Whether in person or online, discussions are one of the most important and potentially memorable aspects of any course. Seeing students working together to build foundational knowledge and extend their learning–all while creating connections with each other–is rewarding and uplifting. 

The value of discussions can be seen when viewing them from the perspective of the Community of Inquiry framework. This framework “assumes that teaching and learning in higher education are not a matter of transferring knowledge from teacher to student,” but rather that knowledge is constructed, especially in community with other learners (Shea, Richardson, & Swan, 2022). There are three agreed upon domains in this model, especially as they apply to online learning:

1. Cognitive presence, or “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse” (Garrison et al., 2001)
2. Teaching presence, or “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001)
3. Social presence, or “the ability to perceive others in an online environment” (Richardson et al., 2017)

A fourth domain, learning presence, has been proposed as well, primarily “to highlight those attitudes and behaviors that engaged and active learners bring to their individual and collaborative online activities” (Shea, Richardson, & Swan, 2022).

Well-constructed discussions touch on all of these domains; the instructor creates a meaningful and engaging prompt and facilitates the discussion as students share their findings with one another, hopefully in a way that encourages critical thinking and promotes genuine connections with their classmates.

Asynchronous online discussions–or discussions (typically text-based) that occur through an LMS and are not dependent on users being in the same place at the same time–should also offer these learning benefits. However, ensuring students are engaging in these types of online discussions can be quite challenging. Fehrman and Watson (2020) write that “[w]hile AODs [asynchronous online discussions] can create the opportunity for interaction, the opportunity alone is insufficient for high-quality learning.” They go on to say that “[s]tudents reported feeling less authenticity and connections with AODs than in face-to-face contexts,” likely driven by feeling “disconnected and overwhelmed” due to the “time consuming” nature of these kinds of discussions. Furthermore, “when students were not sure anyone read their posts, they got discouraged and unmotivated” (Fehrman and Watson, 2020).

Aside from general struggles shared by many students, certain populations of students may encounter additional difficulties based on their cultural backgrounds. Gilpin et al. (2022) write that Black and LatinX students, as well as rural white students living in poverty, struggle with text-based AODs due to a prioritization in “oral conversation and storytelling” as well as “entertainment and developmental learning through speaking and listening.” Even in situations where the writing itself is not the area of concern, these students may feel a substantial loss of social presence in their online classrooms, and the feelings of isolation they experience affect their ability to persist in their courses.

Thinking routines

One of the ways to combat some of these negative feelings is to integrate thinking routines into discussions. Project Zero from the Harvard Graduate School of Education (2022) describes thinking routines as strategies to “invite learners of any age to be close observers, organize their ideas, to reason carefully, and to reflect on how they are making sense of things.” Their toolbox is based on research and is designed to “scaffold and support student thinking” and to “help make that thinking ‘visible’” not just in writing, but in multimodal formats, as well.

While designed primarily for K-12 education, these thinking routines can be used alongside higher order thinking in the higher education online classroom. Whether used for initial posts or for student replies, these routines can guide students through a thinking process that will allow them to engage more deeply in discussion. As Drs. Voegele, Benson, and Gallavan (2025) discuss in their article “Four Powerful Practices to Promote Student Success,” facilitating curiosity, communication, connections, and compassion ensure that students get the most out of their courses, and thinking routines can target these ideals.

Thinking routines to promote curiosity

Compass Points is one thinking routine that encourages students to be curious about a particular topic or post. In this routine, students are given four things to focus on, using the letters on a compass (N, S, E, and W) as a mnemonic device to help them remember what to do:

• “E” is for excited. Questions to ask include:
  • What excites you about this idea or proposition?
  • What’s the upside?
• “W” is for worrisome. Questions to ask include:
  • What do you find worrisome about this idea or proposition?
  • What’s the downside?
• “N” is for need to know. Questions to ask include:
  • What else do you need to know or find out about this idea or proposition?
  • What additional information would help you to evaluate things?
• “S” is for stance or suggestion for moving forward. Questions to ask include:
  • What is your current stance or opinion on the idea or proposition?
  • How might you move forward in your evaluation of this idea or proposition?

