Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Bobby Elliott
Scottish Qualifications Authority
Abstract
This paper explores current practice in the assessment of online forums. It does this
by reviewing the literature relating to this area of online learning, and extracting the
rubrics contained within that literature to discover best practice as defined by the
leading writers in this field.
Twenty rubrics were analysed to discover their common characteristics. These
rubrics were also reviewed for their quality in terms of validity, reliability and a new
characteristic called “fidelity”.
The results of this study show that there is an inconsistent approach to the
expression and definition of rubrics for the assessment of online discussions; that the
purpose of the rubrics appears to be confused; and that their validity and,
particularly, their fidelity are low.
The paper concludes by recommending that rubrics continue to be used for the
assessment of online discussions but that a more consistent approach is taken to
their construction and definition, and that current practice is changed to improve
validity and fidelity.
The characteristics of a “good” marking scheme are provided to help faculty to
develop rubrics.
Keywords: assessment, learning, discussion, forums, criteria, rubric, marking
scheme, online, writing.
Page 1
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Introduction
This introductory section seeks to provide background information on the key themes
in this paper, which are: online discussion boards, online writing, and assessment.
Some drawbacks
The reduction in constraints on time and place can result in pressures on students
and faculty to read and participate in online forums (see, for example, Gabriel, 2004,
Hiltz and Wellman, 1997, and Wyatt, 2005). Peters and Hewitt (2009) carried out
formal interviews with 57 post-graduate students undertaking an online programme
and discovered that the volume of messages was their greatest frustration.
The lack of visual communication clues, “disembodied learning” as Dreyfus (2002)
put it, can cause conflict and anxiety among learners. Mixed patterns of participation
are common, with some learners dominating discussions and some inhibited from
contributing. The text-only format of traditional discussion boards can also inhibit
interaction and can disadvantage learners with poor writing skills.
Page 2
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Online writing
Online discussion boards are one instance of what has been variously described as
“Web 2.0 writing” , “online writing”, “digital writing” or “digital learning narratives”,
which can take various forms including online forums, blogs, wikis, social networks,
instant message logs, and virtual worlds. Many of the issues raised in this paper are
relevant to all forms of online writing. Most of the afore-mentioned benefits of online
discussion boards are, in fact, benefits of any form of (asynchronous) online writing.
This new medium provides new affordances – new ways of utilising the medium to
communicate and collaborate. For example, online writing makes visible such things
as co-operation, collaboration, and self-reflection; the learner’s thought processes
are also more apparent. The inclusion of multimedia (such as audio and video) is
straight-forward. Referencing (hyperlinking) to related resources or information is
simple. The asynchronous nature of many online communications makes the time
and place of contributions more flexible, and provides more “wait time” (see above)
to improve opportunities for reflective writing. The writing may have an audience far
beyond the walls of the university (perhaps a national or global audience).
Authenticity can be improved by tackling real-world issues and seeking feedback
from peers and experts across the world. The potential for producing authentic, co-
constructed, interconnected, continuously improved, media-rich information objects
of national or international interest is unique.
These new affordances have significant implications for assessment. They provide an
opportunity to assess skills that were previously considered difficult, or impossible, to
assess using traditional approaches.
Characteristics of assessment
Assessment is traditionally viewed from two perspectives1:
validity
reliability
For the purposes of this paper, a third characteristic will be considered: fidelity.
Sadler (2009) proposed this characteristic of assessment, which is explained below.
1
“Fairness” (the equality of an assessment) and “practicality” (the feasibility of an
assessment) are sometimes also considered as characteristics of assessment.
Page 3
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Fidelity
Sadler (2009) expresses two concerns about contemporary assessment practice. The
first relates to continuous assessment, which he criticises for assessing student’s
learning while they are learning rather than at the end of the learning period, when
learning may be better internalized. As Sadler puts it: “Assessment in which early
understandings are assessed, recorded and counted, misrepresents the level of
achievement reached at the end of the course.”
