MATERIALS AND METHODS

The development of the CCeD method was carried out by a project team of six people. This was two assistant professors and one associate professor from the Faculty of Informatics and E-Learning at Sør-Trøndelag University College, one associate professor and one PhD-candidate from the Department of Computer and Information Science at Norwegian University of Science and

partner was the Norway Opening Universities (NOU 2010) and there were several companies (see Section 3.1) that worked as partners when the new CCeD method was tested and evaluated in specific projects. All the six who participated to the CCeD method development have extensive experience with development and delivery of educational deliveries and e-learning, and this project team began by developing and documenting the new CCeD method. This was manifested by a process description for the development of customized corporate e-learning designs, the definition of appropriate roles with associated responsibilities and authority for the e-learning design process, the specification of templates for the sub-models that together made up the entire e-learning design, the establishment of a facility containing needed software tools and hardware equipments for the design sessions, and the specification of an infrastructure for collaboration and information sharing between all project stakeholders (Strand et al. 2010). On the basis of this manifest the project team started to spread information about the CCeD method. The aim was to enter into an agreement on specific test projects so that the CCeD method could be used, evaluated, and improved based on real experiences.

Fig. 1 – The execution phase of the CCeD process

Figure 1 explains some key aspects of the CCeD method at a general level. The figure shows the execution phase of the process and Strand et al. (2010, p. 4072) has following explanation to the execution phase: This phase is regarded as the core of the CCeD method, since concurrent e-learning design sessions are planned and executed here. The session schedule will vary between different projects, but we have chosen to define a directive schedule, containing a session plan, which includes five sessions with approximately 3.5 hours duration and a minimum of one week intervals between them. In each of these sessions different aspects of the four sub-models (Instructional Model, Knowledge Model, Technical Delivery Model and Business Model) evolves in parallel. The following list shows the area of focus for each of these five sessions:

x Session I – What is the situation; A situation analysis about the current situation in relation to instructional schemes (Instructional Model), knowledge aspects (Knowledge Model), technological aspect (Technical Delivery Model), and financial and administrative issues (Business Model).

x Session II – What possibilities exist; A study of possibilities in relation to each of the four sub- models where the purpose is to describe a wide range of possible solutions for the e-learning design.

x Session III – Selection of solutions; An evaluation of the possibilities and selection of solutions for each sub-model, which we choose to bring forward and use in the current upcoming e-learning delivery.

x Session IV – How the solution should be designed; A detailed preparation of the e-learning design where the delivery is organized, e.g. in what order instructional activities will be carried out (Instructional Model), in what order appropriate learning material will be presented (Knowledge Model), how the different technical solutions should be designed (Technical Delivery Model), and how economic models and administrative solutions should be implemented (Business Model). x Session V - Completion and implementation planning; To complete the design model for the entire

e-learning delivery and make plans with respect to the development and delivery, e.g. who should do what, when will it be done and what resources are needed.

Figure 1 also shows that design documents developed in CCeD projects consists of four sub-models. It is essential that these cover different areas and that they are developed in parallel. In Strand et al. (2010, p. 4073) we find the following information about these sub-models:

1. The Instructional Model – detailing pedagogical activities or learning events that students and instructor(s) should conduct in connection with the course and relevant resources in this context. 2. The Knowledge Model – that contains the learning content and objectives, i.e. the kind of

knowledge, skills and attitudes the students should acquire.

3. The Technical Delivery Model – containing an overview of how the technical delivery will take place, and what technologies and tools that will be used in connection with the deliveries.

4. The Business Model – that describes economic conditions, i.e. costs and incomes, intellectual property rights (IPR), any agreements that must be entered into, administrative guidelines and requirements in relation to the delivery timing, needed resources, etc., for the upcoming e-learning delivery.

3.1 Implementation and Evaluation through Three Different Projects

To test the CCeD method thoroughly and form a basis for improvements, we entered into agreements with three different projects. These projects aimed to develop new educational deliveries and eventually use the CCeD method in this context. At the same time, it was also important that the objectives and the size of these projects were different, because it enabled us to test various aspects of the CCeD method.

The objective of the first project was to design a new subject within computer supported cooperative work for bachelor level students on campus. Five people from the CCeD method project team had mentoring roles in this project and collaborated with five colleagues from Sør-Trøndelag University College. These five participants were three associate professors and two assistant professors and they were challenged to play the following roles in the project: (1) pedagogical expert – one associate professors that worked with the Instructional Model , (2) expert on computer supported collaborative work – one associate professors that worked with the Knowledge Model , (3) technical delivery experts – two assistant professors that collaborated about the Technical Delivery Model, and (4) business expert – one associate professor that worked with the Business Model. This means that a total of ten people completed five CCeD sessions as part of the first project.

