Why Online Courses Aren't Dead (They're Just Designed Wrong)
TL;DR
Online courses aren't dying — the knowledge-based model is. When a course is built around information delivery alone, students consume it and move on without changing anything. This post covers what brain-based course design actually looks like, including Kasia Derbiszewska's Three Brain Networks framework, the Recipe Model for module structure, and the real cost of building a program without transformation design at its core.
Everyone's been talking about it. Courses are dead. Experts are shutting theirs down. Coaches are pivoting to communities, to memberships, to live-only containers. And if you've been sitting on a course idea or quietly wondering what's wrong with the program you already built, the noise has probably gotten in your head.
I get it. I've heard it too. And honestly, for a while I let it stop me from taking two course ideas I've had for years and actually doing something with them. The "courses are dead" conversation is loud and it sounds confident and it's everywhere right now.
But here's what I walked away thinking after my conversation with Kasia Derbiszewska, Harvard-trained educational neuroscientist and creator of Supercharge Your Online Course: the knowledge-based course is struggling. The transformation-based course is not. And most people who are closing their programs aren't closing them because courses don't work. They're closing them because the design was never built to produce actual behavior change.
That's a very different diagnosis. And it changes everything about what the solution looks like.
In this post, I'm sharing the most important things Kasia taught me about why some courses produce transformation and others produce content libraries no one revisits. We'll get into the brain science behind how people actually learn, the module structure that makes students want to take action, and what it genuinely costs when a program is designed without any of this in mind.
Online Courses Aren't Dead. The Old Model Is.
Online courses are not dead. The industry is actively growing. What has changed is what buyers expect and what they're willing to pay for.
During the pandemic, people had time. Lots of it. Self-paced courses with hours of pre-recorded content worked because people could sit with them. That's no longer the reality for most buyers. Attention is compressed. Schedules are full. And after years of purchasing programs they never finished, buyers are more discerning than they used to be.
Kasia is clear that the industry is booming, but what's working now looks different from what worked in 2020. The shift isn't about format. It's about function. The knowledge-based course, built around information delivery, is losing ground. The course or program built around behavior change, implementation, and real transformation is not only surviving — it's exactly what the market is looking for.
So before you close your course, the question worth asking is: was it designed to produce transformation, or was it designed to deliver content?
The Shift from Information Delivery to Transformation Design
A transformation-based course is built around how the brain actually learns, not just what the expert knows.
This is where Kasia's background in educational neuroscience becomes so practically useful. She spent 17 years working with school districts on flexible, adaptive learning environments before applying those same principles to online programs for coaches and experts. Her core argument is that most online courses are built for the "average learner." And as she points out, the average learner doesn't exist.
Average is a mathematical concept, not a human one. Every person who enters your program brings a different history, a different context, a different nervous system response to learning. When you design for average, Kasia says, you effectively design for no one. Some people will succeed in spite of the design. Most won't get what they came for.
Her answer is something she calls predictability of variability. We can't make every learner the same, but we can design in a way that accounts for how people vary. And that starts with understanding three brain networks that govern how anyone learns anything.
The Three Brain Networks That Determine Whether Students Implement or Quit
The Three Brain Networks framework, developed from educational neuroscience research, explains the three systems that must be engaged for real learning to happen.
The Affective Network is the first, and Kasia argues it's the most important. This is how we emotionally engage with a learning environment: what motivates us, what feels like a barrier, whether we feel like we belong in the space. If this network isn't activated, nothing else follows. A student can have access to the best content in the world and never touch it if they feel overwhelmed, out of place, or disconnected.
The Recognition Network is how information enters the brain. This is the sensory layer: what we see, hear, read, and experience. Kasia's practical point here is that most course creators design with one modality in mind. They record videos and assume everyone learns by watching. But that's not true. Some learners need to read. Some need audio. Some need to see a framework visually laid out on a slide to make it click.
I shared something during our conversation that I think a lot of people relate to: I skip courses that are video-only. Not because the content is bad, but because I don't have 40 minutes to sit in front of a screen every day. If there's an audio version, I'll listen on a walk or at the gym. If there's a transcript, I'll skim it when I'm short on time. When a course offers multiple ways in, it becomes accessible to more of the people who bought it.
The Strategic Network is how people take action on what they've learned. This is the prefrontal cortex — the planning and execution center of the brain. And Kasia shares a detail worth noting: research now suggests this part of the brain doesn't fully mature until the early thirties. Your students are not automatically going to know how to take what you've taught and turn it into concrete action. That's not their job. That's yours, as the designer.
When all three networks are engaged, you get learning that actually produces change. When one is missing, even really good content sits there without doing anything.
The Recipe Model: A Module Structure That Actually Drives Action
The most effective module structure follows a consistent, predictable pattern, similar to a cookbook recipe.
Kasia uses the recipe analogy, and it landed for me immediately. Every recipe in a cookbook follows the same structure: title, image, ingredients, directions, nutritional info. You never have to search for what you need because the pattern is always the same. That predictability reduces friction and makes it easy to take action.
