It Takes a Village: A Collaborative Approach to Online
Course Design and Development
Catherine Snell-Siddle
The Open Polytechnic of NZ
Catherine.snell-siddle@openpolytechnic.ac.nz
ABSTRACT
In contrast to a traditional face-to-face course, course design and development at the Open Polytechnic uses a collaborative
approach to designing and developing Online Distance Flexible Learning (ODFL) courseware. At this New Zealand
tertiary education institution, course design and development follows a six phase process with three levels of project roles
and responsibilities. A discussion of each of the design and development phases, roles and responsibilities is provided,
showcasing how this collaborative approach to developing courseware provides an effective way of delivering a
pedagogically-sound online learning experience.
Keywords: online course design, online course development, learning design, ODFL
1. INTRODUCTION
A collaborative approach to course design and development is
becoming more widespread as educational institutions move to
offer online learning, not only via distance, but in conjunction
with traditional face-to-face learning. Course design and
development can no longer be viewed as a solitary activity,
carried out in isolation without input from a wide range of
stakeholders, including learning designers, graphic designers,
cultural appraisers, subject matter experts and industry.
This paper describes the collaborative course design and
development process at the Open Polytechnic and will be of
interest to those institutions delivering online distance learning.
The discussion outlines a way to unbundle tasks traditionally
performed by academic staff, whereby the breadth of these
tasks can instead be undertaken by specialists in course design
and development, thus allowing academics to focus on teaching
and research.
2. BACKGROUND
The Open Polytechnic is unique to most other institutes of
technology and polytechnics (ITPs) in New Zealand with a core
constituency of vocational adult learners, 72 per cent of whom
are already in employment, and 93 per cent studying part-time
(Open Polytechnic, 2017). The demographics also differ to
many other ITPs, in that students are 60 per cent female, and
the largest age group is between 25-34 years of age. Most
programmes are delivered entirely online to students located
throughout New Zealand.
The style of teaching and learning in an online distance
environment has distinctly different characteristics to the
traditional teaching and learning environment. The learning in
this environment is characterised by separation of place and
time between the teacher and learner, between learners, and
between learners and learning resources and activities (Chang
& Fisher, 2003). Due to the availability of a wide range of
digital resources to learn from and share, this learning
environment now provides for a rich and interactive learning
experience, where both teachers and learners can select from
various media and learning formats (Bonk, 2016).
This quality assured paper appeared at the 10th annual conference of Computing
and Information Technology Research and Education New Zealand
(CITRENZ2019) and the 32nd Annual Conference of the National Advisory
Committee on Computing Qualifications, Nelson, NZ, Oct. 9-11, during ITx 2019.
2019 CITRENZ Conference Proceedings
Sarah Snell
The Open Polytechnic of NZ
Sarah.snell@openpolytechnic.ac.nz
The Open Polytechnic is an Open Distance Flexible Learning
(ODFL) organisation and designs courseware and learning
options that suit learners who are mobile, and often fitting study
around busy careers and family or other commitments. The
digital learning platform used by Open Polytechnic is iQualify,
a platform developed specifically for an online-only learning
experience, and aligns to the user experience of the adult
student. iQualify removes the necessity for print and textbook
resources and ensures that all courses are deliberately prepared
to leverage a digitally enriched, highly interactive, online
experience (Open Polytechnic, 2015).
While collaborative course design and development is
commonplace at single mode institutions focusing exclusively
on online education, academic staff at dual mode institutions
have traditionally had the freedom and responsibility to design
and develop courses autonomously (Hixon, 2008). In these
situations, course development is typically based on the
academic staff member’s knowledge of the subject, without
significant assistance from learning designers or consultation
with other staff or industry. The emergence of distance and
online learning has contributed to a change in this approach to
course development (Chao, Saj, & Hamilton, 2010). A shared
process of course development that includes instructional
design expertise, technical knowledge, and subject matter
knowledge helps to ensure that quality courses are developed
on a consistent basis (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2006). This
approach to collaborating during online course development is
supported by Outlaw and Rice (2015) who believe that
collaboration produces a robust, interactive, and engaging
course resulting in increasing the value of the online student
learning experience.
The Open Polytechnic uses a collaborative approach to design
and develop courseware, based on Prince2 project
methodology. There are three levels of project roles and
responsibilities in a courseware development project. The first
level is the Programme Portfolio Management team who
approve a Business Case to proceed with development and who
appoint the membership of a steering group. The steering group
is the next level, and is responsible for providing the overall
direction of the course development. The steering group is
made up of a Project Manager, a Principal Curriculum
Designer, a Principal Learning Designer and a Programme
Delivery Manager. The third level, the Course Development
team, consists of a Content Creator (writer), a Content
9 Nelson, New Zealand
Reviewer, a Subject Matter Expert, Māori and Pasifika
Appraisers, a Principal Learning Designer, and a Learning
Designer. The Learning Designer works alongside the Digital
Experience designers who provide front-end development,
animation and video. Before publishing the course,
assessments are pre-moderated by the Assessment Centre, and
a final proofread of all course content is made by an Editor. The
final product is then handed over to developers to load the
course into the iQualify student learning management platform.
