3 Collaborative Online Course Design
Rebecca Cottrell and Ann Obermann
With pressure for higher education to modernize, prepare students for the workplace, and attract and retain highly sought-after students, one way that institutions are responding is by offering online educational options (Brown et al., 2020). Online education advanced in the past decades, and with this evolution came the need for new designs and pedagogical skills to reshape how education is delivered. Institutions began to look to instructional designers (IDs) and design models for help in creating online courses, integrating educational technology, and restructuring learning processes in the digital context. To achieve these goals, IDs use course design standards to guide course evaluations, demonstrating compliance and success.
Although needed, the introduction of IDs for online program growth created tensions within higher education teaching and learning communities, as acknowledged by Power (2009). Although in many cases IDs and faculty developed relationships and co-created courses, in other cases the shift from faculty being the experts fully responsible for course development and delivery to a process that required compliance with standards and collaboration with design experts often resulted in resistance and frustration on both sides. IDs, framed by a digital context, used measurable standards to guide the design process and evaluate courses, whereas faculty remained focused on content and pedagogy within an on-campus frame, missing the need for efficiency, structure, and standards within the online digital frame. Separate foci in cases in which IDs and faculty did not develop working relationships could result in courses that lacked instructor presence and missed student voice and expertise (Morris, 2018).
We can bring this into perspective with a few questions.
- Have you been a faculty member designing a class with an ID but thought that your subject and pedagogical expertise and passion were overlooked in favour of following a strict set of design guidelines?
- As an ID, have you ever wanted to be part of a collaborative design team but instead spent your time managing faculty and project timelines?
- Have you been a student who provided course feedback about your learning environment but never heard whether it was received or implemented?
- What if there was a better way to approach online course design that supported collaborative co-construction of online classes with all needed stakeholders resulting in a class that was effective, creative, responsive, and enjoyable for all involved?
This chapter presents an alternative method of online instructional design and course development grounded in feminist pedagogy through design justice principles (Design Justice Network [DJN], 2018), fostering collaborative relationships among students, faculty, and IDs. A working partnership among all stakeholders addresses the differing foci mentioned above and the inequalities in the course design process, challenging the inherent power structures within higher education. We first discuss the gaps between current trends in online course design and critical feminist pedagogy and then introduce the Relational Course Design Collaboration (RCDC), a design model in which students, faculty, and designers construct classes together. The RCDC model aims to address the gaps present in current design processes. We conclude the chapter by providing concrete examples of current praxis using that model.
Online Course Design Trends in Higher Education
Online course design trends are influenced by a combination of the tensions mentioned above, neo-liberal ideology, unprecedented technological growth, and a push for work-focused educational competencies. These influences have contributed to higher education’s move toward workforce preparation measured by quality assurance and data analytics versus a process-based critical thinking discourse model of education measured by formative and summative faculty assessment (Al-Haija & Mahamid, 2021). This shift is evident in current online course design methods, the creation of online standards and rubrics, the employment of online program management (OPM) companies and private educational technology outsourcing, the undervaluing of relationships and process, and the lack of student voice.
Current online course design methods focus on structure and rubrics. The ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model, frequently used in course design, was originally created by the US military and is highly structured. It centres on the evaluation of the design process and consistent student outcomes (Branson et al., 1975). Processes such as ADDIE are supported using rubrics and standards, such as those developed by Quality Matters (QM). QM focuses on quality online course design and evaluation through the application of specific standards in rubric evaluation, assigning points for different course elements resulting in score levels (QM, 2021). In addition, frames such as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) focus heavily on course outcomes, objectives, and evaluations. These and other instructional design practices have been developed and tested (Czerkawski & Lyman, 2016) with adaptations and new applications in online learning (Shelton & Saltsman, 2005). However, these design models fall short in terms of human connections, relationships, ethics, social justice (Moore, 2021), and student input.
These deficits are evident in the absence of research discussing faculty designer relationships and student inclusion in online course design. Regarding faculty designer partnerships, the literature describing them has mixed implications. Hart (2018) emphasized that collaborative relationships can be beneficial to course development. However, other articles dehumanize the ID-faculty relationship since they provide tips for managing or even “taming” faculty (King, 2020). This perception of faculty by the ID and vice versa further hinders the working relationship during course building. Partnering with students is emphasized in teaching and learning research and grounded in feminist pedagogy (Bovill et al., 2011; Goff & Knorr, 2018). In a systematic review of students-as-partners literature, authors found clear benefits to student engagement, motivation, and faculty-student relationships and trust (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). Despite these demonstrated benefits, there are limited praxis or online course design models that include student voice or partnership. In a hand search of US centres for teaching and learning websites, we found that sites include tips on effective course design but do not specifically address the importance of or how to include student voice in online course design, even on sites that highlight equity in design (Onufer, 2021).
