In the age of AI, visible participation is not the same as substantive interaction. Use this checklist to evaluate whether your online courses support regular, substantive, instructor-guided engagement that can be observed, improved, and reported.
Is it instructor-guided?
Does the instructor initiate, facilitate, respond, give feedback, or intervene?
Is it regular?
Does meaningful interaction happen throughout the course on a predictable cadence?
Is it substantive?
Does the interaction help students learn, apply, clarify, revise, discuss, or improve?
Is it observable?
Can instructors and institutions see where feedback was needed, provided, and acted on?
RSI calls out feedback on student work and facilitated discussions as primary places for substantive feedback.
That has become harder in the age of AI. Instructors are being asked to create more authentic, AI-resilient interaction which often means non-text based to combat AI use. Many do not have the time, tools, or support to redesign every discussion and assignment on their own.
For RSI, are students being guided through feedback, facilitation, clarification, correction, or timely intervention. Also ask whether your institution is giving instructors the support they need to make that interaction visible, manageable, and meaningful.
RSI expects interaction to be predictable and ongoing, but regular does not mean repeating the same discussion prompt every week. When students are always asked to do the same kind of work in the same way, participation can become mechanical and easier to delegate to AI. Motivation is one of the strongest defenses against low-effort work, and it is easier to sustain when interaction feels varied, relevant, and connected to learning.
Regular interaction should be built across the course through different kinds of activities: discussion, assignment feedback, peer review, Q&A, social annotation, and document critique. It should also give students different ways to show their thinking, including text, video, audio, images, screen share, and annotated work.
That variety supports UDL, gives instructors more authentic evidence of learning, and can make feedback more interesting and less repetitive.
For RSI, look for interaction that happens on a clear cadence, but not as a repetitive checkbox. Also ask whether instructors have the support they need to create varied, motivating, AI-resilient interaction over time.
RSI asks for interaction that supports learning, not just activity that fills space in the course. Substantive interaction should help students clarify ideas, apply concepts, revise their thinking, respond to feedback, or engage more deeply with course content.
In the age of AI, this distinction matters. A student can produce a polished-looking post or response without showing much evidence of their own thinking. That puts instructors in a frustrating position: they are asked to evaluate meaningful engagement, but the work they see may be generic, disconnected, or difficult to trust.
For RSI, look for activities that ask students to explain, apply, critique, revise, demonstrate, or reflect in ways that are AI resilient. Also ask whether instructors have the support they need to design prompts and feedback workflows that surface real student thinking, not just completed submissions.
RSI asks institutions to monitor student engagement, then ensure instructors can proactively engage.
For instructors, observability means being able to see who is participating, who is falling behind, where feedback is needed, and whether students are responding to that support. For institutions, it means being able to show that courses include predictable interaction, substantive instructor activity, and evidence of monitoring over time.
For RSI, look for whether instructors and programs can see the interaction patterns that matter: where feedback was needed, where it happened, where students disengaged, and where intervention followed.
Harmonize is built with RSI in mind and is being used by over 200 schools to better engage their students in this AI world. Instructor adoption is easy because they love the power to teach it gives them.
“Harmonize has not only impacted student-to-student interaction, but it has also opened the door for students to interact with their instructors and vice versa. Students and instructors can seamlessly carry on rich conversations about any course topic…resulting in more meaningful and engaging discussions between students and instructors.”
