Thomas Ryberg, Lillian Buus, Marianne Georgsen, Tom Nyvang and Jacob Davidsen: Introducing the Collaborative E-learning Design method (CoED) http://www.ld-grid.org/workshops/ASLD11

1. Introducing the Collaborative E-learning Design method
(CoED)
Thomas Ryberg, Lillian Buus, Marianne Georgsen, Tom Nyvang, Jacob Davidsen
Department of Communication and Psychology, e-Learning Lab – Centre for User Driven Innovation,
Learning and Design, Aalborg University, Denmark – [ryberg, lillian,marianne,nyvang,
jackd]@hum.aau.dk
Abstract
In this paper the main aim is to introduce and explain the Collaborative E-learning Design method (CoEd),
which has been developed through various project in e-Learning Lab – Centre for User Driven Innovation,
Learning and Design (Nyvang & Georgsen, 2007). We briefly situate this method within the wider area of
Learning Design, where after we present the theoretical background of the CoED method. We illustrate the
method through discussing its concrete implementation in a recently finished EU-funded LLP-project
(EAtrain2).
Introduction
Our aim in this paper is to present the rationale and theoretical underpinnings of a particular method called
CoED (Collaborative E-learning Design). The method was originally developed by Nyvang & Georgsen (2007)
as part of the Learn@Work project, and has since been further developed in other projects we have engaged in
as a research collective. The method facilitates design of networked learning activities. It divides the design
process in three steps and uses specific tools in each step. While it draws on existing methods, such as card
sorting, which is often employed within iterative design processes, we believe that it entails some novel
elements. Firstly, it seeks to address the gap between theoretical models of learning and then actual learning
designs. It does so by promoting negotiation and reflection among teachers by ‘forcing’ them to identify core
pedagogical values, and maintaining a focus on that these are embedded in the actual design. Secondly, it
specifically supports collaborative design processes, where teams of participants (potentially with different
disciplinary backgrounds) co-develop networked learning designs. In relation to this, it should be noted that the
method is rounded by and rooted in an educational model or system resembling the German “didaktik” tradition
(Westbury, 1998), where the individual teacher have a high degree of autonomy in terms of deciding content
and pedagogical method. In this way, it addresses an educational tradition where there is little tradition for more
systematically defined (or centrally decided), structured and documented designs, and where the teacher has a
high degree of freedom in terms of methods and in interpreting the curriculum (e.g. there are no instructional
designers acting as the mediating link between curriculum and teachers/tutor). The collaborative element
therefore addresses an educational reality where teachers have acted as highly individualised, autonomous
agents, but are increasingly asked to work as teams (e.g. to support cross-disciplinary teaching/learning,
knowledge sharing and better support of project work). For example the method is currently being employed to
support teams of university college teachers’ adoption of Blackboard, as a means to develop somewhat shared
pedagogical visions, practices and use of new tools (while respecting the autonomy of the individual
practitioners). Thirdly, an accompanying web based software tool1 makes it easy to re-design the cards used as
part of the method, which makes the method both scalable and applicable in different contexts. For example
colleagues from another university recently applied it in a workshop for university managers, as a way of
generating future visions for the entire university.
Initially, we locate CoED within the wider theoretical landscape of learning design, explain the theoretical
background to the method, and then how the CoED method works in practice. The latter we illustrate with
reference to its application in a recent project called EAtrain2.
Learning Design
Very broadly stated Learning Design is concerned with enabling educators to create, design and share
pedagogically sound, high-quality learning designs or effective practices. One common notion within this area is
the importance of learners’ activity or learning activities, as summed up by (Britain, 2004). Whereas early e-
learning research tended to focus on the development and sharing of content and structure, the area of learning
design signals a move away from an exclusive focus on delivering (digital) packaged content to students
(Conole, 2007).
1
Please refer to: http://www.old.ell.aau.dk/coed/

2. Within the area of learning design there are many interesting attempts of mapping the relations between learning
designs, learning activities, learning theories, pedagogical approaches, and the particular contexts they are
enacted in. These relations are particularly interesting because one of the points of learning designs is to make
teachers more reflective about their teaching practice, and how to design for effective learning by providing
them with ‘frameworks’ for creating and describing learning designs. This also encompasses providing teachers
with theoretically informed models of ‘best practice learning designs’ to promote better fits between ‘theory’
and ‘practice’ (Conole, Dyke, Oliver, & Seale, 2004). In this vein many theorists have worked on creating
impressive mappings of the differences and similarities between various learning theoretical perspectives
(Conole et al., 2004), but also more detailed schemes of how particular theories would entail different
pedagogical approaches and variations in more concrete learning activities (Fowler & Mayes, 2005; Mayes & de
Freitas, 2004).
