Discussion Checkpoints Now Available at the Sub-Account Level

[SamGarza1]

Discussion Checkpoints have marked an exciting step forward in how instructors can guide, manage, and assess student engagement within Canvas Discussions. By enabling multiple due dates and reply requirements, this tool provides a more structured approach to asynchronous dialogue—ideal for encouraging thoughtful participation over time rather than one-off contributions.

When we released Discussion Checkpoints earlier this year, institutions were able to control its functionality via the “Discussion Checkpoints” feature option at the root account level. While this offered some flexibility and control to institutions, we’ve heard the need to have even more granularity for individual groups or departments. 

Starting April 9, 2025, Discussion Checkpoints will have expanded flexibility with a new feature flag setting at the sub-account levels. Previously managed only at the root account level, this update allows admins to enable the feature more precisely within specific sub-accounts, giving institutions greater control over its rollout. This change ensures that different departments or programs can adopt Discussion Checkpoints at their own pace while maintaining overall administrative oversight. This feature is currently hidden behind a feature flag. If your institution is interested in enabling this feature, please contact your Customer Success Manager (CSM).

[ProfessorBeyrer]

This is great news, @SamGarza1 . I hope that the conflict between discussion checkpoints and group discussions is resolved soon. I'm excited about using this in my classes but divide my classes into groups so my students have a more manageable community of fellow scholars to discourse with.

[AmberBSmith83]

I think this will be an excellent tool for us. 👥 It will help me with multiple things

[jorgen_ivarsson]

Hi @SamGarza1!
I'm a bit confused about the function Graded checkpoints and its relation to the function Peer review in Discussions. They seem to be somewhat overlapping in features. In both cases, students are supposed to give each other feedback. However, they differ in a somewhat peculiar way when it comes to the possible settings and functions. When looking at the settings a teacher can set:

Peer review: Number of replies, submission date, date for reply, automatic or manual assignment (to whom the feedback is given).

Graded checkpoints: Number of replies, submission date, date for reply, and points for main post and reply.

The difference between these two functions is whether you can assign who the student gives their reply to (peer review), or in the other function (checkpoints), whether the student should get points for their reply.

Both functions can be activated for the same assignment, but they still don't seem to work together. If both are activated, only Graded checkpoints work. Peer Review does not work, and there is no automatic assignment of reviewers.

So, I’m wondering how these two features are supposed to be related. Could you please explain the design thinking behind these two almost overlapping features? If they are planned to work in conjunction with each other, then it’s not working. If they are two separate features that have no relation and are not supposed to work in conjunction, then one should be impossible to activate if the other feature is activated. In any case, I think we would like to have some guidance on when to use and not to use these two similar functions.