The same principle applies to course modules. When every module follows the same structure, students know what to expect and their cognitive load drops. They're not spending energy figuring out where to look. They're spending it on the content.
Kasia's Recipe Model suggests that every module should have three types of sections, though the exact labels will vary by topic and niche. There's a learn it section, where new information is introduced. There's a mindset or reflection section, where the student has space to process what's coming up emotionally or psychologically. And there's an apply it section, where specific tasks are laid out clearly enough that the student knows exactly what to do next.
That last section is the one most course creators skip or underdesign. They teach a concept and then assume students will figure out how to implement it. Kasia is direct about this: breaking a big idea down into specific, actionable steps is the designer's job, not the student's. When you leave implementation to the student's imagination, most students will stall.
She also introduces something she calls NET Time modules, short for No Extra Time. Some content can be absorbed while doing something else: folding laundry, walking, prepping a meal. Kasia labels these modules explicitly in her onboarding so students know which ones can be multitasked and which ones require focused attention. This single design choice relieves a significant amount of perceived pressure and helps more students actually get started.
Consistency Beats Intensity: What That Means for Program Pacing
Consistency in program design means building in repeated, distributed contact with key concepts rather than front-loading everything in one dense module.
Kasia offers one of the most clarifying analogies in the episode here. Going to the gym once a month for seven hours won't build muscle. Daily, consistent movement does. The same is true for mindset, for skill, for behavior change of any kind.
Most courses put their mindset content in module one and then move on to strategy. But if a student doesn't hit a mindset block until week seven, they won't remember what module one said. Kasia's answer is to weave mindset integration throughout every module, consistently, rather than front-loading it and assuming it will carry the student through.
Intensity without consistency produces overwhelm. Consistency without intensity produces sustainable progress. This applies to the pacing of the program itself, to how much content lives in each module, and to how often students are reminded of the core principles they're working with.
The practical application for program designers: resist the urge to put everything you know into every module. A student who learns one thing clearly and applies it gets a dopamine hit from the achievement. That hit motivates the next step. That momentum is what produces completion, referrals, and results you can actually talk about.
Designing for Variable Learners in a Group Program
In a group program, variability among students is normal and predictable, not a problem to solve or a failure to prevent.
I brought this up because I've experienced it firsthand. I was part of Kylie Kelly's Email Incubator, a four-week group program, and the range of experience in the room was striking. Some women had never sent an email to their list. Some were sending consistently every week. Some didn't have a lead magnet at all. Some had several. Watching Kylie hold the group through that variability, meeting people exactly where they were without making anyone feel behind, was genuinely impressive.
Kasia calls this designing to the margins. The idea is that your 1:1 client work has already shown you the full range of variability your people bring. Use that knowledge. Design the program for the student who needs the most support and the most challenge. When you build for the margins, you build something that works for everyone in between.
She also names what happens emotionally when a student feels behind: they start wondering if they're in the wrong place. They compare themselves to the people who are further along and feel overwhelmed. That emotional experience, left unaddressed, can lead a student to drop out, request a refund, or simply disengage quietly. Kasia's recommendation is to prime students in advance for variability, name it as normal, and coach them through it when it surfaces rather than hoping they'll work it out themselves.
Quick Diagnostic: Is Your Course or Program Designed for Transformation?
Read through these questions and note your honest answers. If you're running a course or group program, this will tell you something useful.
| Question | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Does your website clearly say in plain language who you help and what you do, in a way a complete stranger could understand on the first read? | ||
| Do your blog posts, podcast episodes, or videos lead with the answer in the first sentence or two, before you set context or build up to it? | ||
| Does your content include real numbers, specific examples, and named details rather than general statements? | ||
| Are you regularly showing up on video or audio and naming your area of expertise out loud in titles and descriptions? | ||
| Have you been consistently creating and publishing content across your platforms for at least six months? |
If you answered no to more than three of these, the design is where the work is. Not the topic. Not the marketing. The design.
The Real Cost of Poor Course Design
Poor course or program design costs you time, emotional energy, and the impact you went into business to make.
Kasia names the costs plainly, and I think it's worth sitting with them. The time cost shows up as endless reteaching. If you find yourself answering the same question on every call, posting the same clarification in the group again, or offering extra office hours just to keep people from falling off, that's not a client problem. That's a design signal. When something keeps coming up, the barrier is in the structure.
The emotional cost is burnout. There's a particular kind of exhaustion that comes from explaining the same thing for what feels like the seventy-second time. It drains the version of you that wants to show up energized and present. Over time, it quietly shifts your relationship with your own work.
The financial cost is real and often invisible until the numbers tell the story: refunds, lower completion rates, fewer testimonials, weaker referrals, the time and money of rebuilding a course you've already built once. Kasia has worked with clients who came to her to redesign programs they'd already launched. That redesign costs significantly more, in every sense, than building it right the first time.
And then there's the cost I named in our conversation that I think matters most for people who are doing this work because they actually care: the cost to your clients. When someone buys your course or joins your program and walks away without the transformation they came for, that lands somewhere. I know it does for me. I'm in business because I want to make a real difference, and if I haven't helped someone actually shift something, that hurts. Not in a self-punishing way. In a this-matters-to-me way.
