Discussions and Strategy | University of Michigan-Flint Generative AI

Redesigning Discussions

In the age of generative AI, the traditional approach to discussion board assignments in higher education is facing a critical need for redesign. The advent of tools like ChatGPT has significantly altered the landscape of what constitutes effective and engaging assignments. On this page, we will offer strategies and examples of discussion designs that emphasize higher-order thinking skills that AI cannot easily replicate. This involves shifting from questions that ask for mere information recall to those that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Decorative image. AI generated. Computer with chat bubbles popping off of the screen.

Many students perceive discussion board assignments in online courses as “busy work” if they do not effectively foster meaningful interaction, or do not allow them to connect with their classmates in a way that feels relevant and engaging. When discussion activities are perceived as a mere box-checking exercise rather than an opportunity for genuine learning and exchange of ideas, students are less likely to invest their time and effort into crafting thoughtful responses. To counteract these issues and enhance the educational value of discussion boards, faculty can adopt more dynamic and interactive approaches.

Strategies

To ensure discussion board activities are engaging and resistant to completion by generative AI tools, consider the following strategies which aim to promote critical thinking, creativity, and personal reflection.

Incorporate Reflective Questions: Design prompts that require students to connect course material with their personal experiences or current events. Questions like “How does this concept apply to an experience you’ve had?” or “Relate a current news event to what we’ve learned this week and explain its implications” encourage unique, personalized responses that AI cannot generate.
Facilitate Peer Review and Response: Assign students to critique or build upon their peers’ arguments, analyses, or creative outputs. This not only encourages deeper engagement with the material and each other’s work but also necessitates original thought and analysis that AI tools can’t mimic.
Implement Socratic Questions: Design discussion prompts that utilize Socratic questioning techniques, asking for explanations of why a student holds a certain viewpoint, how they reconcile conflicting pieces of evidence, or what they believe are the strengths and weaknesses of a particular argument. This approach fosters critical thinking and a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
Utilize Case Studies and Problem-Based Learning: Pose complex, real-world problems for students to solve collaboratively in the discussion boards. Encourage them to apply course concepts, debate solutions, and justify their choices. This method promotes application of knowledge in new contexts, a task that requires human judgment and creativity.
Encourage Creative Outputs: Ask students to create original content that relates to course themes, such as digital art, poetry, or short stories, and share these creations on the discussion board for peer feedback. This taps into students’ creativity and personal interests, areas where AI lacks authenticity.
Debate Controversial Topics: Design discussions around controversial issues related to the course content, prompting students to take a stance, back up their positions with evidence, and respectfully challenge each other’s viewpoints. This encourages active engagement and critical analysis, pushing beyond the capabilities of AI.
Assign Research-Based Discussions: Require students to conduct research on a topic before participating in the discussion. They could be tasked with finding recent studies, news articles, or other resources that aren’t likely to be within the training data of AI tools, ensuring their contributions are current and unique.
Integrate Multimedia: Encourage students to incorporate multimedia elements into their discussion posts, such as video reflections, podcasts, or infographics they’ve created. This diversifies the types of intelligence and skills being used and evaluated in the course.

Examples

Below is an abbreviated example of a problematic discussion activity. In this example, the initial prompt could easily be entered into ChatGPT, providing the student with a sound reply–likely indistinguishable from human conversation.

Initial Activity

Discuss the differences between the biomechanical and biopsychosocial models of pain in terms of physical therapy focus for evaluation and treatment.

There are two main problems often associated with this kind of prompt.

Limited Peer Interaction: The instructions often state, “Post once, Reply twice” and as a result, the subsequent responses are rote, and easily imitated as human by a GenAI chatbot.
Vague Assessment Instructions: The grading criteria are limited, such as “Include one substantive post and two replies.” Vague directions often lead to posts requiring little more than factual recall. Again, such conversations can be easily cloned as human.

Here is how this discussion prompt and directions might be improved to generate a more human-to-human conversation.

Revised Activity

Treatment philosophies are fundamental to diverse interventions. Understanding various approaches will make you better adapt to healthcare environments and situations. Given the differences between the biomechanical and biopsychosocial models of pain, how have you seen this play out in your professional or personal experiences?

Peer Interaction

Students will be assigned partners. Question: How would you have interpreted and responded to the problem if you were in the same situation?

Rubric Assessing

The AACU provides 16 Rubric types, including the Civic Engagement VALUE Rubric posted at the top of the linked document.

Observe in this revision how the prompt could lead to many correct answers, each requiring its own subjective justifications. Also, notice how the conversation is expanded by asking students to relate their personal and professional experiences to the question. Peer interactions are encouraged by limiting the group size and by requiring students to engage in their peers’ personal experiences. Finally, detailed evaluation criteria are specified. Rubrics are modeled in detail in the examples below.

