One of the best ways of gaining some insights into e-learning as a course designer is to experience online courses from a learner perspective. So, I’ll reflect on three examples of online courses I’ve experienced and highlight how participation structures can affect learner engagement.

Three online courses 

The purpose of this post is not to discuss or evaluate course content, but just to reflect on a few of the ways in which learner participation was structured in the following courses:

Course A: Learning to look at modern art
Course B: Exploring e-learning development tools
Course C: Techniques in postwar abstract painting

 

 

Online tutor-led courses

Courses A & B were asynchronous, accredited and tutor-led unit by unit. Both courses included discussion threads, but there were significant differences in the way they were structured.

In the case of Course A, participation in discussion threads was optional (but advised) whereas participation was compulsory for Course B. What’s more, assessment was linked to the quality of participants’ contributions in the discussion forums for Course B so it was necessary to meet deadlines for contributions. Points were awarded for participants’ contributions as part of ongoing assessment. In order to meet the deadlines, I needed to log in to Course B more frequently than I needed to do so for Course A.

Some implications for course design

I felt that one of the advantages of Course B was that it kept learners on track by getting them to work more steadily and, as a result, focused on coverage of course content through active participation.

Such differences in the participation structures of courses A and B might also affect cognitive engagement. Making it a course requirement for learners to log in frequently, might facilitate the delivery of more manageable chunks of bite-sized learning. Course A, on the other hand, gave participants the option of Sunday cramming which might have some disadvantages in terms of processing and retaining content.

As I was doing Course B for professional development, I found that the way participation was structured seemed to provide a useful pacing mechanism. The need to respond frequently also meant that such courses have to be designed for different devices, thus highlighting the importance of responsive design and m-learning.

Self–guided courses

Course C was a stand-alone self-guided course. It was not an accredited course and there wasn’t an online tutor. The course therefore lacked the social interaction of Courses A & B as well as the pacing and time management built into Course B. Although the content of Course C was intrinsically motivating for me and presented well, it was more difficult to manage the learning when compared with Courses A and B.

More implications

Another disadvantage of the self-guided course was the lack of social interaction because I think discussion forums in which participants and tutors respond to each other can provide a rich source of learning. The opportunity to discuss and learn from a diverse group of people with a shared focus is an aspect of e-learning that exemplifies one of the ways in which technology can transform learning to help foster a socio-cultural approach. However, the effectiveness of discussion forums is dependent on how well they are set up and how the participation structures are managed …

Conclusion

The challenge of engaging learners in e-learning is often discussed in terms of interactivity and delivery of content. However, structuring participation to promote engagement is also an important consideration for course design. But what do other learners think about how courses are structured and the degree of participation? Should assessment be linked to the quantity and quality of participants’ contributions in discussion threads?