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).

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. • Distinguish interaction and intersubjectivity
• Justify intersubjectivity as an outcome of QM 5.2
• Generate applications of intersubjectivity beyond QM5.2

3. Clipart from Microsoft Office

4. A Contrast
Photo by Francesco Marino
Graphic by jscreationzs
Intersubjectivity =
Product
Interaction = Process
4

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. “Forms of interaction
incorporated in the course
motivate students and
promote learning”
(QM, 2011, p. 13)

7. Learner – Technology
Learner – Content
Learner – Learner
Learner – Instructor
All clipart from Microsoft Office

8. “Learning activities
provide opportunities
for interaction
that support active learning”
(QM, 2011, p. 14)

10. “active learning involves students
engaging by ‘doing’ something,
such as discovering, processing, or
applying concepts and information”
(QM, 2011, p. 13)

12. 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

13. •
•
•
•
•
•
Intersubjectivity
Cognitive requirement of the prompt
Time in course
Number of words in peer response
Number of citations in peer response
Final course grade

14. Peer Interactions within
Threaded Discussions

15. Peer
Response
Initial Post
Discussion
Prompt

16. 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)

17. • 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

18. *
p < 0.05;
**
p < 0.01.

19. •
•
•
•
Time elapsed in course
Final grade
Number of words
Number of citations
• Intersubjectivity
• Number of words
• Number of citations

20. • Cognitive requirement of prompt
• Time elapsed in course
• Cognitive requirement of prompt and # words
• Cognitive requirement of prompt & intersubjectivity
(compare to previous & concurrent research)

21. *
p < 0.05;
**
p < 0.01.

22. • 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.

24. “Learning activities
provide opportunities
for interaction
that support active learning”
(QM, 2011, p. 14)

25. 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.

26. •
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?