SLO • Netherlands institute for curriculum development

Educational design research – Part B: Illustrative cases

Tracey, M., Unger, K., & Waddell, K. (2013). Using digital communication tools and processes to model effective instruction. In T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research – Part B: Illustrative cases (pp. 1013-1035). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.

SLO • Netherlands institute for curriculum development

Chapter

Chapter 47

Monica Tracey, Kelly Unger & Kecia Waddell

Using Digital Communication Tools and Processes to Model Effective Instruction

Credits

2013 SLO (Netherlands institute for curriculum development), Enschede All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part by photocopying or any other means, provided the source is mentioned.

Contents

47. Using digital communication tools and processes to model effective instruction

Abstract 1015 1. Introduction to the problem 1015 2. Development of conceptual framework 1016 3. Research design 1019 3. Design and development phase 1021 4. Conclusions 1027 Key sources 1032 References 1033

1015

47. Using digital communication tools and processes to model effective instruction Monica Tracey, Kelly Unger & Kecia Waddell Abstract Most learning management systems used for delivering online instruction to instructional design students are not available for the students to use in their own professional practice. These restrictive platforms, mostly because of expensive licensing agreements, limit the opportunity for students to learn how to use learning management systems that are available in their own professional practice. This educational design research case illustrates how we designed, developed, and implemented a graduate course using Google Applications to model instructional design and delivery through digital communication tools that students could use in professional practice. This exposed learners to three main concepts and knowledge areas that could further prepare them for professional practice: (1) learn technology that is open and available to them, and their clients and students, (2) learn the content that is being covered in the course, and (3) have firsthand experience for designing instruction and teaching in an online environment by observing our design and modeling of the tools. Throughout this case we discuss the frameworks used to shape the original course design and how the course design evolved based on learners and designer/instructor findings. The findings impacted the course redesign and delivery for the next course offering over three iterative phases. The findings of this case illustrate lessons learned in designing and delivering a course using Google Applications. 1. Introduction to the problem Many universities and business corporations use learning management systems (LMS) for facilitating online instruction and communication. These systems are deemed secure for organizational content and employees. One problem that arises from a restricted LMS platform when delivering university online instruction to instructional design students is that the technology tools used in their educational environment are not available to use in professional practice. As faculty members teaching graduate instructional design (ID) students, we wanted to provide a learning environment that exposed students to ID concepts and knowledge to prepare them for practice in the field, course content, and accessible technology tools and strategies for designing and teaching in an online environment. We wanted to model instructional design and delivery through digital communication tools that students could use in professional practice. We decided to design, develop, and implement the Introduction to Instructional Design graduate course using Google Applications. The intended outcome of leveraging Google Applications as the platform, for facilitating online instruction to this population, included providing a social learning experience for learners that can be applied to their real world practice. As the learners participated in the online instruction and communicated and collaborated through a variety of Google Applications, the intent was to expose them to three main concepts and knowledge areas that could further prepare them for professional practice: (1) learn technology that is open and available to them, and their clients and students, (2) learn the content that is being covered in the course, and (3) have firsthand experience for designing instruction and teaching in an online environment by observing our

1016

design and modeling of the tools. Not only are Google Applications free and open for instructional designers to use; they are also available to their clients and students. For these reasons we decided to abandon the university provided closed online learning management system and incorporated Google Applications. This educational design research case aimed to achieve two overarching goals. The first: How do we design an innovative open source intervention using Google Applications to model the effective use of technology integration to support individual and peer learning? The research sub-questions that guided this were: 1. What is the process of creating a higher education course utilizing Google Applications? 2. What perceptions do adult learners have regarding the functions of Google Applications? The second goal was: What are the characteristics of a course that will allow learners to embrace the use of an open access practical learning management system while supporting learner and teacher course content knowledge acquisition? The research sub-questions that guided this were: 3. What are the perceptions of learners and teachers regarding the use/functions of the

course? 4. Based on learner and instructor feedback, what course alterations are recommended? This case study consisted of three rounds of data collection and analysis to improve and revise the Introduction to Instructional Design course. Each round was one semester in length and each semester included three rounds of data collection. The data was analyzed to understand learner perceptions of Google Applications and to improve and to revise the course incorporating Google Applications. This case called for an educational design research methodology, since it was a complex problem that had not been solved before, and the purpose was to document and study the design, development, and evaluation of an educational intervention (Plomp, 2009). This chapter begins with the description of the conceptual framework for the study. The design/development section illustrates the three phases including the course the initial course design, the delivery during each phase, the findings from the data collection and the implications for the course redesign. The final section of the chapter discusses lessons learned through the implementation of this case. 2. Development of conceptual framework Literature regarding the use of Web 2.0 tools in education, and distance education provided the framework for designing, developing, and implementing the course for this case. We also utilized documentation from Google (2010) in order to understand the features and capabilities of the various Google Applications. These are discussed in the remainder of this section. Web 2.0 tools in education Tracey and Unger (in press) report that the influx of the Internet and Web 2.0 tools in education combined with increased interest in online learning are driving universities and K-12 school districts to meet the desires and needs of their student populations. In order to adapt, faculty are now encouraged or required at a minimum to incorporate an online learning component into courses. When designing courses, faculty should choose easy to use technological tools that assist in online facilitation of strategies and activities that have been designed for increasing student interaction, collaboration, and motivation. No longer are slate and chalk and paper and pencil acceptable as the only technology tools to support collective intelligence in education.

