Active learning pedagogies have become widely accepted
in face-to-face teaching as a method of engaging students
in their learning and as a way to encourage metacognition
and reection. Whereas traditional lecture/exam pedagogies
are teacher-centered, with the instructor as the focal point,
active learning places the student at the center of the
learning experience. In addition to being student-centered,
active learning experiences generally have two additional
components: they require (1) meaningful action by the
student on behalf of their learning and (2) that meaningful
action be paired with reection by the student regarding
their learning experience. Prince (2004) and Michael (2006)
have both synthesized research-based evidence that active
learning techniques are successfully helping students learn.
Given its popularity, it is important to also consider active
learning within the broader contemporary higher education
landscape, which now includes a signicant number of
students learning in online and blended environments. This
shift in modality has necessitated thinking about face-to-face
pedagogical techniques in new ways, sometimes resulting in
a complete re-design of a course for the online or blended
environment. To be sure, the growth in online courses is one
way to ensure that a diverse population of higher education
students can learn in exible ways that meet their needs.
Unfortunately, despite decades of growing experience and
expertise in distance education, there is still skepticism
from faculty about the quality of education that is received
online (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016). Perceptions of
quality deciencies in online classes are sometimes based in
assumptions that instructors are better able to engage with
students, and to encourage more active learning, in face-to-
face environments.
In this paper, we suggest that well-established fundamentals
of online course design and facilitation still need to reach
and be accepted by a broader audience within higher
education, and that lingering perceptions about quality
differences between face-to-face and online education
signify a professional development gap—one that can be
bridged with training about active learning pedagogy and
models for active learning in online asynchronous classes.
Importantly, active learning activities and pedagogical
strategies can look different in online learning environments,
and some instructors can nd incorporating active learning
to be challenging, particularly in asynchronous courses
when students are not interacting with the instructor, or
with each other, in real time. This paper suggests a three-
pronged approach for conceptualizing active learning in the
online asynchronous class: the creation of an architecture of
engagement in the online classroom, the use of web-based
tools in addition to the learning management system, and
a re-imagining of discussion boards as interactive spaces.
We believe that the adoption of these approaches invites
meaningful action and various forms of reection to create
truly active learning activities in online asynchronous classes.
Re-Conceptualizing Active Learning for the
Asynchronous Online Classroom
In IDEA Paper #53, “Active Learning Strategies in Face-to-
Face Courses,” Millis (2012) outlines several examples of
active learning experiences instructors can implement in
face-to-face learning environments such as paired problem
solving and think-pair-share activities, among other notable
examples. In a think-pair-share activity, the instructor
lectures for a short time, and then stops the lecture to pose
a question. Students are then asked to reect about the
Abstract
Active learning activities and pedagogical strategies can look different in online learning environments,
particularly in asynchronous courses when students are not interacting with the instructor, or with
each other, in real time. This paper suggests a three-pronged approach for conceptualizing active
learning in the online asynchronous class: the creation of an architecture of engagement in the
online classroom, the use of web-based tools in addition to the learning management system, and a
re-imagining of discussion boards as interactive spaces. The adoption of these approaches invites
meaningful action and reection to create truly active learning activities in online asynchronous
classes.
Shannon A. Riggs and Kathryn E. Linder • Oregon State University Ecampus
Actively Engaging Students in
Asynchronous Online Classes
IDEA Paper #64 • December 2016
Page 2
question, pair with someone seated nearby, and discuss the
question. Sometimes, the instructor then chooses several
students to share with the whole class what was discussed
to help further reect, synthesize, and transition to the next
portion of the lecture. What makes this simple strategy
effective is that students must do more than listen passively
to the lecture. They must pay attention, comprehend the
information being presented, and then take action with
that information – in this case, talk about a question with a
partner. One study (Ruhl, Hughes & Schloss, 1987) showed
that using a series of think-pair-share activities approximately
every 15 minutes during a live on-campus lecture helped to
improve comprehension and retention of new information.
For online courses designed to require synchronous web
conferences, where students and the instructor log in and
meet live in a virtual space, active learning activities such as
a think-pair-share can occur much as they do in synchronous
face-to-face environments. However, most students who
seek online learning experiences do so because they are not
able to meet on campus or remotely at scheduled times. To
accommodate the needs of students who have full-time jobs,
jobs that require extensive travel, family demands, or other
factors that make attending a face-to-face or synchronous
online course impossible, many online courses and programs
are designed to be asynchronous, with no requirement for
all students and the instructor to be logged in at the same
time each week. In asynchronous courses, instructors and
students participate in learning activities on independent
schedules; in typical asynchronous courses, readings are
indicated in the class schedule, links to external resources
and recorded lectures are provided, and students post to
discussion boards, submit assignments, and take exams on
their own schedules within given time frames.
While some lament the loss of synchronous, live
communication in asynchronous online courses, many
acknowledge clear benets in asynchronous learning. For
example, Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, and Tinker (2000) note
that discussion boards, in particular, can “extend reection
time” and offer the “opportunity to compose thoughtful,
probing contributions” (p. 2). Meyer (2003) also argues that
asynchronous tools such as discussion boards can aid in
higher order thinking for students. From a more logistical
standpoint, students who would otherwise not be able to
earn degrees are able to do so, and are able to do so more
expediently, due to asynchronous schedules. Students are
also free to spend more time on task, if they are motivated
and their schedules allow them to do so. In asynchronous
environments, students can re-watch recorded lectures
as many times as they need to in order to understand the
content and can make use of closed captions or transcripts
to improve comprehension. And, perhaps most helpful to
more introverted students, online courses allow for additional
time to compose thoughts, reactions, and reections on the
course content without the pressure of real-time interaction.
In spite of these benets of online asynchronous instruction,
the active learning methods that are becoming well-practiced
and increasingly routine components in face-to-face
instruction, or even in online synchronous instruction, can
be difcult to conceptualize in fully online, asynchronous
courses. For example, how can a student think-pair-share
mid-lecture if the lecture is recorded, and if the student is
the only one logged into the course at a given time? Given
the constraints of asynchronous online courses, how can
instructors adopt active learning pedagogies that will help
students interact with the instructor, and with one another,
to aid in their learning and reection? In the remainder of this
paper, we offer a three-part approach for implementation
of active learning practices into the asynchronous online
environment.
Approach 1: An Architecture of Engagement
The engaging face-to-face class experience is composed
of the classroom space, the scheduled meeting times, the
proximity of students to the instructor and one another, and
the social norms that motivate students to participate. These
components are the raw materials the instructor can utilize
to invite learner engagement. Students sign up for a course
and receive the meeting schedule and location. They show
up and, having grown up in similar educational environments,
are both ready to be guided by the instructor and conditioned
to know how to behave and participate in the space. Students
know how to interact even in different kinds of physical
classrooms, because the architecture shows them how to
interact. In a large lecture hall, students know to be seated,
to turn their attention to the front of the room, and to listen
and take notes. In a small classroom with tables set up for
clusters of students, students know to face each other, and
to participate in small group discussion and activities. In a
laboratory with tall benches and lab equipment, students
know to stand at their stations and expect to work hands-on
with lab-related materials.
Because none of these architectural components exist
ready-made in the online asynchronous environment, a
new architecture of engagement that functions in a virtual,
asynchronous environment must be intentionally created.
In the online asynchronous class, the instructor must show
students how to navigate, how to interact, and what is
expected. In the absence of a physical room with furnishings,
the instructor must use digital materials to structure learning
environments that foster active learning. With careful
planning, an architecture of engagement can be created with
digital architectural elements to help asynchronous online
courses employ active learning strategies and otherwise be
as rigorous and engaging as those on campus.
Architectural Element 1: Syllabus Communication
and Engagement Policy
The asynchronous online course syllabus must do all the
foundational things a face-to-face course syllabus does, but
it must also set communication policies and expectations
for online engagement as well as a course schedule that
outlines the frequent and meaningful engagement and
reection required for students. Rather than taking place
Page 3
over a concentrated time period of in-person interaction,
active learning in an asynchronous online course can include
students visiting the class website to perform certain tasks
several times throughout a week, meeting mini-milestones
as they progress. Whereas the scheduled meeting time and
place clearly set the bounds for the face-to-face class, those
structures are not as clear and need to be spelled out with
greater clarity in the asynchronous online environment.
Below is a sample syllabus communication and engagement
policy for an asynchronous online course, which
communicates an expectation for participation and the
foundation of a course architecture for engagement:
Our class is organized week by week, with each week
starting on Sunday morning and ending at the close of
the next weekend. Every Sunday morning, a new weekly
module will open automatically. Once open, the weeks
remain open so that you may go back and review content
in previous weeks.
To ensure that you receive a high quality and hopefully
transformative educational experience, regular
participation is a requirement of this class. Typical weeks
include required reading, viewing some video content,
participating in discussion forums, and completing an
assignment or an exam. To be successful in this class, you
will need to log in at least three times per week to access
course materials and to participate actively in the class.
Instructors may also want to structure participation
requirements so that students have weekends to focus on
time-intensive tasks built into the architecture created; this
fosters engagement while still allowing exibility for online
learners.
Architectural Element 2: Course Orientation
Because the digital architecture may be unfamiliar to most
students—and even if familiar, may vary among online
courses—a course orientation becomes necessary. The
orientation can be provided in print, but is usually more
engaging and inviting in video or voice-over-screen audio
format. Voice-over-screen tools such as Screencast-O-Matic
(https://screencast-o-matic.com/home) can be used to
create re-usable, recorded online course orientation tours.
