An overview of popular discussion and collaboration platforms like Canvas Discussions, Google Docs, Harmonize, and Hypothes.is. Review each tool's description, intro videos, pros, and cons to understand its ideal classroom application. Note: A detailed matrix comparing the functional capabilities of the top online discussion tools is available on the Online Discussion Tools Feature Matrix page.
| Discussion Tool / Intro Videos | Description |
|---|---|
|
Canvas Discussion board (asynchronous) Canvas Discussions Video (existing tool) |
A basic discussion board available in Canvas. Pros: Can assign Canvas grade for each discussion, no additional setup required/students are familiar, can embed media, can do anonymous discussions Cons: Deep threads can be hard to manage with larger classes |
| Google Docs (semi-synchronous) |
An online document where students can collaborate in real time or asynchronously. Pros: Good for having students discuss a text, users can tag one another Cons: Can be overwhelming to navigate all the comments |
|
Harmonize (on Canvas) (LSA) |
A tool with discussion boards, Q&A boards, and integrated IM chat. (Set up as a Canvas tool) (Visit Harmonize Resource Guides) Pros: Integration with Canvas and Zoom, Video annotation, Image annotation, Q&A tool, Polling, chat, auto grading and many social-media style aspects such as likes and tagging in Q&A. Cons: Pinning of specific discussions is still in exploration. |
|
An e-reader that allows students to have discussions around specific texts or websites. (External tool assignment.) Pros: Integration with Canvas, instructors can pull PDF files from Drive, a URL, or Canvas. See here for more. Cons: Student work can't be assessed within the tool. |
|
|
A discussion board organized into post-it note style blocks. Pros: Visually appealing and easy to set up/use Cons: Can only have five boards with a free account, no U-M FERPA agreement in place |
|
|
A social e-reader that allows students to have discussions around specific texts, websites, videos. (Set up via Canvas.) Pros: Integration with Canvas, texts are integrated into the tool, automatic grading feature, multimodal assignments, peer review, 1:1 Chat, and offers accessibility tools. Cons: Replies can be hard to keep track of. |
|
|
A discussion and Q/A forum where students and instructors can pose and respond to questions. (Set up as a Canvas tool.) Pros: Searchable/taggable content, integration with Canvas, instructors can save drafts for content, immediate emails Cons: Mostly geared for student-student answering questions, grading can be difficult with large courses |
|
|
Slack (synchronous and asynchronous) Canvas integration available |
A collaboration tool that enhances workgroup communications. Pros: A searchable platform for individuals and groups to chat in real-time, ability to share content, and keep conversations organized and accessible from anywhere, anytime. Cons: No discussion analytics available |
|
A list-making application that can be repurposed for discussions. Pros: Color coding and content can be easily sorted and moved Cons: Trello is not natively set up for discussions, cannot do threaded discussions, no U-M FERPA agreement in place |
|
|
YellowDig (LSA, Ross) |
A social-media like discussion board. Pros: Better threaded discussions, familiar interface for students (social media) Cons: Not licensed by the entire university (but there is a 6 month free license) |