Introduction
The shift towards online education has transformed the traditional roles of students, particularly in self-paced modules delivered through Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). This essay explores the role of students in online courses, drawing on my personal experience as a student in a self-paced induction module at the University of East London (UEL) via their VLE platform. The discussion will outline the main responsibilities of students in such modules, supported by academic literature, and propose strategies for students to co-create an active learning environment. By reflecting on these elements, the essay aims to highlight how student agency can enhance online learning outcomes. Key points include responsibilities such as self-motivation and active participation, alongside suggestions for fostering collaboration in the UEL VLE context. This analysis is informed by established theories in distance education, emphasising the need for students to take ownership of their learning journey.
Main Responsibilities of Students Undertaking an Online Module
Students in online modules bear significant responsibilities that differ from those in face-to-face settings, primarily due to the autonomous nature of digital learning. One key responsibility is self-motivation and time management, as online courses often lack the structured timetables of traditional classrooms. In self-paced modules, students must independently set goals and adhere to deadlines to avoid procrastination. For instance, Holmberg (1989) argues that in distance education, learners must develop internal motivation to sustain engagement, a view supported by research indicating that self-regulated learning is crucial for success in online environments (Zimmerman, 2002). Without external prompts like regular lectures, students risk falling behind, which can lead to higher dropout rates—indeed, studies show attrition in online courses can be as high as 40-50% when self-motivation is lacking (Simpson, 2013).
Another responsibility involves active participation and interaction with course materials and peers. Unlike passive learning, online modules require students to engage proactively with resources such as videos, readings, and quizzes available on the VLE. This includes contributing to discussion forums and seeking clarification when needed. Moore (1989) identifies three types of interaction in distance education: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner, emphasising that students must initiate these to bridge the transactional distance inherent in online settings. In practice, this means regularly logging into the platform, completing assignments on time, and providing feedback. Furthermore, students are responsible for technical proficiency; they must navigate the VLE effectively, troubleshoot basic issues, and ensure reliable internet access. Failure in this area can hinder progress, as noted in a report by the UK government’s Office for Students (2020), which highlights digital literacy as a barrier for some online learners.
Additionally, ethical responsibilities play a role, such as maintaining academic integrity by avoiding plagiarism and respecting intellectual property in digital submissions. Students must also manage their well-being, recognising when to seek support for issues like isolation, which is common in online learning (Hart, 2012). Overall, these responsibilities demand a shift from dependency on instructors to a more autonomous approach, aligning with broader trends in higher education towards lifelong learning skills.
Reflecting on the VLE UEL Experience as a Student on a Self-Paced Online Module
As a student undertaking a self-paced induction module at UEL through their VLE, I have experienced firsthand the responsibilities outlined above. The module, designed to introduce university study skills, allowed flexibility in pacing, which initially seemed advantageous for balancing it with other commitments. However, this freedom underscored the need for strong self-motivation; without fixed class times, I had to create a personal schedule to review materials like interactive tutorials and quizzes. There were moments when distractions led to delays, reinforcing Zimmerman’s (2002) point about self-regulation—arguably, this autonomy tested my ability to monitor progress and adjust strategies, such as setting daily goals to complete sections.
Participation was another area of reflection. The UEL VLE, powered by platforms like Moodle, featured discussion boards where students could post queries or share insights. I found myself contributing to threads on topics like referencing, which not only clarified my understanding but also built a sense of community, albeit virtual. This aligns with Moore’s (1989) learner-learner interaction, as these exchanges reduced feelings of isolation. However, technical challenges arose; for example, uploading assignments required familiarity with the interface, and occasional glitches prompted me to contact support, highlighting the responsibility for digital competence. On a positive note, the self-paced nature encouraged deeper engagement with content—I revisited modules multiple times, which enhanced retention compared to rushed in-person sessions.
That said, limitations were evident. The lack of real-time instructor feedback sometimes made the experience feel detached, echoing Hart’s (2012) findings on emotional challenges in online learning. Generally, this module at UEL demonstrated how student responsibilities extend to creating structure in an otherwise flexible environment, preparing us for broader online study. It also revealed the relevance of academic literature; for instance, Salmon’s (2011) five-stage model of e-moderation, which progresses from access to socialisation and knowledge construction, mirrored my journey from initial login struggles to collaborative discussions.
Ways in Which Students Can Co-Create an Active Learning Environment in the UEL VLE
Students can actively co-create a vibrant learning environment in the UEL VLE by leveraging their responsibilities to foster collaboration and engagement. One effective way is through peer-led initiatives, such as forming study groups within discussion forums. By initiating threads on challenging topics, students can encourage knowledge sharing, co-constructing understanding as per Salmon’s (2011) model, where learners move towards collaborative knowledge building. For example, in my UEL module, suggesting group reviews of induction materials could have enhanced motivation, drawing on social learning theories (Bandura, 1977).
Another suggestion is to contribute user-generated content, like sharing annotated resources or creating summaries in the VLE’s wiki spaces. This not only enriches the environment but also promotes active learning, as students take ownership. Research by the Office for Students (2020) supports this, noting that student-generated content increases engagement in UK higher education online platforms. Furthermore, providing constructive feedback on peers’ posts can build a supportive community, reducing isolation and aligning with Moore’s (1989) emphasis on interactions.
To address limitations, students could advocate for improvements, such as requesting more synchronous elements like virtual meet-ups, thereby co-creating a hybrid active space. Typically, this involves communicating needs via VLE feedback tools, ensuring the environment evolves. However, challenges like varying participation levels must be considered—therefore, inclusivity strategies, such as anonymous posting options, could encourage broader involvement. In essence, these methods empower students to transform the UEL VLE from a passive repository into a dynamic, co-created hub.
Conclusion
In summary, students in online modules, as reflected in my UEL VLE experience, hold key responsibilities including self-motivation, active participation, and technical proficiency, supported by literature such as Zimmerman (2002) and Moore (1989). By fulfilling these, students can co-create active environments through peer collaboration and content contribution, enhancing overall learning. The implications are significant for institutions like UEL, suggesting a need to empower students further to reduce attrition and foster engagement. Ultimately, this student-centred approach promotes resilient, lifelong learners in the digital age, though ongoing support remains essential to address persistent challenges.
References
- Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.
- Hart, C. (2012) Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), pp. 19-42.
- Holmberg, B. (1989) Theory and Practice of Distance Education. Routledge.
- Moore, M.G. (1989) Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), pp. 1-7.
- Office for Students (2020) Gravity assist: Propelling higher education towards a brighter future – digital teaching and learning in English higher education during the coronavirus pandemic. Office for Students.
- Salmon, G. (2011) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. 3rd edn. Routledge.
- Simpson, O. (2013) Student retention in distance education: Are we failing our students? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(2), pp. 105-119.
- Zimmerman, B.J. (2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), pp. 64-70.
(Word count: 1248, including references)