At the culmination of the course development, a lessons learned
session is carried out to identify and discuss any challenges that
arise during the course development process.
The following discussion provides a description of the roles and
responsibilities, and design and development phases for
courseware development.
3. DISCUSSION
3.1 Roles and Responsibilities
At the Open Polytechnic, there are two directorates involved in
course design and development: Learning Delivery (LD); and
Learning Design and Development (LDD). The LD function is
responsible for teaching and learning, with LDD being
responsible for designing, developing, building and
maintaining courseware.
3.1.1 Programme Portfolio Management
Overall programme portfolio management is led by a Portfolio
Governance Group (PGG) which consists of the Senior
Executive Management team and the Enterprise Project
Management Office (EPMO). The PGG is responsible for
approving the Initiative Proposal (which gives a brief overview
of the intended development) and the subsequent Business
Case. A Project Sponsor for a new development is assigned
from within this group, usually either the Executive Director
for Learning Delivery or the Executive Director for Design and
Development. The sponsor is the driver and champion of the
project and provides an escalation path for the Project Manager
on issues or decisions beyond their control. The also ensures
the project aligns with the organisation’s strategy and portfolio
direction.
3.1.2 Steering Group
A steering group is assigned to each new development project
and is made up of representatives across the EPMO, LD and
LDD.
A Principal Curriculum Designer is the Business Owner who
represents LDD and acts as the champion to the project in
partnership with the sponsor. The Principal Curriculum
Designer is responsible for the development of the Academic
Case (Curriculum Document) and is the overarching decision
maker of the steering group.
A Programme Delivery Manager represents LD including
academic staff members and students who will be the users of
the project’s products.
A Principal Learning Designer represents learning design and
development and those who will design, develop, facilitate,
procure, and implement the project’s products. This role is
responsible for the development of the Programme Design and
Delivery document (PD3). The PD3 outlines the overall
programme structure and the design and development
strategies. Its purpose is to define the design parameters for
costing and presents the features and functionality expected
from the finished product. It serves as a reference tool to ensure
2019 CITRENZ Conference Proceedings
the development of the courses associated with the programme
is consistent and follows the same rules.
A Project Manager is assigned to the project and is responsible
for the day-to-day management of the project and guiding
parameters such as budget, time and scope. The Project
Manager is responsible for development of the Business Case
and project rollout plan. The Project Manager is appointed from
the EPMO.
3.1.3 Course Development team
The course development team consists of the following roles:
• Content Creator - develops the course materials and sources
and develops content, learning activities and assessments.
• Content Reviewer - carries out checks of the content
developed by the content creator to ensure it is technically
correct. Sometimes this role can be carried out by a
representative from the LD directorate.
• Learning Designer - coordinates courseware development,
from the planning meeting where a content and assessment
plan is drafted, to publishing the course including designing
and enhancing content provided by content creator.
• Principal Learning Designer - reviews all modules and
provides feedback from a design point of view.
• Editor - edits and proofreads the course content.
• Principal Curriculum Designer - provides the final overall
signoff of the course and ensure that all deliverables are in
line with approved Content and Assessment plan and
therefore fit for purpose and meets all required intended
learning outcomes.
Depending on the requirements and context of the course, the
development team can be extended with one or more of the
following roles:
• Māori Appraiser who ensures Māori perspectives and an
appropriate cultural lens has been represented across
content
• Pasifika Appraiser who ensures Pacific nations’
perspectives are represented in the content
• Videographer who produces videos and animations
• Graphic Designer who produces photos, infographics and
interactive activities
• Subject Matter Expert consultant who can be contracted
alongside the content creator to provide subject matter
expertise where needed
Aside from these formally assigned project roles there are other
supporting roles that work either directly or indirectly on
courseware development. Examples of these roles include:
• External Resource Manager who manages contractors
• Operations Coordinator who processes contracts and
invoices
• iQualify Support staff who provide advice and guidance on
iQualify functionality
• Subject Librarian who offers Library support and resources
• Administrator who sets up ‘iQualify Manage’ to ensure the
course is available for students to access
• Learning Design Manager who assigns and manages
learning designers to projects and monitors time spent on
development
3.2 Design and Development Phases
3.2.1 Phase One – Initiation
Following approval of the Initiative Proposal (IP), a project
manager is assigned and meets with the Principal Learning
10 Nelson, New Zealand
Designer and the Principal Curriculum Designer to discuss the
Business Case.