Finally, online course design and program trends show the use of third-party providers such as OPM companies to create and manage online course designs and programs. These providers are experts in technology and design but lack content and pedagogical expertise and, importantly, lack first-hand experience of students and the contexts of their lives and their university experiences. Third-party providers can include faculty as content experts but are not part of ongoing design relationships and do not demonstrate student participation in design as experts or users.
Online education and accompanying course design are poised to continue their expansion into the future. Through this expansion, we need to address the current focus on efficiency and standards while encouraging an emphasis on pedagogy and student voice. One way in which to address these trends is through a collaborative and relational course development and design process grounded in feminist pedagogy and design justice principles.
Feminist Pedagogy and Design Justice Principles
Critical feminist pedagogy introduces many important principles significant in a course design process. These principles include valuing relationships, honouring individual lived experiences, starting with strengths, and acknowledging individual identities (Webb et al., 2002; Weiler, 1991). These principles centre the student and humanize pedagogical relationships.
Design justice principles, created by the Design Justice Network in 2018, incorporate many feminist values. These principles focus on collaboration, centring marginalized voices and using design to “sustain, heal, and empower” communities. There is a clear parallel between design justice and feminist pedagogy in the desire to develop meaningful relationships, honour lived experiences of those traditionally marginalized and build upon existing strengths. The principles inherent in these two theoretical frameworks set the foundation for our course design model.
Relational Course Design Collaboration
We envision a new instructional design process, called the Relational Course Design Collaboration, that centres relationships, voice, and pedagogy using a collaborative model of course design founded on both feminist pedagogy and design justice principles. This course design process is grounded in foundational feminist pedagogy and design justice, and concepts such as relationships, honouring individual voice, strengths-based design, and a focus on pedagogy and values are the guiding pillars in the RCDC model (Webb et al., 2002; Weiler, 1991). These concepts are also exemplified in design justice principles, which acknowledge that everyone is an expert in terms of their own experiences and brings strengths to the table with their own unique contributions (DJN, 2018). This theoretical foundation centres relationships among faculty, designer, and students, honouring diverse perspectives in all design decisions, as each person brings their intersectional identities to the effort. By incorporating both feminist pedagogy and design justice principles as the foundational elements of a course design process, there is a greater possibility for including multiple voices, developing relationships, and drawing from each participant’s unique strengths and experiences.
Relational Course Design Process
In the course design process, only after establishing this shared foundation of design justice and feminist principles do we identify course objectives, develop assignments, and organize course materials in the learning management system (LMS) while applying course design standards. Then, through consistent feedback and conversational assessment, course evaluation and revision are completed collaboratively. By integrating feminist pedagogical practices, this model prioritizes collaboration, relationship, experience, and identity, disrupting the trends within online higher education that prioritize efficiency, compliance, standardization, and outcomes.
Figure 3.1. Relational Course Design Collaboration Model Values.
The RCDC model (see Figure 3.1) was created within a designer, faculty, and student relationship over four years. This integrated team works at graduate and undergraduate levels creating and teaching online, hybrid, and in-person courses. Through trial and error, a model emerged that met both the values of this team and allowed it to meet course design standards.
RCDC values are based on feminist pedagogical principles (Weiler, 1991) and include
- relational and conversational processes;
- faculty, designer, and student voices;
- strength and experience foci; and
- pedagogy and value-driven designs.
In the following part, we examine our specific model values, components, and guiding feminist pedagogy as illustrated in the design justice principles (DJN, 2018). These principles address the power of and responsibility in design to create equitable spaces.
