A significant, though sometimes overlooked, qualitative measure of the quality of discussion posts is the level of collaborative knowledge con-struction, or intersubjectiviry, achieved within the conversation. As noted elsewhere in this volume, imersubjectivity relates to the coordination of individual contributions during a discussion and is essentially a representation of the knowledge construction achieved through a synergistic pro-gression from individual contributions to sequences of interdependent contributions within the discourse. Measuring intersubjectivity requires a comparison of posts to one another. That is, one muse examine how Post B relates co Post A. When it comes to robust discussions that move the conversation forward, incersubjectiviry can be the most important qualitative factor to measure.

Qualitative factors can assess the post's germaneness to course concepts, synthesis of scholarly assets, critical thmking, relevance co discussion prompt and peer response guida_nce, quality of writing, and compliance with other instructor expectations. Even if a discussion is interesting and robust, it should align with the learning outcomes; thus, an assessment frame-work should include ways to measure relevance to the prompts and accurate application of course concepts. Of course, this relevance could be difficult to determine if the writing and orga-nization obscure the learner's otherwise good points

Quantitative factors can include items like time spent in the discussion forum, dates of initial posts and peer responses, number of responses required to the initial posts of peers, response times to comments or questions left on a student's initial post, number of words, and number of sources used and cited.

Both instructors and students can urjlize Socratic questioning within discussion facilitation. There are six categories within the Socratic frame-work: (1) questions of clarification, (2) questions that probe assumptions, (3) questions that probe reasons and evidence, (4) questions about view-points or perspectives, (5) questions that probe implications and consequences, and (6) questions about the question.

Designers should be particularly cognizant of alignment throughout all aspects of a learning design. 1n terms of threaded discussions, designers should confirm alignment between the learning objectives of each learning segment (module, week, etc.) and the cognitive process level of the prompt that frames the development of the threaded discussion that follows

divergent thinking means that learners have different things to say. To have interesting discussions, there need to be plenty of different things to discuss.

Convergent thinking means that learners arrive at the same information; essentially, learners have the same thing to say.

To realize a high level of cognitive engagement, threaded discussions must have an intentional design, quality facilitation, and a strong assessment framework.

a social constructivist frame-work.

A threaded discussion is an interactive exchange among multiple learners focused on related learning concepts in an online course

Research has shown that synchronous communication increases student participation and, therefore, students' social pres-ence and feeling of community in the on line envi-ronment.

When facilitated effectively, AODs encourage students ro engage collaboratively to create knowledge, enabling chem to cake control of their own learning.

community of inquiry, a term used to describe a supportive setting that encourages students to participate deeply and integrate their under-standing of course concepts into their intellectual lives.

community of inquiry.

Conceptual frameworks of social presence, teachingpresence, and cognitive presence (and the corollary prescriptions forinstructional designers) that are unconnected to empirical evidence ofdeep and meaningful learning are, on the face of it, groundless.

Unfortunately, student activity in online forums is rarely assessed byany means other than through the provision of marks for participation.

Researchers typically report that less than half ofthe messages in an online forum are classified as cognitive presence(Kanuka, Rourke, & Laflamme, 2007)

A major problem for the CoI model is that researchers, including Garrison(Garrison et al., 2001), have not been able to identify clear instances ofcognitive presence.

I learned much in this course, it is unclearwhether they have had significant changes in their attitude toward thesubject matter, are able to perform course-related tasks proficiently,

He reportsthat self-perceptions offer very diff e ren t portrayals of learning

Bloom = Bloom’s TaxonomyE = EmpiricalEs = EssayI = IntegrationN = NonePL = Perceived LearningRev = ReviewSOLO = Biggs’ SOLO TaxonomySP = Social PresenceTP = Teaching PresenceCP = Cognitive Presence

Rovai's (2002

here has not been a substantive attempt to investigatelearning in CoI.

“I learned a great deal from my peers,

(agree, don't know,disagree)

The correlations range from.43 to .64

Study

i) deep and meaningful learning,

theycharacterized deep learning as the critical examination of new facts andthe effort to make numerous connections with existing knowledgestructures

earning objectives it addresses.

We identified 252 reports from 2000—2008 that referenced theframework

“the extent to which the participants in anyparticular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to constructmeaning through sustained communication” (2000: 12)

deep and meaningfullearning,