Discussion Models, from a Learner’s Perspective

This one is for all the Higher Ed instructors and course designers out there. I’ve taken several online, asynchronous university courses over the last year or so and wanted to share my perspective on the various Discussion models I’ve encountered. Some have been quite enjoyable and even changed my opinion about the value of discussion boards, while others have felt ineffective and inauthentic. Here, I’ll outline the four different models I’ve experienced, how they were evaluated, and rate them out of 5 on how I felt about their effectiveness as a learning tool. 

Also, I’d love to hear from you on your (least) favourite discussion experiences in the comments!

COURSE 1

Discussion Instructions: Per unit, share a new vocabulary term and comment on why it’s significant. Respond to at least one other person’s post.

Grading model: Each unit is worth 2 points, based on completion, 1 for initial post and 1 for a response.

This discussion model was interesting because it allowed me to see what concepts and key terms my classmates picked up on in the course content throughout that unit. It highlighted different perspectives on the learning materials and exposed me to different ways of thinking. The posts themselves felt like an effective way to reflect on the core concepts and themes of the module, and it was relatively easy to pick a post to respond to and craft a somewhat meaningful response about similarities or differences in our takeaways from that unit. Because they were only graded on completion, quality of posts and responses was inconsistent. 3.5 / 5

COURSE 2

Discussion Instructions: Each week the reading requirements, questions posed, and response requirements will change – read them carefully before you post to each discussion. Discussions are due by Sunday of each week; post early so your peers have time to respond.

Grading model: At the end of the course, the instructor will pick 1 post at random to evaluate based on quality of post, timeliness, and completion of a response. A rubric was used to evaluate.

While it did keep things interesting week over week, this course was hard to keep up with because the requirements changed weekly. Some weeks had better discussion than others depending on the topics and questions, but the exchanges were almost always two turns: the respond and the original poster replying to the response; very rarely was there additional peer-to-peer interaction. Some weeks the questions resulted in very similar responses across all students (e.g., summarize the four theories you’ve just learned about), which made responses quite superficial and forced. I did appreciate that a rubric was used, to help ensure objectivity in grading. 2.5/5

COURSE 3

Discussion Instructions: Every week, read the two required readings and then find and read one additional article of your choosing. In your post, discuss your takeaways, any themes across the articles, any questions or apprehensions. Aim to make your initial post by Wednesday and continue the conversations with your peers through to Sunday.

Grading model: At the end of the course, the instructor will select 2-3 weeks at random to evaluate the quality and quantity of your participation.

I didn’t love this model at first, but by the end of the course, wow, did my opinion change. Yes, it was a lot of work if you wanted a good grade, but this might also have been the most memorable course I’ve ever taken. It was easy to see the engagement, meaningful interactions, and peer-to-peer learning that transpired in this course. This was the first online course where I felt like I truly knew my classmates, all because of the discussions. After about week 3, replies started to flow like natural conversation, where someone would point something out and others would weigh in; the conversation danced around the original post, perspectives varied, and it was a way for people’s interests and expertise to shine. A lot of us went above and beyond to find additional sources of evidence to support our replies – it was academic but informal at the same time. Grading was slightly subjective but because there was no minimum requirement, people put into it what they wanted out of it and made for really authentic discussions each week. 4.5/5

COURSE 4

Discussion Instructions: Discussions are optional. This is a place for you to share your thoughts on the readings and ask questions about what you’re still unsure about.

Grading model: Discussions were not evaluated. 

These discussions resulted in little to no participation, though it was nice to have a place to ask questions, if needed. 1/5

---

What has your experience with Discussions in online courses been? Share in the comments!