Distance education places particular emphasis on the design of learning activities and tasks, as instructional interaction and pedagogical guidance are largely mediated through learning materials. In such contexts, learning activities play a central role in structuring learning processes, shaping student engagement and reaching curricular goals. Despite the expansion of distance and digitally mediated schooling across Europe, empirical research examining the types of learning activities offered to secondary school students remains limited.

This study examines the categorisation of learning activities and tasks used in distance education schools in Latvia. The empirical focus is on Grade 9 and Grade 12, which are high-stakes examination years in the Latvian education system. Three examination subjects, English, Latvian and Mathematics, are included to allow exploration of task design across language and non-language disciplines and across lower and upper secondary levels.

The primary objective of the study is to systematically categorise learning activities used in distance education and to map their distribution across subjects and grade levels. The study adopts a descriptive and analytical perspective, aiming to document how learning activities are structured and presented to students rather than to evaluate learning outcomes or instructional effectiveness.

The study is informed by multiple established frameworks in learning design and distance education. These include learning design taxonomies that distinguish types of learning activities (e.g. the Open University Learning Design framework), models of pedagogical dialogue and teaching-learning processes (e.g. Laurillard’s Conversational Framework), theories of interaction in distance education (e.g. Moore’s and Anderson’s interaction models), taxonomies addressing cognitive demand (e.g. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy) and frameworks conceptualising modes of learner engagement (e.g. the ICAP framework). Together, these perspectives support a multi-dimensional examination of learning activities in terms of instructional intent, interaction, cognitive complexity and learner activity.

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. What types of learning activities and tasks are offered to students in distance education in Grades 9 and 12?
2. How are these task types distributed across subjects and grade levels?
3. What patterns of similarity and variation can be observed in task design across examination subjects?

While the empirical focus is national, the study is situated within broader European and international discussions on distance education, curriculum digitalisation and secondary-level learning design.

The study employs qualitative content analysis to examine student-facing learning activities used in distance education schools. The empirical material consists of learning tasks and activities assigned to students in Grades 9 and 12 in English, Latvian and Mathematics, which are core examination subjects within the national curriculum, collected from digital learning platforms and instructional materials used in distance education. These materials represent the activities students are expected to complete independently and therefore constitute a key component of instructional design in distance education contexts. The study employs qualitative content analysis with an analytically plural, framework-informed approach. Learning activities are coded using a set of coding dimensions informed by multiple established frameworks in learning design, pedagogical interaction, cognitive demand and learner engagement. These frameworks jointly inform the development of a categorisation scheme, allowing learning activities to be analysed from complementary theoretical perspectives rather than through a single dominant taxonomy. Coding focuses on identifying the dominant characteristics of each learning activity, such as the form of learner engagement, the type of interaction implied and the nature of the cognitive activity required. In addition to qualitative categorisation, the study incorporates descriptive quantitative elements. The frequency and distribution of activity types are recorded to support comparison across subjects and educational levels.

Preliminary analysis shows that learning activities used in secondary distance education display some subject-related differences in focus and structure. Initial findings suggest that learning activities in English, Latvian and Mathematics differ in terms of the types of learner engagement, forms of pedagogical interaction and cognitive processes emphasised, reflecting distinct disciplinary orientations and curricular expectations. In contrast, preliminary analysis indicates that variation in learning activities across educational levels is less pronounced. Rather than observing substantial changes in the overall types of activities offered between lower and upper secondary education, the analysis suggests a gradual progression in the level of cognitive challenge and analytical engagement required of students. These preliminary observations are descriptive in nature and do not imply evaluative judgments regarding instructional quality or effectiveness. The completed analysis is expected to provide a systematic empirical overview of how learning activities are differentiated by subject and how they progress across educational levels in secondary distance education. Although grounded in the Latvian context, the findings are intended to inform broader European and international discussions on learning activity design, disciplinary differentiation and task progression in distance education.

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1–14. https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/708 Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Educational Origami. http://edorigami.wikispaces Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology, 1–258. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203125083 Maqsood, F., Batool, F., Amin, Dr. S., & Hussain, S. (2024). Decoding Online Learning: Exploring Educational Taxonomies for Virtual Instruction. International Research Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 5(1), 217–229. https://irjmss.com/index.php/irjmss/article/view/235 Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three Types of Interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659 Pollard, V., & Armatas, C. (2025). Feedback is Integral: Using a Revised ICAP Framework to Achieve Active Learning in an Asynchronous Online Course. Online Learning Journal, 29. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i3.4555 Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., & Bryan, A. (2015). “Scaling up” learning design: Impact of learning design activities on LMS behavior and performance. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 16-20-March-2015, 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723600 Toetenel, L., & Rienties, B. (2016). Analysing 157 learning designs using learning analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision making. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJET.12423