1017

When choosing tools, educators need an open mind to move forward with social and technological trends. Social networking tools (SNT), allow for imaginative course design (Mason & Rennie, 2008). One way universities have selected to facilitate online learning activities is through the use of a learning management system (LMS). Most universities recommend their faculty use the licensed specific packaged LMS that they own. Most LMS’ provide an online location for professors to post lectures, assignments, and course materials for students. Students can submit work and interact with the professor and other students through email and discussion boards. Along with these online learning management systems, there is another area of online learning tools that are transitioning from entertainment and for strictly social purposes toward education. These include Read-Write Web tools, also known as Web 2.0 tools. DiNucci (1999) was the first to use the term Web 2.0 when he was discussing the web in its infancy stage as pages of content loaded into a browser window, usually known as Web 1.0. The term Web 2.0, however, did not find popularity among the masses until Tim O’Reilly used it at the first Web 2.0 conference in October 2004 (O’Reilly, 2005). These tools are distinguishable from Web 1.0 tools, because they allow users to interact with the web without having any computer programming knowledge or experience. Average or novice users can participate by creating and sharing their thoughts and ideas directly to the web and with others. O’Reilly (2005) states that a key lesson in Web 2.0 is users add value to the information. While allowing users to share their own content, and add their own value to the social tool is crucial for collaboration and interaction, from an educational aspect, the design of the course is a necessary component for a successful collaborative online learning experience (Mason & Rennie, 2008). In an educational design research study incorporating the Web 2.0 Application, NING.com - a platform for creating social websites, to graduate level instructional design courses, Tracey and Unger (2011) discovered that the NING was found to be a useful tool in higher education courses. The NING, which creates instant community through the use of personal profiles, a chat feature, activity streams, and forums, proved to be a more conducive environment, over Blackboard, for the professor and the students, due to its visual appeal, ease in use, and increased ability to interact and communicate. This study incorporated the constructivist ID model, Layers of Negotiation (Cennamo, 2003), which included an iterative process of collecting feedback from the students multiple times throughout the semester. An additional benefit of using the NING was the opportunity for the professor to model the use of a Web 2.0 tool for future instructional designers and educators. The results of this study illustrate the benefits of using Web 2.0 tools to increase student motivation. The NING however is no longer a free Web 2.0 tool while Google Applications, another Web 2.0 tool, is free and open to everyone. Teaching at a distance Although the technology tool is critical, the instructor cannot simply insert the face-to-face content into a Web 2.0 tool and assume the course will be successful. Cyrs (1997) through synthesis of a variety of studies concluded that distance instructors must be competent in different skills than those teaching face-to-face. Six of the 10 include competence in skills that are also imperative for the design and delivery of face-to-face courses, including: course planning and organization, verbal and nonverbal presentation skills, collaborative teamwork, questioning strategies, subject matter expertise, and basic learning theories. The remaining 4 competencies identified by Crys (1997) were a key component to this design research study, because the course was being delivered through the online environment. These competencies included: involving students and coordinating their activities at field sites, knowledge of the distance learning field, design of study guides correlated with the technology, and graphic design and visual thinking.

1018

Additionally, Easton (2003) noted that a successful online instructor must also consider “new paradigms for thinking about time and space for teaching” (p. 101). Learning at a distance through formal classes and informal communication is not only growing, but the tools available are also changing, becoming accessible communication tools for instructors and learners. It is imperative for educators, in higher education to integrate the use of these tools into their instruction. In order for instructional designers to be ready to utilize Web 2.0 tools for instructional purposes, instructional design faculty need to model the appropriate use of these tools, and provide effective and efficient training on integrating the tools into curricular activities. Instructional designers need highly developed skills to effectively use these tools for communication and collaboration (Unger & Tracey, 2012). The use of Google Applications Google Applications are free and customizable tools that provide a web-based platform for teachers and students to communicate and collaborate to learn more effectively and provide students with the necessary skills for learning in the 21st century (Google, 2010). Google Applications were selected for this study because they are free to the general public and accessible by simply obtaining a Google Email address. Exposing graduate students to Google Applications also provides them with knowledge of tools that are also used in the field. The Google Applications used throughout this study included: Google Sites, Calendar, Documents, and Groups (Unger, 2012). Google Sites is a platform where users can create a web page for posting information. In this study, students were instructed use the Google Site created by the instructor who posted all coursework materials, videos, weekly course goals and outcomes, power point slides, and additional reading assignments. The Google Site served as the hub for all course information. Google Calendar is a free calendar integrated into Gmail. Gmail is Google’s free Internet-based email service. Students were instructed on how to use and share the Google Calendar for posting assignments, exams, homework dates, and other relevant dates for the class. Google Documents is an online location for creating and sharing documents, spreadsheets, presentations, drawings, and forms. Users can create, access, and edit the documents from any computer or smart phone with Internet access. It is an online collaboration tool so users can edit documents simultaneously to save time. In this study students were instructed on how to use Google Documents in the class for collaboration with fellow students, the instructor and for assignments. Google Groups is an online user-created discussion board. The user can invite people to join the group or have it opened publicly for anyone to join. Google Groups are formed for people with a common interest to stay connected and share information. Members of the group can add pages and start and reply to discussions, with other members of the group. In this study teachers were instructed using Google Groups when working with peers (Unger, 2012). Educational design research Barab and Squire (2004, p.2) define design research as “a series of approaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artifacts, and practices that account for and potentially impact learning and teaching in naturalistic settings”. The intent of design-based research is to connect theory to practice in a direct way to improve educational innovations (Rowland, 2007). Rowland states that “design-based research involves designing and implementing a learning environment, typically one that is technology-based and that has a goal of deep learning, and simultaneously seeking through these acts of design and implementation to refine theory- primarily learning theory but occasionally design theory also” (p.14). It is research through design (Rowland, 2007).