Relational and Conversational Process
This new model of course design restructures the relationship among students, faculty, and IDs as they take on roles in creating online courses together. Feminist pedagogy forms a democratic relationship between instructor and student (Webb et al., 2002); this relationship also applies in a course design space as instructors collaborate with course designers and as they invite students to share in the design effort. Based on feminist pedagogy (Weiler, 1991) and founded on design justice principle 5 (DJN, 2018), this relationship-based process sees all participants as equals in the design process rather than accepts a hierarchical power structure. Weiler (1991) suggests that in class the teacher has authority over the student by developing course goals and assigning grades, whereas the student has little power. This dynamic is also true in an instructional design model: the designer holds control over design standard compliance, and the instructor controls course content. The RCDC model allows relationships among students, faculty, and designers to inform the design process versus assumed hierarchical power structures.
As such, the design process and course evaluation are conversational. When all voices are valued, the team has room for conversation and debate. Assessment of course design has traditionally been the role of the ID, who holds the power of whether a course passes design standards without room for conversation or adaptation. Although some areas of course design might be objective, most leave room for a conversation rooted in shared values. Guided by standards, the design team discusses course development. They consider any rubric at the beginning of the design process with a discussion of the purpose of each expectation. Faculty, designers, and students work together to determine their areas of design focus, and then they review these standards throughout the design process. At the end of the process, conversation is centred on compliance, identifying areas of strength and continued improvement with the whole team determining when a course is ready to be taught.
Faculty, Designer, and Student Voice
The RCDC process directly involves the voices of many stakeholders in course design. Design justice principle 2 asks that “we center the voices of those who are directly impacted by the outcomes of the design process” (DJN, 2018), a key concept in feminist theory (hooks, 1998; Webb et al., 2002). We implement this approach by involving students directly in the design process and elevating their voices. The alternative narratives presented by students during the design process give voice to those traditionally excluded and help the instructor and designer to be aware of student needs.
Many groups are affected by design decisions, and their individual voices should be heard in course design. This is a key tenet of feminist pedagogy (Weiler, 1991) and design justice principles 2 and 6 (DJN, 2018). Acknowledging the authority and expertise of multiple stakeholders in the course development process recentres the learning experience on those most affected by the design. The finished online course will show the organizational and pedagogical knowledge of the course designer along with the content expertise of the faculty member. Importantly, it will also show the voice of the student perspective as students bring questions and unique reflections to the design space. These individuals bring their own social identities and intersectionalities, in turn supporting the needs of a diverse student population in online spaces.
Focus on Strength and Experience
Feminist pedagogy suggests that including a variety of experiences builds respect and empathy for a broader range of backgrounds (Webb et al., 2002). Similarly, design justice principle 6 states that “everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process” (DJN, 2018). These principles are applicable in course design since students, faculty, and designers can come from different backgrounds, generations, and experiences; they bring diverse strengths to the design process. Including all of these voices when designing a course results in a more inclusive experience for all students. Including more points of view increases subject knowledge, understanding, and caring (Webb et al., 2002). In this sense, the team co-constructs knowledge while making unique contributions based on personal strengths and experiences.
Relationship-based design ensures that no individual holds the power in the design process, instead allowing the faculty member, designer, and students to work collaboratively without attempting to control the others or assume expertise. Strengths-based design honours the contributions of individuals, asking them intentionally to apply and develop their individual abilities in the design process (Lopez & Louis, 2009). Building relationships by honouring individual strengths and contributions requires clear communication, which enriches the course design experience and the quality of the final course development.
Pedagogy and Value-Driven Design
A focus on relationships, while centring traditionally marginalized groups, is key in feminist pedagogy, which allows for individual contributions and values personal experiences (Weiler, 1991). These principles parallel design justice principles: “Design justice rethinks design processes, centers people who are normally marginalized by design, and uses collaborative, creative practices to address the deepest challenges our communities face” (DJN, 2018). Traditional backward design asks educators to centre a “big idea” in their planning as they develop objectives, assessments, and learning activities (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). By keeping people, principles, and values as the big idea at the centre of the design process, we avoid overfocusing on efficiency and outcome at the expense of what is most important.
Similarly, prioritizing pedagogical best practices helps to avoid two primary problems of traditional design: activity focus and content coverage (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Intentionally using the LMS and technological tools to support effective pedagogy allows for innovation and avoids any low-impact technological use. In an online course, content coverage is straightforward, but a pedagogical focus allows teams to be deliberate about how to present content in a way that will connect meaningfully with learners. Using a course design model that is relational and conversational and centres the voices of all stakeholders while focusing on their experiences and strengths, allows the collaborative pedagogical values to guide course design.
