A sequential analysis of responses in online debates to postings of students exhibiting high versus low grammar and spelling errors
- 245 Downloads
Given that grammatical and spelling errors have been found to influence perceived competence and credibility in written communication, this study examined how a student’s grammar and spelling errors affect how other students respond to the student’s postings in four online debates hosted in asynchronous threaded discussions. Message-response exchanges were sequentially analyzed to identify patterns in students’ replies to arguments and challenges with counter-challenges, explanations, and evidentiary support posted by students that exhibited low versus high number of grammatical and spelling errors. Although no causal inferences can be drawn from this study, the findings nevertheless suggests that: (a) arguments posted by high-error students are more likely to be challenged than arguments posted by low-error students; (b) exchanges between high-error students can amplify the effects of grammar/spelling errors; and (c) higher levels of argumentation can be achieved by placing students into groups that are heterogeneous in writing skills in general. The findings and methods used in this study lay the groundwork for further research on strategies for managing individual differences in students’ grammar and spelling (and other student behaviors in general) and increasing the level of critical discourse in online discussions.
KeywordsComputer-supported collaborative argumentation Discourse analysis Critical thinking Online discussions
- Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In P. Courier & J. E. B. Andriesseni (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
- Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
- Beers, P.J., Boshuizen, E., & Kirschner P. (2004). Computer Support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Berger, C. (1997). Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals through Communicative Action (p. 138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Garrison, D. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.Google Scholar
- Garrison, D. R., & Archer, A. (2003). Community of inquiry framework for online learning. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Jeong, A. C. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
- Jeong, A. C. (2005a). The effects of linguistic qualifiers on group interaction patterns in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3). Retrieved November 3, 2005, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/258/401.
- Jeong, A. C. (2013). Discussion analysis tool. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://myweb.fsu.edu/ajeong.
- Koschmann, T. (1999). Toward a dialogic theory of learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to understanding learning in settings of collaboration. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL) 1999 conference, December 12–15, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Leinonen, T., Virtanen, O., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Collaborative discovering of key ideas in knowledge building. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceeding of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL Community. Boulder, CO: CSCL ‘02Google Scholar
- Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussion: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.Google Scholar
- Morris, M., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., & Schwarz, J. (2012). Tweeting is believing? Understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, February 11–15, 2012. Seattle, Washington. New York, NY: ACM. (pp. 441–450)Google Scholar
- Myers, S., & Bryant, L. (2004). College students’ perceptions of how instructors convey credibility. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 22–27.Google Scholar
- Ravenscroft, A., Sagar, M., Baur, E., & Oriogun, P. (2008). Ambient pedagogies, meaningful learning and social software. In S. Hatzipanagos & S. Warburton (Eds.), Social software & developing community ontologies (pp. 432–450). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.Google Scholar
- Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Computer conferencing and distance learning. In H. Bidgoli (Ed.), The handbook of computer networks (Vol. 3, pp. 831–842). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 249–268). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Sloffer, S., Dueber, B., & Duffy, T. (1999). Using asynchronous conferencing to promote critical thinking: Two implementations in higher education. Retrieved October 30, 2003 from http://crlt.indiana.edu/publications/crlt99–8.pdf.
- Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House Trade.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar