See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262014155

Intersubjectivity

Article · May 2014

CITATION READS
1 6,673

1 author:

Barbara Miller Hall

Northcentral University
34 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Applied Professional Doctoral Programs View project

Portfolios View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Barbara Miller Hall on 04 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Draft submitted for publication in the Encyclopedia of Online Learning to be published by Sage.

Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity is a construct drawn from the fields of philosophy, psychology, and sociology.

Relative to the field of online education, intersubjectivity is used as a measure of quality in the

learning discourse. This measurement can be applied to either synchronous or asynchronous

conversations within virtual or co-located physical spaces. For the purposes of this volume about

online education, the focus will be on intersubjectivity in synchronous or asynchronous dialogue

within online educational environments.

Definition

Intersubjectivity relates to the coordination of individual contributions during a discussion and is

essentially a representation of the knowledge construction achieved through a synergistic

progression from individual contributions to sequences of interdependent contributions within

the discourse.

This definition can be deconstructed for a better understanding of its components. The

emphasis on contribution is a useful place to start. Contributions are those utterances, either

verbal or written, offered by the individuals engaged in the discussion. Participation is important

to the construct of intersubjectivity because successful knowledge construction requires active

and broad participation through individual contributions. These contributions must then be

coordinated into a conversation in which there is continuity through the joint activity of

discourse that is synergistic in the progression of the knowledge construction. These synergistic,

continuous, and coordinated contributions to the discourse are distinguished from a more linear

process in which additional contributions to the discussion fail to build on the ideas already
presented. It is this relationship that pushes toward shared understanding by relating one

contribution to others that creates something new. This new knowledge is constructed through a

process of increasingly interdependent contributions to the discourse. Thus, intersubjectivity

involves the interdependency of learners, rather than their independence.

Development

Intersubjectivity within the field of education builds on a strong, multi-disciplinary

heritage from the fields of philosophy, psychology, and sociology. From a philosophical

perspective, people or their personal experiences were considered independent subjectivities. The

inclusion of personal experiences suggests the phenomenological strand from which the

construct emerged. Intersubjectivity, from this perspective, is the interactional engagement

between these independent subjectivities. This idea of an interactional accomplishment became

seen as a theory of relationship as the construct of intersubjectivity expanded from

phenomenological philosophy toward psychology. The independent subjectivities within the

psychological perspective were identified as the psychoanalyst and the client. This more static

conception of intersubjectivity from the field of psychology progressed within the field of

sociology as a dynamic intersection between two participatory yet independent systems.

In sociology, intersubjectivity is recognized less as a static intersection of the personal

experiences of individuals and more as a dynamic intersection between two independent,

participating, subjective systems. It is this sociological interpretation of intersubjectivity that

most closely reflects the application of the construct within the field of education.

Distinction from Interaction

These descriptions of the definition and development of intersubjectivity begin to

separate the construct within education from the more commonly known term, interaction.
Interaction within distance education has been studied significantly since the latter half of the

twentieth century. While interaction has been studied in various forms such as learner-content,

learner-systems, learner-self, and learner-instructor, it is the learner-to-learner form of interaction

most relevant to a discussion of intersubjectivity. While interaction occurs between learner and

instructors, the dialogue that is emphasized most in online courses emanating from a Western,

social constructivist perspective is between learners.

Interaction can be viewed as a more simplistic, often linear process of engagement

between learners. Individual contributions are independent of previous statements and rarely

move the discourse beyond stating agreement, offering comparable examples, or repeating

similar points. These statements neither produce nor demonstrate the kind of knowledge

construction expected within a social constructivist perspective. The shared understandings

required for knowledge construction develop at the intersections of more dynamic and

coordinated contributions.

A puzzle metaphor has been used to distinguish interaction and intersubjectivity. Imagine

a puzzle that has been dumped onto a table. The puzzle is settled as a single layer of mostly

disconnected pieces. The straight edges suggest where a few pieces might join, and some pieces

may be grouped according to similarities such as color or other features of the finished picture.

The independence of most pieces, though, means the final product is far from complete. These

disconnected pieces represent the kinds of superficial statements characteristic of simple

interaction in a discussion. Some of the statements may connect to previous statements, just like

some adjoining puzzle pieces, though the majority of the discourse has not realized its united

purpose. Conversely, the connected pieces represent progress toward intersubjectivity; as pairs of

pieces grow into larger sections, the greater picture emerges. Statements that intentionally
connect to and build upon previous contributions reveal the greater purpose of the discourse –

knowledge construction.

Intersubjective Purposes

Note that purpose was mentioned within the puzzle metaphor in describing both interaction and

intersubjectivity. The goals, outcomes, objectives, etc. of the learning should determine whether

knowledge construction is an appropriate purpose and, subsequently, if intersubjectivity is an

appropriate target.

Consider, for example, Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational objectives for the

cognitive domain and Webb’s depth of knowledge. If the purpose of the learning is within

Bloom’s levels of remember, understand, or apply or within Webb’s levels of recall/reproduction

or skill/concept, then intersubjectivity is not an appropriate target. Knowledge construction is not

necessary when the purpose is to absorb discrete facts at these lower levels. Intersubjectivity is

an appropriate target at the higher levels: analyzing, evaluating, creating (Bloom) and strategic

thinking and extended thinking (Webb).

