1. TEAM-BASED COLLABORATION MODEL

 

According to Hixon, 2008 team based collaboration is a collaborative team-based approach that involved the faculty and instructional support staff partnership. However, Caplan (2004) argues that online course development is a complex endeavor, and it is not reasonable to believe that a high caliber online course of instruction can be created by just one or two people. Quality courseware production requires a highly organized, concerted effort from many players.

 

 

2. PROJECT APPROACH MODEL

Chapman and Nicolet (2003) describe a project approach to online course development that employs such tools as project charters, module templates, and a structured progress reporting system. In this model, a project leader coordinates the efforts of an instructional development team that should include at least the following roles: project leader, faculty member, instructional designer, graphic designer, and multimedia specialist. A project charter is created to identify the goals and objectives for the project, clarify team member’s roles, and outline the project’s timeline.

Status reports are then issued regularly by the project leader and sent to all stakeholders. Course development templates and documented processes and procedures provide consistency throughout the course development process and allow team members to complete tasks efficiently and effectively. Chapman and Nicolet argue that a more structured approach can leverage instructional technology expertise while providing faculty with appropriate assistance and collaboration in developing their courses.

 

In summary, this model included the use of:

1. project leaders to coordinate the efforts of the instructional design team, faculty, and support staff and to send regular reports

2. project charters to identify the project’s goals and objectives, explain team member’s roles, and develop the project’s timeline

3. module templates to provide standard processes and procedures that effectively promote consistency and efficiency; and

4. a structured progress reporting system to keep everyone on task

5. included a team of experts with specific roles, templates, and structured progress reporting system

 

 

3. PARALLEL-LINEAR MODEL

This model included the directors, instructional designers, media support, technical and secretarial support, and the content specialists, who all worked simultaneously and frequently shared with each other, but the participation was limited to any two individuals meeting together. Care and Scanlan (2001) describe the parallel-linear model where two parallel structures working simultaneously”. They added this model provided the opportunity for frequent exchanges among the participants; the interaction was limited to any two individuals meeting together at one time.

 

Because all participants in this model did not come together to discuss the development of the course, Care and Scanlon suggest that this model is inadequate because parallel –linear model is not collaborative enough and resembled team members working in silos.

 

 

4. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MODEL

Hixon, 2008 characterize interdisciplinary team model where the team regularly met, shared, and learned from each other – which strengthened the entire team and more successful approach to course development. The strength of this model was that team members learned from one another, broadened their knowledge base, and appreciated the strengths which the other members brought to the table.

 

 

 

Johnson 2003 described other three-course development models.

 

5.  FACULTY-DESIGNED, INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY-DEVELOPED MODEL

Incorporates the use of an instructional designer to customize the course content for online delivery to “ready everything for course delivery."

 

Meanwhile, in this model, faculty are encouraged to collaborate with more seasoned faculty, take an online course, and participate in workshops to develop techniques for teaching online.

 

Faculty-designed, instructional technology-developed incorporated a faculty-designer partnership similar to the team-based collaboration model.

 

 

6. PARTNERSHIP MODEL

Involves collaborations with external technology providers to develop new technologies, learn how to use them effectively, transfer knowledge and information, share issues and resolve problems, and enhance content and teaching by creating effective learning experiences.

 

 

Oftentimes, these providers are expensive and also the model poses disconnects due to personal relationships not being formed with faculty and the instructional designer.

 

 

 

7. FACULTY -DESIGNED, FACULTY-DEVELOPED USING COURSEWARE MODEL

Is an approach that does not utilize instructional designers. Faculty use courseware (e.g. Blackboard, WebCT) and various templates to develop courses that meet their teaching style and student needs.

 

It is very common but not the most practical and efficient approach if targeting quality. Typically faculty is not privy to the knowledge and skills that are ingrained in educated and trained designers. Although courseware systems are equipped with robust features, using the features incorrectly can lead to quality issues and could be detrimental to student learning experiences.

 

Typically this method increases the workload for faculty, as they could be in a position to not have proper support and not be equipped to assist students. In addition, working alone, faculty are not normally abreast of information regarding laws for accessibility and copyright, or best practices for multimedia design. Using a designer, the faculty has the support to assist with these areas and is privy to professional development or training.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Hixon’s (2008) team-based collaboration, Chapman and Nicolet’s (2003) project approach, Care and Scanlan’s (2001) interdisciplinary team model, and Johnson’s (2003) faculty-designed, instructional technology-developed model are all chosen to contribute to one functional model that would be very collaborative in sharing and supporting, have an efficient project approach in workflow and reporting, include templates, and form relationships. The vision is to have individuals in this partnership be privy to the skills and support that each possessed to maximize quality in an online course (Outlaw & Rice, 2015).