Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 65, Issue 5, pp 1175–1194 | Cite as

A sequential analysis of responses in online debates to postings of students exhibiting high versus low grammar and spelling errors

Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Computer-supported collaborative argumentation Discourse analysis Critical thinking Online discussions 

References

  1. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Berger, C. (1997). Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals through Communicative Action (p. 138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, C. (2012). A meta-analysis and an experiment investigating the effects of speaker disfluency on persuasion. Western Journal of Communication, 76(5), 552–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., et al. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Jeong, A. C. (2005b). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeong, A. C. (2006). The effects of conversational styles of communication on group interaction patterns and argumentation in online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(5), 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeong, A. C. (2013). Discussion analysis tool. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://myweb.fsu.edu/ajeong.
  21. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communications patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The Hermes system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Lemus, D., Seibold, D., Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2004). Argument and decision making in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 302–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Liu, Z. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Information Processing and Management, 40(6), 1027–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning: Special Issue: Developing Dialogue for Learning, 20(3), 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Myers, S., & Bryant, L. (2004). College students’ perceptions of how instructors convey credibility. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 22–27.Google Scholar
  34. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): a synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.
  41. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House Trade.Google Scholar
  43. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. (2008). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional Systems ProgramFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.University of MemphisMemphisUSA
  3. 3.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations