The Group setting allowed me, as a technological enthusiast to see another person’s perspective on technology, while my partner was not as “technologically engaged” as I, it showed how other people use technology. This was critical when designing the course material as something that appears a common task to myself (for example, excessive use of Keyboard Shortcuts) can often leave others completely bewildered.
The decision-making procedure within the group allowed for refinement of the quality of resource. Ideas are bounced between both of us to ensure we can not only justify its inclusion but also support its integrity. This produced a higher quality resource than what would have been produced individually.
During the resource creation, we often found that we were working backwards in the design processes. This was due to the availability of technology and the relative ease of creating digital worksheets. We often created a solution or a task for students, and then subsequently had to work backwards to ensure that it meets the quality learning framework. This approach was not always the easiest, for example if we were to become stuck on one component we were able to just “Google It” to find further information; however during an exam students would not be allowed the same privilege. Because of this, we often found ourselves removing content to ensure that each aspect would have been explored within the syllabus outcomes and not present any potentially new content to the students.
Further to this, the process of relying on technology to answer a question can become troublesome if the person doing the research is not thorough. Because of the problematic nature of knowledge on the internet, this material had to be supported several times over to be assured of its academic integrity.