Predicting social cues during online discussions: Effects of evaluations and knowledge content

This study examined whether evaluations (agreements, disagreements), knowledge content (new ideas, justifications), or social cues (SCs) in recent messages affected a current message's positive or negative SC during asynchronous, online discussions. Using statistical discourse analysis, we modeled 894 messages by 183 participants on 60 high school mathematics topics (typically eight people posted per topic) on a mathematics problem solving website not connected to any class or school. Results showed that recent agreements increased the likelihood of positive SC, whereas justifications reduced it. Disagreements increased the likelihood of negative SC, whereas new ideas reduced it. Meanwhile, recent positive or negative SCs did not affect the likelihood of a subsequent SC. Together, these results suggest that judicious use of positive SCs rather than negative SCs during disagreements can help students both construct knowledge and maintain social relationships.

[1]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course , 2000 .

[2]  L. Tidwell,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time , 2002 .

[3]  M. Baker.  ARGUMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTIVE INTERACTION , 2009 .

[4]  Jeannette McDonald.  Interpersonal Group Dynamics and Development in Computer Conferencing: The Rest of the Story. , 1998 .

[5]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  The Development of Argumentive Discourse Skill , 2001 .

[6]  D. Garrison,et al.  Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts , 2007 .

[7]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  Effects of argumentation on group micro-creativity: Statistical discourse analyses of algebra students’ collaborative problem solving , 2008 .

[8]  M. Chiu,et al.  A New Method for Analyzing Sequential Processes , 2005 .

[9]  Gaowei Chen.  Online Discussion Processes: How Do Recent Messages Affect a Current Message's Correct Contribution and Social Cues? , 2009 .

[10]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  Multilevel Modeling of Individual and Group Level Mediated Effects , 2001, Multivariate behavioral research.

[11]  Judith B. Pena-Shaff,et al.  Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[12]  R. Spears,et al.  Panacea or Panopticon? , 1994 .

[13]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  M. Chiu.  Flowing Toward Correct Contributions During Group Problem Solving: A Statistical Discourse Analysis , 2008 .

[15]  R. Rice,et al.  Electronic Emotion , 1987 .

[16]  C. C. Gibson,et al.  Interpersonal Dynamics and Group Development in Computer Conferencing. , 1998 .

[17]  H. McKee.  "YOUR VIEWS SHOWED TRUE IGNORANCE!!!": (Mis)Communication in an Online Interracial Discussion Forum , 2002 .

[18]  Linda Shields,et al.  Content Analysis , 2015 .

[19]  Min-Sun Kim,et al.  Verbal Aggression and Self-Disclosure on Computer Bulletin Boards. , 1991 .

[20]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  To Err is Human, to Correct for it Divine , 2001 .

[21]  Aurelio Tobías,et al.  Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the Galbraith plot , 1998 .

[22]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[23]  S. Turkle.  Life on the Screen , 1995 .

[24]  Stefania Manca,et al.  The expression of social presence through the use of figurative language in a web-based learning environment , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  Tammy Schellens,et al.  Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[26]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[27]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[28]  J. Devito.  Human Communication: The Basic Course , 1996 .

[29]  Tammy Schellens,et al.  Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  Group Problem-Solving Processes: Social Interactions and Individual Actions , 2000 .

[31]  T. Holtgraves.  Yes, but... , 1997 .

[32]  S. Green.  How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis. , 1991, Multivariate behavioral research.

[33]  Alyssa Friend Wise,et al.  Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[34]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy , 2000 .

[35]  G. Box,et al.  The likelihood function of stationary autoregressive-moving average models , 1979 .

[36]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[37]  Chere Campbell Gibson,et al.  Interpersonal aspects of group dynamics and development in computer conferencing , 1998 .

[38]  Peter E. Kennedy.  A Guide to Econometrics , 1979 .

[39]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  Online Discussion Processes: Effects of Earlier Messages’ Evaluations, Knowledge Content, Social Cues and Personal Information on Later Messages , 2006, Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'06).

[40]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Decoding of inconsistent communications. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[41]  R. Spears,et al.  Paralanguage and social perception in computer‐mediated communication , 1992 .

[42]  Nicholas O. Jungheim,et al.  Pragmatics and pedagogy , 1999 .

[43]  Sarah J. Tracy,et al.  Rudeness at 911 Reconceptualizing Face and Face Attack , 1998 .

[44]  Mac Nason,et al.  Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks , 2006, Education and Information Technologies.

[45]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving , 2001 .

[46]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate , 2006 .

[47]  D. Randy Garrison,et al.  Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education , 1999, Internet High. Educ..

[48]  P. Coirier,et al.  Foundations of argumentative text processing , 2000 .

[49]  C. Gunawardena,et al.  Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment , 1997 .

[50]  Mary K. Tallent-Runnels,et al.  Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research , 2006 .

[51]  G. Box,et al.  On a measure of lack of fit in time series models , 1978 .

[52]  Terry Anderson,et al.  Teaching In An Online Learning Context , 2004 .

[53]  T. Paulus,et al.  The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.Learning through Dialogue: Online Case Studies in Educational Psychology , 2006 .

[54]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[55]  Karen L. Murphy,et al.  Communication Conventions in Instructional Electronic Chats , 1997, First Monday.

[56]  J E Pollina,et al.  [Yes... but]. , 1994, Cirugia pediatrica : organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Cirugia Pediatrica.

[57]  H. Goldstein.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2006 .

[58]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[59]  M. Chiu,et al.  Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving: Do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? , 2003 .

[60]  Roberto J. Mejias,et al.  The Effects of National Culture and Anonymity on Flaming and Criticalness in GSS-Supported Discussions , 2004 .

[61]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Pragmatics and Pedagogy: Conversational Rules and Politeness Strategies May Inhibit Effective Tutoring , 1995 .

[62]  Tania B. Huedo-Medina,et al.  Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? , 2006, Psychological methods.

[63]  Jeffrey T. Polzer,et al.  Fostering Group Identification and Creativity in Diverse Groups: The Role of Individuation and Self-Verification , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[64]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Adaptation in Dyadic Interaction: Defining and Operationalizing Patterns of Reciprocity and Compensation , 1993 .

[65]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

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

[67]  Daantje Derks,et al.  Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: the importance of social context , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[68]  J. Gottman,et al.  Marital interaction and satisfaction: a longitudinal view. , 1989, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.