For a few years now, I have been responsible for further education in accident investigation methodology. It is an education that attracts participants from many different sectors, private and public, where, based on different regulations, there is reason to investigate accidents within their areas of activity. I took the course myself before I later also became one of the teachers and it is the experiences from that time that this text is about.

In short, the course is about being able to try out 7-8 different analysis methods within the accident investigation area and relate them to each other. To clarify similarities, differences and gains / limitations with the methods, they are applied to one and the same accident. The course had about 25 participants and we were divided into groups of 6 people, working together during short intensive periods of 3 days (total 12). All came from different authorities or companies, and the educational backgrounds varied. There were more men than women, c. 80-20 in distribution. I later understood that it was very much a well-thought-out strategy from the teachers that we were mixed as much as possible based on these aspects and that the different backgrounds were used pedagogically. Before the course started, I suspected that I would be one of those who had least previous experience of accident investigation, but it turned out that in relation to what we were going to do, we were all beginners. It created a kind of feeling of security for me, and also for others, I think, which contributed to a good discussion climate. Gradually through the training, our different backgrounds would also prove to be an excellent prerequisite for the breadth of the reflections that the group could sum up in different discussions.

Group exercises, with the method tests, were interspersed with lectures on theory and case-studies of real investigations. Every time you sat down in a small group room and were about to embark on a new method of analysis, we walked together from confusion, via tentative first attempts to understand and start working, to together creating insight and knowledge about how to do. It was so obvious that it was much faster and effective to learn this together than would have been the case if we had sat alone and tried for ourselves. In addition, it was fun and engaging.

Based on the course structure, you can point to a few things that played an extra role in making this so good:

– Recurring new methods (new for all of us)
– Shared feeling of being a beginner, which creates a kind of equality in the group
– Different backgrounds
– The description of the accident that we applied to the different methods meant exciting and fascinating reading. A case that engaged.
– In an initial processing, the group work was not linked to accounting or grading, which created a relaxed, creative, atmosphere. At a later stage in the course, there were such elements and then in new issues.

When it came time to focus on accounting, the group began to function a little differently. It became clear that some took more responsibility then others (cf. Burdett & Hastie, 2009; Mills, 2003), which is not necessarily linked to others withdrawing (Goold, Craig, & Coldwell, 2008) but it was more about that we have different personalities.
This course was based on physical encounters, but I think that the experiences are absolutely possible to transfer to a building of collaborative learning in a digital environment.

References

Burdett, J., & Hastie, B. (2009). Predicting satisfaction with group work assignments. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(1), 61–71.

Goold, A., Craig, A., & Coldwell, J. (2008). The student experience of working in teams online. Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/goold.pdf

Mills, P. (2003). Group project work with undergraduate veterinary science students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 527–538.