Learning is commonly conceptualised as a social, collaborative process, in which people communicate and actively build knowledge. Students who work and share ideas with others are generally more motivated and display better academic performance than passive students (Beaudoin 2002; Swan 2002). Several authors have emphasized the importance of fostering interactions between people, or social interactions, in online educational contexts (Woo and Reeves 2007).

Social interactions are valuable as a means to improve student engagement (Zepke and Leach 2010), which is critical to the effectiveness of learning activities (Kuh 2009; Noe, Tews, and McConnell Dachner 2010). In this paper, student engagement refers to the way in which participants interact with course materials and activities to achieve learning outcomes. This term has also been defined as students’ involvement in their own learning process (Axelson and Flick 2010), or the time and effort students devote to learning activities (Kuh 2009).

Despite the acknowledged importance of social interactions for student engagement and learning, in organisations online courses often provide limited or no opportunities for communication between people (e.g., Padilla Rodriguez and Fernandez Cardenas 2012; Welsh et al. 2003). Sometimes just-in-time, just-for-me demands (e.g., a single person requiring training) make the delivery of online courses with social interactions unviable. In such contexts, content-based learning designs constitute an option.

This paper focuses on students’ experiences in an online content-based course delivered in a large Mexican organisation with a high geographical dispersion. Specifically, it addresses the following questions: How do students engage with content-based courses? How do they find answers to their questions? How do they achieve learning outcomes?

In this paper, content-based learning design refers to a way of organising a course that focuses on fostering learner–content interactions and includes no activities to enable communications between people. Moore (1989) describes learner–content interaction as an intellectual process that results in changes in learners’ perspective, understanding or cognitive structures. This implies processes such as analysing the material, relating it to previous knowledge or applying it to problem solving; in other words, using the content to perform activities that can enhance learning (Abrami et al. 2011).

Internet-enabled devices and tools make a variety of learner–content interactions possible. These include replaying sections of a podcast, searching information, following links to glossary entries, answering multiple-choice questions and checking automatic feedback (Anderson 2003; Caladine 2008). The capability to design and deliver these learner–content interaction opportunities has increased with the maturity of institutional virtual learning environments (often referred to as learning management systems), higher levels of connectivity and digital literacy.

Learner–content interactions can be designed to perform some of the functions traditionally carried out by teachers (Anderson 2003), such as suggesting a learning pathway. They can foster flexibility by enabling participants to work independently, at their own pace and in their own time. This type of interactions can contribute to the achievement of learning outcomes and course completion: the more learners interact with the content, the better grades they tend to achieve (Zimmerman 2012).

While this type of interaction has advantages, focusing only on learner–content interactions excludes the potential benefits of other types of educational interactions (see Figure 1). For example, exchanges between peers can create meaningful learning experiences (Anderson and Garrison 1998; Conole 2013; Salmon 2011), which can help relate new information to previous knowledge and facilitate problem solving (Mayer 2002). Online course participants tend to value opportunities to work and share ideas with others (Chang and Smith 2008; Su et al. 2005).

Other issues may arise when no clear teaching presence is deployed on a course (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Fung 2010). Students may be tempted to browse through the content at speed, avoiding the difficult areas and thus reducing potential educational benefits. Even if learners are given the option of consulting a tutor, few do, for fear of representing an inconvenience (Cotton and Gresty 2007). The lack of guidance is often evident in content-based courses, which can be an isolating experience for students: it could lead to confusion when there is no one available to answer questions (Padilla Rodriguez and Fernandez Cardenas 2012; Smedley 2011). This paper seeks to deepen our understanding of students’ experiences in an online content-based course.

This study took place at a large Mexican organisation (+6000 employees) with 30 distribution centres and offices in the country. As part of a Leadership Programme delivered via the e-learning platform Moodle, sales supervisors had to study a content-based course on Performance Feedback. This course aimed to improve the communication competence of employees in charge of managing retailers. Participants had one week to finish the course, with a commitment of approximately five study hours.