1019

As design research has become an important research methodology in educational research, so have numerous models most of which describe the steps in the design research process. This case, involving a technology-based learning environment, began with a review of the relevant literature as the base for the initial design of the course applying Google Applications. We then followed the guidelines of design-based research incorporating three iterations of design, implementation, data collection and analysis, revision and implementation. Replicating the Tracey and Unger (2011) study, described above, we incorporated the constructivist ID model, Layers of Negotiation (Cennamo, 2003), which included an iterative process of collecting feedback from the students multiple times throughout the semester. The following conceptual model illustrates the steps in our design research process.

Figure 1: Conceptual model of this educational design research, this figure illustrates steps of our educational design research process 3. Research design This educational design research case aimed to achieve two overarching goals. The first: How do we design an innovative open source intervention using Google Applications to model the effective use of technology integration to support individual and peer learning? The research sub-questions that guided this were: 1. What is the process of creating a higher education course utilizing Google Applications? 2. What perceptions do adult learners have regarding the functions of Google Applications? The second goal was: What are the characteristics of a course that will allow learners to embrace the use of an open access practical learning management system while supporting

1020

learner and teacher course content knowledge acquisition? The research sub-questions that guided this were: 3. What are the perceptions of learners and teachers regarding the use/functions of the

course? 4. Based on learner and instructor feedback, what course alterations are recommended? Table 1 illustrates the variety of data collection instruments and sources used to gather the information from a variety of sources to address the research questions. Table 1: Research questions, data source, and collection method

Research sub-questions Data source Collection method 1. What is the process of creating a

higher education course utilizing Google applications?

• Literature review • Instructor of the course • Learners who participate in course

• Instructor journals • Learner surveys

2. What perceptions do adult learners have regarding the functions of Google Applications?

• Learners who participate in course • Learner surveys

3. What are the perceptions of learners and teachers regarding the use/functions of the course?

• Instructor of the course • Learners who participate in course

• Instructor journals • Learner surveys

4. Based on learner and instructor feedback, what course alterations are recommended?

• Instructor of the course • Learners who participate in course

• Instructor journals • Learner surveys

The primary data collection methods included three web-based learner surveys designed to collect data from the learners who participated in the course in order to address all four research sub-questions. The surveys were web-based questionnaires created using Google Forms, which allowed data to automatically populate into a web-based spreadsheet. The surveys were distributed to the learners during Weeks 5, 10, and at the conclusion of the course. Each web-based questionnaire was estimated to take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. Participants were allotted seven days to complete each of the surveys with a reminder email being sent on the fourth day. The Week 5 web-based questionnaire was designed to gather data regarding our participants prior use of various Google Applications in other courses, for personal use and for employment purposes; and to gather participant perceptions of whether coursework engagement through use of Google Applications helped or hindered their learning up to that point. The Week 10 web-based questionnaire used an open-ended question design to discover recurrent perceptions on whether Google Applications helped or hindered their learning. The end of course questionnaire was adapted from John Keller’s Course Interest Survey (CIS) of 34 statements to be answered using a five-point ordinal scale-- 1 Not True, 2 Slightly True, 3 Moderately True, 4 Mostly True, 5 Very True. The end of the course survey gathered quantitative data that measured students' reactions to classroom instruction with reference to a specific learning condition--Google Applications. The instructor reflection journal was a secondary data collection method used to reflect upon successes and failures of both the course and the research study during each of the three iterations. During the course, the instructor kept a Google Document, documenting her thoughts, reactions and ideas regarding the use of Google Applications. Journal reflections included general comments on the use of particular applications along with specific changes that needed to be made for the next iteration.

1021

The data from this secondary source was used to enrich the findings from the survey data to address research sub-questions 1, 2, and 4. Because research sub-question three focused solely on the perceptions of the learners, the instructor reflection journal could not be used to address that sub-question. Per the research protocol, the first round of data analysis involved individual identification of themes that emerged from the questionnaires and reflective journals by two or three research assistants who were authorized to conduct data analysis. The data was analyzed using an inductive analysis approach with constant comparative coding using Microsoft Word following the procedure outlined by Ruona (2005). Round two involved a collaborative analysis of the identified emerging themes, and consensus on any items that differed. The final analysis of the data included a summary of suggestions for course revisions and improvements to be used for the redesign of the course. 3. Design and development phase The purpose of this case study was to develop an innovative intervention incorporating Google Applications in a graduate instructional design course to model effective use of technology integration to support individual and peer learning. Specifically we were interested in documenting the process of creating a higher education course utilizing Google Applications, the student perceptions of the function of Google Applications and it impact on learning, and what course alterations must be made to improve the course. Throughout this section we will discuss how the course design was presented to the learners, the findings based on the data analysis, and the implications the findings impacted the course redesign and delivery for the next semester. Table 2 illustrates the phases in the study and the activities within each phase. Table 2: Phases in the educational design research case study Phase I: Winter 2011 Phase II: Fall 2012 Phase III: Winter 2012 • Course • Data Collection • Findings • Course Redesign

