021a). This proved to be a successful decision. By June 2025, evaluation data demonstrated a significant turnaround: 100% of DTAs reported increased knowledge and skills to support inclusive curricula, and 90.9% felt they had successfully applied new skills to their professional practice.
Where instructional design (ID) is the “science and art of creating detailed specifications for the development, evaluation, and maintenance of situations which facilitate learning and performance” (Richey et al., 2011, p. 3), iterative design is both a best and practical practice. Given the scope of mandates, the urgent need for resources, and the fall 2024 needs assessment finding that stakeholders felt the project had been “spinning wheels” with no outcomes for two years prior to the Consortium Lead’s hiring, a linear ADDIE-style approach was deemed too slow and inappropriate. Instead, the Lead adopted a layered, iterative approach (Tessmer & Wedman, 1990) organized into three distinct phases with their own achievable outcomes (see Figure 3). Iteration allows aspects of the design process to be revisited rather than completed in a straightforward fashion. However, this does not endorse repetition for repetition’s sake, but for intentional refinement (Tessmer & Wedman, 1990) across phases. The flexibility allowed designers to achieve outcomes while responding intentionally and rapidly, continuously refining resources to meet educator needs.
Figure 3
Three-Phase Design
At the time of writing this manuscript, the Consortium design work is within the first phase of the design process. Based on the fall 2024 needs assessment, DTAs reported a "lack of clarity and direction," and disorientation regarding the Consortium's goals. This finding informed the data-driven decision for the Phase I focus: to provide immediate impact by curating high-quality, vetted resources to address the dearth of resources for educators. This structure allowed stakeholders to focus on this initial outcome.
After gathering a broad range of existing resources, the Consortium Lead then subjected these materials to an initial evaluation against predetermined criteria to ensure their appropriateness for the effort. Those criteria were as follows:
Accuracy: Is the resource factual and well cited in relation to the mandates?
Vetting: Is the resource from a reputable source (e.g., academia, advocacy group, museum)?
Relevance: Does the resource align with the state-mandated curricula, design frameworks, and/or the Consortium macro-curriculum?
Accessibility: Are the materials easy to access and understand? Do they have accessibility features embedded? Can accessibility be enhanced?
This initial evaluation acts as a filtering mechanism, allowing the Consortium Lead to make initial decisions on which resources to include.
To navigate the LMS infrastructure and address the “lack of structure” concern, the Consortium Lead organized resources into "Tracks" corresponding to specific mandates (e.g., Track #1: Amistad, Track #2: AAPI, etc.). Operationally, these tracks provided a clear plan and intended outcome for DTAs to work towards. A critical design decision was the inclusion of Track #8: UbD and Track #9: UDL content with the adapted CHRE Macro-Curriculum embedded within every track. By placing pedagogical frameworks alongside content mandates, users implicitly learn how to teach the content, not just what to teach.
The application of theory is best illustrated by the Performance Task Template (Appendix A) and the Performance Task Coversheet Template (Appendix B). These templates, based on the GRASPS model within the UbD framework (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006), serve for dual purposes: they are downloadable tools for users and the required output format for DTAs. As such, they were both a model for educators and a generative output for the repository. The templates reinforce the frameworks and include specific instructions and fields that require educators to map their lessons to Muhammad’s pursuits via the Macro-Curriculum, NJ standards, and UDL principles.
Once an initial set of resources was curated and loaded onto the LMS platform, a micro-level iteration cycle began. This process is a mini version of a larger iterative cycle (Tessmer & Wedman, 1990), focused on refining a single component. The steps include:
Soliciting Feedback via Beta Testing and Evaluation: The Consortium Lead included a survey at the end of each track to feedback from DTAs and other Phase I users (See Appendix C). They also planned focus groups and empathy interviews with DTAs, Phase I users, and other stakeholders to solicit their feedback on the Phase I rollout (See Appendix D for the protocol).
Analyzing Feedback: The Consortium Lead will analyze the feedback to identify common pain points and areas for improvement. For example, a scholarly talk might be praised for its content but criticized for having inaccurate metadata tags. An existing performance task might be conceptually strong, but users may have questions about implementation.
Refining and Updating: Based on the analysis, the design team will refine the resources. This could involve revising a transcript for better accuracy, revising a performance task for better clarity, or adding supplementary guidance to help teachers implement the material. This process will be repeated until the resources are polished and maximally effective, meeting the needs of members and the grant deliverable requirements.
While Phase I refinement is underway, the Consortium Lead will also embark on Phase II, which involves intentionally redesigning the raw resources from Phase I into structured, interactive courses. This phase will leverage the LMS's capacity further, move beyond simple content curation toward a deliberately generative approach, and transform existing materials into cohesive, high-impact learning experiences. The main goal in this phase is to develop asynchronous learning modules in Articulate Rise 360 that are not only informative but also engaging and applicable to real-world classroom settings. Work will begin with a new needs assessment and content audit.