The design of the course incorporated six non-assessed activities that fostered interactions with the content and required explicit, observable responses from the students; for example, providing an answer to a question instead of reflecting internally on a topic. Table 1 presents the online tools included, their purpose and characteristics.

Results were grouped according to the research questions: (1) how did students engage with a content-based course; (2) how did students find answers to their questions; and (3) how did students achieve learning outcomes.

The results of this study provide evidence of content-based learning designs as engaging, effective alternatives for online courses in corporate settings. Participants benefitted from self-pacing, that is, the flexibility to study whenever it suited them, without depending on others’ input to move forward. They engaged with their course following the structure, guidance and recommendations provided. Most students successfully completed the course and performed better than the control group.

Activities requiring explicit responses and automated feedback were useful as a means of ensuring comprehension and encouraging a return to earlier parts of the content when confusions arose. Learner–content interactions performed functions usually carried out by teachers (Anderson 2003) and provided a useful scaffold for students to meet the learning outcomes (Zimmerman 2012).

Some participants attempted to contextualise the materials, making it more relevant to them and their work. However, as in Cotton and Gresty's study (2007), other students skimmed through the resources. When participants had questions, there was seemingly no one to help (Padilla Rodriguez and Fernandez Cardenas 2012; Smedley 2011). The general support discussion forum was a dead space, rarely viewed and never used.

Students were resourceful when attempting to obtain extra help. They moved beyond what the course offered. They took notes they could look back to, sought communication from peers via Moodle's private messages, or turned to work colleagues available face-to-face to discuss ideas. This finding is consistent with the notion that learner–content interactions are limited in comparison to the more meaningful learning experiences that exchanges between people may create (Anderson and Garrison 1998; Chang and Smith 2008; Salmon 2011; Su et al. 2005). It also highlights the importance of informal learning activities, which were not planned, suggesting greater freedom for learners to choose sources of support and evidence the significance of interactions with people (Eraut 2004).

The value of informal learning activities has been highlighted in the past (Ozolins, Hall, and Peterson 2008; Zhang, Peterson and Ozolins 2011). This study adds to this research by providing further evidence of the importance of interactions beyond the embedded activities of an online course. While these interactions may be “invisible” to learning designers and teachers, they may have a significant influence on the learning outcomes and on knowledge transfer. Understanding these interactions should inform design and delivery decisions. Additional research is needed to evaluate the specific relationship between engagement in informal learning via different types of interactions and the achievement of learning outcomes.

The conclusions from this research can be mapped against three areas: student engagement, learner support and effectiveness of content-based learning designs.

Students engaged with a content-based online course offered by their organisation by following the guidance available and attempting to make the materials relevant to their own context. Structured learner–content interactions were designed into the course and provided standard opportunities for the acquisition of critical knowledge and skills. These processes did not depend on online facilitators or peers, and constituted a “safety net” for the achievement of the learning outcomes.

Students were resourceful in their search for support. If the materials did not provide answers to their questions, they looked for viable alternatives, such as reviewing their own notes and identifying colleagues to talk to, both online and face to face. These informal learning activities are valuable because of their potential impact on the achievement of learning outcomes and their application in the workplace.

Content-based courses can provide an engaging route to effective and efficient online learning in corporate settings: they help students achieve learning outcomes without the deployment of significant resources during delivery. However, excluding social interactions from online courses may result in course materials being the students’ only source of help. Some will find alternative ways of obtaining adequate support. Others might not. Broadening the range of support options available to students, that is, “humanising” support, may foster more meaningful, contextualised and rewarding learning experiences.

The findings of this study will inform learning and design and delivery decisions, and improve future versions of the course at the participating organisation. The short duration of the course and the relatively small sample prevent these results from being generalizable to all populations and settings. However, the findings presented in this article may be valuable to educators and trainers in similar contexts.