I have been able to take advantage of graduate education opportunities in other states because those programs were offered online. Because I work remotely, the training I need for my job is also delivered online. As a result, digitally mediated learning has played an important role in both my academic and professional life. The quality of those experiences, however, has varied widely. Some have been thoughtfully designed, providing progression toward competence and growth. Others have felt more like going through the motions to check a box, without assessing whether learning took place.
In this post, I examine two of those experiences: one that fell short and another that made a meaningful difference. Looking closely at the design choices behind each helped me understand not only how those choices shaped my learning, but also what I want to carry forward when designing learning experiences for others.
Design Decisions That Undermined Learning
In the past, I participated in annual workplace compliance training that employees were required to complete while managing their regular workload. The modules addressed topics such as ethics, harassment prevention, cybersecurity, and workplace safety. Content was delivered using static text, generic images, and multiple-choice questions. When I answered incorrectly, the module offered feedback and another opportunity to respond, but correct responses were not required to proceed.
According to Merrill’s Application principle, “learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner” (Merrill, 2002, p. 44). The compliance modules technically included opportunities for practice, but the way the questions functioned weakened their instructional value. I could continue without demonstrating that I had corrected my misunderstanding, so the questions became easier to treat as steps toward completion than as opportunities to apply what I had learned.
At the time, I did not think much about clicking through to the next question. It was simply the fastest way to finish the required training and return to my workload. Looking back, that instinct was itself evidence of the design problem: the structure encouraged me to prioritize progression over understanding.
The feedback also fell short of the coaching Merrill’s framework calls for under Application. This principle holds that learners benefit from “feedback and coaching, including error detection and correction,” gradually withdrawn as competence grows (Merrill, 2002, p. 48). In these modules, feedback was present, but correcting an error was never necessary for progression. A feedback message alone did not make the practice meaningful if I could simply move past it.
The modules also offered little opportunity for Integration. Merrill’s framework states that learning improves when learners can “reflect on, discuss, and defend their new knowledge or skill” (Merrill, 2002, p. 49). The compliance training rarely required me to connect the information to situations I might encounter at work. Without that connection, much of the content remained abstract and was quickly forgotten.
Design Decisions That Supported Learning
One of my more effective digitally mediated learning experiences was the AARP Smart Driver Course. Like the workplace compliance training, it was delivered online and included instructional content and assessment questions. My experience with the assessment, however, was different. I understood that I needed a passing score to complete the course and earn my certificate, which made the outcome feel more consequential.
That difference affected how I approached the learning. In the workplace modules, an incorrect response never prevented me from moving forward, so completing the module could easily become the priority. In the AARP course, knowing that my performance mattered gave me a reason to pay closer attention and revisit information I was less confident about.
The course also connected its content to realistic driving situations, echoing Merrill’s problem-centered principle: “learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems” (Merrill, 2002, p. 45). Driving provided an immediate context because the situations discussed were ones I could encounter outside the course. Rather than treating the material as information needed only for an assessment, I could connect it to decisions I would make behind the wheel.
The course also reflected the Demonstration principle by presenting examples of safe driving behaviors before asking learners to make decisions about similar situations. Those examples gave me a model to draw from and reinforced the relationship between what I was learning and how I would use it.
Most importantly, the learning did not feel confined to the course itself. Driving is something I do regularly, so the material had a natural opportunity for Integration. I could connect what I learned to my own habits and to situations I might encounter on the road. That connection made the content more memorable than information I was completing simply to satisfy an annual requirement.
What the Assessments Really Measured
Comparing these two experiences changed how I think about digital assessment. Both courses contained information and assessment questions, but those assessments produced very different outcomes for me as a learner.
In the compliance modules, the questions carried little instructional weight because incorrect responses did not meaningfully affect my progression. The assessment became part of the process of reaching the completion screen. In the AARP course, I approached the assessment differently because I understood that my performance mattered.
This comparison showed me that simply including assessment questions does not guarantee meaningful learning. What matters is what learners are asked to do with the information, whether their performance carries any consequence, and whether the assessment encourages them to revisit gaps in their understanding. An assessment can appear interactive while functioning primarily as a procedural requirement.
The difference also helped me see why authentic application matters. When learning connects to decisions learners recognize from their own lives or work, the material has a purpose beyond completing the course. Merrill’s framework helped clarify why one experience stayed with me while the other was easy to complete and just as easy to forget.
Designing Beyond the Check Box
As I continue developing my skills as a learning designer, this comparison has clarified one principle I want to carry forward: assessment should support learning, not just logistics. I want to design opportunities that require learners to apply knowledge, recognize gaps in their understanding, and connect what they learn to the situations in which they will eventually use it.
Designing for real learning means making practice purposeful and giving assessment an instructional purpose. My experiences with these two courses showed me the difference between questions that simply occupy space in a module and questions that push a learner to pay attention, apply what was learned, and leave better prepared to use it.
Reference: Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024