You open the discussion board on Sunday night and see twenty-seven versions of the same sentence.
“I agree with your post.”
A few students have added a polite compliment. Others have stretched their response just far enough to satisfy the word count. The timestamps cluster suspiciously close to the deadline. Somewhere in the course, a rubric box has been checked.
Technically, a discussion happened.
But did it really?
Most of us who teach or design online courses have encountered this scene (some even see it regularly and even weekly). Many of us have also helped create it: we write a prompt, require an initial post, and ask students to respond to two classmates. The structure is familiar and manageable as it is easy to explain, but this can be a rut for both students and teachers. This rinse and repeat formula has a remarkable ability to turn potentially interesting conversations into academic busywork, and students notice. They know when replies are being counted rather than read, or when a discussion exists because it supports learning versus when it exists because the weekly module needed another activity with some seat time. After a while, even motivated students begin approaching the discussion board with the same passion as someone renewing a vehicle registration. They complete the required steps, then click post and move on.
The good news is that the discussion board itself may not be the problem, but rather the design is (and we can do something about design). This distinction matters because online discussions can still be very valuable, as they can give students time to think before responding. Discussions can make space for people who may not speak first in a live classroom, and they can connect learners across locations, schedules, professional backgrounds, and lived experiences. We just have to design for it, and our Immersion Session at the upcoming OLC Accelerate will be a great opportunity for us to really explore what’s not working and to learn from each other how we can create discussion activities that feel purposeful (for our students as much as for ourselves).
Moving Beyond Post Once, Reply Twice
When my team facilitated the original Discussion Boards That Don’t Suck workshop at OLC Accelerate last year, the room filled with educators and instructional designers who were ready to admit something we often whisper privately: many of our discussion boards are not working. Rather than the session being about cynicism, it was energizing. Participants brought their frustrations, but they also brought ideas. They questioned our familiar (and I would say banal) requirements and examined the purpose behind their activities. In our time together, we rebuilt discussions around what we actually wanted our students to demonstrate. The room became noisy in the best possible way. People traded examples as we explored possibilities and covered collaborative discussion spaces with new approaches. That experience is shaping Discussion Boards That Don’t Suck 2.0, an Immersion Session at OLC Accelerate 2026. This year’s session returns with new examples as we focus on student motivation and authentic interaction. We will also look at activities inspired by participants from last year’s workshop, with those great ideas as the starting point for our next batch. Improving online learning should be a shared project.
Start With the Purpose
One reason our discussions fall flat is that we begin with the format rather than the learning goal. We decide that students will “have a discussion” before deciding what the discussion is supposed to accomplish. Is the goal to compare perspectives? Apply a concept? Solve a problem? Reflect on an experience? Challenge an assumption? Those purposes call for different kinds of activities. A community-building discussion might invite students to find an unexpected connection with a classmate. A critical-thinking activity might ask them to examine incomplete evidence and defend a decision. A professional course might place students inside a realistic scenario where they must recommend a course of action. A reflective discussion might allow students to respond through audio, video, images, graphic design, or text. Once the purpose becomes clear, the traditional prompt-and-two-replies structure begins to feel less like a rule or default and more like one option among many. Too often, it’s not even the best option.
Give Students Something Worth Discussing
A lively conversation needs a little friction. That does not mean manufacturing controversy (although I am rather fond of the occasional manufactured controversy and sometimes even designate my own provocateurs). Ultimately, when every student can produce nearly the same correct response, the replies are destined to become ceremonial and perfunctory. Instead, we need to give students a problem with some texture so they can create authentic choices as they grapple with competing perspectives. They should find something to meaningfully interpret and defend, and their responses to other students should advance their own thinking rather than checking the box in the rubric. One way we can give our students something worth discussing is to involve authentic choices in our assignments. Early in my course design work, I often assigned a reading and a single prompt that every student answered. Now my students might analyze a case from their choice of multiple stakeholder perspectives. They might choose which question to answer or which medium to use. They might contribute to a shared product rather than posting isolated mini-essays, one after another. And including clauses such as “tell us about a time when…” is not the same as providing authentic choice. Choice matters because autonomy changes the personal and emotional temperature of an assignment. Students are more likely to invest in a conversation when they have some ownership regarding what they contribute and how they contribute it. We can work to build an assignment structure that supports meaningful participation instead of merely measuring its existence.
From Ideas to Design
During the upcoming 2026 Immersion Session, we will examine discussion boards through several lenses. We will consider what research tells us about dialogue and engagement as we explore things like prompt design, educational psychology, and discuss how we can incorporate things like multimedia, interactivity, and real-world relevance. But this will not be a session where you spend your time sitting, watching slides about active learning while you discretely check your emails and team chats. You will design. We will work together to create and revise discussion activities by identifying what each activity is truly meant to accomplish and then considering how autonomy and interaction can support that purpose in ways that feel natural (and even fun) rather than forced. As participants share their designs, we will offer collective feedback and dialogue as we learn from the different approaches in the room while also building a practical plan that can carry each idea from the session into an actual course. You will leave with ideas and examples that can continue growing after the conference, because our goal is not to hand everyone a single perfect formula that eventually becomes the next rigid routine we all complain about five years from now. Rather, we will work toward making more intentional design decisions and expanding what we believe an online discussion can be. Because our students deserve more than twenty-seven versions of “I agree.” And honestly, so do we.
References
Burke, R. A., Jirout, J. J., & Bell, B. A. (2025). Understanding cognitive engagement in virtual discussion boards. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241230991
Douglas, T., James, A., Earwaker, L., Mather, C., & Murray, S. (2020). Online discussion boards: Improving practice and student engagement by harnessing facilitator perceptions. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.3.7
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
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
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318 Robbins, E. J., & Fairbank, J. F. (2023). Asynchronous online discussion forums: Effective undergraduate and graduate course approaches. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 18, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.46504/18202303ro
Dr. Sean Nufer, an award-winning educator whose work focuses on helping educators create learning experiences that are engaging, connected, and designed for real student success in digital environments. Dr. Nufer frequently presents on the future of education, workforce readiness, and meaningful technology adoption that connects human potential with academic practice.
