Setting Expectations for Discussions and Journals

What students experience

Discussions and journals depend on unwritten rules more than any other assignment type. An instructor who has read thousands of posts knows what a good one looks like, so a prompt such as “post your thoughts and respond to two classmates” feels complete. To a student, it leaves most of the assignment undefined.

This affects every student. Some skim the instructions and miss a detail that is there. Others read every word and still cannot find the expectation, because it was never written down. Multilingual learners are often in the second group, and they may also be working from classroom conventions learned in a different educational system.

These are the questions students most often cannot answer from the prompt:

Expectations about disagreement, self-disclosure, and how to address an instructor differ between educational systems. The CCCC statement asks instructors to check their assignments for unstated cultural assumptions, and it notes that topics drawing on personal experience can be sensitive for some students. In every case, the practical response is to state the expectation.

Eight practices

1. Say what the activity is for

   One sentence is enough. “This discussion gives you practice explaining an idea from the reading to other people.”

2. Say who will read it

   Students write differently for the whole class than for one instructor. For a journal, say plainly whether anyone but you will see it.

3. Describe the style you expect

   State whether you want complete sentences, whether “I” is acceptable, and whether sources are needed. “Be professional” and “use netiquette” do not answer these questions.

4. Define a reply

   Give a length and say what a reply must do: answer a classmate’s question, add an example, or explain a different view with a reason. Say that “I agree” alone does not count.

5. Say that disagreement is welcome, and show how

   A student who was taught not to contradict a classmate or an instructor may need explicit permission. Give them wording: “I see this differently because …”

6. Say how language is graded

   Decide how much sentence-level accuracy counts in low-stakes writing, and state it either way. A student who does not know may assume that every error costs points, and write less.

7. Show an annotated model

   One model post with notes shows length, style, and depth faster than a paragraph of description. The transparency framework treats annotated examples as part of the criteria (Winkelmes et al., 2016).

8. Offer an alternative to personal topics

   When a prompt asks about family, background, or personal difficulty, give a second option that does not, as the CCCC statement recommends.

Before and after

Both versions describe the same discussion. The second matches the example on the paired student page.

What changed

• “Your thoughts” became one question with two parts.
• “Thoughtful” became a length, a reason, and an example.
• “Respond” became a definition of a reply.
• “Netiquette” became two concrete expectations: a style, and a way to disagree.
• The grading of language is stated. The line shown is one possible policy. Use your own.

Wording you can copy

Replace the text in brackets.

For journals and reflections

For discussions, in place of “netiquette”

Links for students

Three student pages pair with this one. The first teaches the four parts of a first post and how to form an open question. The second teaches four kinds of reply and how to disagree politely. The third teaches a three-part reflection and how to move between past, present, and future. You can add these lines to a discussion or journal in Blackboard:

To draft or check a prompt of your own, use the Assignment prompt builder.

Sources

• Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2020). CCCC statement on second language writing and multilingual writers (opens in a new tab). See “Writing Assignment Design” and Part Four, “Guidelines for Teacher Preparation.”
• Winkelmes, M., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success. Peer Review, 18(1/2), 31–36.