Being polite while fulfilling different discourse functions in online classroom discussions

Using a discourse analytic qualitative approach, we investigated the naturally-occurring discourse that arose as part of two kinds of regular course activities, synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated discussions. The messages contributed by members of a graduate course were analyzed for the kind of discourse functions and the kind of politeness strategies they displayed. Results indicated that synchronous CMD afforded more information seeking, information providing, and social comments than asynchronous CMD. Asynchronous discussions were slightly more likely to allow for such functions as discussion generating, experience sharing, idea explanation, and self-evaluation functions than synchronous discussions. Proportionately the two modes were similar in how politeness was expressed. Finally, in relating politeness and function, we found more politeness indicators when students were posting messages with such functions as positive evaluation and group conversation management, functions that carried the potential for face threat, and the least politeness associated with messages serving the function of experience sharing.

[1]  Terry Anderson,et al.  Exploring Social Communication in Computer Conferencing , 2002 .

[2]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Zsuzsanna I. Abrams,et al.  The Effect of Synchronous and Asynchronous CMC on Oral Performance in German , 2003 .

[4]  Katherine Box.  Human Interaction During Teacher Training Courses Delivered Via The Internet , 1999 .

[5]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some universals in language use [Reprint] , 1999 .

[6]  L. Faigley.  Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition , 1992 .

[7]  Charlotte N. Gunawardena,et al.  Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing , 1997 .

[8]  Patrick J. Fahy,et al.  The Development and Testing of a Tool for Analysis of Computer-Mediated Conferencing Transcripts , 2000 .

[9]  A. P. Rovai,et al.  Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses , 2004 .

[10]  C. Kneser,et al.  The Tutor's Role: An investigation of the power of Exchange Structure Analysis to identify different roles in CMC seminars , 2001 .

[11]  Ning Wang,et al.  The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[12]  Diane L. Schallert,et al.  Online learning or learning on the line: Do students learn anything of value in a computer-mediated discussion. , 2004 .

[13]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[14]  Neil Mercer,et al.  The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners , 1995 .

[15]  Diane L. Schallert,et al.  Intellectual, Motivational, Textual, And Cultural Considerations In Teaching and Learning With Computer-Mediated Discussion , 2003 .

[16]  Gordon Wells.  Action, Talk, and Text: Learning and Teaching through Inquiry. Practitioner Inquiry Series. , 2001 .

[17]  Margarita Vinagre,et al.  Politeness strategies in collaborative e-mail exchanges , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[18]  James Paul Gee,et al.  话语分析入门 : 理论与方法 = An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method , 1999 .

[19]  W. Randall Thomas,et al.  Online Project-Based Learning: How Collaborative Strategies and Problem Solving Processes Impact Performance , 2005 .

[20]  Suzanne E. Wade,et al.  Dialogue online: Prospective teachers' discourse strategies in computer‐mediated discussions , 2004 .

[21]  C. Chou.  A Model of Learner-Centered Computer-Mediated Interaction for Collaborative Distance Learning C. CANDACE CHOU , 2004 .

[22]  Courtney B. Cazden,et al.  Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Second Edition. , 2001 .

[23]  Zsuzsanna I. Abrams.  Computer-mediated communication and group journals: expanding the repertoire of participant roles , 2001 .

[24]  D. Garrison,et al.  Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing , 1999 .

[25]  J. Gee.  Social Linguistics And Literacies: Ideology in Discourse , 1996 .

[26]  Rosalie J. Ocker,et al.  Politeness theory and computer-mediated communication: a sociolinguistic approach to analyzing relational messages , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[27]  Genevieve Marie Johnson,et al.  Personality, Internet Experience, and E-Communication Preference , 2006 .

[28]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Community Effort in Online Groups: Who Does the Work and Why? , 2007 .

[29]  Monica Brooks,et al.  The Online Disinhibition Effect and its Impact on the E-Learning Environment , 2009 .

[30]  G. Kress.  Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice , 1985 .

[31]  S. Weisband.  Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically-Supported Work , 2007 .

[32]  E. Goffman.  Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior , 1967 .

[33]  E. Zhu.  Meaning Negotiation, Knowledge Construction, and Mentoring in a Distance Learning Course , 1996 .

[34]  D. Cameron.  Working with spoken discourse , 2001 .

[35]  Anthony Kaye,et al.  Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing , 1992, NATO ASI Series.