2007
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-007-9007-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Barriers to online critical discourse

Abstract: This qualitative case study illustrates barriers to informal argumentation and reasoned debate, i.e., critical discourse, in online forums. The case is the computer conference of a 15-week, graduate-level humanities course offered entirely at a distance. Twelve students, all with families and careers, were enrolled in the course. We read all messages as they were posted and interviewed five of the students several times during the course. The students provided three insights into our interpretation that the fo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
1
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
1
31
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For various reasons, some students may avoid giving critical feedback to the learning peers while some others may prefer not to receive critical feedback from their learning peers. These reasons include psychological, emotional, and social barriers for giving and receiving critical feedback such as fear of losing face or getting into a fight with learning partners [16], and perceiving critiques and counterarguments as personal attacks [17]. For example, there are students who would be reluctant to oppose and disagree with their learning peers, while others may not appreciate being challenged themselves [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For various reasons, some students may avoid giving critical feedback to the learning peers while some others may prefer not to receive critical feedback from their learning peers. These reasons include psychological, emotional, and social barriers for giving and receiving critical feedback such as fear of losing face or getting into a fight with learning partners [16], and perceiving critiques and counterarguments as personal attacks [17]. For example, there are students who would be reluctant to oppose and disagree with their learning peers, while others may not appreciate being challenged themselves [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The technological presence-The technological presence is defined as a wide range of behaviors that constitute the online interaction styles of the students. Based on a selection of the records of these behaviors that we look for in the online learning environment is what constitutes the technological presence [13,14].…”
Section: Units Of Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Faculty may structure the class well, administer it effectively, and respond to students without guiding deep understanding, critical inquiry, and application (Richardson & Ice, 2010); they can engage in many teaching behaviors but not support higher levels of cognitive presence (Rourke & Kanuka, 2007). As a result, some students may individually wrestle with concepts, integrate and apply information, but they would not do this work together, creating lower levels of agreement about cognitive presence.…”
Section: The Effect Of Teaching Presence Levels and Agreement On Commmentioning
confidence: 99%