Complexity and Interaction across Oral, Written and Online Discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.222117Keywords:
Interaction, Syntactic Complexity, Academic writing, Oral Debates, Synchronous Online ForumsAbstract
Most research that observed online discussions compared them to either written (e.g., Hewing& Coffin, 2007) or oral discourse (e.g., Joiner et al., 2008), never compiling the three modalities, and they did not provide comprehensive results regarding both form and Interaction. Academic essays and oral debates have been widely consumed in the EAP classroom. However, the effectiveness of synchronous online forums in the EFL academic classroom and their discourse features need to be compared to oral and written academic tasks simultaneously through a comprehensive analysis of both complexity, accuracy, and Interaction. The present study investigated the use of complex syntax, grammatical accuracy, and Interaction in the argumentative discourse of academic essays, oral debates, and synchronous online forums of EFL undergraduate students (N= 54) enrolled in a 12-week module of English for academic purposes. The methodology encompassed qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. All data were qualitatively transcribed and coded. Then results were quantitatively calculated using ANOVA and post hoc t-tests to find the differences across tasks for each variable. Results revealed a higher impact of academic essays and synchronous online forums on syntactic complexity and grammatical accuracy than oral debates and a greater influence of online forums and oral debates than academic essays on interactional features. Synchronous online forums revealed the highest impact as a task combining both structure and Interaction. Pedagogical implications then highlighted how synchronous online forums could be used in the rhetoric and composition EFL classroom
References
Ali, M.N. & Jaafar, M.J. (2010). Transforming Moodle as a reflective tool in learning the French language. International Journal of Academic Research, 2(3). 243- 262
Bates, A.W. (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age (2nd ed.). Vancouver, B.C.: Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/
Bagheri, M. & Zenouzagh, Z. M. (2021). Comparative study of the effect of face-to-face and computer-mediated conversation modalities on student engagement: Speaking skill in focus. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(5). 1-23.
Biber, D.& Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 2–20.
Biber, D.& Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Biber, D., Gray, B. & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1), 5–35.
Braidi, S. M. (1999). The acquisition of second language syntax. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Büchner, A. (2011). Moodle 2 administration (2nd ed.). Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing.
Burgess, M. L. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking and engagement among developmental reading students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39, 9-33.
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In R. W. Anderson (Ed.), Second Languages: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (pp. 219-242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Coskun, A. & Arslan, A. (2014). Moodling English language education. Education 134 (3), 275-282.
Costley, J., & Lange, C. (2016). The relationship between social presence and critical thinking: Results from learner discourse in an asynchronous learning environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 89-108.
DeLoach, S. B., & Greenlaw, S. A. (2007). Effectively moderating electronic discussions. Journal of Economic Education, 38,419-434.
Duvall, M., Matranga, A. and Silverman, J. (2020). Designing for and facilitating knowledge-building discourse in online courses. Information and Learning Sciences, 121 (7/8), 487-501. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0081
Fang, Z. (2021). Demystifying academic writing: Genres, moves, skills and strategies. New York: Routledge
Fernandez-Polo, F.J. & Cal-Varela, M. (2018). A structural analysis of student online forum discussions. In F.J.D. Perez& M. A. M. Moreno (Eds.), Languages at the crossroads: Training, accreditation and context of use (pp. 189-200). Universidad de Jaen.
Fu, E.L.F., Aalst, J.V.& Chan, C.K.K. (2016). Toward a classification of discourse patterns in asynchronous online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 441- 478.
Gamage, S. H. P.W., Ayres, J. R.,& Behrend M.B.(2022). A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning. International Journal of STEM Education 9 (9). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x
Gibson, W. (2009). Negotiating textual talk: conversation analysis, pedagogy, and the organization of online asynchronous discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 35(5), 705- 721.
Greenlaw, S.A.,& DeLoach, S.B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discussion. Journal of Economic Education 34, 36- 52.
Guan, Y., Tsai, C., & Hwang, F. (2006). Content analysis of online discussion on a senior-high-school discussion forum of a virtual physics laboratory. Instructional Science, 34, 279-311.
Hall, R. A. (2015). Critical thinking in online discussion boards: Transforming an anomaly. Varied Learning Environments, spring, 21- 43.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K.& Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold
Hewings, A. & Coffin, C. (2007). Writing in multi-party computer conferences and single-authored assignments: Exploring the role of writer as thinker. Journal of English for academic purposes, 6, 126-142.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19, 36-53.
Jin, T., Su, Y.& Lei, J. (2020). Exploring the blended learning design for argumentative writing. Language Learning and Technology Forum, 24(2). 23- 34.
