Regular and Substantive interaction (RSI)

Reviewing online courses for RSI compliance can be challenging. Faculty employ varied strategies throughout the semester, some easily reviewed in the LMS, others requiring faculty to walk you through their communication approaches and student interactions.

Institutions demonstrate RSI through artifacts showing instructor-initiated, academically focused engagement. Common sources include:

• Syllabus — Communication plans, interaction expectations, policy statements
• Gradebook & Feedback Records — Personalized comments on student work
• Discussion Forums — Substantive instructor replies to students
• Announcements & Messaging — Instructional clarifications, topic extensions
• Synchronous Sessions — Virtual office hours, review sessions, and recorded lectures with follow-up interaction
• LMS Analytics — Reports showing patterns of instructor-student engagement

Documentation Tip: Capture screenshots, exportable reports, feedback copies, or session links paired with brief descriptions of instructional purposes.

Key Distinction: RSI requires the instructor to actively engage in teaching or assessing students. Passive content delivery without documented opportunities for meaningful interaction constitutes correspondence-style learning.

RSI compliance standards provided a crucial foundation for effective distance-education. At a minimum, institutions must show consistent (regular), instructor-initiated engagement that supports student learning and academic progress (substantive). Meeting these basic requirements is vital for regulatory compliance, accrediation standards, and eligibility for federal financial aid. However, compliance should not be the ultimate goal. Institutions dedicated to instructional excellence should consider RSI as a starting point rather than the highest standard for quality online education.

Institutions are responsible for establishing policies that define RSI expectations, communicating those expectations to faculty, and maintaining processes to ensure ongoing compliance. Typical practices include new and ongoing faculty training, peer or instructional design reviews of online courses, periodic audits of LMS shells, and targeted support for high-risk or high-enrollment courses.

LMS and related technologies (virtual classroom tools, analytics dashboards, communication platforms) play a central role in tracking and documenting interaction patterns over time. Institutions can leverage LMS reports and integrated tools to provide data that support faculty with RSI strategies, assess whether RSI compliance is met, and verify that planned interaction strategies are actually implemented. The LMS may also provide archived evidence for internal and external reviews (Georgia Highlands College, 2024; SUNY Online, 2022).

Evaluators should use structured rubrics or checklists that align with federal RSI characteristics (instructor-initiated, regular/predictable, and substantive) and with institutional policy. These tools can guide reviewers to look for clear evidence across the syllabus, LMS modules, communication tools, and assessment design that at least two forms of substantive interaction are present and auditable.

Within these instruments, label elements that are required for compliance (e.g., documented plans for instructor-initiated interactions and timely feedback) versus recommended enhancements that support quality but are not mandated (e.g., multiple communication channels or optional enrichment sessions). This distinction enables evaluators to provide precise feedback, prioritize risk-mitigating changes, and still encourage continuous improvement beyond the minimum standard.

When evaluations identify gaps in interaction between instructors and students, course-level changes can be made to intentionally increase opportunities for instructor–student engagement throughout the term. Course design strategies include breaking high-stakes projects or papers into smaller milestones (e.g., proposal, outline, draft, revision) so that students receive formative, instructor-provided feedback they can use to improve before submitting the final work. This structure generates multiple touchpoints for substantive interaction and creates a clearer evidence trail in the LMS through iterative submissions and feedback artifacts.

From a course delivery perspective, a clear and transparent instructor communication plan helps students know when and how interaction will occur. The plan should go beyond listing office hours and contact information to specify expected response times to messages, how frequently the instructor will post class announcements, typical turnaround times for grading and feedback, and the channels through which feedback will be delivered (e.g., rubrics, inline comments, audio/video feedback, conferences, etc.). Publishing this plan in the syllabus and LMS, and then consistently following it, supports student success and provides documented evidence that regular, predictable, and substantive interaction is occurring as designed.

To sustain and strengthen RSI over time, interaction practices are regularly examined and refined rather than treated as a one-time design decision. Ongoing attention to evidence, student perspectives, and shared expertise helps ensure that interaction remains effective and aligned with evolving standards for quality online teaching.

• Regular Review & Refinement of Interaction Strategies — Instructors and reviewers periodically examine course shells, LMS activity, and sample interactions (e.g., announcements, discussions, and feedback) to determine how well current approaches support engagement and learning. Findings from these reviews inform concrete adjustments in subsequent offerings, such as revising prompts, redistributing touchpoints, or altering feedback methods.
• Collection & Application of Student Feedback — Student perceptions of the clarity, usefulness, and timing of instructor interaction are gathered through surveys, check-ins, or course evaluations. This feedback is then intentionally applied to adjust communication patterns, feedback approaches, and opportunities for connection so that RSI remains responsive and learner-centered.
• Sharing of Effective Practices Across Faculty & Programs — Effective RSI examples, including model announcements, discussion facilitation techniques, feedback samples, and communication plans, are shared in workshops, faculty learning communities, and resource repositories. This collaborative exchange builds a common understanding of quality interaction and reduces variability in the student experience across sections and programs.
• Alignment with Emerging Research & Best Practices — RSI expectations, review tools, and professional development offerings are periodically updated to reflect current research, accreditation guidance, and recognized quality frameworks (e.g., Quality Matters, Universal Design for Learning, evidence-based online teaching). This alignment ensures that interaction strategies are both compliant and pedagogically current, reinforcing a culture of continuous improvement.