Rubrics for designing and evaluating online asynchronous discussions Lana Penny and Elizabeth Murphy Lana Penny is a Graduate Student at the Faculty of Education in Memorial University. Address for correspondence: Lana Penny, Faculty of Education, Memorial University, St. John’s, NF, Canada A1B 3X8. Tel: 902-737-1203; C/O Elizabeth Murphy, email: lanapenny@gmail.com; http://www. seascape.ns.ca/~lanapenny. Elizabeth Murphy is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education in Memorial University. Address for correspondence: Elizabeth Murphy, Faculty of Education, Memorial University, St. John’s, NF, Canada A1B 3X8. Tel: (709) 737-7634; Fax: (709) 737-2345; email: emurphy@mun.ca; http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy Abstract The purpose of the study reported on in this paper was to identify performance criteria and ratings in rubrics designed for the evaluation of learning in online asynchronous discussions (OADs) in post-secondary contexts. We analysed rubrics collected from Internet sources. Using purposive sampling, we reached saturation with the selection of 50 rubrics. Using keyword analysis and sub- sequent grouping of keywords into categories, we identified 153 performance criteria in 19 categories and 831 ratings in 40 categories. We subsequently identified four core categories as follows: cognitive (44.0%), mechanical (19.0%), procedural/managerial (18.29%) and interactive (17.17%). Another 1.52% of ratings and performance criteria were labelled vague and not assigned to any core category. Introduction Online asynchronous discussions (OADs) are a form of computer-mediated communi- cation (CMC) increasingly used in post-secondary distance learning (Campus Com- puting International, 2000, p. 5). Asynchronous conferencing is ‘the second most commonly used capability for online education’, after email (Kearsley, 2000, p. 30), and has been referred to as ‘a powerful tool for group communication and cooperative learning that promotes a level of reflective interaction often lacking in a face-to-face, teacher-centred classroom’ (Rovai & Jordan, 2004, p. 2). Some research has uncovered evidence that participation in OADs can promote shared knowledge bases (Sherry, 2000), higher levels of thinking (Kanuka, 2005), reflective thinking, and collaboration (Markel, 2001), problem solving (Cho & Jonassen, 2002), knowledge construction (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997), critical thinking and cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2003). British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 5 2009 804–820 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00895.x © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.