The instructor captures the screen, and then navigates
through the course while discussing the various features.
Once complete, the recording can be shared simply by a URL.
The need for orientation materials in online asynchronous
courses is well-established. In fact, Quality Matters™, a
nonprot organization that publishes research-based online
and hybrid course design standards and which offers a peer
review process that certies the design of online and hybrid
courses, includes requirements for orientation materials
in the rst general standard of eight in the Quality Matters
Higher Education Rubric Workbook: Design standards for
online and blended courses (2014). In addition to information
about prerequisites required for the course and minimum
technical requirements, the rubric also requires that certied
courses include an introduction for learners that explains
the purpose and structure of the course, including “how the
learning process is structured and carried out, including
course schedule, delivery modalities (online or blended),
modes of communication, types of learning activities, and
how learning will be assessed” (p. 8). Placing a course
orientation prominently so that it can be easily noticed
when students log into a course for the rst time, as well as
encouraging students to view the orientation materials in an
introductory email, can help to ensure students understand
that the course requires active engagement.
An orientation for an online asynchronous course should
introduce students to the structure of the course and should
address the following questions:
• How often do students need to log in to participate?
• How much time should they set aside weekly to spend on
coursework?
• Is the course entirely asynchronous, or are there
synchronous activities? If there are synchronous
activities, are they optional or required?
• Which tools in the learning management system (LMS)
will be used?
• Where should students look for updates and breaking
news about the course (e.g., announcements, email
messages, discussion forums)?
• How is the course structured (e.g., by week or module, by
project milestone)?
• What does a typical week’s or unit’s work entail in the
course?
• Are any external tools or digital courseware required? If
so, how should students register?
• What are the major assessments in the course, and
when during the semester do they take place? If there
are papers or long-term projects, what are the major
milestones?
• Where can students nd important due dates?
• If there are exams, are there proctoring requirements?
• Are there any unusual requirements that require advance
coordination or travel, such as group work, eld trips,
observations, or interviews?
Finally, instructors should explain to students in the
orientation that an architecture of engagement has been
intentionally created for the course and that the use of
active learning strategies is intended to assure a high
quality, transformative educational experience equivalent or
greater to face-to-face learning experiences, and to improve
their academic success. This explanation will help students
understand how the architecture of the course affects and
adds value to their learning experience.
Architectural Element 3: Modular Course Structure
In addition to establishing expectations in the syllabus, the
engagement architecture must be reinforced throughout
the course. The syllabus policies and course orientation
provide a strong foundation, but these kinds of course
Page 4
materials are often reviewed early in the course and then
become neglected and forgotten as the work of the semester
accumulates. A modular course structure helps to frame the
architecture of engagement throughout the course.
By modular course structure, we mean dividing the course
chronologically with multiple units, with each module
containing all of the course materials, learning activities,
assignments, and assessments for that unit. By contrast,
a non-modular course structure would be one that might
provide a calendar of deliverables, and then leave students
to nd the necessary tools and materials within the entire
course. Such a non-modular structure might contain a folder
of all course readings, a link to a discussion area, a link to
an assignments page, and so on. Students would need to
navigate using the course calendar as a guide. A modular
structure, however, provides much more guidance for the
online asynchronous student. Each modular section of the
course contains everything the student needs for that unit
of study, and students can feel more assured that they
are not inadvertently missing something critical. Using a
modular structure also allows instructors to reinforce the
course learning outcomes with shorter-term modular learning
outcomes that help students connect the work they are doing
each day with the overarching course learning outcomes.
Using a modular or weekly organization for course materials
and learning activities reinforces the architecture of
engagement, because this structure encourages students
to move through the course as a cohort, engaging with
learning materials and activities on the same timetable,
though still asynchronously. Some instructors even use
adaptive release settings on learning modules to require that
students proceed as a cohort. Online asynchronous courses
are different from self-paced online courses. If designed to
employ active learning pedagogy, modular course structures
encourage and even require student-to-student interaction on
a regular and sustained basis.
When designed to reect and reinforce an architecture of
engagement, a modular course structure that breaks the
larger course down into smaller parts provides several
advantages: (1) it paces the learning experience to prioritize
information and activities and to help prevent students
from feeling overwhelmed; (2) it allows students to monitor
progress regularly; (3) it discourages procrastination by
providing regular milestones and deliverables; (4) it visually
provides a high-level overview of the course topics, which can
increase understanding of how course topics relate to one
another; and (5) it provides space to scaffold active learning
experiences and to provide sufcient opportunity for guidance
and feedback on reection activities.
Checklists, calendar reminders, and instructor
announcements can also help remind students of the
engagement architecture; these reminders are necessary
not because students have short attention spans or are
unmotivated, but because the absence of a physical and
face-to-face social architecture necessitates an alternative
virtual architecture. Students need space and structure that
will invite them to engage actively.