His second criticism relates to the match between assessment and learning
objectives. He calls this “fidelity”, which he defines as: “Fidelity is the extent to which
elements that contribute to a course grade are correctly identified as academic
achievement”.
He points out that, in many instances, what is rewarded is not, in fact, real
achievements, as defined by the course objectives:
“Many academics cannot help but be impressed by the prodigious time and
persistence that’s some students apparently invest in producing responses to an
assessment task. However, effort is clearly an input variable and therefore does not
fall within the definition of academic achievement”.
Marking rubrics
The definition of assessment used in this paper includes “making expectations
explicit”, “setting appropriate criteria” and “systematically interpreting evidence”. The
importance of clear and transparent marking criteria is well known (see, for example,
Hounsell et al, 2007).
The use of a marking rubric provides a transparent and objective way of assessing
learning (Pickett and Dodge, 2007). Rubrics typically contain specific performance
criteria, each assigned one or more marks, with an associated narrative to aid
marking.
Hazari (2004) identifies two ways of marking: analytic marking and holistic
marking. Analytic marking involves assigning marks to each criterion; holistic
marking is a more impressionistic approach, assigning marks as a whole, without
scoring individual criteria. Analytical criteria are normally applied to each message
Page 4
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
and each message is awarded a small number of points. The sum of these scores is
the learner’s overall mark. Holistic criteria are applied to groups of messages.
A hybrid approach, one which combines analytic and holistic marking, can also be
used. In this scheme, two sets of criteria are produced: one for analytic marking and
one for holistic marking. The analytical criteria score each message; the holistic
criteria score groups of messages, such as a learner’s weekly contributions or their
contributions for an entire topic or, even, their contributions over the whole course.
Research question
The research question was:
What is the current practice in the construction of rubrics to assess online
discussions?
Page 5
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
The first stage was to list each criterion. Within the 20 rubrics extracted from the
literature, 128 criteria were identified. Many of these criteria expressed the same
thing in slightly different ways. So the second stage was to group the criteria so that
criteria that essentially related to the same standard were grouped together. This
reduced the 128 criteria to 33 unique criteria. For example, every criterion that
related to the appropriateness of the message was added to the “relevancy” group,
however it was expressed. The final stage in the analysis was to take these 33
criteria and categorise them by their type. Ten categories were used to do this.
These categories are listed in Table 1.
Page 6
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Each rubric typically incorporated several types of criterion. For example, a single
rubric might include criteria relating to quality of academic discourse (code 1),
criteria relating to student participation (code 5), and criteria relating to the quality of
writing (code 7).
Coding each rubric in this way permitted the creation of a frequency table to
illustrate the most common characteristics of rubrics. The results of this analysis are
provided in the Findings section.
Page 7
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Findings
During the literature review, 20 rubrics were identified and analysed to identify their
characteristics, particularly their similarities and differences. The first characteristic
examined was the type of marking. Thirteen of the rubrics (65%) proposed holistic
marking and seven (35%) proposed analytical marking.2 The scoring systems were
also measured: five rubrics (25%) proposed grading student contributions (such as
“A/B/C” or “Average/Above average”) and 15 (75%) proposed a points system.
Type Scoring
Holistic 13 Grades 5
Analytic 7 Marks 15
Each rubric was then studied to identify its components (often, but not always,
expressed as criteria). A single rubric would typically contain several criteria, relating
to various aspects of the student’s contribution, such as its originality, relevance and
word length. In total, the rubrics reviewed (20) contained 128 statements, giving an
average (mean) of six criteria per rubric.
However, their expression varied considerably from rubric to rubric. Some were
expressed as criteria, some were written as statements, and some were simply
examples of contribution at a particular performance point. There was little
consistency in terminology, with each rubric expressing similar performance using
different language. For example, the quality of academic discourse was expressed in
terms of “depth of insight”, “intellectual challenge”, “quality of knowledge”, and
“much thought”. Subjective language was also common; words such as “good”,
“substantive” and “regular” (without further definition) were often used. The
language used varied in formality. While the majority of rubrics used formal English,
some used a conversational style of language including such phrases as “Your
messages didn’t leave me jazzed”.