Thus, within the scope of online learning, intersubjective purposes are those in which

learners are asked to negotiate knowledge construction through discursive tasks occurring within

the technological affordances of the learning platform (e.g., discussion board, chat window).

Learners might generate divergent responses, explore alternative perspectives, challenge sources

of evidence, identify areas of disagreement, or propose and apply new, shared understandings to

existing and future experiences. Designing for intersubjectivity involves the composition of

discussion prompts, questions, or activities that allow for divergent responses, rather than a

single correct answer or set of similar answers, and invite learners to engage the content in

relevant contexts unique to their own experiences. In doing so, learners will move through a
synergistic progression from individual contributions to sequences of interdependent

contributions within the discourse.

Measuring Intersubjectivity

Understanding intersubjectivity, how it occurs, and how to design for it leads to a discussion of

knowing when the construct has been achieved. Since construction of new and shared

understandings is an inherent part of intersubjectivity, there is no one right answer or moment

when intersubjectivity occurs.

Learning analytics is a rapidly growing field focused on the retrieval and analysis of data

gathered from learning technologies, particularly learning management systems. User activity

reports are a common example. These reports offer quantifiable information like time spent

within different sections of the learning environment and the numbers of messages posted within

discussion areas. These automated data lack sufficient information to measure intersubjectivity,

which is a qualitative experience. Data such as time spent in a particular space within the

learning environment are a weak proxy for the constructs, like time on task, they are meant to

measure. The current state of learning analytics, while immensely useful for some purposes, does

not provide the types of qualitative information necessary to evaluate the learning occurring or

the quality of interactions throughout the discussions. Content analysis is a more appropriate

approach.

One useful content analysis tool for measuring levels of knowledge construction needed

for intersubjectivity is the Interaction Analysis Model. This model offers specific characteristics

of responses that point to five, non-linear phases: sharing/comparing, dissonance, negotiation/co-

construction, testing tentative constructions, and statement/application of newly-constructed

knowledge. While there are other models, many lack the ability to observe knowledge
construction in progress, fail to distinguish between cognitive and metacognitive dimensions, or

focus inappropriately on a teacher-centered instructional paradigm. Developed through a

grounded theory approach, the Interaction Analysis Model is widely used and has been validated

with high levels of inter-rater reliability within nearly two decades of published research. Just as

intersubjectivity requires interdependency between learners, the Interaction Analysis Model

analyzes the connection, or lack thereof, between messages. Though such content analysis is

laborious, it is the most reliable method of measuring intersubjectivity.

Significance to Online Education

Intersubjectivity is a representation of the knowledge construction achieved through a synergistic

progression from individual contributions to sequences of interdependent contributions within

the learning discourse. Given the crucial role that discussions play in the construction of

knowledge within an online course, the quality of the interaction that occurs within the academic

dialogue is important to achieving the learning objectives of the designed instruction.

Learners, though, have reported that the academic dialogue is often of little consequence

to their mastery of the objectives or learning in general. Researchers have often agreed,

describing peer-to-peer dialogue as the kinds of independent, isolated, redundant messages that

reflect simple interaction described above. With the shift away from the instructor-centered

model of standardization and information dissemination toward the learner-centered model of

personalization and relevance, the academic discussions within online learning are the core of the

learning environment. Since social constructivism embodies the idea that dialogue is crucial to

cognitive development, learners who engage in these academic discussions should be able to

achieve a high level of cognitive processing and demonstrate intersubjectivity. The goal of online
learning designed within a social constructivist environment should not be interaction; the goal is

intersubjectivity.

Barbara Miller Hall

See also contribution-oriented pedagogy; discussion facilitation; discussion, threaded; interaction

between students; interaction between students and faculty; social constructivism; student

participation

Further Readings

Bober, M. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2001). Intersubjectivity: Facilitating knowledge

construction in online environments. Educational Media International, 38(4), 241-250.

doi:10.1080/09523980110105150

Dennen, V. P., and Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating

online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297.

doi:10.1080/01587910701611328

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

Hall, B. M. (2011). How cognitive requirement of prompt and time in course are

correlated with intersubjectivity within threaded discussions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ERIC. (ED541076)

 Hall, B. M. (2010). Interaction is insufficient: Why we need intersubjectivity in course

room discourse. Journal of eLearning and Online Teaching, 1(12). Retrieved from

http://www.theelearninginstitute.org

Ligorio, M. B., Cesareni, D., & Schwartz, N. (2008). Collaborative virtual environments

as means to increase levels of intersubjectivity in a distributed cognition system. Journal of

Research on Technology and Education, 40(3), 339-357. doi:10.1080/15391523.2008.10782511

Morganti, F., Carassa, A., & Riva, G. (Eds.). (2008). Enacting intersubjectivity: A

cognitive and social perspective on the study of interactions (Vol. 10). Lansdale, PA: IOS Press.

View publication stats