Inhabiting the Architecture of Engagement
Of course, once instructors create an architecture of
engagement in their online, asynchronous courses, they
must themselves inhabit those spaces throughout the course
along with their students. Instructors must continuously guide
student learning, provide feedback, serve up reminders,
double back to reinforce concepts students have struggled
with, and otherwise actively facilitate their classes. It can
be helpful for instructors of online asynchronous courses to
create an architecture for their own engagement, as well.
The instructor’s plan for engagement can be communicated
in the syllabus, in the course orientation, and/or in an
announcement or email to students. It should include several
basic pieces of information:
• A time frame for replies to email communications
and questions posted on discussion forums, with
encouragement to ask questions in advance of
assignment due dates
• A time frame for providing feedback on assignments
• Commentary on how the instructor plans to participate
in online asynchronous discussions (e.g., I do read
every post, but will not reply to every post so as not to
dominate the conversation; I will post a summary of
discussion highlights at the conclusion of each unit.)
• Commentary on other ways the instructor plans to remain
actively involved throughout the course and how urgent
or timely information will be communicated (e.g., via
announcement or email)
Online asynchronous courses are open twenty-four hours
per day, seven days per week, including holidays. Because
many routine online activities such as shopping and travel
reservations are automated with immediate responses and
conrmations, students in online classes, unless provided
with a plan for instructor engagement and availability, can
sometimes harbor expectations that online instructors be
responsive 24/7. In the absence of scheduled synchronous
meeting times when students know they can ask a question
and get an immediate answer, providing the instructor’s plan
for engagement sets and manages student expectations
for instructor availability and generally eases anxiety about
instructor availability and responsiveness.
Below is a sample statement an instructor might model in
creating an instructor plan for engagement:
I typically log in to monitor course activities ve to six
days per week, usually in the early morning hours. Expect
responses to questions posted in the class or sent by
email within 48 hours, though I usually respond within
24 hours. I am rarely online on Saturdays due to other
commitments. Do your best to plan the timing of your
questions accordingly.
Page 5
I know students are eager to receive grades after
submitting assignments. I put a lot of effort into providing
detailed feedback on most assignments in this course,
and this takes time. I strive to return all assignments
within seven days of submission. If something comes
up and I need to deviate from this schedule, I will let you
know.
I don’t keep scheduled ofce hours, because my students’
schedules vary so greatly. I am, however, available for
phone calls or Skype conversations by appointment.
Creating an architecture of engagement for students, and
then inhabiting that space along with students, creates a
student-centered environment where meaningful actions
can be taken by students, and where instructors can guide
and respond to those meaningful actions, evoking student
reection on learning. Without such an architecture of
engagement, it is easy to create an instructor- or content-
centered course, where most of the learning is passive.
Approach 2: Use Web-Based Tools Outside the
Learning Management System
Even with the intention to create an architecture of
engagement, a signicant challenge faced by instructors
wishing to use active learning pedagogies in the design of
online asynchronous classes is that the standard learning
management system (LMS) presents a menu of choices that
seem to invite instructor-centered and passive pedagogical
choices. Faced with an empty course shell, online course
developers select from design menus that allow them to
post textual or video content, provide links to drop boxes
for assignment submission, and construct quizzes or
exams. These learning objects and events are similar in
characteristics to the traditional, passive lecture/exam
model in face-to-face courses, where the instructor provides
information to be passively consumed by students and then
assesses students on their mastery of that content, with
little to no engagement and active learning in between.
There are plenty of opportunities for students to read or view
content, but instructors of online courses can struggle within
the limitations of the LMS to nd opportunities for students
to take meaningful action with course content and then to
reect on that learning experience.
Given the limitations of typical LMS, a quick and easy option
for using active learning pedagogy in the online asynchronous
class is to employ the use of ready-made, web-based tools
that are built for engagement but are located outside of the
LMS. Often, these tools provide more interactive space that
more easily create opportunities for meaningful action than
content-sharing tools within the LMS. A few examples follow
for illustration purposes, but should not be considered an
exhaustive list. New web-based tools appear continually, and
most can be brought into the online asynchronous class as
easily as posting a link.
Example One: Online Portfolios with Reection
Online portfolios can be created using such free tools
as Google Sites (https://www.google.com/sites), Weebly
(https://www.weebly.com), or Wix (http://www.wix.com/).
Portfolio assignments are excellent vehicles for active
learning. The ability to select and create content allows plenty
of room for student agency and fosters intrinsic motivation.
Often, portfolio assignments have a professional theme to
them that can provide meaningful extrinsic motivation, as
well. In addition, portfolio assignments can lead students to
various levels of reection. For example, the online medium
encourages the inclusion of visuals to complement written
materials and thus can invite content-based reection about
the textual and visual content. By asking students to clearly
present evidence and make inferences, reection can be built
directly into portfolio-based assignments. In a history course,
for example, students might present images or video content
of historical artifacts, discussing key aspects and signicance
of each. Throughout the course of a semester, students
might present several artifacts, comparing and contrasting
them as part of their reection. Students in a creative writing
course might post writing samples, perhaps including several
drafts, analyzing and reecting on the changes they made
throughout their writing process. In both of these examples,
metacognitive reection is encouraged by asking students to
examine and discuss their thinking and learning process over
time.
In creating an online portfolio, students must engage
meaningfully with the content, whether the content includes
materials that they nd or create. The content must be
selected and then shared in a context with a specic
audience. Reection can be at various levels, about the
content itself or about the students’ progress and evolving
engagement with it over time. Portfolio assignments also
lend themselves well to what Grossman (2009) has coined
self-authorship or transformative reection levels. Grossman
denes self-authorship as when reection allows “inner
states [to] become observed objects rather than lived
subjects” (p. 19). With self-authorship, students gain enough
distance from initial thoughts and feelings to understand
how thoughts and feelings can affect and change each
other. Grossman also describes a form of “transformative”
reection in which students experience a substantial shift
in their own assumptions, beliefs, and values. Portfolio
assignments, where metacognitive activities are frequently
embedded, are helpful ways to encourage student
engagement in both of these levels of reection.
In addition to providing a rich and personalized active learning
opportunity, portfolios can also have the added benet of
helping students meet career goals by providing an engaging
representation of abilities, knowledge, and communication
skills as part of a job application.
Example Two: Brainstorming with Reection
Brainstorming tools such as Padlet (https://padlet.com),
which allow students to share text, images, video, and
Page 6
annotated links to a common work area, can also be used
to employ active learning strategies in online asynchronous
classes. As with portfolios, brainstorming tools require
choice and agency of students and are typically intrinsically
motivating. They can also be used to encourage students to
distinguish between evidence and inference. For example,
an instructor in a botany course during a lesson on bacterial
and viral infections might set up a Padlet workspace with two
headings, one on each side of the screen: bacteria and virus.
Under each heading, students could be asked to describe
traits of bacterial and viral infections in a given plant type—in
other words, to provide evidence, not mere inference. Over
a period of days or a week, students might post textual
descriptions, images, video descriptions, or annotated
links to esh out the traits on each side of the workspace.
The instructor can then wrap up the activity by asking
students to compare and contrast the two infection types, to
identify distinctions, and to draw some conclusions. In this
asynchronous activity, students are meaningfully interacting
by classifying traits of two infection types, nding and sharing
evidence and resources, and then are reecting on what the
similarities and differences mean.
Example Three: Role Playing with Reection
In courses where key people or roles are being studied, such
as history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, or world culture
courses, students can use educational technologies that
allow for role-playing. One engaging example is Fakebook
(http://www.classtools.net/FB/home-page), an educational
slant on the popular social media platform Facebook. For
example, in a course where students are studying various
theories, students might be asked to create Fakebook
pages for specic theorists. Students would meaningfully
interact by constructing the social identity of the theorist,
including a representative image, a list of “friends,” an “about
me” prole, key quotations, and status updates where the
student-as-theorist responds to a current event or news item
in character. To generate this content, students would need to
gather information and evidence about the person. Students
would also need to engage in critical thinking and reection
in order to create the thoughts and words of the person being
studied. Furthering the reection, students can also interact
with each other on their Fakebook pages. Students can be
asked to stay in-role and consider whether their assigned
theorist would “like” a quote by another competing theorist.
In their Fakebook roles, they might be asked to engage in
debates and discussions about given links, memes, topics,
or ideas. Instructors can also ask students to reect on their
own or other students’ pages, and to consider how these
live (yet asynchronous) interactions reect their changing
understanding of the people and ideas being studied.
A Few Cautions about Web-Based Tools External to
the Learning Management System
Thousands of web-based tools that promote active learning
are available and their numbers are growing. A few cautions
instructors would be wise to keep in mind:
• Choose a tool with a track record to guard against it
disappearing mid-term. Choose tools that have been
around for a while and have a strong reputation for
reliability.
• Pick only one or two tools to use in a given term or
course. There is a learning curve for each new tool, and
you do not want to detract unnecessarily from the time
students spend on coursework.
• Free web-based tools often do not have strong tech
support systems. If your institution has an instructional
design unit or an academic technology unit, you may be
able to get some support there. However, you should
be prepared to support students in the use of the
web-based tools chosen. Practice with the tool before
introducing it in a class setting and only include it in your
course if you feel condent that you know how to use it.
• Ease your students into the use of the tool. Start with low
or no stakes introductory tasks before working up to any
high stakes projects or assessments.
