Abstract
<P>This study tested the effects of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers on the number and types of replies elicited per argument and per challenge posted in online debates. To facilitate collaborative argumentation, thirty-two students (22 females, 10 males) enrolled in a graduate-level online course classified and labeled their messages as arguments, challenges, supporting evidence, or explanations prior to posting each message. The findings showed that qualified arguments elicited 41 percent fewer replies (effect size = -.64), and the reduction in replies was greatest when qualified arguments were presented by females than males. Challenges without qualifiers, however, did not elicit more replies than challenges with qualifiers. These findings suggest that qualifiers were used to hedge arguments, and such behaviors should be discouraged during initial stages of identifying arguments (more so in all-female than in all-male groups) in order to elicit more diverse and more opposing viewpoints needed to thoroughly and critically analyze arguments. <BR></P> <P><STRONG>Keywords:</STRONG> Computer-mediated communication, CMC, communication style, group interaction patterns, interaction analysis, computer-supported collaborative learning, CSCL, collaborative argumentation.</P>
Highlights
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is widely used to support student interaction in order to facilitate higher order learning through critical discussion
The mean number of replies elicited with qualifiers was 29 percent below the mean number of replies elicited with intensifiers, and 41 percent below the mean number of replies elicited with neither
The mean number of replies elicited with intensifiers was 17 percent lower than the mean number of replies elicited with neither
Summary
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is widely used to support student interaction in order to facilitate higher order learning through critical discussion. Collaborative argumentation is one activity used to foster critical discussion (Johnson and Johnson, 1992) in both face-to-face and online environments. Argumentation involves the process of building arguments to support a position, considering and weighing evidence and counter-evidence, and testing out uncertainties to extract meaning, achieve understanding (McAlister, 2003), and examine complex problems (Cho and Jonassen, 2002). Computer-supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) provides students the opportunity to practice argumentation through writing and discussion simultaneously while communicating with text-based communication tools (Baker, 1999). Various strategies have been developed to support collaborative argumentation where constraints are imposed on the types of messages students can post to a discussion. Jeong and Juong (in press) presented to students a fixed set of message categories (arguments, challenges, supporting evidence, explanations) and required students to classify and label each message by
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
