One of the problems this kind of project has is the difficulty of adapting one's course material to the software. While the CD makes some effort to teach the fundamentals of composition, this kind of material presents a problem to the programmers and developers of computer material. Though I would typically use a model essay to teach some elements in textbook form, here the medium made that impractical. Similarly, it was difficult to construct an exercise that was practically able to show how an outline should be written. For the computer programmers, manipulation of anything larger than a word or two is difficult, as is the manipulation or display of large volumes of text. Screen size alone had an impact on how material was presented.
One of the other problems encountered for the content developer is the difficulty of distinguishing the CD from a book. I have written composition textbooks, and so that experience alone would seem to make me ideal for the position of content developer in a project like the development of a CD to complement classroom instruction. It turned out not to be so simple, however. The CD's capabilities were vastly different from those of a book, and in order to maximize those capabilities, I needed to make the most of students' keenness in using the CD, and their fondness for the instant feedback they received when they worked through lessons or multiple choice questions on how to devise a strong thesis statement. My goal was to produce something that wouldn't be simply the equivalent of page turning. I became increasingly aware of the need to make the material interactive, and each version of the CD reflects our combined efforts to heighten the interactivity and to differentiate the CD from the book definitively. The questions were simple to make interactive; students are carried forward by a desire to see how well they have assimilated material. Making lessons interesting and interactive is a tougher proposition, though. One thing that does make lessons easier and more appealing to students is the glossary section of the CD that ensures that students can look up terminology at the click of a button. If students need an explanation of what a pronoun is and why it needs to have a clear antecedent, that information is easily accessible by virtue of the medium alone. And it can be delivered to the student just in time for it to make sense in the context of what students are working on. A simple link, it seems, can take grammar terminology and elevate it to something practical rather than something purely theoretical.
The CD is better than a book in lots of ways, to judge from my students' reactions. For one thing, it is far better at repetitive things and at the kinds of questions that involve brief answers. It’s great for multiple choice. Then, of course, the question becomes, What does the use of the software lessons and tests have to do with writing? The short answer is: lots.
For one thing, our process of creating the software mirrored the process of writers who collaborate and revise, collaborate and revise some more. Since a number of our students were very actively involved in the process of developing the software (they were hired to help encode it, to test it, and to develop readable, friendly responses for it), they learned first hand of the problems of collaborative writing. One of the complications of the process was that the program and the material were developed at essentially the same time, and both were written to specifications. In many ways, our process of development is a showcase for the problem of producing this kind of software. We sometimes had material not easily adaptable to templates; we at other times had templates that proved none too useful for the course material at hand. In many ways, this kind of project, involving both students and instructors, demonstrates the challenges of using a set form (whether it is a template or a form like the essay), and adapting it to the needs of a particular audience.
For other students in the group, who were not so actively involved in the creation of the software, there were positive effects that could be seen in writing. One of the activities students engaged in during tutorials was teaching each other spot lessons in grammar, style, and composition, based on what they had learned themselves. Students who took over the role of instructor on this small scale seemed better prepared to talk about language issues and how they made a difference in what they were trying to say. Students who used this software were able to identify subjects and verbs better at the end of term than previous students in the course; they were more likely to know enough grammar to justify their choice of punctuation; and they were better equipped to pass on their knowledge to others. The software appeared to make the students more conscious users of terminology related to grammar. These skills seemed to result from a combination of three factors: that students used the software at their computers in the lab or at home and outside of class time; that they often used it in pairs and took on the responsibility for helping others understand the points being made; and that they were explicitly asked to critique the usefulness of the software in their learning experience throughout the course.