To overcome the problem of language, criteria relating to the same broad domain
were grouped together, reducing the 128 unique criteria to 33. For example, every
criterion relating to the appropriateness (to course contents) of the message,
however it was expressed, was included in the “relevancy” group.
Table 3 shows the frequency of each criterion once the original criteria had been
grouped in this way.
2
In fact, none of the rubrics proposed holistic marking in the strict definition of that word.
The rubrics deemed to be holistic in the table were those that suggested that the marks could
be applied to more than a single message.
Page 8
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
The table illustrates that 12 criteria related to the quantity of messages posted
(criterion 1), 10 related to the relevancy of the message (criterion 2), and five were
about “respect” (criterion 12). The top five criteria were:
1. Quantity
2. Relevancy
3. Frequency
4. Referenced to reading or research
5. Attitude
Page 9
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Each of these 33 groupings was then assigned to a category. Ten categories were
created, as shown in Table 4, and their frequencies computed.
No. of
Code Category of criterion Frequency
rubrics
1 Relating to quality of academic discourse 16 38
2 Relating to cognition 9 6
3 Relating to critical thinking 8 8
4 Relating to learning objectives 8 10
5 Relating to participation 18 36
6 Relating to etiquette 8 12
7 Relating to quality of writing 7 8
8 Relating to presentation 2 2
9 Relating to attitude 7 7
10 Relating to digital writing 1 1
Table 4: Rubrics by category
This table illustrates that 16 (of the 20) rubrics included at least one criterion relating
to the quality of academic discourse, and that criteria relating to this domain
appeared 38 times (among the 128 criteria in total). It is interesting to note the
almost complete absence of criteria related to “digital writing” (code 10).
From this table, it can be seen that the most commonly occurring criteria related to:3
1. participation
2. academic discourse
3. etiquette
4. learning objectives
5. critical thinking.
3
This list was sorted by the number of rubrics that included the type of criterion; where this
was equal, the list was sorted on the frequency of occurance.
4
In fact, only one rubric made explicit reference to “learning objectives” (or equivalent). Most
referred to “relevancy” or “appropriateness” or similar.
Page 10
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Eighteen rubrics rewarded participation, which was the single most common
category. However, unless the course objectives included outcomes relating to
participation then providing marks for this (which would contribute to the course
grade) would be incorrect. Four rubrics did not include any criteria relating to
academic discourse whatsoever, preferring to focus solely on participation or
etiquette or other non-academic criteria.
It is instructive to take a complete rubric and gauge its fidelity. In Online and
traditional assessment: what is the difference? (2000), Rovai proposes 14 criteria for
the assessment of online discussions, aligned against three grades (A-C). Of these
criteria, 10 relate to the number of messages posted or the style of the message
(“caring”, “compassionate”, “rude”) or other non-achievement variables. Four criteria
relate to academic standards (including one that relates to the standard of spelling
and grammar).
A similar picture emerges from other rubrics. In his Strategy for Assessment of
Online Course Discussions, Hazari (2004) proposes 20 criteria (for awarding points
ranging from 1 to 5). Of these criteria, 10 relate to non-achievements such as
“Demonstrates leadership in discussions” and “Posted regularly throughout the
week”. Some criteria were crude: “Time between posting indicated student had read
and considered substantial number of student postings before responding” is clearly
not a valid way of measuring how much prior reading a student had completed
before replying.
Page 11
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Page 12
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
No. Characteristic
1 The rubric should be expressed as criteria, which exemplify levels of
performance or cognition across various levels.
2 The rubric should employ holistic and analytical marking; the holistic marks, at
least in part, should reward the learner’s final level of competency.
