The Effects of Communication Style and Message Function in Triggering Responses and Critical Discussion in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation.

摘要: This study examined how differences in communication style affect likely particular types of messages (e.g. arguments, evidence, critiques, explanations) were able to elicit critical responses during four online debates. Event sequence analysis was used compare the response probabilities for each type message across that expository versus epistolary styles observed asynchronous threaded discussions. The results suggests when a is posted challenge an opposing viewpoint, significantly less return from opposition acknowledges individuals by name or presents direct reference individual’s preceding statements. A more detailed and exploratory interactions revealed this might have contributed decrease frequency evidence subsequent discussion supporting explanations needed defend challenged viewpoints arguments. Introduction Computer-mediated (CMC) provides opportunities learner-to-learner interaction enables learning communities engage reflective thinking. Argumentation one fundamental collaborative inquiry-based strategies increasing thinking skills settings. These involve processes building arguments support position, considering weighing counter-evidence developing Innovative approaches facilitating student participation argumentation been developed computer-supported (CSCL) (CSCA). One approach scaffolding structure discussions such constraints are placed on what functional moves can be (Cho & Jonassen, 2002; Duffy et al., 1998; Jonassen Remidez, 2001; McAlister, 2001). other incorporates intelligent systems pedagogical agents use formalized models actively diagnose students' performance suggest immediate courses action (Eleuterio, Barthes Bartolozzi, Jacques, Oliveira, Vicari, 2002a; Jacques et. Al, 2002b; Karacapilidis Papadias, Despite these technical advances functions students perform regardless technology facilitate discussion, growing body research now influenced its participants. When often responds may depend not just said (in terms function message), but also delivered style. Significant found between males females. For example, men tend assert opinions strongly as facts, place value presenting information using style, crude language, violate rules conduct, adversarial exchanges, terminate exchanges there disagreements (Fahy, Herring, 1993; Savicki 1996). In contrast, females qualify justify their assertions, expressions convey roles, make apologies, general, manifest consensus-making orientation Furthermore, upset violations politeness participants conduct (Smith, McLaughlin Osborne, 1997). Although gender tendency towards groups modify direction majority (Baym, 1996;