• Course Delivery • Data Collection • Findings • Course Redesign

• Course Delivery • Data Collection • Findings • Course Redesign

Initial course design and participants Introduction to Instructional Design (IT 6110) is a required graduate level course for all Instructional Technology master and doctoral students. The course, initially taught face-to-face and online utilizing the university LMS, Blackboard was redesigned incorporating Google Applications for the Winter 2011 semester. The initial design included a Google Site that served as the hub of the course. The Google Site had links for announcements, the syllabus, also posted as a PDF document, weekly readings, weekly lectures from the instructor that also included short YouTube videos on identified topics, assignments, and Google How to Videos created by the instructor for students to view and follow step by step instructions on how to create Google Documents, work in the Google Calendar and in Google Groups. A Google Group was created for weekly discussions with the entire class and the instructor. This discussion board was accessed through a link posted on the Google Site. In addition to the assignments, lectures and discussion board, the instructor assigned a buddy system at the end of the course for students to review each other’s work prior to final submission.

1022

Phase 1: Winter 2011 After the initial design of the course, Phase I included the first delivery of the course design to graduate students enrolled in the Introduction to Instructional Design (IT 6110) during the Winter of 2011. There were 10 students enrolled in the course, but completing the surveys was voluntary, so the number of participants for each survey varies. The findings Prior to taking the course only a few students had any previous exposure using the Google Applications Groups and Sites. The Google Application that students had the greatest exposure prior to taking the course was Documents. Of the students who used these Google Applications prior to this course most did so in other courses for the main purpose of collaborating and sharing work with others. One of the students who had previously used all of these Applications also had experience using the Applications for career and personal purposes. Week 5 survey Students participating in the survey during Week 5 of the course perceived that the Google Applications helped them in their learning of the course content. The majority of comments regarding how or why Google Applications assisted with their learning stemmed from their positive perceptions of the tools. Students found that the tools were easy to use, and especially beneficial for collaborating and sharing work with others. The opportunities to receive instant feedback from others were also beneficial because they were notified when someone responded. Students also benefited from learning the how to use these tools, which can also be used in their own practice. The majority of students perceived that the Google Applications did not hinder their learning, but did make comments about various technology issues they encountered. Some of the technology issues included comparability of MS Office with Google, having to have too many windows open to view all content, cumbersome navigation and layout of the discussions on Groups, and personal technology issues not impacted by Google. The one student who found that the Google Applications hindered her learning referenced that the tools were new to her, and having to spend time learning the tools caused her anxiety in which she could not focus on the content. At this point in the course the students did not have any suggestions for improving the course, but most of them did leave positive feedback on how they were enjoying the course thus far. Week 10 survey Students participating in the survey during Week 10 of the course perceived that the Google Applications helped them in their learning of the course content, while a few mentioned that it neither helped nor hinder their learning. The majority of comments regarding how or why Google Applications assisted with their learning stemmed from their positive perceptions of the tools. Similar to Week 5, students found that exposure to these tools were a benefit because the tools were easy, free, and accessible to use in their own practice. Again, the students perceived the tools beneficial to their learning because of being able to collaborate, interact, and sharing work with others easily. Students also commented that they could benefit from having all of the tools, such as Ustream and Groups, in one location. At this point in the course the students suggested that the instructor should distribute Google Applications job aids at the beginning of the class and find a better format for facilitating the online discussions. Two of the students did comment that they liked the way the instructor provided a variety of communication methods, and benefited from synchronous communication.

1023

Course completion survey While most of the students participating in this course had very little to no exposure to Google Applications, they found the course to be a positive experience. Comparing the data that was collected throughout the semester via the two surveys, we found that the students encountered a positive learning experience with the Google Applications that were used in this course. They perceived that the use of Google Applications helped them with their learning of the course content. The students found Google Applications to be appealing because they were easy to use and increased the opportunities for student interaction and collaboration on independent work, projects, and course content discussions. While the students liked the ease of the tools for collaboration, they still found the discussions within the Google Group to be cumbersome, and recommend finding another way to facilitate the online discussions. The students also suggested providing a Google Applications job aid for them to use at the beginning of the course. Some students felt that Google Sites provided an easy way to have all of the course information stored at one central location, but others did recommend that this could be better in future course offerings. Implications for course redesign There were key findings from the student data and the instructor journal that impacted the redesign of the course for Phase II. Students requested a centralized location for the course content, the distribution of Google Application job aids prior to the beginning of the course, and wanted a different method for online discussions. The instructor identified the need to create the syllabus in Google Documents and embed it onto the site. This allowed for syllabus changes as the semester progressed without the need to send and post revised versions. Students could review the syllabus weekly to see if any adjustments were made to the course. The instructor also noted the need to add weekly outcomes to the assignment checklist and to create a form to assess their understanding of the syllabus. The most critical redesigns however occurred in the layout of the Google Site and the use of Google Groups for discussion. Students repeatedly indicated that they had difficulty in following all of the locations they had to go to review course content, understand the assignments, view videos etc. The Google Site was reorganized with a link titled for each week. For example, Week 1 included the topic of the week, a list of outcomes students should achieve by the end of the week, the instructional materials including all videos, readings and directions for the assignments. This provided a centralized location for all of the course materials per week making it easier for the students to understand the weekly requirements. The Google Group for discussions was removed. Feedback from students indicated they appreciated the Buddy System for the final assignment of the course but had a difficult time collaborating with other students while working in the Google Group for discussions. We decided to assign small Peer Groups of 4 students for the entire semester. The peer groups worked in a Google Document answering discussion questions and working on peer assignments. The instructor had access to the document and responded to the students throughout the week, guiding their learning. Based on the instructor journal with the student feedback, we discovered a need for individualized communication with each student and the instructor. We added a weekly reflection journal with the student and the instructor in a Google Document. Each student was required to answer weekly reflection questions in a Google Document they shared only with the instructor. The instructor provided detailed feedback to the student, once again, guiding their learning.

