Categories: edci335, Post 1
One technology-mediated learning experience that I struggled with was PHIL 201, which was a required university course delivered completely online and asynchronously. When I first started the course, I was actually excited because I thought the topics sounded interesting and different from the types of courses I normally take. I liked the idea of being able to work independently and manage my own schedule. Since the course was asynchronous, I expected it to feel flexible and less stressful.
At the beginning, I was motivated and kept up with the readings and lectures pretty consistently. However, after a few weeks, my motivation slowly started to shift. Because there were no live classes or regular interaction with other students, it became easy to fall behind without realizing it. Once I missed a few readings, catching up started to feel overwhelming, especially because many of the philosophical concepts built on each other.
One of the biggest challenges for me was that some of the concepts were difficult to fully understand on my own. Even though the course materials explained the theories, I often felt like I needed discussion or conversation to process the ideas properly. Reading complex philosophical arguments independently sometimes made the learning feel isolating rather than engaging. Looking back now, I can connect this to ideas from constructivism and connectivism, where learning becomes more meaningful through interaction, discussion, and shared understanding with others.
I also think the course struggled to support competence and relatedness. Since everything was self-paced, there was a lot of autonomy, but sometimes too much freedom made it harder to stay motivated and organized. Without regular check-ins, class discussions, or collaborative activities, I didn’t feel very connected to the course or to other learners. It often felt like I was trying to figure everything out completely alone.
This experience made me realize that motivation is influenced a lot by course design, not just personal effort. If the course had included more opportunities for interaction, smaller discussion groups, or optional live sessions to talk through difficult concepts, I think I would have stayed more engaged and confident throughout the semester. Even simple ways to build connection and accountability could have made a big difference in my learning experience.
References
Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. In West, R. E. (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st Edition): Historical Roots and Current Trends (pp. 133-151). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/behaviorism_cognitivism_constructivism
Hello, I enjoyed reading your blog. I had a similar experience with taking PSYCH 100A, an elective class I took. It was a lot of just reading and digesting the course and the professor’s teachings. I would have definitely enjoyed opportunities for interaction type activites in related to learning in the class.
I can totally see how learning philosophy in an isolated setting would be incredibly difficult! I mean, philosophy was shaped in collaborative, discussion heavy settings (e.g. the Socratic Method) so trying to wrap your head around a subject that was designed to be discussed with peers sounds brutal!
I wonder how one could change the structure of an online philosophy course to ensure ample group discussion and debate? Often it feels like even when an online class allows for group discussions it’s still difficult to get the students to chime in and participate at the same level they would in person.