Online discussions are powerful tools for supporting students’ active participation in knowledge construction. Nevertheless, it takes intentional planning to achieve desired learning outcomes from online discussions; we can’t expect meaningful dialogue to happen spontaneously in them.

Decades of research, starting with Martin Nystrand and Adam Gamoran’s (1991) work, has shown that asking ‘authentic questions’ that encourage divergent thinking rather than one right answer is the gold standard method for generating optimal discussions in face-to-face classrooms (see Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran, 2003; Bansal, 2018; Murphy, 2017; Murphy, Greene, Hendrick, Li, Montalbano, & Wei, 2018). Research along this line also noted that the quality of teacher’s questions can influence the degree to which the questions do or do not generate productive exchange of ideas/discussions in the classroom (Chin, 2006). This is certainly true for online discussions: the effectiveness of online discussions depends, in large part, on the types of questions/prompts guiding those discussions.

Crafting questions that make online discussions work is both an art and a science. It is an art because it demands creativity and imagination. It is a science because a systematic approach utilizing the frameworks for formulating good, generative questions will provide a sound structure for discussions’ design.

For faculty interested in the science of crafting effective online discussion questions ...

MDCOB's Office of Instructional Excellence created a tool – the inverted pyramid framework – that can be helpful during the question framing process. Read on to learn more!

Note: The framework is not intended to dictate a particular way of asking online discussion questions; rather it is intended to prompt faculty to think critically about the questions they pose to students in online discussions so that the time both faculty and students spend in them are more productive and satisfying.

The Inverted Pyramid for Framing Online Discussion Questions

The inverted pyramid framework (shown in figure below) is composed of four levels (Levels 1-4). The question types that make online discussions work are at the top (the widest part of the pyramid). Going down the pyramid from top to bottom, opportunities for meaningful give and take are reduced.

Each of the four levels of the pyramid are described at length below, from bottom to top.

Level 1

The bottom tier of the pyramid (the narrowest part) represents questions in search of ‘the single right answer.’ Below are two examples:

• On the basis of the information provided on page 6 of the textbook, what are the quantities of commodity X and commodity Y that the consumer must purchase and consume to maximize utility?
• Identify the three types of marketing research that Company X used in the case study we read.

Level 1 type questions do not lend themselves to meaningful discussions because once the right answer is shared, there is not much need for other answers. The resulting interactions will be so unengaging that students will check out, posting responses for the sake of meeting participation requirements.

level 2

Level 2 questions are essay-type questions that ‘test’ what students know. Here are some examples:

• What are the purposes and benefits of a flexible budget?
• Discuss 5 similarities and differences between production of goods and production of services.
• What is ethics and why is business ethics important?

While questions like these are appropriate for writing assignments (i.e., assessment situations where students are expected display their knowledge to the instructor), they do not work in online discussions simply because such questions are too thin to support interaction, reciprocal give-and-take. A characteristic of Level 2 questions is that they treat knowledge as transmittable – as something ‘out there’ to be located and repeated back. As such, they often lead students to replicate information from the course textbook, class notes, lectures, and/or online resources. When this happens in online discussions, students’ entries deteriorate into a series of highly redundant posts, boring some students and frustrating others (including the instructor).

level 3

Level 3 type questions represent explorations that are familiar. In other words, their contents are easy to relate to and/or the relationships they establish with conceptual ideas are easily understood or discovered. Examples include, but are not limited to:

Questions /prompts asking about personal experiences, preferences, or qualities, as in:

• Provide examples of fast and slow service line based on a recent experience you have had.
• What are your top 5 talents?
• How do your personal characteristics, interests, work values, and skills influence your career development?
• Tells us your favorite social media platform and why.

Questions that can be answered using common sense, personal knowledge or opinion, independent of having reviewed any course material (assigned readings, lectures, etc.) providing the new learning. Examples:

• Would you rather be an employee at will or an employee with a 2-way contract? Why?
• Should there be a law that requires companies to limit tracking of people over the age of 13?
• Are contracts enforceable, or can you get easily out of a contract?

While Level 3 questions might elicit reciprocal, back-and-forth interactions, the conversations that result may be quite different from the ones intended by the instructors, in terms of their teaching and learning value.

LEVEL 4

The wide opening at the top of the pyramid represents Level 4 questions – the desired state for online discussion questions. Level 4 questions explore differing understandings. They do not have definite answers or focus attention on easily understood relationships. Rather, they provide room for the kinds of mental stretching that accompany the new learning: figuring things out, sense making, mapping uncertainties, looking back and ahead, problematizing, questioning, etc.

There is no specific formula for creating Level 4 type questions. Examples include but are not limited to:

• What seems confusing to you about ________? What did you not understand? What are you unsure of?
• What would you like to know more about ______________?
• What are some ways you react to _____________? What are your agreements, disagreements, and/or questions?
• How does what we have read about _______ make you think differently about _______?
• Share one quotation you found interesting from the reading. What comment or reaction did you have to this quote?
• What did you learn about ________ you did not know before?
• After reading about ______, how would you have handled ___________?
• After learning about _____, what criteria will you use to ____________?
• What if ____________. What would you be cognizant of being a potential issue?

Notice these questions are not asking students to state what is in the textbook/lectures or what is already in their experience or belief systems. They also do not ask students to replicate the single right answer or a small range of responses the instructor wants. Rather, these types of questions prompt students to turn their thinking inward – to explore and question the new learning (Langer, 1991). As such, they often lead to genuine exploration of ideas and development of understanding.

Owing to their highly open-ended nature and focus on exploring differing understandings, no two responses to a Level 4 question will be alike. Therefore, the resulting conversations will not end up being repetitive and ritualistic. When this happens, students’ interest in both the topic and the ensuing conversations will be invigorated.

Conclusion

Asking the right questions that make online discussions work is more complicated to accomplish than it might seem. Of course, what constitutes ‘right’ is a controversial matter. But there are good reasons to conclude that while the ‘right’ type of discussion questions have to do with the discipline, there are considerations that have to be thought of when framing online discussion questions. This piece suggests that the key consideration is to devise questions that are representative of Level 4 of the inverted pyramid (provided above). Another key consideration is to keep the prompts simple, not complex like mini-essay questions, so that they can generate and sustain dialogue as opposed to everyone taking turns saying something but there is no give and take or real conversation.

References:

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730.

Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: Conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891-1912.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346.

Langer, J.A. (1991). Literacy and schooling: A sociocognitive perspective. In Hiebert, E. (Ed.) Literacy for a diverse society. NY: Teachers College Press, 9-27.

Murphy, K. P., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B. D., Li, M., Montalbano, C., & Wei, L. (2018). Quality talk: Developing students’ discourse to promote high-level comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1113-1160.

Murphy, K. P. (2017). Classroom discussions in education. New York: Routledge.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261-290.