The Effects of Conversational Language on Group Interaction and Group Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

This study examined the effects of conversational language (e.g., asking questions, inviting replies, acknowledgments, referencing others by name, closing signatures, ‘I agree, but’, greetings, etc.) on the frequency and types of responses posted in reply to given types of messages (e.g., argument, evidence, critique, explanation), and how the resulting response patterns support and inhibit collaborative argumentation in asynchronous online discussions. Using event sequence analysis to analyze message-response exchanges in eight online group debates, this study found that (a) arguments elicited 41% more challenges when presented with more conversational language (effect size .32), (b) challenges with more conversational language elicited three to eight times more explanations (effect size .12 to .31), and (c) the number of supporting evidence elicited by challenges was not significantly different from challenges that used more versus less conversational language. Overall, these and other findings from exploratory post-hoc tests show that conversational language can help to produce patterns of interaction that foster high levels of critical discourse, and that some forms of conversational language are more effective in eliciting responses than others.

[1]  Roger Bakeman,et al.  Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis , 1986 .

[2]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Argument and Decision Making in Computer‐Mediated Groups , 2004 .

[3]  M. Knapp,et al.  Nonverbal communication in human interaction , 1972 .

[4]  R. Clark.  Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media , 1983 .

[5]  Thomas M. Duffy,et al.  Using asynchronous conferencing to promote critical thinking: two implementations in higher education , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[6]  A. Rogier.  [Communication without words]. , 1971, Tijdschrift voor ziekenverpleging.

[7]  Elizabeth J. Burge.  Using learning technologies: ideas for keeping one's balance , 1999 .

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

[9]  Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers,et al.  The Effects of Gender Interaction Patterns on Student Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation , 2006 .

[10]  C. Kimble,et al.  Vocal signs of confidence , 1991 .

[11]  Patrick J. Fahy,et al.  Use of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers in a Computer Conference , 2002 .

[12]  D. Newman.  An Experiment in Group Learning Technology: Evaluating Critical Thinking in Face-to-Face and Computer-Supported Seminars. , 1996 .

[13]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Decision Development in Computer-Assisted Group Decision Making , 1995 .

[14]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. , 1999 .

[15]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment , 1997, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[16]  Pieter J. Beers,et al.  Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[17]  José Bidarra,et al.  Current Developments and Best Practice in Open and Distance Learning , 2000 .

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

[19]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal and Relational Communication Associated with Reticence , 1984 .

[20]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences , 2002, Int. J. Knowl. Learn..

[21]  Dimitris Papadias,et al.  Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system , 2001, Inf. Syst..

[22]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Characterizing the sequential structure of interactive behaviors through statistical and grammatical techniques , 1994 .

[23]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Creative Controversy: Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom , 1992 .

[24]  William J. Jordan,et al.  VERBAL BEHAVIOR AS A FUNCTION OF APPREHENSION AND SOCIAL CONTEXT , 1978 .

[25]  R. Clark.  Media will never influence learning , 1994 .

[26]  Roger Bakeman,et al.  Social Rules Governing Object Conflicts in Toddlers and Preschoolers , 1982 .

[27]  R. Garrison.  Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A Shift from Structural to Transactional Issues , 2000 .

[28]  R. Kozma.  Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate , 1994 .

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

[30]  Allan Jeong.  The Sequential Analysis of Group Interaction and Critical Thinking in Online , 2003 .

[31]  Daniel N. Stern,et al.  Mother and infant at play: The dyadic interaction involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors. , 1974 .

[32]  David A. Keast,et al.  Toward an Effective Model for Implementing Distance Education Programs. , 1997 .

[33]  J. Gottman.  Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations , 1980 .

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

[35]  Teemu Leinonen,et al.  Collaborative discovering of key ideas in knowledge building , 2002, CSCL.

[36]  Victor Savicki,et al.  Effects of training on computer-mediated communication in single or mixed gender small task groups , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[37]  Kenneth H. Rubin,et al.  Peer relationships and social skills in childhood , 1982 .

[38]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Does reticence mean just talking less? Qualitative differences in the language of talkative and reticent preschoolers , 1982 .

[39]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Cscl : Theory and Practice of An Emerging Paradigm , 1996 .

[40]  Allan Jeong.  A Guide to Analyzing Message–Response Sequences and Group Interaction Patterns in Computer‐mediated Communication , 2005 .

[41]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication , 1995, Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed..

[42]  Ray L. Birdwhistell,et al.  Background to kinesics. , 1983 .

[43]  S. Herring.  Two variants of an electronic message schema , 1996 .

[44]  Jerry Andriessen,et al.  Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation , 1999, CSCL.

[45]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Paradigm Shift s and Instructional Technology , 1996 .

[46]  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 .

[47]  F. Fischer,et al.  Epistemic and social scripts in computer–supported collaborative learning , 2005 .

[48]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities , 1994 .

[49]  T. Duffy,et al.  Critical Thinking in a Distributed Environment : A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems , 1998 .

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

[51]  Allan Jeong.  The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation. , 2006 .

[52]  S. Feldstein,et al.  The Telltale Voice: Nonverbal Messages of Verbal Communication , 1987 .

[53]  S. Herring.  Computer-mediated communication : linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives , 1996 .

[54]  Patrick J. Fahy.  Epistolary and Expository Interaction Patterns in a Computer Conference Transcript , 2002 .

[55]  P. Fahy.  Indicators of Support in Online Interaction , 2003 .

[56]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving , 2002 .