I am writing this blog based on the entries posted in the discussion forum in our Substantive Interaction online training course. Many of you have expressed student disengagement in active discussion boards after they have met the minimum requirement of an original post and two replies, for example. I am not providing a solution; however, I am offering things to consider as you create learning activities.

Questions to consider as you design your discussion board activities:
- Do you begin with the end in mind?
- Do you create your topics before you decide on the specific, measurable goals?
Questions that may be relevant for assessing the students and if you are trying to determine why they are disengaging:
- Did they meet the specific, measurable goal for the activity?
- Did your students get what you wanted them to get from the activity?
- If your students are not getting what you want them to get out of the activity, can you reword the question(s) or provide additional context like personal experience?
If you are unfamiliar with social constructivism theory, the emphasis is on either creating meaning from experience or through interaction with others. You provide guidance through examples and personal experience and, if the students see your engagement, they can trust that you care about ongoing collaboration with their classmates. Your students may know the value of the learning activity if they see the authenticity in your feedback; therefore, reversing sedentary behavior in the active discussion board.

You have established the minimum effort to construct the bridge (scaffold) to the next learning activity through your requirements and assessment technique, whether that is a rubric, word count, citing a professional source, or a number of original posts and replies. However, maybe some students view peer input as less capable than instructor feedback; therefore, they opt to no longer participate in ongoing discussions with classmates. Your goal could be to engage them in an ongoing discussion as the more experienced or proficient peer and challenge them to contribute and socially construct the collective knowledge of the class.

Additional considerations may be the timeliness of feedback and if the input is efficiently engaging. A solution to enhance engagement could be to provide specific feedback on how to achieve the goal and clear suggestions for improvement. Valerie Shute (2008) suggests the following guidelines for feedback:
Provide immediate feedback when:
• Immediate gain is desired
• The task is complicated
• The task requires motor skills
• The task requires retention of procedural or conceptual knowledge
• Learners are low achievers
Provide delayed feedback when:
• When the aim is a better transfer of learning
• The task is relatively simple
• Learners are high achievers
So, why are students disengaging and how do we reverse the sedentary behavior in ongoing learning activities? There is plenty of research and theory on student engagement in distance education and, as an educational institution, we need to challenge every student to have an active role in his or her development.
Please comment and collaborate with your peers if you have additional design ideas or practices for creative activities.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 153-189.
Aaron Sunday
Instructional Designer
aaron.sunday@daytonastate.edu | 386-506-3209