1024

Phase II: Fall 2011 Following the redesign of the course at the end of Phase I, Phase II included the second delivery of the course for graduate students enrolled in the Introduction to Instructional Design during the Fall of 2011. There were 15 students enrolled in the course, but completing the surveys was voluntary, so the number of participants for each survey varies. Course delivery Prior to the first week of the course, each student received a Google Application job aid to help familiarize themselves with Google Applications. The syllabus was created in a Google Document and embedded in the Google Site along with the Google Calendar. A short form was added to the end of the syllabus page where students could assess their understanding of the syllabus by answering a few short questions. This ensured all students had a clear understanding of the course outcomes allowing them the opportunity to focus on using the Google Applications. The Google Site was revised with weekly links housing all of the content students needed to achieve the weekly outcomes. The peer groups were assigned and each group created and shared a Google Document with each other and with the instructor for discussions. Finally, the addition of the individual weekly reflection journals with the student and instructor were added. The instructor also added online office hours, 17 hours per week, where students could access the instructor through Google Chat. This allowed students the opportunity to communicate with the instructor more frequently for assist with clarification of assignments and course content along with questions about the Google Applications. It also modeled the communication tools to the students. The findings Prior to taking the course only a few students had any previous exposure using the Google Applications Sites. Once again, the Google Application that students had minimal exposure to the most prior to taking the course was Documents. Some students also indicated they had experience with Google Chat. Of the students who used these Google Applications prior to this course most did so in other courses for the main purpose of collaborating and sharing work with others however one student taught how to use Google Sties to teachers in her school district. Week 5 survey Students participating in the survey during Week 5 of the course perceived that the Google Applications helped them in their learning of the course content. The majority of comments regarding how or why Google Applications assisted with their learning stemmed from their positive perceptions of the tools. The Google Application job aid videos proved extremely successful here. Students found that the tools were easy to use, and especially beneficial for collaborating and sharing work with others. Students indicated they preferred Google Sites to Blackboard and stated they liked the accessibility to Google via any computer or mobile device for efficient time management on the run. Students also commented on the ability to access the instructor frequently through Google Chat from their mobile device. They appreciated the constant weekly communication with the instructor through the individual reflection journals and believed it helped them understand the course content. The majority of students perceived that the Google Applications did not hinder their learning, but did make comments on the use of the peer review document. Students did not like the constant editing to the document by other group members and one student indicated the document got very large very quickly with the group responses. The students did not make any suggestions for course revisions at this time.

1025

Week 10 survey Students participating in the survey during the midpoint of the course perceived that the Google Applications helped them in their learning of the course content, while a few mentioned that it neither helped nor hindered their learning. Students indicated that the tools were intuitive and easy to use and that the content was organized in a logical manner. This confirmed our redesign of the Google Site with weekly links. Students indicated it was easy to collaborate using Google Chat features and that the Google Applications allowed them to focus on academics because of the one-stop learning environment. The students had a few suggestions for improving the course including setting up the homepage as a single column instead of two columns so the most important information would always be at the top of the page when the students access the page. This change was made immediately. The students requested the peer documents be broken down into shorter documents for ease of navigation. This change was also implemented immediately. Course completion survey While most of the students participating in this course had very little to no exposure to Google Applications other than the use of Google Documents, they found the course to be a positive experience. They perceived that the use of Google Applications helped them with their learning of the course content. The students found Google Applications to be appealing because they were easy to use and increased the opportunities for student interaction and collaboration on independent work, projects, and course content discussions. They particularly liked the ease of access to the Google Sites via mobile devices enabling them to work anywhere, anytime along with the increased access to the instructor and the individual communication with the instructor through the individual reflection journals in Google Documents. The students did make a few course improvement suggestions. The addition of the Peer Groups in Phase II created the need for instruction on how to view the revision history function within Google Documents so that students could monitor revisions made on their peer document. The students also indicated the Peer Group Google Document became too large and cumbersome to work in asking the instructor to break down the peer group discussions to shorter documents. Finally, students requested the home page in the Google Site be set up as a single column instead of a two-column format with the most recent announcements placed at the top of the page for easy access when visiting the Google Site. Implications for course redesign The redesign after Phase II was minimal in comparison to Phase I however significant feedback was used to revise the peer group discussions in the course. The peer group discussions in Google Documents were much improved over the Google Groups function used in Phase I but some adjustments were required. A Google job aid was created for instruction on how to view the revision history function within Google Documents so that students could monitor revisions made on their peer document. This job aid was added to the other job aids provided prior to the beginning of the course. A new Peer Group Google Document was also used for each discussion week, meaning a new document was created each week by the peer group and shared with the instructor. This resolved the issue of the document becoming too large and cumbersome to work with. The home page in the Google Site was adjusted to have a single column instead of a two-column format with the most recent announcements placed at the top of the page for easy access when visiting the Google Site. The students were extremely positive about the individual reflection Google Document shared with the instructor so this addition was kept for Phase III course delivery. The students also responded positively to the addition of online office hours via Google Chat, so those hours remained during Phase III.