RCDC Examples
In this part, we present two practical examples of how to apply the Relational Course Design Collaboration: a course design summer institute and a course design independent study with students. Each example includes a description of the practice along with supporting RCDC principles.
Course Design Summer Institute
Eight faculty members participated in a virtual, two-week, course design summer workshop together with an ID called the Summer Design Justice Institute. The goal of the institute was for faculty and the designer to work collaboratively as each faculty member developed an online course of their choice. The institute incorporated group and individual meetings, student consultations, and a common digital platform on which faculty could share ideas and resources. Each course design process closed with a conversational celebration and reflection meeting to ensure that design outcomes were met.
The Summer Design Justice Institute included the following RCDC principles.
Relational and conversational process. Faculty used the afternoons to connect one on one with the ID, their student consultants, and each other. These sessions built relationships across programs as faculty shared design and pedagogical ideas, provided course feedback, and suggested alternative teaching and grading practices. The design process ended with a conversational celebration and reflection meeting between the ID and faculty, who examined institutional design standards together to determine mutually if they had been met.
Faculty, designer, and student voice. The summer institute involved student consultations on course design decisions related to navigation, assignments, and course content. This collaboration offered faculty a new look at their courses through a different perspective, inviting them to make innovative changes to those courses. Joining the student voice with faculty and designer perspectives encouraged students to exercise self-determination and to engage in the educational process.
Strength and experience focus. Conversations in whole-group morning meetings and afternoon small-group sessions drew from the wide personal experiences of participants as they shared their strengths with the group. Faculty thought that their own scholarly and pedagogical expertise were welcome as they were invited to share with others and to lead the conversation. Participants also contributed to the collaborative digital space in the LMS, which served as a collective repository for course design and pedagogical resources.
Pedagogy and value-driven design. The summer institute morning meeting schedule was developed using preferences from all participants on pedagogical and design topics. Co-facilitated topics ranged from feminist pedagogy and design justice to anti-oppressive grading practices with many conversations on equity in course materials. This foundation of inclusive pedagogy and equitable values set the tone for course design work as faculty made course changes.
Course Design Independent Study
Students, faculty, and an ID joined together to create a course by enrolling and participating in a semester-long, virtual, independent study course, created so that students and faculty could formally explore a topic not officially included in the program curriculum. The goal of the independent study was twofold, including designing a course driven by student voice in partnership with faculty and an ID and exploring the course topic of spirituality in social work. In addition, this independent study taught students about course creation and pedagogy and gave them an insider perspective on educational design, pedagogy, and content. Both goals decentre the voice and power of the instructor and institution, creating an environment of collaboration, democracy, and empowerment.
The course design independent study incorporated the following RCDC principles.
Relational and conversational. This independent study created intentional space to foster relationships through a conversational culture. Emphasizing relationships over content outcomes helped participants to prioritize their interactions in helping one another, listening, and collaborating. We discussed how power is present within student-faculty and designer-faculty relationships and what we needed to consider within our course design to nurture equitable relationships.
The independent study modelled a conversational approach with grading and evaluation in which students had a voice in the assessment of their work and final design. One example was the final course evaluation, which included an assessment of our course in accordance with university online course design standards. All stakeholders met in the final week of class to discuss standards, celebrate successes, and offer suggestions for improvement.
Faculty, designer, and student voice. Incorporating faculty, designer, and student voice was the main guiding value that influenced the creation of the independent study. Clear co-creation and feedback processes allowed us to honour all voices in our course design. Students, faculty, and the designer had specific tasks and created different aspects of the course. In addition, the experience incorporated midterm and final feedback loops to give everyone a voice.
Focus on strengths and experience. Students and faculty had opportunities to share their strengths, experiences, and expertise as related to the course content by reviewing potential content and teaching other members of the course. Faculty, students, and the designer discussed their strengths and where they wanted to improve their course design skills. Those with strong skills in one area offered help to others, sharing different perspectives from their own learning experiences, which informed the overall structure and requirements of the course. Students’ experience and knowledge of spirituality were central to informing content, activities, and assignments.
Pedagogy and value-driven design. Participants discussed their guiding values in the proposal and course design phases. We used these values throughout the process to refocus collaboration and guide final decisions on assignments and content. By returning to our values of student experiences and relationships, we refocused on the needs of future students in the design process. Discussions on which pedagogies should drive this course were framed by the course topic (spirituality in social work) and social work values. We referred to these values when making course design, content, or technological decisions.
