Using IDs

The third week of the course was really an extension for me from week two when I started to make connections to different computer applications and learning theories. I chose to examine application/tool software versus instructional software for my weekly posting. I was considering the article “Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools" (1996). One example I discussed was the online collaborative bundle of software offered through Google. The bundled software is now called Google Drive, or also referred to as Google Docs. I have been very pleased with the results of using this software in my courses. One obstacle, however, has been the fact that the Web 2.0 software works best using the Google Chrome browser (big surprise). Incidentally, most of my students personally prefer using the Google Chrome browser and are more comfortable with it. While they were able to access Google Drive at school, it was quirky since our network is tightly controlled. So while the students have access to the Internet, we have been told the only supported browser is Internet Explorer. When I look back at this experience, I cannot help but realize how I actually used some of the instructional design components that were placed in my group’s ID with IT model. For example, I had to consider what were the constraints in regard to implementation (our model’s Examine stage). Then I tested the use of the software, but found out it was difficult to use it in the computer lab because of high user restrictions, and students could not download the Google Chrome browser. So after testing and receiving student feedback and my own observations, the Rapid Prototyping component on our model came into effect. I had to go back and consider another route. I realized the netbooks were the best choice despite their small screens, because I discovered there were less restrictions and most students had already downloaded Google Chrome on them. So we tested the online software on these systems, and student feedback was overly positive. When I look back at this experience, I can see how I actually did use stages of instructional design, even though I was not aware of it. I also wonder how effective other attempts of technology implementation would have been in my learning environments if I had used a similar process. 

Now getting back to application/tool software versus instructional software, I really found the group discussion to be particularly insightful and helpful that week because some of my fellow students choose one category of software over the other. Some of the insights shared on how some instructional software could also be used in application situations were very interesting. There was the mention of some instructional software designed as games to help students learn about history. This software, or even the concept, could easily become an application software if students were to develop, for example, their own characters or scenarios to consider what could have happened in a significant battle or war if different decisions had been made. I am usually dismissive of instructional software, but the discussion with my peers has encouraged me to reconsider the potential instructional software can have. Another discussion that came up was the power of collaboration with online application software. One of the reasons I started to use Google Drive more and more in my classroom is from my own experiences of using it for my coursework. As an example, during this course I really appreciated the use of Google Drive. The other three members of the group I was in for this course also used Google Drive, and they appreciated it as well. Collaborating in Google Drive was a very positive experience, and our chats and brainstorming sessions during the late evenings were both helpful and humorous. I contrast this to another course I was taking at the same time where we collaborated in a group discussion in Moodle. Not having a “living document,” and seldom participating in synchronous communication, made collaboration challenging. I did enjoy working with that group as well, but the overall experience was not as positive. The contrast between the two experiences has helped me to realize, first hand, the power of Web 2.0 tools and working on “living documents” and using synchronous communication.

No comments:

Post a Comment