The objective of the second project was to design a new subject within the area of service management for some selected companies in the Ytre Namdal region in Norway. These companies were Norsk e-læring, a division of Ytre Namdal upper secondary school and the five partners; Telenor, Gothia, Aktiv Kapital, Manpower and Lindorff. Six people from the CCeD method project collaborated with three customer representatives in this project. Two of those came from Telenor and the third came from Norsk e-læring. Together these customer representatives covered the project's needs and contributed to the development of both the Knowledge Model, the Instructional Model, the Technical

and we had to conduct one morning and one afternoon session on the same day to reduce participants’ traveling time. The fifth final session was not conducted in the CCeD facility, but replaced with traditional meetings to complete the models and the final learning design. This was planned from the start of the project to reduce the participants' travel.

The objective of the third project was to design a new course regarding the Framework for ICT Technical Support (FITS). FITS was owned by Becta, which led the national drive in the UK to inspire and lead the effective and innovative use of technology throughout learning (Becta 2010). However, while our project was ongoing the British government decided to close down Becta, and FITS was transferred into a self-funded model called The FITS Foundation (FITS 2010). In this project we have collaborated with the Norwegian Senter for IKT i utdanningen, who have the rights to spread FITS in the Norwegian market. We were five people from the CCeD method project that collaborated with eleven client and customer representatives, meaning that a total of sixteen people were involved. The reason the number of people expanded was that several representatives from the client (Senter for IKT i utdanningen) and the client’s customers (one municipality and one county) wanted to participate. The CCeD method is flexible in relation to the number of participants, and this project would also have worked well with a few people, given the necessary competencies. In this project we also experienced changing objectives and, consequently, a need for adaptive adjustments. The first three sessions went more or less as planned, and then some adjustments were made because we gained access to various materials from The FITS Foundation that could be adapted and reused in the new course. This meant that the focus changed from designing a complete new e-learning course to adapting an existing classroom based course, and additional CCeD sessions were thus not required.

3.2 To Complete Design Science Artifacts with Action Research

Design science principles (Hevner et al. 2004) were used when the CCeD method was developed, but, as mentioned above, we could not vouch for the method’s utility, quality and efficacy, since we had not tested the method in real projects. Introduction of a new method such as CCeD at an educational institution is somewhat of an organizational change where action research might fit the purpose. Action research brings the research and the use of research results together in a process where external scientific observers are not necessarily present, since the researcher usually is an active participant in the research program. Action research is a systematic and reflective study of some actions and the effect of these actions on the organization. The researcher examines the ongoing work and looks for possible improvement opportunities as well as searching for evidence from several sources as a tool to analyze the actions carried out. The researcher acknowledges his own subjective view, but seeks to develop an understanding of the events based on multiple perspectives. They use and render the collected data in a way so that it can be shared with the participants. In turn, this forms the basis for a reflective phase where new plans in relation to actions, activities, and measurements for the next implementation cycle are designed. Action research is a methodological approach where practice learning by working through a set of reflective phases, contributes to the development of personal customized expertise. Over time, a deeper understanding within areas such as organizational processes, stakeholder collaboration, and utilization of models, methods and tools is developed and forms the basis for new improvements (Susman & Evered 1978, Baskerville & Pries-Heje 1999, Davison et al. 2004). In this way, action research can be considered as an extension to the design science process, and an aid in relation to evaluation and improvements of new artifacts like the CCeD method.

3.3 Techniques for Data Collection

A well-known cyclical process of action research was first described in Susman et al. (1978) and the following steps are central in this process:

1. Diagnosing – To make a diagnosis in relation to the organizational situation and determine the nature of the problem.

2. Action planning – To plan what actions one should perform and how the problem should be solved.

3. Action taking – To carry out certain real actions as planned so that the consequences can be checked.

4. Evaluating – To study the consequences by evaluating the consequences of certain actions. 5. Specifying learning – To identify and specify general findings and general learning for future

implementation.

In the cyclical process model used in our project up to five working sessions for each project were carried out. For each of these the action planning, action taking and evaluation steps were conducted. This means that we first planned what to do and which deliveries to produce for each session. Next the sessions were conducted in relation to the plan, and finally the end of each session was used to evaluate the results in plenary. All these steps are considered as important data collecting activities and we used audio recordings (Dictaphone) to store these data for future investigations. Furthermore, we used questionnaires with a mix of free-response questions, checklists and rated questions using the Likert scale. These questionnaires were conducted online, and the results were processed and distributed to all project participants as text documents. The results of these questionnaires thus acted as important input when the six persons of the CCeD method team conducted evaluation meetings and specified learning that led to method changes and updates. The CCeD method team conducted short evaluation meetings, lasting for a few hours after each session. In addition two full-day workshops were conducted to specify learning and make decisions regarding final method modifications and updates. Participants’ own experiences and the results of surveys were extended with the e-learning design models under development. These models always contain the latest documented information with respect to knowledge, pedagogy, technology and business related conditions. In fact, it is the content of these models that ultimately shows how well the CCeD method works, because these models will constitute the final design document for the new e-learning delivery.