As explored by de Freitas et al. (2008) more generalised frameworks and models can be useful tools in
supporting practitioners’ design of learning, but at the same time practitioners need to remodel these to make
them useful and meaningful in their own contexts. Alternatively, such standardised frameworks run the risk of
alienating and marginalising practitioners (de Freitas, Oliver, Mee, & Mayes, 2008, p. 38). In the CoED method
the point of departure is to let the preferences of the teaching practitioners play a pivotal role in the design
process. Thus, a very important part of the CoED method is the negotiation and collaboration on establishing a
shared pedagogical vision among practitioners. CoED, then, can be viewed as what Conole (2007) terms
‘mediating design artefacts’ in the shape of ‘toolkits’ (a •–”—…–—”‡† ”‡•‘—”…‡ –Šƒ– …ƒ „‡ —•‡† –‘ ’Žƒ •…‘’‡
ƒ† …‘•– ƒ ƒ…–‹˜‹–› ‘‘Ž‡ ’ ).
History and introduction - Theoretical and methodological background for CoED
From the historical point of view CoED is a methodological framework developed with input from:
• Systems development – because we design (for) information and communication technology (Dahlbom
& Mathiassen, 1993; Larman, 2003).
• Networked learning and collaborative learning – because we design for learning and learning as part of
the design process
• Facilitation, creation and representation
The systems development domain has drawn our attention to the fact that specification and design can be
regarded as a form of collaborative or community learning. According to Wenger, a social theory of learning
must include community, practice, meaning and identity (Wenger, 1998). Learning in a community of practice
thus involves negotiation of meaning which is a process of participation and reification. Within a team of
designers, which perhaps includes users, it is reasonable to expect participants to bring different knowledge and
beliefs to the process. This calls for a negotiation of meaning within the design team.
This final source of inspiration is of a more practical and technical nature than systems development and
learning theory. Card sorting represents a powerful way of organising and creatively facilitating a targeted
negotiation of meaning within systems development projects. Card sorting is a widely known technique for
exploring differences and negotiating areas of agreement within systems development. The technique can help
individuals explain to the designer how they think about a domain. With groups of card sorters the designer can
facilitate discussion and negotiation of priorities. For example through a series of steps, as will be exemplified
later in this paper, a group can arrive at a limited number of values all can agree on.
CoED phases and principles
The CoED method facilitates the design process in three phases.
Phases:
1. Focus the e-learning design process
2. Identify overarching values and design principles
3. Specify design
In the EAtrain2 project we used the CoED method and customized it in relation to the particular need in the
project (presented in Glud et al. (2010) and Ryberg et al. (2010)). The method was used in a face-to-face
workshop aimed at helping teaching practitioners within the field of “enterprise architecture” to design online
courses building on Problem Based Learning and web 2.0 learning. In the following we describe how we used
CoED in relation to the specific workshop within EAtrain2.

3. In phase I of the design process the idea is to focus the design activity in relation to the overall approach and
understanding of learning, domain, and technology. In the particular workshop the coordinator presented the
participants to key issues in pedagogical design of web 2.0 mediated learning. This was done to focus the
attention on:
1. The understanding of learning (and subsequently teaching)
2. The understanding of the domain of enterprise architecture, and
3. The understanding of PBL and web 2.0 technologies and the role they play in both the design and the
learning process (Nyvang and Georgsen 2007: 8).
The focus in the first phase related to the aim of designing for web 2.0 mediated learning and led the participants
to an understanding of PBL and web 2.0, as for them to further exploit these in the actual designs. However, the
content and scope of the first phase is dependent on the specific context, and in other projects web 2.0 and PBL
might not be important issues, and e.g. inquiry learning could be the main issue.
In phase II the goal is to identify the overall values and principles to guide the design. Following the CoED
method the participants in the workshop conducted a card sorting exercise, using cards with different statements
about teaching and/or learning values or pedagogical concepts (further
details can be found in Nyvang & Georgsen 2007; and Ryberg et al. 2009).
For the purpose of the workshop, these were specifically designed to address
tensions and issues relating to PBL and web 2.0. The participants prioritized
the cards into groups of: 1) the most important, 2) the important, 3) the less
important, and 4) the unimportant. During two rounds of card sorting,
participants discussed the various teaching/learning values. This helped the
participants sort out contradicting cards, and gradually agreeing on a set of
core pedagogical values, that would shape their more concrete design in the
third phase. They were instructed to finally choose five core-values for the
next phase.
