Framework for Designing Meaningful Student Participation Online

At a glance

The online mode of blended learning can facilitate student engagement if designed well. Zeivots & Shalavin (2024) suggest that this design should focus on meaningful student participation and consider the following dimensions:

  • Usefulness
  • Enjoyment
  • Quantity
  • Access
  • Intent
  • Participative integration

In depth

Zeivots and Shalavin (2024) from the University of Sydney Business School recently published their Framework to Design Meaningful Student Engagement with Online Readings in the Academy of Management Learning & Education journal.

While their empirical study and subsequent framework is specifically related to the design of online course readings, it is a useful tool to guide the design on any online activity in a blended learning subject design.

Given that students can find some activities online to be ‘busy work’ (Stone) or annoying (Morgan & Dudau, 2019), Zeivots and Shalavin’s (2024) framework offers possibilities for avoiding this pitfall.

At the centre of the thinking behind the framework are two concepts:

  1. Intentional/integrated subject design (through codesign with an educational designer); and
  2. Breaking down tacit assumptions about how students should engage with material/activities with explicit guidance and scaffolding provided instead.

To ensure meaningful participation, the authors recommend considering the following dimensions when designing online course readings through the lenses of what, how and why. The framework has been adapted here guide the design of meaningful online activities (including course readings).

    • Why include this activity?
    • How is it relevant to students?
    • Howand where can students apply what they have learned from the activity?
    • Is the activity suitable for delivering or practising content?

  • In the educational context, ‘enjoyment’ refers to students’ learning curiosity, interest and satisfaction.

    • Does the activity contain novel, creative and multiple insights?
    • Can students influence or select the activity?
    • Do students have time and space for collaborative, affective and experiential engagement with the activity?

  • There is no ‘best practice’ regarding the number of activities you design into your subject.

    • Will the number of activities benefit student learning?
    • Will students have sufficient time and opportunities to engage with each activity?
    • Have the activities been meaningfully and actively integrated into the subject design?

    • What is the end-to-end user experience of accessing the activity (e.g., do students have to visit a third-party platform?)
    • Is the activity accessible at any time of day during the teaching term?
    • Does the activity conform to accessibility guidelines, etc? Click here to review the guidelines.

    • How does the activity contribute to the subject objectives and/or any relevant professional practices?
    • Is the intent of the activity clearly articulated to students?

    • What are students expected to do with the activity? Will there be opportunities to represent or co-construct knowledge with peers?
    • What is intended to be accomplished with the activity?

The framework changes the ‘engagement’ discourse by:

  • Promoting a transition from passive consumption to active engagement; and
  • Positioning digital activities as pedagogically significant learning experiences.

Further reading and resources

Zeivots, S., & Shalavin, C. A. (2024). Codesigning meaningful engagement with online course readings: Implications for teaching Management courses. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(2), pp 284-303.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2022.0364