• Vet tools to ensure they meet accessibility standards,
particularly for students with sensory disabilities. Your
institution’s disability services unit may be able to offer
guidance if you are unsure, and resources such as
Coombs (2010) and Moore (2014) offer specic guidance
for instructors designing online courses. Widely held
as the most authoritative source on accessibility, the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) offers Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) including technical
standards and guidance about how to meet them
(https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag).
• Have a backup plan in place in case something goes
wrong with the tool. For example, instead of a prole
posted on a Fakebook, a student could create a web
page using Weebly (http://www.weebly.com/), or a Word
document containing the same information.
• Ensure FERPA compliance by not labeling public web
spaces with anything that identies the space as part of
a class, by not posting publicly anything that resembles
a class roster, and allowing students to use pseudonyms
or nicknames instead of their full legal names. The U.S.
Department of Education offers a detailed overview
of FERPA (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/
ferpa/index.html) including an animated video (ht tp s: //
youtu.be/nhlDkS8hvMU). Ramirez (2009) also offers
a comprehensive, and simplied, overview. Additional
information about FERPA can be found at individual
state government websites, and from higher education
institutions, often through registrars’ ofces.
• Ensure student safety. If students have safety concerns
about posting their names, images, or other materials
online (such as students who may have issues with
stalkers or abuse), provide alternate assignments that
are private and within the LMS.
Approach 3: Re-Imagine LMS Discussion
Boards as Interactive Spaces
Many LMS tools are primarily used for presenting content,
but instructors can also create active learning opportunities
Page 7
within the LMS itself. One of the most promising tools for
active learning in the asynchronous online course is the
discussion board. A well-designed and well-facilitated
discussion board can be a rich space for active learning.
While discussion boards seem promising at rst, many online
instructors nd that online discussions fall short, failing to
reach the depth and breadth covered in live, face-to-face
class discussions. At least partially at fault is ineffective
question design. One of the most common question formats
for online asynchronous discussions is for instructors to pose
a question or brief list of questions, and then to ask students
to rst reply to the question(s) provided and then to return
later to reply to the responses of two peers. At rst glance,
this question structure seems adequate. After all, students
are being asked to engage with the content, and with each
other, and the instructor has the opportunity to mediate the
discussion.
The design faults of this learning activity, however, become
rapidly apparent re-imagined in a face-to-face environment.
Imagine a face-to-face course where the instructor poses
one question, and then goes around the room and asks every
individual student to reply to it. After just a few replies, there
would be little of value left to add. Further imagine that the
instructor went around the room again, asking each student
to remark on two other students’ already-repetitive and
tiresome answers. When asked to line up and answer in this
manner, very little is said—and in great, repetitive volume. In
the online asynchronous class, this sort of discussion activity
masquerades as an active learning strategy, but it falls short
of the goals of requiring meaningful action and reection.
At its core, the “line up and answer” model is an instructor-
centered model. The instructor’s question is center-stage,
and thus students are often instructor-facing in their
responses. Because online discussions are typically graded,
instructors can tend to design online discussions like
exams, where everyone answers the same question and is
assessed based on the correctness and completeness of the
response. When designing a discussion board activity, it is
important to remember that discussions are not exams and
the correctness of each person’s response is not the point.
The point of discussion should be conversation, analysis,
debate, illustration, application, synthesis, and reection.
Discussions should not be limited to interaction between
the instructor and each individual student in turn, but rather
should take place among all of the students as a group,
and then be led, guided, or facilitated by the instructor. The
conversation produced should not be narrow and shallow, but
rather expansive, wide, and deep. The assessment should not
be based on the correctness of each response, but rather on
effort, engagement, and participation, which admittedly are
more difcult to assess. The value is the conversation as a
whole, not the individual posts.
In order to make the most of this promising LMS tool, it is
important to recognize rst that the discussion board is
capable of supporting far more than simple asynchronous
text-based discussion. A better name for this LMS tool might
be “Interactive Space,” or “Engagement Forum.” Perhaps
nomenclature that invites a broader concept of how the
space can be used would help it be used more fully.
Following are several examples of discussion board activities
that successfully adopt an active learning pedagogy. Again,
these examples are not an exhaustive list. The possibilities
are endless, if online instructors can imagine the discussion
board more broadly.
Example One: Discussion Board as Presentation
Space
Many instructors new to online course design and teaching
nd it difcult to imagine adapting in-class presentations to
the online, asynchronous format. Indeed, live presentations
where students prepare their speech and visuals in advance,
present to their peers and instructor, and then respond to
questions or critique are engaging learning experiences that
students remember and value for the long-term.
Online instructors must realize that discussion boards are
more than just places where students can share text with the
whole class. Students can share links to media content they
have created and les of most types. Many LMSs even have
built-in web-based media creation tools that allow students
to easily post video content they create using web-cams, with
no extra software or account creation required. These media-
rich tools can be used in the context of discussion, but they
can also be used more formally for presentations. The use of
external media-rich software can also be used in formal and
informal presentations, including such tools as VoiceThread
(https://voicethread.com/), FlipGrid (http://info.ipgrid.com/)
and YouSeeU (http://www.youseeu.com/). In smaller class
sizes, all students can be asked to present in a given week or
module. In classes with larger enrollments, students can sign
up for presentations in given weeks and the class can view
several each week. Presentations can be made by individual
students or by groups of students.
