Asynchronous discussions can be a great way to support continued conversations about a topic or resource from class in an inclusive way. They can allow for reflective time for the learners to critically engage with ideas before sharing them with others. This resource speaks to some considerations around designing asynchronous discussions, but also provides things to think about as a facilitator or participant to support a rewarding asynchronous learning experience.
Discussion posts can be used as spaces to collectively brainstorm ideas and solutions, which can work in an asynchronous way just as it could in synchronous seminar situations.
Clarity in design is also a good way to support engagement. Be clear in the prompts in terms of what the participants are to do, either share resources, ideas, or to respond directly to others, or both for example. Some instructors can provide this guidance through rubrics for the discussion or through instructional guidelines (see rubric sample in the next tab section). Studies like Giacumo & Savenye’s (2020) demonstrate the importance of providing and explaining parameters through something like a rubric or clear instructions before participants engage in the discussion process.
Clarity around the type of rhetorical style can also help participants. Transitioning from a formal style seen in essays and reports, to a more conversational style common in discussion posts may be difficult for some participants. Therefore, providing guidance around the type of rhetoric or style you would like to see in the posts can help.
Provide limits in terms of how long the discussion posts should be in terms of word count. This will prevent discussion posts from turning into smaller form essays. A good contextual guideline is to not ask for posts that are longer than 250 words as this will allow participants to focus on quality and not quantity. Critical engagement means providing examples in the discussion posts, through links or cases to support ideas, this can allow for a more authentic and lived experience engagement with the topic. If the prompt would support a response or reflection that is longer than 1 page double spaced, this could be best done through an assignment format instead.
You may also want to leave room for different ways of engagement in the discussion posts. Some learners may want to provide a textual response, while others may want to create Venn diagrams, or even images to demonstrate their thinking. If the context of the course or topic would benefit from these types of engagement, make it clear to the participants. This also supports a more Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach to demonstrating knowledge and skills.
Instructions for the asynchronous discussion’s posts may also want to flag the different kinds of engagement possible such as between learner to learner, between learner to instructor, and between learner to concept or content (Gasell, Lowenthal, Uribe-Flórez, & Ching ,2021). There may be challenges in each of these types of interactions and that is where consistency around facilitation strategies can support the discussion.
To support more engagement, facilitator input can help guide discussion or highlight important points that participants are sharing. This can be done by quoting or referring to aspects of some of the posts, or by adding a resource in the discussion thread that can connect to the theme or ideas. Giacumo & Savenye’s (2020) study demonstrates how these kinds of interventions by the facilitator can support critical thinking skills in the participants.
As Gasell, Lowenthal, Uribe-Flórez, & Ching (2021) note, though regular interaction in the discussion post by the facilitator is helpful for overall engagement, what defines regular interaction is very contextual. Also, this study emphasizes the importance of having conversations about quantity of posts versus quality. In order for engagement from the participants and the facilitator to be meaningful, facilitation should emphasize the quality of the post, the way the post connects different ideas or even different learners together, over the number of posts, or the length of posts being shared.
From an accessibility and inclusion point of view, it is important to acknowledge that both participant and facilitator’s rhetorical style may vary, and as Demir, Cinar & Keskin (2023) state, some social anxieties may also appear even in asynchronous posts. Socio-affective factors appear in asynchronous discussions just as they do in social media posts. This is especially true because posts on discussion boards are often not anonymous. Therefore, having clear guidelines and even co-created frameworks around learning community participation, through a shared Word document as a living document that can be added to over the semester for example, can support inclusive sharing in an asynchronous discussion.
Demir, Ö., Cinar, M., & Keskin, S. (2023). Participation style and social anxiety as predictors of active participation in asynchronous discussion forums and academic achievement. Education and Information Technologies, 28(9), 11313–11334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11517-3
Gasell, C., Lowenthal, P. R., Uribe-Flórez, L. J., & Ching, Y.-H. (2022). Interaction in asynchronous discussion boards: a campus-wide analysis to better understand regular and substantive interaction. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3421–3445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10745-3
Giacumo, L. A., & Savenye, W. (2020). Asynchronous discussion forum design to support cognition: effects of rubrics and instructor prompts on learner’s critical thinking, achievement, and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09664-5