The initial concept contemplated both self-paced and cohort-based modes. Following feedback, the design focused on a structured asynchronous cohort course, leaving open the possibility of a future self-paced adaptation.
Featured case study · Higher education
Redesigning leadership instruction for asynchronous learning.
A design case study in structuring learner pathways, separating faculty and learner resources, and aligning course outcomes with Brightspace competency assessment.
01 / The challenge
Designing for asynchronous participation—not simply uploading content.
The existing Fundamentals of Leadership course had been delivered face-to-face, where schedules and activity guidance could be conveyed during class meetings. Moving to online delivery required the learning experience to be understandable and navigable without that live context.
Another design constraint was the instructor's preference not to rely on synchronous meetings or recorded lectures. This created a need for a clear, self-contained, asynchronous structure that still supported cohort progression.
The central question was how to preserve the intentional structure of a cohort-based course while reducing dependence on face-to-face directions.
Design requirements
- Establish visible weekly expectations and navigation.
- Offer an accessible route through the course without scheduled live presentations.
- Distinguish instructor-only guidance from learner-facing materials.
- Connect assessments to course learning outcomes.
02 / Key design decisions
Six decisions that shaped the learning experience.
Organize each weekly lesson around instructional content, an assignment, and formative quiz activity, supported by readily available subject-matter resources.
Create distinct resource areas so teaching notes and support material remain available to the instructor without cluttering the student-facing pathway.
Use Brightspace competencies and associated rubric thresholds to connect learning objectives with assessment evidence and generate competency reporting.
Use Brightspace release conditions so weekly reflections and assignments can act as prerequisites for major tasks and quizzes.
Use linked checklists, an uncluttered homepage, a course Q&A area and clear project folders to make requirements easier to locate.
03 / Course architecture
Translate instructional intent into the learner journey.
The design combines a consistent module rhythm with linked checklists and separate supporting resources such as project instructions. Release conditions are used to sequence specific prerequisites, while discussion spaces support introductions, course questions and leadership dialogue.
A key distinction is that competence is assessed through planned evidence, not inferred solely from activity completion. Rubrics and thresholds provide the connection between learning objectives and assessable work.
Pedagogy-first approach: The LMS supports the model; it does not determine the learning objectives or the nature of student competency.
WEEKLY MODULE · Clear learner pathway
01 / LearnCore contentResourcesGuidance
02 / ApplyAssignmentPracticeSubmission
03 / CheckQuiz activityFeedbackProgress
Learning outcomes ↔ Rubric criteria ↔ Competency threshold
Conceptual reconstruction of the design logic, not a screenshot or exported LMS artifact.
04 / Deliverables & evidence
What the project demonstrates.
Structured LMS course shell
A learner-facing LMS layout with weekly modules, linked checklists, conditionally released activities, discussion areas and assessment resources.
Faculty support resources
Distinct instructor-only materials designed to support delivery and manage course guidance.
Competency assessment mapping
A design linking objectives to assessment rubrics and proficiency thresholds within D2L Brightspace.
These examples describe the course design and its deliverables. No specific improvement in completion rates or learner outcomes is claimed without supporting evaluation evidence.
05 / Reflection
The design principle: coherence before complexity.
This project illustrates why selecting the right delivery model comes before selecting tools. Constraining the scope to a cohort-based asynchronous format made it easier to establish a purposeful weekly progression, clear instructor responsibilities and measurable assessment evidence.
The same principles apply to online, hybrid and HyFlex settings: define equivalent participation routes, structure the learner experience, and make assessment evidence visible.
For future iterations, evaluation should examine learner navigation, completion behavior, assessment quality, learner feedback and instructor workload before assigning the redesign any impact claims.
Next steps
Apply this thinking to your own learning challenge.
Discuss how curriculum mapping, asynchronous learning design and learner-centered assessment could support institutional goals.