This empirical study examines ChatGPT as an educational and learning tool. It investigates the opportunities and chal-lenges that ChatGPT provides to the students and instruc-tors of communication, business writing, and composition courses. It also strives to provide recommendations. After conducting 30 theory-based and application-based ChatGPT tests, it is found that ChatGPT has the potential of replacing search engines as it provides accurate and relia-ble input to students. For opportunities, the study found that ChatGPT provides a platform for students to seek an-swers to theory-based questions and generate ideas for ap-plication-based questions. It also provides a platform for in-structors to integrate technology in classrooms and conduct workshops to discuss and evaluate generated responses. For challenges, the study found that ChatGPT, if unethically used by students, may lead to human unintelligence and un-learning. This may also present a challenge to instructors as the use of ChatGPT negatively affects their ability to dif-ferentiate between meticulous and automaton-dependent students, on the one hand, and measure the achievement of learning outcomes, on the other hand. Based on the out-come of the analysis, this study recommends communica-tion, business writing, and composition instructors to (1) re-frain from making theory-based questions as take-home as-sessments, (2) provide communication and business writing students with detailed case-based and scenario-based as-sessment tasks that call for personalized answers utilizing critical, creative, and imaginative thinking incorporating lec-tures and textbook material, (3) enforce submitting all take-home assessments on plagiarism detection software, espe-cially for composition courses, and (4) integrate ChatGPT generated responses in classes as examples to be discussed in workshops. Remarkably, this study found that ChatGPT skillfully paraphrases regenerated responses in a way that is not detected by similarity detection software. To maintain their effectiveness, similarity detection software providers need to upgrade their software to avoid such incidents from slipping unnoticed.
The corpus-based study focuses on the use of hedges in persuasive TED Talk speeches, which are powerful, premeditated speeches delivered in a distinctive communicative environment that combines elements of both spoken and written discourse. The authors employ both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze the hedging devices used to bolster the three rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. The results show that only 2% of the words in the corpus serve as hedging devices, which is lower compared to previous studies on written and spoken discourse. The incidence of hedges is highest in the logos parts, followed by pathos, with the lowest incidence in ethos. Strong credibility is generally established by avoiding hedging devices. To evoke emotions in the audience, the speakers mainly rely on adverbs and verbs. The use of approximators and shields to strengthen logos resembles the use of hedges in written academic discourse. The qualitative analysis focuses on the four most commonly used hedges: ‘actually’, ‘just’, ‘could’, and ‘think’. ‘Actually’ has a mitigating effect when it promotes intimacy, indicates the speaker's commentary, or introduces a challenging, even reinforcing effect. ‘Just’ is often used to convey a mildly positive or reassuring tone in communication. Both the parenthetical phrase ‘I think’, used in a variety of meanings, and the modal verb ‘could’, used as a hypothetical possibility, most often enhance the logical strength of an argument. The paper suggests incorporating these findings into ESL teaching materials and conducting further studies on the topic, as most existing studies focus on developing a scientific argument in writing. Developing an argument in speech is distinct and deserves attention.
Within the framework of scientific argumentation, this study explores the role of what we here call the unstated argument in knowledge construction. The case study conducted in a cancer research lab in Brussels, uses observation, open interviews, and discourse analysis. Guided by Discursive Psychology as a theory and method, it examines the bases of a specific unstated argument embedded in tacit knowledge. The unstated argument is about medium usage in cancer research. The medium is a chemical liquid composed of a number of substances injected into the cells that scientists use to carry out experiments. The findings suggest that the unstated argument comprises a claim and de facto evidence. The claim is that the medium usage is appropriate and not problematic for research results. The evidence: (1) does not emanate from research; (2) is based on personal opinion; and (3) is backed up by the following factors: (a) practicing the status quo; (b) adhering to cancer-research standards; and (c) being bound by the demand and supply interplay. Provoked by the present study, counterevidence is ultimately substantiated by the same scientists. The counterevidence happens to challenge the claim, as it is based on expert-opinion. The study suggests that ethnography can offer a unique methodological stance to discern the unstated arguments embedded in tacit knowledge.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.