Instead of starting with a discussion question, instructors can
introduce the space with assignment directions, outlining the
objectives and requirements, and perhaps even posting the
rubric that will be used to assess presentations. Students
can be provided with these directions in advance, and
then the space can be opened for student use once the
presentation period of time has arrived.
Students might record a simple video of themselves
presenting on an assigned topic. Or, they might post a link to
a voiced-over visual presentation such as a slide deck or a
selection of images. They might be asked to create and post
a graph or other visual, and then a video or audio recording of
themselves explaining it. This kind of post can also be used
for students to introduce themselves to each other at the
beginning of the term. Having students review and analyze
their own video recordings is an effective means of fostering
reection. For instance, students in a public speaking class
can be asked to engage in metacognitive reection by
Page 8
analyzing their verbal and nonverbal communication, and
then asked to engage in transformative reection by imaging
alternative communication strategies or techniques, perhaps
even posting a revised presentation video exemplifying those
new techniques in action.
As in traditional classroom presentations, there can also
be requirements for other students to view, respond, and
ask questions of the presenter. A typical setup might
include a requirement that the presenting student post
the presentation on the weekend, that the class view the
presentation during the rst half of the week, and post a
comment or question by Wednesday. The presenter student
would then need to return later in the week to respond to
comments and questions.
To complete the active learning sequence, instructors can
invite reection in a whole-class discussion, or require
students to reect individually on what they have learned.
Example Two: Discussion Board as Gallery and
Reection Space
In addition to video, learning activities built around still
images can also be engaging. Again, instead of a standard
text-based discussion question, instructors can improve
engagement and motivation by asking students to post a
digital or digitized piece of art relating to a topic and then
to reect on what the creative work means or signies.
The online discussion board then becomes a gallery and
reection space. Some examples:
• Ask students to use an online meme generator such as
Meme Generator (https://imgip.com/memegenerator)
or Meme Creator (http://www.memecreator.org/create)
to create a meme that relates to a topic of study, a book
the class read, a philosophical movement, a period of or
person from history. Students post the meme and then
either reect on their own meme or on others that have
been posted, exploring what the meme signies about
the topic being represented. With instructor guidance,
themes can be identied, assumptions revealed, and,
perhaps, beliefs re-thought.
• Ask students to enter some key words about a given
topic in the photo search box at FlickrPoet (http://www.
storiesinight.com/ickrpoet/). Share a screenshot of
the photos the search yields, and then describe how the
images might represent the concept being studied, using
description, simile, and/or metaphor.
• Ask students to create a collage, take a photo, or create
a sketch that relates to a topic of study, share a digitized
version of it, and then explain the relationship of the
creative work to the topic being studied.
Using the discussion board as a gallery for meaningful
visuals heightens the engagement of the space. Instead of
moving between textual readings and textual commentary
on questions, students must engage with images and think
more creatively and authentically about the topics at hand.
Rote copy-paste-post routines are interrupted. Students must
digest content and formulate their own images and words
to express their thinking, thereby performing meaningful
actions. Reection assignments can be designed based
on activities using visual images, taking advantage of the
emotionally provocative nature of the visuals. For example,
instructors can encourage better content reection skills by
asking students to document emotional reactions to images,
and then to analyze how those emotions shape their thoughts
and beliefs. Reection can be extended by asking students to
imagine other possible emotional responses and to discuss
other thoughts and beliefs that might be shaped by those
different emotional responses.
Example Three: Discussion Board as Work Space
Instead of using discussion boards for textual class
discussion, students can use these spaces as work and
collaboration spaces. Especially effective for these purposes
are small group discussion boards, which can serve as break
out areas for select class members to work outside of the
view of the entire class. Here are some potential examples for
break out groups:
• Ask students to utilize small group discussion areas to
work on math problem sets and then come back to the
whole-class discussion board to present solutions.
• Ask students to engage in small group discussion areas
to work on creating or cleaning up data sets and then
come back to the whole-class area to present and to
compare and contrast results.
• Ask students to use small group discussion areas to
de-bug computer code and have them come back to the
whole-class area to share the de-bugged code and to
discuss the strategies and methods they used.
Using a combination of small-group and whole-class
discussion boards as work and reection spaces is an
effective means of avoiding the ineffective line up and
answer model of asynchronous discussion and is an effective
means of employing active learning pedagogy, including both
meaningful action and reection. Using the asynchronous
small-group discussion space as a work space helps students
engage in meaningful action involving their topic (group
problem solving) and provides a record of work that can
then be drawn upon for evidence when paired with reection
assignments. This format can also offer a modied version
of the think-pair-share activity that we discussed at the
beginning of the paper.
