• English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • English 
    • English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • OAI Data Pool
  • OAI Harvested Content
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • OAI Data Pool
  • OAI Harvested Content
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of the LibraryCommunitiesPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsThis CollectionPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsProfilesView

My Account

LoginRegister

The Library

AboutNew SubmissionSubmission GuideSearch GuideRepository PolicyContact

The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

  • CSV
  • RefMan
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • RefWorks
Author(s)
Allan C. Jeong
Contributor(s)
The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
Keywords
Computer-mediated communication
CMC

Full record
Show full item record
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/796203
Online Access
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.1019.4170
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/download/258/843/
Abstract
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.
Date
2016-10-22
Type
text
Identifier
oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.1019.4170
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.1019.4170
Copyright/License
Metadata may be used without restrictions as long as the oai identifier remains attached to it.
Collections
OAI Harvested Content

entitlement

 
DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
Quick Guide | Contact Us
Open Repository is a service operated by 
Atmire NV
 

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.