1026

Phase III: Winter 2012 After the final redesign of the course at the end of Phase II, Phase III included the third delivery of the course for graduate students enrolled in the Introduction to Instructional Design during the Winter of 2012. There were 7 students enrolled in the course, but completing the surveys was voluntary, so the number of participants for each survey varies. Course delivery Once again, prior to the first week of the course, each student received a Google Application job aid to help familiarize themselves with Google Applications. During this phase however, students also received instruction on how to view revision history within Google Documents to monitor revisions made in the Peer Group Google Documents. All other Applications remained the same with the exception of the Google Site Homepage that was adjusted to have a single column instead of a two-column format with the most recent announcements placed at the top of the page for easy access when visiting the Google Site. The findings Prior to taking the course only a one student had any previous exposure using the Google Applications Sites. Students did not have exposure to Google Documents prior to this course. Some students indicated they had experience with Google Chat while using their Google Gmail for personal use. Week 5 survey Students participating in the survey during Week 5 of the course perceived that the Google Applications helped them in their learning of the course content. The majority of comments regarding how or why Google Applications assisted with their learning stemmed from their positive perceptions of the tools. Students found that the tools were easy to use, and especially beneficial for collaborating and sharing work with others. Students commented on the easy navigation of the tools but were particularly receptive to the collaboration tools including working as a peer group synchronously in a Google Document, Chatting while working in a Google Document and the ability to capture those Chats. Students overall felt positive about Google Applications and their learning experience. The majority of students perceived that the Google Applications did not hinder their learning. The students made no suggestions for improvement at this time. Week 10 survey Students participating in the survey during the 10th week of the course perceived that the Google Applications helped them in their learning of the course content, while a few mentioned that it both helped and hindered their learning. Students indicated that the Google Applications were very helpful for peer collaboration, and that the Google Documents were helpful for document sharing. The students also commented on how Google Documents made communication (feedback) easy between peers and the instructor. Students commented on how they learned they could share Google Documents with others, how to collaborate in a document synchronously with others in their peer review groups and that the Applications were user friendly and quick to learn. The students suggested the inclusion of 1-3 webinar forum sessions to enhance the feel of the virtual classroom online experience and wanted a grade port added to Google since that was the only thing missing from this LMS for them. Grades continue to be posted on the University Blackboard system.

1027

Course completion survey Once again we found that the students encountered a positive learning experience with the Google Applications that were used in this course. They perceived that the use of Google Applications helped them with their learning of the course content. Students in this group responded most positively to the communication aspects in Google Applications, the ability to collaborate with their peers and with the instructor in Google Documents and via Google Chat, the sharing of Google Documents and the ability to simultaneously view discuss and alter a document in their peer groups from remote locations. Implications for course redesign Phase III ended the study and because the suggestion of webinars included in the course was outside the scope of studying the use of Google Applications, there was no other course redesigns done at this time. Table 3 illustrates the responses from two of the three web-based surveys (Week 5 & Week 13) from all three phases of the study.

Table 3: Summary of web-based survey data from three phasesDemographics Introduction to Instructional Design (IT 6110) graduate level students

Phase I: Winter 2012

Phase II: Fall 2011

Phase III: Winter 2012

Students Enrolled 10 15 7

Awareness/Use of Google Applications prior to Course

Tools Yes No Yes No Yes No Documents 6 4 7 7 1 5

Groups 3 7 NA NA NA NA

Sites 2 8 2 12 1 5

Chat NA NA 6 8 NA NA

Week 5 Yes No Yes No Yes No

Helped Learning 8 0 12 2 4 1

1 SAME

Hindered Learning 1 9 2 12 5 1

Week 10-13 Yes No Yes No Yes No

Helped Learning 6 3 10 1 7 0

1 NEITHER

Hindered Learning 1 8 1 10 1 1

* Voluntary participation accounts for variance in # of respondents

4. Conclusions This educational design research case aimed to achieve two overarching goals. The first: How do we design an innovative open source intervention using Google Applications to model the effective use of technology integration to support individual and peer learning?

