Correlating Outcomes of QM Standard 5.2 in

Asynchronous Discussions

Barbara M. Hall, PhD Assistant Professor & Research Fellow

College of Education Ashford University

@BarbMHall

• Distinguish interaction and intersubjectivity

• Justify intersubjectivity as an outcome of QM 5.2

• Generate applications of intersubjectivity beyond QM5.2

Clipart from Microsoft Office

A Contrast

Interaction = Process

Ph

oto

by Fra

ncesco

Ma

rino

Intersubjectivity = Product

Gra

ph

ic b

y js

crea

tio

nzs

4

Quality Matters (QM). (2011). The Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric (2011-2013 Edition). Retrieved from http://www.qmprogram.org/files/QM_Standards_2011-2013.pdf

• National benchmark for online course design

• Rubric for applying quality standards to online course design

• Certified Peer Reviewer

• Other folks present with any of the QM certifications?

(QM, 2011, p. 13)

“Forms of interaction incorporated in the course motivate students and promote learning”

Learner – Content

Learner – Technology

Learner – Instructor

Learner – Learner

All clipart from Microsoft Office

(QM, 2011, p. 14)

“Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning”

(QM, 2011, p. 13)

“active learning involves students engaging by ‘doing’ something, such as discovering, processing, or applying concepts and information”

Gunawardena, C. N., Anderson, T., & Lowe, C. A. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining the social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395-429. Retrieved from http://baywoodjournals.com/index.php/OJS

Creating

Evaluating

Analyzing

Applying

Understanding

Remembering

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman.

• Intersubjectivity • Cognitive requirement of the prompt • Time in course • Number of words in peer response • Number of citations in peer response • Final course grade

Peer Interactions within Threaded Discussions

Discussion Prompt

Initial Post

Peer Response

Research Says…

Distinct presentations

(Henri, 1995)

Serial monologues

(Pawan et al., 2003)

Superficial postings (Ke, 2010)

Consecutive online notes

(Hewitt, 2005)

Unproductive communication (Oliver & McLoughlin,

2001)

Egocentric (Järvelä & Häkkinen,

2002)

Dessicated discussions

(Kanuka et al., 2007)

Illusion of participation

(Wickersham & Dooley, 2006)

65% of students “insufficient value”

(Chang, 2003)

• Seven sections of an entirely online undergraduate course in human services

• Same instructor to avoid confounding variable of facilitation

• 79 students

• n = 1,759 peer responses

• Six variables

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

• Time elapsed in course

• Final grade

• Number of words

• Number of citations

• Intersubjectivity

• Number of words

• Number of citations

• Cognitive requirement of prompt

• Time elapsed in course

• Cognitive requirement of prompt and # words

• Cognitive requirement of prompt & intersubjectivity (compare to previous & concurrent research)

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

• Students who cite more sources within peer responses are likely to have higher final grades than students who rarely cite or do not cite at all within their peer responses.

• For students who do not or rarely cite within their peer responses, those who write more words are likely to have higher final grades than those students who write fewer words.

• While students who cite more frequently within peer responses have higher final course grades, the positive effect of writing more words on their final grades becomes irrelevant and sometimes even detrimental.

(QM, 2011, p. 14)

“Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning”

Students who are actively learning with peers earn higher grades when they:

− Respond to discussion prompts with a high cognitive requirement;

− Demonstrate levels of intersubjectivity beyond sharing and comparing; and

− Support responses with citations.

• Design or redesign courses to allow for intersubjectivity

• Compose discussion prompts at high cognitive levels

• Adapt discussion scoring rubrics to evaluate levels of intersubjectivity achieved within peer responses

• Create student support products or resources to scaffold student interaction toward intersubjectivity

• Promote faculty development around course design and facilitation to stimulate intersubjectivity

• Revise explicit discussion expectations for peer interaction *

• Measure intersubjectivity as an outcome of QM5.2

• Your ideas?