3 The criteria should be valid measures of the course objectives.
4 The criteria should exhibit high levels of fidelity and not reward non-
achievements such as effort or participation.
5 The criteria should be expressed clearly and simply to maximise reliability.
6 The rubric should use terminology consistently.
7 The criteria should be free of bias.
8 The criteria should recognize and reward the unique affordances of online
writing.
Table 5: Characteristics of a good rubric
Page 13
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Recommendations
These conclusions lead to the following recommendations.
1. Assess learner contributions to online discussions.
2. Use a rubric to carry out the assessment.
3. Design rubrics to have high fidelity.
4. Incorporate the unique affordances of online writing into rubrics.
Each recommendation is now explained.
Page 14
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
objectives should be interpreted in such a way that their assessment embraces the
additional affordances made possible by online writing.
Page 15
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
References
Angelo, T. A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of
Psychology, 22(1), 6-7. doi:10.1287/s15328023top2201_1.
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Simple views of effective teaching and a simple theory of
classroom instruction. In D. C. Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers
(pp. 93-110). New York: Random House.
Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation. Phenomenology and the
Cognitive Sciences, 1, 367-383.
Gabriel, M. A. (2004). Learning Together: Exploring group interactions online. Journal
of Distance Education, 19(1), 54-72.
Glossary of assessment terms, (2002) New Horizons for Learning (2002). Assessment
Terminology: A Glossary of Useful Terms. Retrieved September 2009 from
www.newhorizons.org.
Hazari, S. (2004). Strategy for assessment of online course discussions. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 15(4), 349-355.
Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual
classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40 (9), September, pp. 44-49.
Hoag, A. & Baldwin, T. (2000). Using case method and experts in inter-university
electronic learning teams. Educational Technology & Society, 3 (3), 337-348.
Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J. & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance
and feedback to students.Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55-
67.
Jonassen, D.; Davison, M.; Collins, M. et al. (1995). Constructivism and computer
mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 9(2):7-26. Available online at http://www.uni-oldenburg.de
/zef/cde/media/readings/jonassen95.pdf.
Microsoft, Transforming Education: Assessing and Teaching 21st century Skills,
(2008) http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/E/9/6E9A7CA7-0DC4-4823-
993E-A54D18C19F2E/Transformative%20Assessment.pdf. Accessed 20
March 2009.
Newman, G., Webb, B. & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to
measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning.
Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56-77. Available online at
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1995/n2/newman.txt.
Peters, V. L., & Hewitt, J. An investigation of student practices in asynchronous
computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.030
Pickett, N; Dodge, B., (2007) Rubrics for Web Lessons. Available online at:
http://webquest.sdsu.edu/rubrics/weblessons.htm
Riel, M. (1995). Cross classroom collaboration in global learning circles. In: Star, S.
(ed.), The cultures of computing. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 219–242.
Page 16
A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions
Rovai, A P. (2002) Online and traditional assessments: what is the difference?, The
Internet and Higher Education, Volume 3, Issue 3, 3rd Quarter 2000, Pages 141-
151, ISSN 1096-7516.
Sadler, D. (2009). Grade integrity and the representation of academic
achievement. Studies in Higher Education,34(7), 807-826.
Swan, K., Schenker, J., Arnold, S., & Kuo, C. (2007). Shaping online discussion:
Assessment matters. E-mentor, 1(18). Retrieved March 6, 2008, from
http://ementor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/18/390.pdf.
Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online
learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.
Jenny Waycott, Sue Bennett, Gregor Kennedy, Barney Dalgarno, Kathleen Gray,
Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication
technologies, Computers & Education, Volume 54, Issue 4, May 2010, Pages
1282-1211, ISSN 0360-1315, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.006.
Wyatt, G. (2005). Satisfaction, academic rigor and interaction: Perceptions of online
instruction. Education, 125, 460-468.
Page 17