1028

The research sub-questions that guided this were: 1. What is the process of creating a higher education course utilizing Google Applications? 2. What perceptions do adult learners have regarding the functions of Google Applications? The second goal was: What are the characteristics of a course that will allow learners to embrace the use of an open access practical learning management system while supporting learner and teacher course content knowledge acquisition? The research sub-questions that guided this were: 3. What are the perceptions of learners and teachers regarding the use/functions of the

course? 4. Based on learner and instructor feedback, what course alterations are recommended? Data from 32 participants, three graduate students and one instructor was collected over a 45-week period of time during the three phases of this educational design research study. Applying this research methodology allowed for the extended amount of time needed for significant feedback to occur, reflection on that feedback and critical appropriate redesigns to come to fruition. Although these are the yields of this particular study, these findings may assist colleagues in the design and development of courses utilizing Google Applications. The process of creating and revising a higher education course utilizing Google Applications included the instructor acquiring the knowledge and skills in both face-to-face and distance education competencies. As an instructor for primarily face-to-face courses, the instructor wanted to maintain the level of interaction she was accustomed to while using an easy to maneuver learning management system. Incorporating high levels of interactions between peers/instructor and individual student/ instructor were critical to the success of the course. The different applications in Google met those two requirements. Conducting formative evaluation with the students throughout the course in order to make adjustments was critical in the process. For example, repeatedly seeing the frustration with Google Groups was not exclusive to this course, students often express frustration with discussion boards in online environments. During this study however, we had the technology and the time to solve this design issue for Phase II and refine it during Phase III. The addition of Google Applications, also implemented during Phase II was refined in Phase III with the addition of the editing job aid for Peer Group work. The instructor documenting the successes/failures throughout the course was also critical in the process of creating a course utilizing Google Applications. The instructor observed and documented her thoughts on the students throughout the semester and reading their minor frustrations with the learning curve of Google Applications did not believe the frustration was solely the use of the Applications but rather a need to communicate more frequently with her. She decided to add the Weekly Reflection Journals in Phase II and the response was so positive, they were kept during Phase III. This was also true with the Google Chat online office hours. Documenting and making any alterations to the design and implementation of the next course offering was the final critical component in the process of creating this course. Applying educational design research to this case allowed these finite details to emerge strengthening the course design and delivery and ultimately student learning and their experience. These lessons are now being applied to other courses in the program. As stated in the findings section of each phase, students perceived the Google Applications as easy to access and use. They preferred to have all of the information needed for the course in one location and found the interactions with the instructor and peers in the class extremely helpful.

1029

Students overall perceived Google Applications as helpful in their learning a new learning management system. Table 4 illustrates the yields of the study that may assist colleagues and practitioners when designing online courses using Google Applications.

1030

Table 4: Summary of web-based survey data from three phases Literature used for initial course design Web 2.0 Tools in education allow for: • imaginative course design (Mason & Rennie, 2008) • successful collaborative online learning experience (Mason & Rennie, 2008) • professor to model use of a tool for professional practice (Tracey & Unger, 2011) • increased student motivation (Tracey & Unger, 2011). Teaching at a distance requires instructors to: • build competencies involving student activities at field sites, knowledge of the distance learning

field, design of study guides correlated with the technology, and graphic design and visual thinking (Crys, 1997)

• consider new paradigms for teaching (Easton, 2003), and model appropriate use of communication tools (Unger & Tracey, 2012).

Google Applications: • are free and customizable web-based tools (Google, 2010) • provide platform for educators and students to communicate and collaborate to learn more

effectively (Google, 2010) • provide students with 21st century skills (Google, 2010). Phase I: Winter 2011

Findings Course changes

• Students perceived that Google Applications helped them to learn the course content

• Students had positive perceptions of the Google Applications, because they were: - easy to use - beneficial for collaborating with

others - allowed for instant feedback - tools that can be used in their

own professional practice • Some students experienced

compatibility issues between Microsoft Office and Google Applications

• Students wanted all of the tools accessible from one location

• Students suggested that the instructor provide Google Application job aids at the beginning of the course

• Students requested a better way for facilitating online discussions

• Students like that the instructor incorporated a variety of communication methods

Distribute Google Application job aids prior to the beginning of the course Create centralized location for course content • Syllabus created in Google Documents

and embedded into the course site provided one location for students to look for course updates

• Reorganization of the site by weeks, which included student outcomes, instructional materials, and assignments

Implement different method for facilitating asynchronous online discussions • Google Groups for discussions were

removed and replaced with small peer groups of 4, which answered questions and worked on peer assignments in Google Documents. Instructor had access to each group’s Google Document to contribute to their discussions and guide their learning

1031

Table 4: Summary of web-based survey data from three phases (continued) Phase I: Winter 2011

Findings Course changes

• Added weekly reflection journal stored in a Google Document for individualized communication between student and instructor

• Added online office hours (17hrs per week) where students could access the instructor through Google Chat

Phase II: Fall 2012

Findings Course changes

• Students perceived that Google Applications helped them to learn the course content

• Students had positive perceptions of the Google Applications, because they were: - easy to use - beneficial for collaborating with

others • Students preferred Google

Applications to Blackboard because it was accessible via any computer or mobile device

• Students liked the weekly communication with the instructor through the individual reflection journals, because it helped them understand the course content

• Students did not like working in Google Documents for the peer group assignments, and recommended the documents be broken down into shorter documents

• Students perceived the content was organized in a logical manner and liked having it in one location