This particular thinking routine allows students to spend time looking at one idea from multiple angles, really examining how it makes them feel and what else they’d like to look into. This strategy could also work really well for guiding students through replies in a discussion, especially if they tend to just agree with their classmates without pushing the conversation further.

Other thinking routines to promote curiosity:

• See Think Me We
• Connect, Extend, Challenge

Thinking routines to promote communication

Drs. Voegele, Benson, and Gallavan (2025) focus on communication between instructors and students as a driver of student success. The thinking routine The 4 C’s gives students an opportunity to discuss crucial parts of a text, which can open the door for instructors to provide guidance, encouragement, and feedback in a timely manner. The 4 C’s of the thinking routine are as follows:

• Connections: What connections do you draw between the text and your own life or your other learning?
• Challenge: What ideas, positions, or assumptions do you want to challenge or argue with in the text?
• Concepts: What key concepts or ideas do you think are important and worth holding on to from the text?
• Changes: What changes in attitudes, thinking, or action are suggested by the text, either for you or others?

Other thinking routines to promote communication:

• Thinking with Images
• The Complexity Scale

Thinking routines to promote connection

Beyond all else, discussions are meant to enhance social presence in the online classroom–to make students feel like they’re part of a community, even when separated by distance. When thinking routines ask students to make personal connections to course content, students have a better chance of making genuine connections with one another. The 3 Whys is a thinking routine that can help direct students personal reflections and help them see things from another’s point of view as they answer three questions:

1. Why might this [topic, question, etc.] matter to me?
2. Why might it matter to people around me (family, friends, city, nation)?
3. Why might it matter to the world?

Other thinking routines to promote connection:

• Lenses
• Who Am I?

Thinking routines to promote compassion

In these uncertain times, it is more important than ever before to create a compassionate environment for students to learn in. The challenges we are all facing are stressful, exhausting, concerning, and sometimes devastating. Giving students the opportunity to practice compassion and paving the way for compassionate responses from the instructor can go a long way in cultivating a welcoming and safe learning environment for all students. Projecting Across Distance is a thinking routine that asks students to consider views outside their own in response to a particular topic, idea, etc., thereby exercising their compassion. First, students are asked to consider how a topic, event, or issue is playing out in or is viewed by:

• Their community
• Another city or town in their country
• A country east or west of their country (ideally where people may think differently)
• A country north or south of their country (ideally where people may think differently)

Students then go on to explore answers to the following question: “What might account for the similarities and/or differences between and within the communities and countries?”

Other thinking routines to promote compassion:

• Values, Identities, Actions
• Parts People Interactions

Other considerations for successful discussions

When designing asynchronous online discussions, there are a few other considerations that can make a huge difference in student success:

• Multimedia: Students can feel fatigued, overwhelmed, and discouraged by discussions that are only text-based, especially if there are many other writing tasks in a course. Incorporating requirements for multimedia elements (images, videos, audio, etc.) in discussions can break up the monotony of these assignments and encourage the development of social presence.
• Prompts: Discussions are a great opportunity to allow students to explore course content from an angle of their choosing. Offering multiple prompts and/or multiple ways to respond empowers students to take control of their learning and fosters more genuine connections between peers who want to explore the same topics. This can be especially powerful when students are asked to answer open-ended, exploratory questions instead of questions that have a “right” answer.
• Length: When we think of in person discussions–whether more formally in the classroom or more casually amongst colleagues or friends–we (hopefully) think of lively back and forth conversations. However, there are those who “take over” discussions by being the only person to talk and not letting others get a word in edgewise. Online discussions, especially when the required post and response lengths are long, can feel this way, too. Keeping word counts shorter can encourage more back and forth, mimicking in person conversations.
• Frequency: How often are students being asked to engage in online discussions? How often must they post? Are they always being asked to respond in the same way, or is their variety? Taking all of these questions into consideration can be valuable in avoiding the fatigue with online discussions. What may start out as something quite powerful in the beginning of a course can become tiresome if the discussions are happening too often or without modifications to make the assignment feel fresh while still linking to course objectives.