In phase III the focus is to develop a detailed learning design guided by the
values and principles prioritised in phase II (Nyvang & Georgsen 2007: 9). In this
phase the participants worked in two groups or design teams. Each group had a
facilitator asking critical questions to support the group in formulating a design,
which held true to the values and preliminary design choices. To guide the dialogue
about the more detailed design, participants worked with a set of cards illustrating
three factors relevant for pedagogical, technical and domain-related issues:
Resources, activities and infrastructure (Nyvang & Georgsen 2007: 11) (and to very
briefly explain the relations: (Learning) Activities and (Learning) Resources are
located in/take place in or across various Infrastructures). The cards were designed by
the facilitators prior to the workshop and were deliberately targeted to reflect web 2.0
and PBL. Activities could be e.g. blogging, social bookmarking, lecture, assignment
or project work. Resources could be e.g. video, forum, case-description, blog,
camera, survey-tool or facilitator. Infrastructures could be a LMS, Google Apps,
Mobiles or Social Networking Sites. For a workshop specifically about Moodle or
Blackboard the cards could be tailored to reflect the particular tools in those systems.
The participants then used the various cards to create more detailed designs for their courses and used the
posters’ space to represent e.g. temporal aspects of the course (top to bottom reflecting start/end) or by drawing
arrows and relations between resources and activities. This prompted participants to discuss e.g. how to
technologically support a particular activity, or how e.g. a highly individualised technology would support
collaborative learning and how their concrete design reflected their commonly decided values.
Concluding discussion
This concrete implementation of the method did not generate very detailed designs of a course or particular
learning activities (nor was this the plan, as the work was to be continued in a subsequent work package).
However, our experiences are that within a day, practitioners often manage to create relatively detailed designs
and plans for activities within a course, while also negotiating a shared pedagogical vision for such a course
(although they often find, that they have more different pedagogical values and beliefs than they would have
anticipated). Engaging participant from different target groups gives the dialog and negotiation a broader variety
of perspectives on the learning design process. Thus, the CoED method can be one way of engaging with

4. practitioners on designing for networked learning and for practitioners to discuss their values, design concrete
learning activities and designs, while representing these in a very flexible, yet structured manner. As mentioned
in the introduction of the paper, this might speak particularly into educational traditions where teachers as
individuals are used to a high degree of ownership and control with content, methods and interpretation of
curriculum. Therefore, it introduces a scalable design concept that allows for different levels of detail in terms of
the resulting design, while maintaining a strong focus on the collaborative establishment or negotiation of
shared pedagogical core values.
References
Britain, S. (2004). A Review of Learning Design: Concept, Specifications and Tools - A report for the JISC E-
learning Pedagogy Programme.
Conole, G. (2007). Describing learning activities -Tools and resources to guide practice. In Rethinking
Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering E-learning (pp. 81-91).
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design.
Computers and Education, 43(1), 17–33.
Dahlbom, B., & Mathiassen, L. (1993). Computers in context: The philosophy and practice of systems design.
Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Fowler, C. J., & Mayes, T. (2005). JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study - Stage 2: Mapping theory to practice
and practice to tool functionality based on the practitioners' perspective.
de Freitas, S., Oliver, M., Mee, A., & Mayes, T. (2008). The practitioner perspective on the modeling of
pedagogy and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 26-38.
Glud, L. N., Buus, L., Ryberg, T., Georgsen, M., & Davidsen, J. (2010). Contributing to a Learning
Methodology for Web 2.0 Learning – Identifying Central Tensions in Educational Use of web 2.0
Technologies. In Networked Learning. Presented at the Networked Learning Conference 2010, Aalborg.
Larman, C. (2003). Agile and iterative development - a managers guide. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2004). JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study - Stage 2: Review of e-learning
theories, frameworks and models.
Nyvang, T., & Georgsen, M. (2007). Collaborative e-learning design method (CoED) (No. 12). e-Learning Lab
Publiation Series (p. 25). Aalborg University. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from
http://www.ell.aau.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/publications/ell_publication_series/Collaborative_e
-learning_design_method_no._12.pdf
Ryberg, T., Georgsen, M., Buus, L., Glud, L. N., & Davidsen, J. (2009). An EA Active, Problem Based Learning
Methodology (EU-Deliverable No. D2.1) (p. 159). Retrieved from
http://eatraining.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=20
Ryberg, T., Glud, L. N., Buus, L., & Georgsen, M. (2010). Identifying Differences in Understandings of PBL,
Theory and Interactional Interdependencies. In Networked Learning. Presented at the Networked Learning
Conference 2010, Aalborg.
Wenger, E. 1998, Communities of Practice - Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Westbury, I. (1998). Didaktik and Curriculum Studies. In B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and or
curriculum : an international dialogue (pp. 47-78). New York: P. Lang.