• Students liked using Google Chat for communicating

• Students recommended a one column homepage so the most recent information was always at the top

Course homepage was changed into a single column Peer documents were broken into shorter documents for easier navigation • Peer group Google Documents

were created for each discussion week to resolve the issue with the document being too long and hard to navigate

Include instruction on the revision history function in Google Documents • Job aid was created and provided

with other Google Application job aids at the beginning of the course

1032

Table 4: Summary of web-based survey data from three phases (continued) Phase III: Winter 2012

Findings Course changes

• Students perceived that Google Applications helped them to learn the course content

• Students had positive perceptions of the Google Applications, because they were: - easy to use - beneficial for collaborating with

others - allowed for instant feedback

• Students were receptive to working in Google Documents for the peer group assignments

• Students liked using Google Chat for communicating

• Students suggesting including some video webinar session

• Students wanted grades to be accessible through Google instead of having to access them through Blackboard

Phase III was the end of the study and no other course redesigns were completed at this time.

This educational design case study focused on enhancing the communication process for collaborating and disseminating knowledge and skills through a free online technology tool: Google Applications. The findings and personal experience from this case study may be beneficial to others in their own practice. If so, having easy and accessible access to these Google Applications provides instructional designers and educators the opportunity to immediately put into practice instructional strategies and Applications they can actually use. This study also provided details for best practices for utilizing Google Applications to enhance the teaching and learning process across any discipline. Key sources Tracey, M.W., & Unger, K. (in press). Blending instruction while striving for high levels of interaction and motivation: One professor’s journey. In A. P. Mizell, & A. A. Piña (Eds.), Real life distance education: Case studies in research and practice. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Tracey, M.W., & Unger, K. (2010). Increasing motivation through Web 2.0. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 14(4), 63-69. Unger, K.L., & Tracey, M. W. (2012). Modeling online teaching and learning to pre- and in-service teachers through the use of the Web 2.0 social networking tool NING. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte, (Eds.), Creating technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issue (pp. 233-249). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

1033

References Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1) 1-14. Cennamo, K. (2003). Design as knowledge construction: Constructing knowledge of design. Computers in the Schools, 20(4), 13-35. Cyrs, T.E. 1997. Competence in teaching at a distance. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997 (71), 15-18. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace1. Journal of applied social psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132. Dennen, V.P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.)( pp. 813-828). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print, 53(4), 32. Easton, S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87-105. Google (2010). Google apps for education. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/index.html. Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228. Plomp, T. (2009). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research. (pp. 9-35). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Ed. New York: Free Press. Rowland, G. (2007). Educational inquiry in transition: Research and design. Educational Technology, 42(2), 14-28. Ruona, W.E.A. (2005). Analyzing Qualitative Data. In R.A. Swanson, & E.F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations, foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 233-263). San Fransico: Berrett-Koehler. Saadé, R.G., & Kira, D. (2006). The emotional state of technology acceptance. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 529-539.

1034

Surry, D.W., & Ely, D.P. (2002). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization of instructional design and technology. In R.A. Reiser, & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, (pp. 183-193). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Tracey, M.W., & Unger, K. (in press). Blending instruction while striving for high levels of interaction and motivation: One professor’s journey. In A. P. Mizell & A. A. Piña (Eds.), Real life distance education: Case studies in research and practice. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Tracey, M.W., & Unger, K. (2010). Increasing motivation through Web 2.0. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 14(4), 63-69. Unger, K. (2012). Examining the factors of a technology professional development intervention. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Accession Order Number 3503933). Unger, K.L., & Tracey, M.W. (2012). Modeling online teaching and learning to pre- and in-service teachers through the use of the Web 2.0 social networking tool NING. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Creating technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issue (pp. 233-249). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Monica W. Tracey is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology in the College of Education at Wayne State University. Her teaching and research focuses on theory and design-based research of interdisciplinary design including design thinking, designer reflection and designer decision-making. Tracey has worked for over 25 years in design and on numerous design projects. Her work includes designing internationally and across disciplines. Tracey has over 25 publications on her research and practice of instructional design including a Brown book award winning co-authored book, book chapters and refereed journal articles. She has taught design in higher education since 1999 and serves on the editorial review board for Education Technology Research and Development and the editorial advisory board for the International Journal on Designs for Learning.

Email: mwtracey@gmail.com

Kelly L. Unger has been a professional in instructional technology for 10 years, working extensively with K-12 school districts and other adult learners, providing instruction on various technologies and concepts. Kelly currently works as an End-User Change Management and Engagement Specialist on a global Information Technology team at Ford Motor Company. Her responsibilities include gathering and reporting information from 80,000 salaried global employees’ current and desired uses of information and communication technologies throughout the company. She is actively involved in the Michigan Council of Women in Technology, where she assists with the online learning committee.

Email: Kunger1@ford.com

Kecia J. Waddell is a doctoral student in Wayne State University’s Instructional Technology program. Kecia has been a Special Education Teacher at the secondary level for over 15 years and has become conditioned to think in terms of alternative teaching and learning options for learners who struggle with exceptionalities that impede their academic, social or emotional success. Kecia’s current research focuses on learning analytics, individualized instructional design and universal design for learning in teacher evaluation systems with an emphasis on teachers of at risk populations.

Email: keciajw@gmail.com