The Consortium Lead operationally defines needs assessment as the data-driven search for opportunities to maximize individual, team, or organizational performance by contributing to the effectiveness, efficiency, and/or ease of supporting organizational goals (Pinckney & Lynch, 2024; Pinckney-Lewis, 2021, 2022; Pinckney-Lewis & Baaki, 2020b, 2020a; J. E. Stefaniak & Pinckney, 2023). Allowing for the utmost flexibility, they will adopt the Three Phase Model, including pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment (Altschuld, 2014, 2015; Altschuld & Kumar, 2010; Witkin & Altschuld, 1995) with the intention of unearthing the desired state for Phase II of the rollout. Based on the results of the needs assessment and feedback obtained in Phase I, the author will perform a content audit of the Phase I materials, leveraging an applied approach that combines best practices in program-specific and equity-based audits (Skrla et al., 2009) that track against the Consortium’s mandated curricula and CHRE-adapted Macro-Curriculum.
Next, the author will implement design thinking, with its emphasis on empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing (Brown, 2009; Cross, 2011; Pande & Bharathi, 2020) within Phase II. By deeply understanding the needs of NJEA members, including their varied content knowledge, comfort levels with the mandates, and constraints, the design will be centered on user experience. An iterative combination of empathic design (Landwehr, 2007), CHRE, UbD, and UDL will ensure accessibility and alignment with the Phase II needs assessment findings. For example, a course relevant to the Holocaust mandate might be prototyped to include interactive scenarios that help teachers navigate sensitive classroom discussions or address a specific need.
Iteration in Phase II is a continuous cycle of prototyping and feedback rather than a linear process. A key tool in this cycle will be storyboarding, where an initial draft module will be visually mapped. This low-fidelity prototype will allow the Consortium Lead and the DTAs to collaboratively visualize the user's journey through the course. This early feedback will be used to refine the module's narrative, structure, interactions, and user interface, ensuring each course is a product of continuous refinement and is deeply responsive to the needs of the educators it serves. The results and lessons learned from this phase will be reported in future publications.
Once Phase II has stabilized, the Consortium Lead will move on to Phase III, aiming to achieve deep, tangible classroom impact and to create a sustainable model. The main activity will be developing structured learning paths and a performance-based micro-credential, “Consortium-endorsed Educator,” with best practices set forth from the Institution for Credentialing Excellence (ICE) (Institute for Credentialing Excellence, n.d.). While it is premature and inappropriate to prescribe the official design of the credential, at a minimum, it will include the following components: Phase II course completion, reflective practice, and the design of new performance tasks aligned with the Consortium mandates and the CHRE-adapted Macro-Curriculum. Iteration within this Phase will consist of two main components.
The Consortium Lead will refine the micro-credentialing process itself by working with a small group of educators, likely the DTAs, to beta-test the learning paths and performance tasks. Feedback will be solicited on the clarity of instructions, the relevance of the tasks, and the usability of the submission process. This feedback will then be used to make iterative adjustments until the learning path is seamless and effective.
Finally, this iterative cycle aims to transform educators' practices. The goal is for educators not only to earn a credential but also to contribute their refined performance tasks to the Consortium's resource library. This feedback loop creates a sustainable ecosystem where educators become both learners and creators, continuously enriching the shared resources for future users. The results and lessons learned of this phase will also be reported in future publications.
The NJEA Consortium case offers several implications for the field of instructional design, particularly in non-profit and educational sectors: equity as a design specification and the power of iterative curation. This case demonstrates that equity cannot be a "value statement" separate from the design process: it must be operationalized. By hard-coding Dr. Gholdy Muhammad’s pursuits (2020, 2023) into the fields of the instructional material templates, the design team ensured that equity was a functional requirement of the output, not an optional overlay. In terms of curation, it is often viewed as inferior to "creation" in ID. However, this case suggests that when executed with strong theoretical framing and rigorous vetting, curation is a valid and vital first phase of iterative design. It allows for immediate responsiveness to legislative mandates while buying time for the deeper, generative work of course creation.
Additionally, this case has implications for the experience within the data-driven iterative design process. While at the outset, DTAs lacked proficiency in some necessary frameworks and had to contend with sensitive content, they enjoyed the experience. The success of this data-driven shift is reflected in the July 2025 feedback, where 90.9% of DTAs reported satisfaction with their experience, citing a "positive trajectory" and "welcome change" compared to previous years. As practitioners, we need to focus on outcomes, but not at the expense of the experience in the process.