Joiner, R., Jones S., & Doherty J. (2008). Two studies examining argumentation in asynchronous computer mediated communication. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 243-255.
Jun, H.G.& Lee, H-W. (2012). Student and teacher trial and perceptions of an online ESL academic writing unit. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 34, 128- 131.
Kashiha, H. (2021). Stance-taking across monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 1-11 https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2021.1964371
Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer-reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 44- 57.
Lee, N. I. (2004). An analysis of students' writing at a university in Japan: How do native speakers write differently from international students? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, November 2004.
Mick, C.S.& Middlebrook, G. (2015). Asynchronous and synchronous modalities. In B.L. Hewett, K.E. DePew, E. Guler& R.Z. Warner (Eds.), Foundational practices of online writing instruction (pp. 129- 148). Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearing House and Parlor Press.
Miller, J. F. & Chapman, R.S. (2003). SALT: Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts [Computer software]. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Maison, Waisman Research Center, Language Analysis Laboratory.
Montero-Fleta, B., Montesinos-Lopez, A. & Perez-Sabater, C., & Turney, E.(2009). Computer-mediated communication and informalization of discourse: The influence of culture and subject matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 770- 779.
Myers G. (2010). Discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Nippold, M. A., LaFavre, S., and Shinham, k. (2020). How adolescents interpret the moral messages of fables: Examining the development of critical thinking. Journal of Speech-Language and Hearing Research 63, 1212–1226. DOI: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00168
Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., & Billow, J. L. (2007). Peer conflict explanations in children, adolescents, and adults: Examining the development of complex syntax. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 179- 188.
Nippold, M.A., Vigeland, L.M. & Frantz-Kaspar, M.W. (2017). Metacognitive verb production in adolescents: The link to complex syntax, Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. DOI: 10.1080/02699206.2017.1318953
O’halloran, K. (2011). Investigating argumentation in reading groups: Combining manual qualitative coding and automated corpus analysis tools. Applied Linguistics, 32 (2), 172–196
Pienemann, M.(1998). Language processing and second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Potter, A. (2008). Interactional coherence in asynchronous learning networks: A rhetorical approach. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 87- 97.
Pyun, O. C.(2003). Effects of networked language learning: a comparison between synchronous online discussions and face to face discussions. (Unpublished PhD thesis).The Ohio State University, USA.
Shakarami, A., Hajhashemi, K. & Caltabiano (2016). Digital discourse markers in an ESL learning setting: The case of socialization forums. International Journal of Instruction, 9 (2), 167- 182.
Shukor, N.A., Tasir, Z., Der Meijden, H.V. & Harun, J. (2014). Exploring students’ knowledge construction strategies in computer supported collaborative learning discussions using sequential analysis. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 17 (4), 216- 228.
Sotillo, S.M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1). 82- 119.
Stansberry, S. L. (2006). Improving Student Research with Pathfinders. Paper presented at Encyclopedia XXVI, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40 (2), 297- 323.
Tan, T. T.& Dang, T. D. M. (2022). The influence of single-clause sentences on IELTS writing task 2 band score. International Journal of TESOL & Education2 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte2202012
Thompson, S. (1978). Modern English from a typological point of view: Some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte, 54, 19-35.
Tran, Hai, Q, Nguyen & Minh, T(2022). Determinants in student satisfaction with online learning: A survey study of second-year students at private universities in HCMC. International Journal of TESOL & Education 2 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte22215
Wang, Q.& Woo, L.H. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face to face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (2), 272- 286.
Ward, Peters & Shelley (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11 (3), 57- 77.
Wilson B., Hamann, K. & Pollock, P. H. (2014). Spill-over effects in online discussions: Assessing the effectiveness of student preceptors. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 11 (1), 15-24.
Zaki M. (2011), Oral Development of Language Proficiency in Expository Presentations: A case of Egyptian EFL Learners. Colne: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Mayada Tawfik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright of all articles published in the International Journal of TESOL & Education (ijte) remains with the Authors, i.e. Authors retain full ownership of their article. Permitted third-party reuse of the open access articles is defined by the applicable Creative Commons (CC) end-user license which is accepted by the Authors upon submission of their paper. All articles in the ijte are published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license, meaning that end users can freely share an article (i.e. copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt it (i.e. remix, transform and build upon the material) on the condition that proper attribution is given (i.e. appropriate credit, a link to the applicable license and an indication if any changes were made; all in such a way that does not suggest that the licensor endorses the user or the use) and the material is only used for non-commercial purposes.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository, in a journal or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
