Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

  • Berger, C. (1997). Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals through Communicative Action (p. 138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.

    Article  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. (2005b). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. C. (2013). Discussion analysis tool. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://myweb.fsu.edu/ajeong.

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The Hermes system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 ‘02

  • Lemus, D., Seibold, D., Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2004). Argument and decision making in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 302–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Information Processing and Management, 40(6), 1027–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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)

  • Myers, S., & Bryant, L. (2004). College students’ perceptions of how instructors convey credibility. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243–265.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. (2008). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Systems Program, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Allan Jeong

  2. University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

    Haiying Li

  3. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Andy Jiaren Pan

Authors
  1. Allan Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haiying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andy Jiaren Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allan Jeong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeong, A., Li, H. & Pan, A.J. A sequential analysis of responses in online debates to postings of students exhibiting high versus low grammar and spelling errors. Education Tech Research Dev 65, 1175–1194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9501-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9501-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation