Concluding Remarks and Further Work

In this article we have presented a new method (CCeD) to be used when customized corporate e-learning deliveries are designed. The method is based on experience from traditional instructional design as well as the concurrent design methodology, and it is developed to help us make effective e-learning deliverables efficiently. Our research is based on the method of design science and the main purpose of this article is to describe the produced artifacts. We define a concept that describes how concurrent e-learning design should be implemented and we base this concept on experiences which also is documented in the research literature. However, in accordance with the design sciences research method: “The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via well-executed evaluation methods.” (Hevner et al., 2004, p. 12). When we still choose to publish the results of this research, without any scientific evidences regarding how the concept actually works, it is because we need to define the concept thoroughly before we can test it out and make evaluations.

5.1 Future Evaluation Considerations

Recently, we have presented this concept for three different groups and we have so far received very positive feedback and a strong belief that the concept will actually work. This would not have been possible without a thorough description of the concept, as described in this article. We now have the opportunity to carry out three different CCeD projects, with different stakeholders and different goals. When these specific projects are carried out we will collect empirical data through interviews and questionnaires. In this way, we aim to identify what works well and should remain the same, what works less well and should be improved, and what does not actually work and should be discarded. When we have been through the first implementations, and depending on the results we achieve, we will consider going more in depth on specific issues. Relevant issues in this context may include: (1) how does the mind map tools work for e-learning design, (2) how does it work to separate the design model into several (four) sub-models, and (3) what is needed to encourage good collaboration between all parties involved in the e-learning design process?

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Simtano™ and Knut I Oxnevad for having inspired us in relation to concurrent design, for having shared his expertise in several meetings and for the 4 days of concurrent design team and facilitator training he provided us. Furthermore, we would like to thank our institutions (The research foundation TISIP, Faculty of Informatics and e-learning at Sør-Trøndelag University College and Department of Computer and Information Science at Norwegian University of Science and Technology) for resources that are made available through the concurrent e-learning design project and the funding partner (Norway Opening Universities) for the external funding we have received in relation to this project.

References

Bandecchi, M., Melton, B., Gardini, B., & Ongaro, F. (2000). The ESA/ESTEC Concurrent Design Facility. In Proceedings of 2nd European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC 2000).

CCeD. (2010). Retrieved January 7, 2010 from the Concurrent e-learning Design (CCeD) web site: http://www2.tisip.no/cced/.

Davidson-Shivers, A. G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2006). Web-based Learning: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Fowler, M., & Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28–35.

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(1), 75-106.

JPL. (2009). Retrieved September 28, 2009 from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory web site: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/about/index.cfm.

Kirschner, P., van Merrienboer, J., Sloep, P., & Carr, C. (2002). How Expert Designers Design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86-104.

Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (2005). Learning Design. Springer.

Lewis, R., Goodyear, P., & Boder, A. (1992). Just-In-Time Open Learning - A DELTA project outline. Occasional paper, NL/1/92. Neurope Lab. Archamps.

Lonchamp, J. (2000). A generic computer support for concurrent design. In Advances in Concurrent Engineering: Presented at Seventh ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Lyon Cluade Bernard University, France, July 17-20, 2000 (Bd. 4, s. 119). CRC Press.

Ma, Y., & Harmon, S. W. (2009). A case study of design-based research for creating a vision prototype of a technology- based innovative learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 75-93.

Mindjet. (2009). Retrieved November 4, 2009 from the Mindjet web site: http://www.mindjet.com/products/mindjet- catalyst/overview.

NetSupport. (2009). Retrieved November 5, 2009 from the NetSupport School web site: http://www.netsupportschool.com/. NOU. (2010). Retrieved January 7, 2010 from the Norway Opening Universities (NOU) web site: http://norgesuniversitetet.no/search/apachesolr_search/CCeD.

Osburg, J., & Mavris, D. (2005). A Collaborative Design Environment to Support Multidisciplinary Conceptual Systems Design. SAE transactions, 114, 1508-1516.

Oxnevad, K. I. (2000). The NPDT-the next generation concurrent design approach. Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on Systems Engineering, Munich, Germany, 2000.

Paquette, G., De La Teja, I., Léonard, M., Lundgren-Cayrol, K., & Marino, O. (2005). An Instructional Engineering Method and Tool for the Design of Units of Learning. In Koper & Tattersall (Eds.) Learning Design. Pp. 161-183. Springer-Verlag. Paquette, G., & Magnan, F. (2008). An Executable Model for Virtual Campus Environments. In Adelsberger, H. H., Kinshuk, Pawlowski, J. M. & Sampson, D. (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training Second Edition. Pp. 363-403. Springer-Verlag.

Paquette, G. (2004). Instructional Engineering in Networked Environments. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-242.

Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. International perspectives on instructional technology research for the 21st century, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous improvement through shared understanding: Reconceptualising instructional design for online learning. In Ascilite 2002 Conference Proceedings.

Simtano. (2009). Retrieved September 28, 2009 from the SIMTANO web site: http://www.simtano.com/index.html/. Strand, K. A., & Hjeltnes, T. A. (2009). Design of Customized Corporate E-Learning. Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 5(2), 14.

Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69-89.

Wakefield, M. A., Frasciello, M., Tatnall, L., & Conover, P. (2001). Concurrent Instructional Design: How to Produce Online Courses Using a Lean Team Approach. Syrtis, ITFORUM Paper, 56.

Paper 4