Conclusion
Over the past few decades, we have seen a great increase in the demand for online instruction and a subsequent development of course design models, structures, and evaluations. Although these methods can improve the quality of an online course, they do not replace a relational educational collaboration, such as those experienced in the summer institute and independent study design processes. The RCDC model embeds the relationship among instructor, designer, and student in the course design process, inviting participants to bring their own strengths to the course and grounding the design process in inclusive feminist pedagogical values. This model works to restructure the power dynamics in higher education. As faculty, ID, and student roles evolve within higher education, there will be more opportunities to collaborate on course design and online education, making necessary additional research that explores faculty and designer relationships as well as student participation in course design.
Key Takeaways
- Traditional course design structures have a greater focus on rubrics, standards, and structures than on relational and collaborative design experiences.
- By founding a course design process on critical feminist pedagogy and design justice principles, the RCDC process creates opportunities to incorporate the voices of faculty, designer, and students in an equitable way.
- The RCDC model is flexible, and the principles can be applied in numerous ways. This chapter provides two examples of application: a faculty course design summer institute model and an independent study with students collaborating as designers model.
References
- Al-Haija, Y. A., & Mahamid, H. (2021). Trends in higher education under neoliberalism: Between traditional education and the culture of globalization. Educational Research and Reviews, 16(2), 16–26.
- Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). Longman.
- Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design and curricula: Implications for academic developers.
International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133–145. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /1360144X .2011 .568690 - Branson, R., Rayner, G., Cox, J., Furman, J., King, F., & Hannum, W. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. United States Army Training and
Doctrine Command. https://
apps .dtic .mil /sti /pdfs /ADA019486 .pdf - Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, D., Brooks, C., & Grajek, S. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE horizon report, teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE. https://
library .educause .edu /resources /2020 /3 /2020 -educause -horizon -report -teaching -and -learning -edition - Czerkawski, B., & Lyman, E. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532–539. https://
doi .org /10 .1007 /s11528 -016 -0110 -z - Design Justice Network. (2018, November). Design Justice Network principles. https://
designjustice .org /read -the -principles - Goff, L., & Knorr, K. (2018). Three heads are better than one: Students, faculty, and educational developers as co-developers of science curriculum. International Journal for
Students as Partners, 2(1), 112–120. https://
doi .org /10 .15173 /ijsap .v2i1 .3333 - Hart, J. (2018). Importance of instructional designers in online higher education. Presented at the Hart Columbia Southern University AECT International Convention 2018.
- hooks, b. (1998, July). Design: A happening life. Lion’s Roar. https://
www .lionsroar .com /design -a -happening -life / - King, A. (2020, January 28). Taming your SMEs: How to work with subject matter experts. Association for Talent Development. https://
www .td .org /user /content /aaronking /taming -your -smes -how -to -work -with -subject -matter -experts -01 -28 -20 -10 -56 - Lopez, S., & Louis, M. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College and Character, 10(4). https://
doi .org /10 .2202 /1940 -1639 .1041 - Mercer-Mapstone, M., Dvorakova, S., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Fetlend, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of
students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 15–37. https://
doi .org /10 .15173 /ijsap .v1i1 .3119 - Moore, S. (2021). The design models we have are not the design models we need. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(4). https://
dx .doi .org /10 .51869 /104 /smo - Morris, S. M. (2018). Critical instructional design. In S. M. Morris & J. Stommel (Eds.), An urgency of teachers (pp. 133–142). Press Books. https://
criticaldigitalpedagogy .pressbooks .com /chapter /critical -pedagogy -and -learning -online / - Onufer, L. (2021, February 9). Designing online courses for equity and inclusion. University of Pittsburgh, University Times. https://
www .utimes .pitt .edu /news /designing -online -courses - Power, M. (2009). A designer’s log: Case studies in instructional design. Athabasca University Press.
- Quality Matters. (2021). About QM. https://
www .qualitymatters .org /why -quality -matters /about -qm - Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2005). An administrator’s guide to online education. Information Age Publishing.
- Webb, L. M., Allen, M. W., & Walker, K. L. (2002). Feminist pedagogy: Identifying basic principles. Academic Exchange, 6(1), 67–72.
- Weiler, K. (1991). Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 449–475.
- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.