These few examples demonstrate how discussion board
spaces can actually be a platform for far more than text-
based discussion. They can be the heart of the online
classroom, where rich and varied forms of engaged and
active learning occur.
Conclusion
Active learning strategies have been increasing and enjoying
greater acceptance over time in traditional face-to-face
classroom environments. While active learning pedagogy can
seem more challenging to employ in the online asynchronous
Page 9
class, efforts to do so are worthwhile. Instructional design
support and robust training workshops for online instructors
can help active learning gain as strong a foothold in the
online asynchronous classroom space as it enjoys in the face-
to-face environment.
Importantly, the adult learners who gravitate to asynchronous
online courses and programs may have even greater need
and desire for active learning because they tend to be older,
non-traditional students who expect—and demand—to have
more agency in their own learning. These adult students differ
from traditional campus-based students not only in age; they
are also more likely to be funding their own educations and
therefore approach their educations as savvy and selective
consumers, empowered to seek educational opportunity
elsewhere in the crowded higher education marketplace.
Online learning, though well-established, increasingly sought-
after by students, and identied by leaders of institutions
of higher learning as critical for their futures, still suffers
from misconceptions about quality, with many considering
it a second-best alternative to face-to-face instruction.
With well-designed courses that incorporate intentional
student-centered pedagogies such as active learning, online
asynchronous learning can be as good as, and in many cases
even better, than face-to-face instruction.
Active learning is widely understood to be effective,
specically in helping students retain new information
better and longer, addressing fundamental misconceptions,
improving engagement, and in producing more positive
attitudes about the learning experience (Prince, 2004;
Michael, 2006). Creating active learning opportunities for
asynchronous online environments will help to ensure that all
students are engaged in their learning and reecting on their
learning experiences. While there are complex challenges in
designing an asynchronous online course to employ active
learning pedagogy, the strategies presented in this paper can
help instructors create asynchronous online environments
where students can enjoy the benets of active learning so
that institutions of higher learning can deliver high quality
educational experiences and achieve their core missions of
transforming students and the world—not only in their face-to-
face classes, but in their online classes, as well.
Shannon A. Riggs earned a B.A. in English from Oregon
State University and an M.A. in Professional Writing from
Old Dominion University. She began her career in higher
education teaching writing in face-to-face, hybrid, and online
modalities. A passion for online education and course design
led to opportunities in faculty development and support,
and then to instructional design. Shannon has been working
in online higher education since 2001 and currently leads
a highly creative team of instructional designers, trainers,
and media developers as the Ecampus Director of Course
Development and Training at Oregon State University.
Dr. Kathryn (Katie) Linder is the research director for
Ecampus at Oregon State University where she helps make
research actionable through the creation of evidence-based
resources related to effective online teaching, learning, and
program administration. She is the author of The Blended
Course Design Workbook: A Practical Guide (Stylus, 2016)
and the host of the Research in Action podcast, produced
by Oregon State Ecampus. Some of her more recent journal
publications can be found in Innovative Higher Education and
the Journal of Open, Distance, and e-Learning. She earned
her B.A. in English Literature and Creative Writing from
Whitworth University and her M.A. and Ph.D. in Women’s
Studies from The Ohio State University.
Page 10
References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online Report
Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey
Research Group and Quahog Research Group.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating
online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI:
Atwood Publishing.
Coombs, N. (2010). Making online teaching accessible: inclusive
course design for students with disabilities. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for Facilitating Student Reection.
College Teaching, 57(1), 15-22. doi:10.3200/ctch.57.1.15-22
Meyer, K.A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The
role of time and higher-order thinking. JALN, 7(3), 55-65.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works?
Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167.
Millis, B. (2012). Active learning strategies in face-to-face courses
(IDEA Paper 53). Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.
Moore, E.A. (2014). Improve accessibility in tomorrow’s online courses
by leveraging yesterday’s techniques. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/improve-
accessibility-tomorrows-online-courses-leveraging-yesterdays-
techniques/
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the
research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Quality Matters. (2014). Quality Matters higher education rubric
workbook: Design standards for online and blended courses (5th ed.).
Annapolis, MD: MarylandOnline, Inc.
Ramirez, C.A. (2009). FERPA clear and simple: The college
professional’s guide to compliance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ruhl, K., Hughes, C., & Schloss, P. (1987). Using the pause procedure
to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education,
10(1), 14-18.
Our research and publications, which benet the higher education community, are supported by
charitable contributions like yours. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to IDEA to
sustain our research now and into the future.
301 South Fourth St., Suite 200
Manhattan, KS 66502-6209
E: info@IDEAedu.org
IDEAedu.org
T: 800.255.2757
T: 785.320.2400
