An Analysis of Online Discussions Assessment
Wei-Ying Hsiao, Ed.D.
Associate Professor
University of Alaska Anchorage
USA
whsiao@uaa.alaska.edu
Abstract: Online discussion has been used as a crucial assessment in online courses in higher
education. The purpose of this study was to investigate the elements/criteria of grading rubrics for
assessing online discussion both in synchronous and asynchronous courses across different
discipline areas in higher education. This study analyzed 69 online discussion grading rubrics. Of
the 69 grading rubrics, 4 elements were used more frequently in assessing online discussions:
content/focus on topic (68%), stylistics/writing (67%), reflection/connections (64%), and frequency
(61%). Three elements were used often in assessing online discussions including timeliness (46%),
references or resources citations (46%), and initial posting (42%); in addition, the other nine
elements were used in assessing online discussions including interaction/response (38%), new
ideas/uniqueness (36%), critical thinking (35%), clarity (28%), tone/positive/encouragement (23%),
quality (16%), length (15%), organization (9%), and integrity (1%).
Introduction
The demand for eLearning (electronic learning), defined as “learning and teaching online through network
technologies” (Hrastinski, 2008, p.51), has been growing in higher education (Wagner, Hassanein, & Head,
2008). Online delivery is widely used in higher education for a number of reasons, including increasing demand
by learners’ and institutional budget cuts (New Media Consortium, 2007). However, the concern about the
assessment of online learners has become an issue (Speck, 2002).
Clearly online asynchronous or synchronous discussions were an essential component of online learning
(Liang & Alderman, 2007). Online discussions allow students to practice active thinking and provide
opportunities to interact with others (Salmon, 2005). However, how to assess online discussions can be
challenging. When assessing online discussions, simply counting the frequency of postings by online learners
does not lead to a good quality assessment in learning (Meyer, 2004). Wishart and Guy (2009) indicated many
course designers and instructors were aware of the value of online discussions; however, in order to keep the
online discussion “lively and informative is a challenge.” (p.130) Levenburg and Major (2000) discussed the
importance of assessing online discussions in order to recognize students’ time commitment and encourage
students’ efforts. Assessment criteria should be a guide to lead students in learning and should be used to
evaluate students’ learning outcomes (Celentin, 2007). Therefore, it is important to find ways to assess online
discussions. The purpose of this study was to analyze the elements/criteria of grading rubrics for assessing
online discussions.
Method
Participants
A total of 69 grading rubrics across different discipline areas were analyzed in this research. Sixty-seven
rubrics were from the USA and two were from UK. The grading rubrics were selected from both asynchronous
and synchronous online courses in both graduate and undergraduate at different universities.
Data Collection Procedures
All grading rubrics were selected from online resources. The researcher searched online courses’ grading
rubrics and some rubrics from research papers. Sixty-nine rubrics were selected in this research. All the rubrics
were selected from different discipline areas such as Education, Health Education, Engendering, Science,
Psychology, and so on. Sixty-five percent of the grading rubrics were from graduate courses and thirty-five
percent of the grading rubrics were from undergraduate courses.
Data Analysis
Excel of Microsoft Office 2010 was used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistic was used to analyze the
frequency usage of grading elements. The researcher exam the elements (criteria) of all the rubrics and finalized
into 16 elements on these 69 grading rubrics.
Results
A total of sixteen grading elements (criteria) were found in these online discussion grading rubrics. These
grading elements were including content/focus on topic (68%), reflection/connections (64%), critical thinking
(35%), length (15%), new ideas/uniqueness (36%), timelines (46%), stylistics/writing (67%), resources (46%),
interaction/response (38%), organization (9%), frequency (61%), initial posting (42%), Clarity (28%),
Tone/positive words (23%), quality (16%), and integrity (1%). See Figure 1 for these 16 elements and
percentage. See Table 1 for the 16 elements and summery of indicators.
Figure 1. The Sixteen Elements of the Online Discussions Grading Rubrics
Table 1
Sixteen elements of the grading rubric and indicators
Elements
Content/Focus on Topic
%
68%
Indicators
understanding of the course materials and the underlying
concept being discussed.
Reflection/Connections
64%
reflective statements, reflect to professional experiences
Critical Thinking
35%
consistently analytical, thoughtful, perceptive, & provide
new insides related to topic addressed, refutes bias
Length of Posting
15%
at least one paragraph, at least 250 words,
New Ideas/Uniqueness
36%
a new way of thinking about the topic, depth and detail
Timeliness
46%
meet deadlines, before due date, complete all required
postings
Stylistics/Writing
67%
free of grammatical, spelling, & punctuation errors
facilitate communication, well written
Resources
46%
connections to other resources, site research papers
using references to support comments,
Interaction/Response
Organization
Frequency/Follow up postings
38%
9%
61%
interacting with a variety of participants,
information is organized,
5-6 postings/week; 4-5 times/week
Analysis of others’ posts & extending meaningful
discussion
Initial Posting
42%
posts well developed; fully address all aspects of the task
Clarity
28%
clear, concise comments formatted, easy to read
clear logic beliefs & thoughts
Tone/positive/Manners
23%
following online protocols, positive attitude, encouraging,
appropriate in nature,
Quality
16%
excellent understanding of the questions through well
Reasoned and thoughtful reflections
Integrity
1%
learners’ own idea, posting by learners
References
Celentin (2007). Online education: Analysis of interaction and knowledge building patterns among
foreign language teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 39-58.
Hrastinski, S. (2008). A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that
each supports different purposes. Educause Quarterly 31(4), 51-55.
Levenburg, N.,& Major, H. (2000). Motivating the Online Learner: The Effect of Frequency of online
Postings and Time Spent Online on Achievement of Learning & Goals and Objectives. Proceedings
of the International Online Conference On Teaching Online in Higher Education, 13-14 November
2000. Indiana University-Purdue University: Fort Wayne.
Liang, X. and Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous Discussions and Assessment in Online Learning.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 39 (3), 309-328.
Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating Online Discussions: Four Different Fames of Analysis. JALN 8 (2),
101-114
National Center for Educational Statistics (2008, December). Distance education at degree-granting
postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. Retrieved Oct 12, 2011, from
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf
Salmon, G. (2005). E-tivities. Great Britain: Routledge Falmer.
Speck, B. W. (2002). Learning-teaching-assessment paradigms and the online classroom. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 91, 5-18.
Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for E-Learning Success in
Higher Education? A Stakeholders’ Analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (3), 26-36.
Wishart, C., & Guy, R. (2009). Analyzing Responses, Moves, and Roles in Online Discussions.
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 129-144.