Abstract:

Two Norwegian HE institutions and one research institute have developed a method called Concurrent E-Learning Design (CCeD). The method helps the developers to focus on content, pedagogy, technology and administrative/economical issues. The aim of CCeD is to improve the quality and increase the effectiveness of the design process compared to traditional methods. Using CCeD, the design are developed through several sessions where a multidisciplinary team of experts work together to develop a common design. The sessions are run in real time and the resulting design document is developed in a Common Information Space (Google docs). In this paper we have collected results from three different projects where the method has been used for course development, two in teacher training; PLN - Personal Learning Networks, and MOOC for ICT in learning, and the European course, Flexible Learning in Information Technology and Entre¬preneur¬ship. In all the projects the development team have come from different institutions from different parts of Norway and in the EU project, from different institutions and countries, and representing both academia and industry. In all cases, most of the participants are little acquainted to each other and the method is unknown to most of the participants.

As part of the articulation work a process document is developed, necessary for coordinating the CCeD process. The first session was run in face-to-face mode, the remaining sessions were run in real time in a distributed mode. The participants are communicating by voice and video (Adobe Connect), and writing in Google docs. To keep up the awareness a facilitator orchestrates the work, lifts out tasks for decision making, adds actions to an action list etc.

Our study is based on action research and to collect information from the participants we have used both oral evaluation and online questionnaires. In this paper we have looked at the evolving design documents as they are gradually developed in and between the sessions. Our research have both looked at the participants involvement in the communication process as well as their contribution to the quality and content of the design document.

Concluding remarks. The CCeD seems to be well suited to develop good courses. The participants have shown great willingness to share their knowledge on pedagogical methods, technological solutions and relevant content, but less interest in the area of economy and administrative issues. When the design document grows, it seems that it becomes increasingly more difficult for the whole group to contribute and that the final writing have to be done by a minor group.

Further research will be to investigate in the effect of running the CCeD method with the same group to develop several courses to see the effect of internalisation. It would also be of interest to look at possible improvements if each of the participants are assigned roles for direct contributions as writers in each stage in the document.

Keywords:

e-learning, Course development, Distributed Collaboration, Concurrent Design.