Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 110–127 | Cite as

An exploratory analysis of communication in peer-directed educational discourse

  • William J. Gibbs
Article
First Online:
  • 100 Downloads

Abstract

This exploratory analysis examined the nature of asynchronous, text-based communication in peer-directed educational discussions. The nature of communication changed over time and women exhibited greater tendency for epistolary communication than men. Initial posts, which were expository in nature, focused on disseminating information whereas replies to initial posts exhibited characteristics of epistolary discourse, such as alignment and support. The study observed that men and women employed different communication styles when beginning a message thread. Initial posts by males began with epistolary statements whereas the posts of women began with expository statements.

Keywords

Computer mediated communication Online discussions Online discourse Discussion forums 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing Interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Fahy, P. (2002). Epistolary and expository interaction patterns in a computer conference transcript. Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
  5. Fahy, P. (2003). Indicators of support in online interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1), 1–16. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/129.
  6. Fahy, P. J. (2005). Two methods for assessing critical thinking in computer-mediated communications (CMC) transcripts. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(3). Retrieved June 5, 2007 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_05/article02.htm.
  7. Fahy, P., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved June 3, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/36.
  8. Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 89–101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  9. Gustafson, K. L. (2002). What is instructional design? In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Instructional design and technology (pp. 16–25). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, S. (2000). Maintaining the virtual community: Use of politeness strategies in an email discussion group. In L. Pemberton & S. Shurville (Eds.), Words on the web: Computer mediated communication (pp. 69–78). Portland, OR: Intellect Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. EJC/REC, 3(20). Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.internetstudies.pe.kr/txt/Herring.txt.
  12. Herring, S. C. (1996). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in computer-mediated communication. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 115–145). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  13. Herring, S. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment online. The Information Society, 15(3), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. CPSR Newsletter, 18(1). Retrieved May 30, 2007, from http://www.cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herring.
  15. Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202–228). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hickson, M., Stacks, D. W., & Moore, N. J. (2004). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications (4th ed.). Los Angles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Jeong, A. (2007). The effects of intellectual openness and gender on critical thinking processes in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaboration argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 543–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juler, P. (1990). Promoting interaction; maintaining independence: Swallowing the mixture. Open Learning, 5(2), 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lakoff, R. (1988). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  23. Lawlor, C. (2006). Gendered interactions in computer-mediated computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 26–43.Google Scholar
  24. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Murphy, K. L., Harvell, T. J., Sanders, B., & Lu Epps, M. (1999). Students as designers and teachers of their courses via computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX, February. Retrieved December 14, 2007, from http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~kmurphy/writings/aect99webdesign.html.
  26. Ridley, C., & Avery, A. (1979). Social network influence on the dyadic relationship. In R. Burgess & T. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 223–246). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D., & Kelley, M. (1996). Gender language style and group composition in Internet discussion groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(3). Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue3/savicki.html.
  28. Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1). Retrieved December 14, 2007, from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html.
  29. Waldvogel, J. (2007). Greetings and closings in workplace email. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/waldvogel.html.
  30. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wojahn, P. G. (1994). Computer-mediated communications: The great equalizer between men and women. Technical Communications, 41, 747–752.Google Scholar
  32. Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In 18th proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology (pp. 821–844), Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  33. Zhu, E. (1998). Learning and mentoring: Electronic discussions in a distance learning course. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 233–259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Journalism and Multimedia ArtsDuquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options