Timelines are then put in place to develop the Business Case,
Academic Case and Programme Design, Development and
Delivery document (PD3).
For new developments, it is the expectation that these
documents are created in parallel as they inform each other and
should be approved together as comprehensive project
initiation document pack. The Business Case identifies all
resources required to start each stage of the development. For
a redevelopment project, only the Business Case is required as
the other documents are already in place.
After these documents have been approved, preparation for the
actual courseware development starts. The Principal Learning
Designer prepares a Confirmation of Work (CoW) per course,
which gives a detailed scope, budget breakdown and overview
of hours expected per project role.
Identifying the most suitable people for the course development
team is another activity carried out during this phase assigning
internal staff and engaging external contractors where needed.
The steering group carries out the following steps when
approving contractors such as a content creator:
• Project Manager – creates a resourcing plan and arranges
expressions of interest to be advertised externally
• Principal Learning Designer, Programme Delivery
Manager and Principal Curriculum Designer - assesses the
quality of writing samples delivered by the applicant, sets
the approach to content creation (e.g. combining one or
more Subject Matter Expert with a content creator) and
assesses CVs for subject matter expertise and relevant
experience
After contractors have been identified, contract negotiations are
initiated by the External Resource Manager, resulting in
contracts and the scheduling of a content and assessment
planning meeting.
3.2.2 Phase Two – Content and Assessment
Planning Meeting
The planning meeting acts as a kick-off for the courseware
development process and is based on the initiation document
pack approved earlier. All members of the course development
team attend the planning meeting. Before a planning meeting
can be scheduled the following must be in place:
• Approved Business Case, Academic Case and PD3
• Confirmed course descriptor
• Confirmation of Work with detailed scope and breakdown
of hours of work.
The goal of the planning meeting is threefold:
Table 1: Planning Meeting Goals
Goal 1
Clarify the process and roles and responsibilities of all
people involved.
Goal 2
Create a Content and Assessment Plan (C&A plan). The
C&A plan is built on the approved documentation, acts as a
blueprint for the overall course and module design and links
learning outcomes to assessments and content. All module
content and assessments activities are identified in the C &
A plan.
2019 CITRENZ Conference Proceedings
Goal 3
Agree on a time plan. The time plan shows when each role
in the process has to deliver which component (e.g. content
creator to deliver first draft of module one before ‘date’,
learning designer to review first draft of module one before
‘date’ etc.) The time plan is used to draft up all contracts for
contractors involved and is used to track and control
progress and predict the completion date.
Discussing the C&A Plan is the key focus of the planning
meeting. The C&A plan is a crucial document because it acts
as the blueprint for the courseware development. The plan
maps out the development of the course and assessments and
gives the course development team a clear plan of what content
is to be covered in which module, identifies formative
assessment activities, and outlines what the summative
assessments will be and how each is linked to the learning
outcomes. The C&A plan is used by the development team
when reviewing the courseware to ensure the content meets the
intended outcomes.
3.2.3 Phase Three – Review and Sign off of
Content and Assessment Plan
Ideally the C&A plan is completed during the planning
meeting. If this is not possible, the plan is completed and signed
off as soon as possible after the meeting. The C&A plan is
reviewed by the content reviewer, Māori and Pasifika
appraisers, the Principal Learning Designer and final sign off is
given by the Principal Curriculum Designer.
3.2.4 Phase Four – Module One Development
and Go/No-Go Decision
Development of the first component of the course, normally
module one, is used as a pilot to inform the development of
further modules. This quality assurance check at the end of
module one results in a go/no-go decision regarding the
contracted content creator. This is an opportunity to terminate
the next phase of the writing contract if either party is not
satisfied with the outcome of the first module. If this occurs, it
poses substantial challenges to the development team to replace
a content creator while still trying to meet project timelines. It
can also affect student progression if delivery teams are waiting
for courses to be developed in order for students to pathway
through a programme.
If the answer is a “go” the course development team continues
as planned and the contractor is contracted for the remainder of
the work. If the answer is a “no-go”, the Project Manager
schedules a meeting with the steering group to discuss this no-
go advice and the consequences. If the issue is the quality of
writing, a possible outcome is to continue with the contracted
content creator in the role of SME, and to add another content
creator as the main writer. If the issue is the quality of subject
matter, a possible outcome is to continue with the contracted
content creator and add a SME to provide additional knowledge
and expertise.
3.2.5 Phase Five – Modules and Assessment
Development
All other course components (modules, assessments, study plan
etc.) follow the agreed C&A plan. All modules are created as
draft one, and are reviewed with any feedback being
incorporated in a second draft which is reviewed again and
finalised for signoff before going to an Editor and being loaded
11 Nelson, New Zealand
into iQualify. Once in iQualify, the modules are reviewed
again to ensure all links and readings function correctly.
Figure 1. Process flow - Course development
3.2.6 Phase Six – Moderation and Final Sign off
and Publishing
Once all assessments have been created and reviewed, they are
forwarded to the Assessment Centre, who arrange external pre-
moderation of all assessments. When the assessments and
subsequent moderation reports are returned, the Learning
Designer (and Subject Matter Expert if required) make changes
as appropriate based on the moderator’s comments, and upload
assessments to iQualify.
After all modules and assessments have been developed a
number of supporting components are added in iQualify Build.
These supporting components are developed throughout course
development:
• Course overview
• Assessment overview
• Study Plan
• Glossary
• Course banner
• Introduction video
• Marking schedules / rubrics / model answers
• Copyright release form
As shown in Figure 2, after all moderated assessments and
supporting components have been added, the course is ready
for final sign-off by the Principal Curriculum Designer and
Principal Learning Designer. This final sign-off checks if all
components follow the original C&A plan. At this stage only
minor adjustments to the courseware are expected.
2019 CITRENZ Conference Proceedings
Figure 2. Moderation, Completion, Sign-off and
Publishing
3.3 Lessons Learned
At the closure of a development project, a lessons learned
session is scheduled by the Project Manager. Lessons learned
can be defined as one set of important project outputs delivered
at the end of a project, and more broadly as learning that takes
place throughout a project and between projects (Jugdev 2012).
The lessons learned session aims to gain insights into the
successes and any challenges experienced during the
development phases to inform the process going forward.
Attendees at the lessons learned session include the Project
Manager, the Learning Designer, the Principal Learning
Designer, Principal Curriculum Designer, and members of the
delivery team including the Programme Delivery Manager
representing the senior users. Some examples of the types of
success factors and challenges that are often discussed include:
• Importance of up-front planning before development starts
• Collaborative working relationships
• Change process effectively managed
• Ability to engage with industry through course review and
moderation
• Successful internal communication
• Challenges in recruiting external content creators / content
specialists
• Disruption caused by changing content creators once
development has started if no-go decisions are made
4. CONCLUSION
The collaborative approach described in this paper highlights
the complexity of the course development process, from the
initial proposal and planning, through to completion and
delivery to the learner. Lessons learned from each
development assist in informing and improving course design
and development processes. The collaborative approach
demonstrates how important the project roles and
responsibilities are in creating effective working relationships
with project team members, meeting goals and timelines, and
most importantly, ensuring high quality courses are developed
that meet the needs of learners.
12 Nelson, New Zealand
5. REFERENCES
Bonk, C.J. (2016). Keynote: What is the state of e-learning?
Reflections on 30 ways learning is changing. Journal of
Open Flexible Distance Learning. 20(2). Retrieved from
http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/issue/view/26
Chang, V., & Fisher, D.L. (2003). The validation and
application of a new learning environment instrument for
online learning in higher education. In M.S. Khine and D.L.
Fisher (Eds.), Technology rich learning environments: A
future perspective (pp. 1-20). Singapore: World Scientific
Publishing.
Chao, I.T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative
course development to achieve online course quality
standards. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/912/16
44
Hixon, E. (2008). Team-based online course development: A
case study of collaboration models. Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 11(4). Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce3e/67cafab66266f80ae
b19499e07a0a07b9ee2.pdf
Jugdev, K. (2012). Learning from Lessons Learned: Project
Management Research Program. American Journal of
Economics and Business Administration 4(1). Retrieved
2019 CITRENZ Conference Proceedings
from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kam_Jugdev/publica
tion/258933493_Learning_from_Lessons_Learned_Projec
t_Management_Research_Program/links/56322dd308ae0
530378fbd7b.pdf
Oblinger, D., & Hawkins, B. (2006). The myth about online
course development. Educause Review, January/February,
14-15. Retrieved from
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/the-myth-about-
online-course-development
Open Polytechnic (2017). Make your move: Annual Report
2017. Retrieved from
https://www.openpolytechnic.ac.nz/about-us/news-
publications-and-research/publications/
Open Polytechnic (2015). OPNZ Strategic Plan 2016-2010.
Retrieved from
http://polynet/OurTeams/Executive/Documents/OPNZ%2
0Strategic%20Plan%202016-2020%20FINAL.pdf
Outlaw, V. & Rice, M. (2015). Best Practices: Implementing
an Online Course Development & Delivery Model. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 18.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282354131_Bes
t_practices_Implementing_an_online_course_developmen
t_delivery_model
13 Nelson, New Zealand