The good news is that most of what Kasia teaches is designable. The gaps are fixable. But you have to be willing to look at the design honestly first.
Frequently Asked Questions About Online Course Design and Transformation
Are online courses still worth creating in 2025?
Yes — with the right design. The online education market continues to grow, but buyer expectations have shifted. Courses built around information delivery alone are struggling. Courses built around specific, achievable transformation with structured implementation support are performing well. The format isn't the problem. The design is. If your course gives students a clear path to a real result and is built with the brain's learning patterns in mind, it's still a viable and valuable offer.
What's the difference between a knowledge-based course and a transformation-based course?
A knowledge-based course delivers information and assumes students will figure out how to apply it. A transformation-based course is designed around behavior change: it accounts for how students engage emotionally, how they take in information across different modalities, and how they're guided to take specific action at each stage. The content in both types might be similar. The design is completely different, and that difference determines whether students finish the course and get results or consume it and move on.
How do I know if my online course design is the problem?
If you're seeing consistent patterns, the same questions coming up every call, students dropping off at the same module, low completion rates, or refund requests that mention feeling stuck or overwhelmed, those are design signals, not student failure. When something comes up repeatedly, there's a barrier somewhere in the structure. Kasia's framework suggests auditing your course for three things: whether information is being presented in multiple formats (recognition network), whether students have a clear emotional on-ramp (affective network), and whether every module has a specific, guided action step (strategic network).
What is the Recipe Model for course structure?
The Recipe Model is a module design principle from Kasia Derbiszewska's Supercharge Your Online Course framework. It suggests that every module in a course should follow the same predictable structure, the way every recipe in a cookbook follows the same pattern. That consistency reduces cognitive load for students and primes them to take action because they always know where to find the implementation section. The exact structure varies by topic, but typically includes a learn it section, a mindset or reflection section, and an apply it section in every module.
How long should an online course be?
It depends on how long the transformation takes. That's Kasia's answer and it's the right one. If the outcome you're promising requires six months of sustained practice, a four-week course won't deliver it. If the outcome is a specific, discrete skill, a shorter focused program is often more effective because students experience achievement quickly and that momentum carries them forward. The trap is building long courses because more content feels more valuable. It doesn't. Clarity and completion feel valuable. Length without pacing creates overwhelm.
What are the three brain networks in educational neuroscience?
The Three Brain Networks framework comes from educational neuroscience research and describes three systems that must be engaged for effective learning. The affective network governs emotional engagement: motivation, belonging, and what feels like a barrier. The recognition network governs how information comes in through the senses: sight, sound, reading, and visual representation. The strategic network governs how people plan and take action, and it's the system most course designers forget to design for. When all three are engaged, students implement. When one is missing, even excellent content sits unused.
How do I handle students in a group program who are at very different levels?
Kasia calls this designing to the margins. The student who needs the most support and the most challenge is your design target. When you build for that person, you build something that works for everyone in between. In practice, this means naming variability as normal in your onboarding, priming students for what it might feel like to be ahead or behind, and building in emotional coaching around comparison and pacing. The difference in experience levels isn't the problem. It's predictable. Your design can account for it in advance.
What is NET Time and how does it work in a course?
NET stands for No Extra Time. It's a module labeling strategy from Kasia's framework that tells students which parts of their program can be consumed while doing something else: walking, folding laundry, meal prepping, commuting. Not all content requires focused, undivided attention. Some learning happens just as well, or better, when the body is moving. Labeling these modules explicitly in your onboarding removes a significant layer of friction for students who feel like they don't have enough time to complete the program. It's a small design choice with a real impact on completion rates.
What's Next?
If this episode made you look at your course or program with new eyes and wonder whether the design is actually doing its job, that's a useful signal to pay attention to.
The Offer X-Ray is a comprehensive offer diagnostic for coaches and experts who want to look honestly at their program, their positioning, and their results, and know exactly what to address first. If you have a course or group program and you're not getting the outcomes you expected, the X-Ray will help you figure out whether the issue is the offer structure, the messaging, the design, or something else entirely.
Join the waitlist here: https://www.onamissionbrands.com/offer-x-ray
About Lori Young
Lori Young is the creator of the OfferMojo framework and the founder of On a Mission Brands. She is an offer strategist, messaging, and business positioning expert who helps transformation-focused coaches, consultants, and subject matter experts design offer ecosystems that elevate their authority and reflect the true depth of their expertise.
About Kasia Derbiszewska
Kasia Derbiszewska, Ed.M is an online course and business strategist who helps high-level experts turn their knowledge into transformative, profitable online programs. She holds a master's degree from Harvard in educational neuroscience and spent 17 years working with school districts on flexible, adaptive learning environments before pivoting to help coaches and experts apply those same principles to their programs. She's the creator of Supercharge Your Online Course, built on the belief that when education is designed intentionally, it becomes a powerful vehicle for both meaningful transformation and sustainable revenue.
Website: https://www.superchargeyouronlinecourse.com
Free resource: 100K Online Course Roadmap Planner
