Correlating Outcomes of
QM Standard 5.2 in
Asynchronous Discussions

Barbara M. Hall, PhD
Assistant Professor & Research F...
• Distinguish interaction and intersubjectivity
• Justify intersubjectivity as an outcome of QM 5.2

• Generate applicatio...
Clipart from Microsoft Office
A Contrast

Photo by Francesco Marino

Graphic by jscreationzs

Intersubjectivity =
Product

Interaction = Process
4
• National benchmark for online course design
• Rubric for applying quality standards to online course design
• Certified ...
“Forms of interaction
incorporated in the course
motivate students and
promote learning”
(QM, 2011, p. 13)
Learner – Technology

Learner – Content
Learner – Learner

Learner – Instructor
All clipart from Microsoft Office
“Learning activities
provide opportunities
for interaction
that support active learning”
(QM, 2011, p. 14)
“active learning involves students
engaging by ‘doing’ something,
such as discovering, processing, or
applying concepts an...
Creating
Evaluating
Analyzing

Applying
Understanding
Remembering
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A ta...
•
•
•
•
•
•

Intersubjectivity
Cognitive requirement of the prompt
Time in course
Number of words in peer response
Number ...
Peer Interactions within
Threaded Discussions
Peer
Response

Initial Post

Discussion
Prompt
Research Says…

Distinct
presentations

Egocentric

Unproductive
communication

(Järvelä & Häkkinen,
2002)

(Oliver & McLo...
• Seven sections of an entirely online
undergraduate course in human services
• Same instructor to avoid confounding
varia...
*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01.
•
•
•
•

Time elapsed in course
Final grade
Number of words
Number of citations

• Intersubjectivity
• Number of words
• N...
• Cognitive requirement of prompt
• Time elapsed in course

• Cognitive requirement of prompt and # words
• Cognitive requ...
*

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 cit...
“Learning activities
provide opportunities
for interaction
that support active learning”
(QM, 2011, p. 14)
Students who are actively learning with peers
earn higher grades when they:

− Respond to discussion prompts with a
high c...
•

Design or redesign courses to allow for intersubjectivity

•

Compose discussion prompts at high cognitive levels

•

A...
Correlating Outcomes of Quality Matters Standard 5.2 in Asynchronous Discussions
Correlating Outcomes of Quality Matters Standard 5.2 in Asynchronous Discussions
Correlating Outcomes of Quality Matters Standard 5.2 in Asynchronous Discussions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Correlating Outcomes of Quality Matters Standard 5.2 in Asynchronous Discussions

313 views
168 views

Published on

This presentation is from the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) international convention held in Anaheim, CA on November 1, 2013. The research was funded by the University Fellows Program at Ashford University, part of Bridgepoint Education (BPE).

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
313
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Correlating Outcomes of Quality Matters Standard 5.2 in Asynchronous Discussions

  1. 1. Correlating Outcomes of QM Standard 5.2 in Asynchronous Discussions Barbara M. Hall, PhD Assistant Professor & Research Fellow College of Education Ashford University @BarbMHall
  2. 2. • Distinguish interaction and intersubjectivity • Justify intersubjectivity as an outcome of QM 5.2 • Generate applications of intersubjectivity beyond QM5.2
  3. 3. Clipart from Microsoft Office
  4. 4. A Contrast Photo by Francesco Marino Graphic by jscreationzs Intersubjectivity = Product Interaction = Process 4
  5. 5. • 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? 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
  6. 6. “Forms of interaction incorporated in the course motivate students and promote learning” (QM, 2011, p. 13)
  7. 7. Learner – Technology Learner – Content Learner – Learner Learner – Instructor All clipart from Microsoft Office
  8. 8. “Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning” (QM, 2011, p. 14)
  9. 9. “active learning involves students engaging by ‘doing’ something, such as discovering, processing, or applying concepts and information” (QM, 2011, p. 13)
  10. 10. 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. 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
  11. 11. • • • • • • Intersubjectivity Cognitive requirement of the prompt Time in course Number of words in peer response Number of citations in peer response Final course grade
  12. 12. Peer Interactions within Threaded Discussions
  13. 13. Peer Response Initial Post Discussion Prompt
  14. 14. Research Says… Distinct presentations Egocentric Unproductive communication (Järvelä & Häkkinen, 2002) (Oliver & McLoughlin, 2001) Serial monologues (Pawan et al., 2003) (Henri, 1995) 65% of students “insufficient value” (Chang, 2003) Consecutive online notes Superficial postings (Hewitt, 2005) (Ke, 2010) Illusion of participation (Wickersham & Dooley, 2006) Dessicated discussions (Kanuka et al., 2007)
  15. 15. • 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
  16. 16. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
  17. 17. • • • • Time elapsed in course Final grade Number of words Number of citations • Intersubjectivity • Number of words • Number of citations
  18. 18. • Cognitive requirement of prompt • Time elapsed in course • Cognitive requirement of prompt and # words • Cognitive requirement of prompt & intersubjectivity (compare to previous & concurrent research)
  19. 19. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
  20. 20. • 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.
  21. 21. “Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning” (QM, 2011, p. 14)
  22. 22. 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.
  23. 23. • 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?

×