You are here:

Effects of Spoken vs. Written Text on the Quality of Discussion in Online Discussion Boards PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , , Texas Tech University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-92-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Many articles have been published on how to improve the quality of discussion within the asynchronous discussion boards frequently used in online courses. Still, the traditional written text threaded discussion boards often fail to produce the quality of interaction desired. Instead of trying to fix a method (i.e. written text discussions) which has often proved ineffective, this study looked at a potentially more effective alternative. In a within-participants experimental design, graduate students participated in two online discussion activities with different requirements in terms of posting modality—written text vs. spoken text. It was hypothesized that hearing the voices of other students would provide additional cues, increasing the richness of the message and leading to more effective discussions. However, the results of show that while the posts were shorter in the written text condition, they contained higher levels of content quality than the posts in the spoken text condition.

Citation

Case, D.E., Crooks, S., Chen, X., Ford, S., Han, N. & Torres, J. (2012). Effects of Spoken vs. Written Text on the Quality of Discussion in Online Discussion Boards. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 14-18). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 17, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. An, H, Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers& Education, 53(3), 749-760.
  2. Balaji, S.M., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: empirical research from “Media Richness Theory” perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1-22.
  3. Boettcher, J. (2007). Ten core principles for designing effective learning environments: Insights from brain research and pedagogical theory. Innovate, 3 (3).
  4. Carr-Chellman, A. & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229-241.
  5. Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
  6. Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Erlbaum.
  7. Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397 –431.
  8. Otondo, F.R., Scotter, R.J., Allen, G.D., & Palvia, P. (2008). The complexity of richness: Media, message, and communication outcomes. Information& Management, 45, 21-30.
  9. Ward, M., & Newlands, D. (1998). Use of the web in undergraduate teaching. Computer& Education, 31(2), 171184.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Developing a Positive Asynchronous Online Discussion Forum

    Karen McFerrin & Paula Christensen, Northwestern State University of Louisiana, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (Mar 25, 2013) pp. 769–774

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.