Many students perceive discussion board assignments in online courses as “busy work” if they do not effectively foster meaningful interaction, or do not allow them to connect with their classmates in a way that feels relevant and engaging. When discussion activities are perceived as a mere box-checking exercise rather than an opportunity for genuine learning and exchange of ideas, students are less likely to invest their time and effort into crafting thoughtful responses. To counteract these issues and enhance the educational value of discussion boards, faculty can adopt more dynamic and interactive approaches.

Strategies

To ensure discussion board activities are engaging and resistant to completion by generative AI tools, consider the following strategies which aim to promote critical thinking, creativity, and personal reflection.

Incorporate Reflective Questions: Design prompts that require students to connect course material with their personal experiences or current events. Questions like “How does this concept apply to an experience you’ve had?” or “Relate a current news event to what we’ve learned this week and explain its implications” encourage unique, personalized responses that AI cannot generate.
Facilitate Peer Review and Response: Assign students to critique or build upon their peers’ arguments, analyses, or creative outputs. This not only encourages deeper engagement with the material and each other’s work but also necessitates original thought and analysis that AI tools can’t mimic.
Implement Socratic Questions: Design discussion prompts that utilize Socratic questioning techniques, asking for explanations of why a student holds a certain viewpoint, how they reconcile conflicting pieces of evidence, or what they believe are the strengths and weaknesses of a particular argument. This approach fosters critical thinking and a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
Utilize Case Studies and Problem-Based Learning: Pose complex, real-world problems for students to solve collaboratively in the discussion boards. Encourage them to apply course concepts, debate solutions, and justify their choices. This method promotes application of knowledge in new contexts, a task that requires human judgment and creativity.
Encourage Creative Outputs: Ask students to create original content that relates to course themes, such as digital art, poetry, or short stories, and share these creations on the discussion board for peer feedback. This taps into students’ creativity and personal interests, areas where AI lacks authenticity.
Debate Controversial Topics: Design discussions around controversial issues related to the course content, prompting students to take a stance, back up their positions with evidence, and respectfully challenge each other’s viewpoints. This encourages active engagement and critical analysis, pushing beyond the capabilities of AI.
Assign Research-Based Discussions: Require students to conduct research on a topic before participating in the discussion. They could be tasked with finding recent studies, news articles, or other resources that aren’t likely to be within the training data of AI tools, ensuring their contributions are current and unique.
Integrate Multimedia: Encourage students to incorporate multimedia elements into their discussion posts, such as video reflections, podcasts, or infographics they’ve created. This diversifies the types of intelligence and skills being used and evaluated in the course.

Examples

Below is an abbreviated example of a problematic discussion activity. In this example, the initial prompt could easily be entered into ChatGPT, providing the student with a sound reply–likely indistinguishable from human conversation.

Initial Activity

Discuss the differences between the biomechanical and biopsychosocial models of pain in terms of physical therapy focus for evaluation and treatment.

There are two main problems often associated with this kind of prompt.

Limited Peer Interaction: The instructions often state, “Post once, Reply twice” and as a result, the subsequent responses are rote, and easily imitated as human by a GenAI chatbot.
Vague Assessment Instructions: The grading criteria are limited, such as “Include one substantive post and two replies.” Vague directions often lead to posts requiring little more than factual recall. Again, such conversations can be easily cloned as human.

Here is how this discussion prompt and directions might be improved to generate a more human-to-human conversation.

Revised Activity

Treatment philosophies are fundamental to diverse interventions. Understanding various approaches will make you better adapt to healthcare environments and situations. Given the differences between the biomechanical and biopsychosocial models of pain, how have you seen this play out in your professional or personal experiences?

Peer Interaction

Students will be assigned partners. Question: How would you have interpreted and responded to the problem if you were in the same situation?

Rubric Assessing

The AACU provides 16 Rubric types, including the Civic Engagement VALUE Rubric posted at the top of the linked document.

Observe in this revision how the prompt could lead to many correct answers, each requiring its own subjective justifications. Also, notice how the conversation is expanded by asking students to relate their personal and professional experiences to the question. Peer interactions are encouraged by limiting the group size and by requiring students to engage in their peers’ personal experiences. Finally, detailed evaluation criteria are specified. Rubrics are modeled in detail in the examples below.

Additional Suggestions

Here are more suggestions of sentences you might add to a discussion activity to encourage genuine conversations.

This class and topic involve critical thinking. You must create responses in your own words without using Generative Artificial Intelligence tools.
This discussion is designed to help you consider other perspectives.
Researching your answer will include guidance and evidentiary support for your argument.
When addressing another student’s post, challenge their assumptions, ask for clarification, or ask for evidentiary support.

In general, remind students that their responses are meant to further their thinking and understanding of a topic. A tool that short-circuits that process will be counterproductive to their learning.

As demonstrated in the examples below, incorporating small group live conversations following asynchronous discussions can enhance student-to-student engagement and instruction. Groups of 2-4 students formed around common availability can schedule sessions during mutually-convenient times, and these interactions can be beneficial in establishing teams that work throughout the semester on summative projects.

History Example: History Discussion Prompt in a Generative AI World
Nursing Example: Nursing Discussion Prompt in a Generative AI World