While this design case illustrates a robust framework for operationalizing inclusive education, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the project is situated specifically within the NJ educational landscape, responding to unique state mandates that may not directly translate to other legislative contexts. Second, the design was constrained by the NEA’s LearnUpon Learning Management System (LMS); while these constraints were leveraged as an "unforeseen opportunity," the resulting architecture is inherently tied to that platform’s specific affordances and limitations. Third, the case was constrained by the bounds of the NEA grant, which was already in place prior to the Consortium Lead’s hiring. Furthermore, the data presented in this case reflect progress to date only for Phase I (Curation). Despite promising feedback from the DTAs, the results of Phases II and III remain to be seen. The long-term impact on DTA experience, student outcomes, and the sustainability of the micro-credentialing ecosystem has yet to be fully longitudinalized.
The Iterative Edge is not just a process; it is a mindset. By embracing a tentative, pliable ethos (Yanchar & Faulconer, 2011), the NJEA Consortium has created a living resource. It shifts the focus from delivering a static product to building a dynamic ecosystem that evolves through dialogue, data, and the lived experiences of New Jersey educators. The Consortium's success hinged on the intentional operationalization of theoretical frameworks. We demonstrated that equity cannot be a mere aspiration; it must be a design specification. By hard-coding Dr. Gholdy Muhammad’s CHRE pursuits (2020, 2023) into our design templates, we ensured that every resource fostered identity, criticality, and intellect. This equity focus was seamlessly supported by the structural integrity of UbD (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) and the ethical accessibility of UDL (CAST, 2024), establishing a robust system where content, pedagogy, and access were inextricably linked.
This model offers a proven framework for instructional designers facing similar challenges in large, constraint-bound ecosystems. We urge practitioners in non-profit, government, and educational sectors to move beyond compliance and static content. Curation, when framed by rigorous theory and executed through iterative refinement, is a valid and vital first step toward addressing urgent needs. By adopting an Iterative Edge, designers can shift the focus from delivering a static product to building a dynamic, self-sustaining learning ecosystem that evolves through continuous dialogue, data, and the lived experiences of educators and students. The path to truly inclusive education requires intentional design, and the time for intentional action is now.
Full Consortium Performance Task Template
Consortium Performance Task Cover Sheet
The purpose of this focus group is to gather qualitative, in-depth feedback from the Design Team Ambassadors (DTAs) regarding the initial rollout of the Phase I resources on the LearnUpon platform. The insights gained will be crucial for the iterative refinement of these resources and will directly inform the design of future phases, particularly the asynchronous courses in Phase II.
Participants: Design Team Ambassadors (DTAs) who have engaged with the Phase I curated resources.
Moderator: Lead Program Director/Designer.
Duration: 60-90 minutes.
Setting: Virtual, synchronous session via Zoom.
Welcome and thank you to the DTAs for their time and valuable contributions.
Review the purpose of the focus group: to gather honest, constructive feedback on the initial rollout to improve the resources.
Confirm confidentiality and ethical guidelines. Remind participants that their feedback is anonymous in the final analysis and that we are critiquing the design, not the people.
Review the "We will maintain..." principles that were co-created with the DTAs (relational foundation, growth mindset, authenticity, and courage).
Obtain verbal consent to record the session.
Introduce the agenda: general impressions, specific feedback on content and usability, and suggestions for the future.
Warm-Up Question: Thinking about your initial experience on the platform, what are your first impressions of the new resources?
Probe Questions:
What was one thing that was particularly helpful or valuable?
What was one thing that was confusing or difficult to navigate?
How well do the resources align with the overall mission of the Consortium?
Guiding Question: Let's discuss the user experience. How easy or difficult was it to find and access the resources you needed?
Probe Questions:
Walk us through your experience navigating the different "Course Tracks." Was the organization logical?
Regarding accessibility, did you encounter any barriers (e.g., text size, video captions, alternative text for images)? Did the design make the resources easy to use for all learners?
Were there any technical issues or glitches with the platform that you experienced?
What suggestions do you have to improve the platform's navigability or ease of use?
Guiding Question: Let's discuss the content itself. How well do the curated materials address the mandated curricula and the Consortium's mission of promoting equity?
Probe Questions:
Did the curated "Content Scholar Talks" and other resources deepen your content knowledge on the mandates? How so?
Do you feel the materials are representative of the diverse communities in New Jersey? Are there any missing voices or perspectives you noticed?
Thinking about the performance tasks, do they effectively promote the kind of deep, student-centered learning we're aiming for?
In what ways could the content be improved to better align with the principles of social justice and equity?
Guiding Question: Based on your experience with Phase I, what would you like to see in the asynchronous courses we'll be designing next?
Probe Questions:
What kind of interactive elements or activities would you find most useful?
What is the biggest challenge you face when trying to implement the mandates in your classroom that a well-designed course could help solve?
Are there any specific topics or mandates that you feel need to be prioritized in the next phase?
Summarize key themes and thank the DTAs again for their invaluable insights.
Explain the next steps: The feedback will be analyzed to refine the resources and inform the design of Phase II.
Reiterate that their input is a critical part of the iterative, collaborative design process.
Conclude the session.
EdTech Archives