Performance Analysis: I began by defining the performance problems in the labs. Students were often unprepared or careless, leading to issues like improper PPE use (e.g., forgetting gloves or masks), incorrect handling of specimens/chemicals, and errors in setting up lab equipment. A review of lab incident reports and instructor observations revealed specific gaps: many students lacked knowledge of safety protocols (knowledge gap), some struggled with proper techniques (skill gap), and a few were complacent about safety rules (attitude/motivation gap). Non-training factors also played a role. For example, the lab had no easily accessible job aids, and overcrowding at peak times increased pressure on students. I distinguished which problems were training-related (knowledge/skill) versus environmental or organizational, ensuring that the solution targeted the right issues. I noted that knowledge and habit gaps were suitable for an instructional solution, whereas certain issues (like inadequate supplies or ventilation) fell outside training scope and had to be addressed by management.

Establishing a clear problem definition up front aligns with the front-end analysis emphasis of systematic design models (Dick & Carey, 2001). I conducted interviews with lab instructors, surveyed students, and observed lab sessions to perform a thorough needs assessment – a key competency for instructional designers (Instructional Designers of Penn State, 2022). This analysis confirmed that the main causes of safety lapses were informational and behavioral. In short, students lacked just-in-time access to safety reminders; training was too theoretical and only given at the semester’s start; and digital safety materials existed but were not integrated with actual lab activities. These findings indicated the need for an instructional solution that provides continuous, easily accessible support, rather than a one-off lecture.

Instructional Solution (Blended Learning): Based on the analysis, I designed a blended learning intervention combining formal instruction with on-demand performance support. The solution’s goal was to “close the gap” in lab safety performance by providing ongoing, easily accessible learning opportunities that reinforce safe practices. It has several components:

• Interactive E-Learning Module: A brief online module (mobile-friendly) introduces and demonstrates key lab protocols (e.g. proper lab attire, equipment usage, hygiene procedures). This module uses a microlearning format, with short lessons each focusing on a specific topic (such as correctly using PPE or operating a specific lab instrument). Each lesson includes a Camtasia video demonstration and a quick quiz. By using bite-sized content, we tap into the effectiveness of microlearning for just-in-time training, such content is easy to access on demand and allows learners to quickly get the information they need.

• Physical Infographics with QR Codes: In the labs, I posted visually engaging infographics at workstations (for example, a “5 Steps to Safely Light a Bunsen Burner” poster). Each infographic includes a QR code that students can scan to view a one-minute tutorial video or an augmented reality overlay of that procedure. These serve as just-in-time performance support tools, giving students guidance in the flow of work. This approach reflects best practices in performance support, providing information “when and where it’s needed” in the authentic environment, so students don’t have to rely solely on memory.

• Virtual Lab Walk-Through: I developed a simple virtual lab tour using 360° images and interactive hotspots that students can explore at their own pace. This virtual tour is used before the first physical lab session (and remains accessible anytime) to familiarize students with the lab environment and safety features. It reinforces lab rules by allowing students to click on objects (e.g. a biohazard bin or an emergency shower) and review the proper procedures and the purpose of each safety feature. This element reduces anxiety (students know what to expect in the lab) and reinforces safety protocols in context, providing an experiential orientation that’s more engaging than a static text manual.

• Integrated Hands-on Activities: The actual lab sessions were redesigned to integrate these new digital supports. At the start of each lab, students work in teams to complete a safety checklist activity using the infographics and QR-linked resources, essentially a guided rehearsal of key safety steps. During the lab, instructors encourage students to use the QR tutorials if they are unsure about a procedure. By embedding the use of these support tools into the class workflow, we help students form the habit of seeking just-in-time help. Lab instructors were trained to prompt students to use the new tools and to provide feedback, ensuring a consistent approach during labs.

Design Principles from IDD&E:

In developing the solution, I applied principles from established instructional design models and learning theories learned in my IDD&E program. I followed a systematic, iterative process from analysis through evaluation, similar to the Dick and Carey model. Such systematic models remain relevant; for example, the Dick and Carey framework was recently used to develop a modern data visualization curriculum (Friedman & Schneider, 2018), illustrating the continued utility of structured design in new domains. This process ensured clear objectives, aligned content, and continuous evaluation (Instructional Design Central, n.d.; Miller, 2025). Additionally, I applied the ADDIE model (Molenda, 2003) to structure this process: During Analysis I identified key learner characteristics (third-year undergraduates with basic lab experience), defined precise instructional goals (e.g., ensuring full compliance with PPE use), and assessed contextual constraints, such as limited lab time, high student–instructor ratio; in Design I drafted clear, action-based objectives aligned with safety behaviors and planned interactive media and aligned assessments, such as skills checklists. In Development I created multimedia materials, using Camtasia, Canva, and the LMS via rapid prototyping with student feedback; in Implementation I deployed the content through the LMS, including lab QR codes and user orientations; in Evaluation I conducted both formative feedback and a final summative assessment (Molenda, 2003). The instructional strategy was also guided by Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction and Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction (Education Library, n.d.-a; Education Library, n.d.-b), which emphasize problem-centered learning and a proven sequence of teaching events. For example, each module began with a real-world lab scenario to grab attention and activate prior knowledge, then demonstrated the correct procedure (via video or virtual tour), followed by opportunities for students to apply the knowledge in quizzes and hands-on practice with immediate feedback, and finally an encouragement of reflection (“lessons learned”) to promote integration and transfer beyond the classroom. This approach ensured the training covered all key phases of learning (from activation and demonstration to application and integration) in an engaging way. I also drew on multiple learning theories: constructivist elements, including authentic scenarios and self-directed exploration in the virtual lab, cognitivist strategies, such as chunking content and using cues or mnemonics to aid memory, and behaviorist techniques, such as immediate feedback and reinforcement for correct actions. Additionally, I applied multimedia design principles, such as combining relevant visuals with narration and avoiding extraneous information, to maximize learning efficiency and engagement.