Navigating choppy discourses: A conceptual framework for understanding synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication

Janaina Minelli de Oliveira; Vanessa Esteve-González

doi:10.1515/text-2020-2056

Article

Navigating choppy discourses: A conceptual framework for understanding synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication

Janaina Minelli de Oliveira
Janaina Minelli de Oliveira holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics. She is an associate professor Serra Húnter at Universitat Rovira i Virgili, at the Departament de Pedagogia of Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació i Psicologia. She is a member of Educational Research Methodology with Social Impact (MEDIS, 2017 SGR 1674). Her research interests include social semiotics, educational communication and educational technology. Address for correspondence: Carretera de Valls, s/n, Campus Sescelades, 43007, Tarragona, Spain. Email: janaina.oliveira@urv.cat
and Vanessa Esteve-González
Vanessa Esteve-González holds a PhD in Educational Technology. She is a teacher and researcher at Universitat Rovira i Virgili at the Departament de Pedagogia of Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació i Psicologia. She is a member of Applied Research Group in Educational Technology (ARGET, 2017 SGR 1682). Her research interests are related to the use of 3D simulations and digital game-based learning. Address for correspondence: Carretera de Valls, s/n, Campus Sescelades, 43007, Tarragona, Spain. Email: vanessa.esteve@urv.cat

Published/Copyright: January 30, 2020

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Text & Talk Volume 40 Issue 2

Abstract

This paper presents an investigation into patterns of interaction in synchronous, text-based computer-mediated communication (SCMC) with a focus on participation. The data constitute a corpus of 3,785 words from a series of interactions between student teachers performing learning activities in a three-dimensional online environment. Drawing on a systemic functional grammar perspective of language, we aim to develop a conceptual framework for understanding participation as made up of interactional patterns in students’ linguistic exchanges while performing learning activities. Our findings show that verbal negotiation that creates a shared understanding of what the group should accomplish or a common view of how to perform the activity is more frequent than strict activity organization. We argue that there are features of CMC signaling higher levels of complexity than those ordinarily found in face to face or written communication. The three broad interactional features identified – blending, turn-taking collaboration and delay endurance – corroborate our claim. This paper presents evidence that participation in text-based SCMC with learning purposes demands a disposition for collaboration and solidarity, a capacity to endure delay, and the ability to manage a conglomerate of information and communication tools without instructions on how-to processes.

Keywords: text-based communication; computer-mediated communication; synchronous communication; online learning environments; systemic functional grammar

Funding statement: This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness [grant number EDU2013-42223-P].

About the authors

Janaina Minelli de Oliveira

Janaina Minelli de Oliveira holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics. She is an associate professor Serra Húnter at Universitat Rovira i Virgili, at the Departament de Pedagogia of Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació i Psicologia. She is a member of Educational Research Methodology with Social Impact (MEDIS, 2017 SGR 1674). Her research interests include social semiotics, educational communication and educational technology. Address for correspondence: Carretera de Valls, s/n, Campus Sescelades, 43007, Tarragona, Spain. Email: janaina.oliveira@urv.cat

Vanessa Esteve-González

Vanessa Esteve-González holds a PhD in Educational Technology. She is a teacher and researcher at Universitat Rovira i Virgili at the Departament de Pedagogia of Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació i Psicologia. She is a member of Applied Research Group in Educational Technology (ARGET, 2017 SGR 1682). Her research interests are related to the use of 3D simulations and digital game-based learning. Address for correspondence: Carretera de Valls, s/n, Campus Sescelades, 43007, Tarragona, Spain. Email: vanessa.esteve@urv.cat

References

Biasutti, Michele. 2017. A comparative analysis of forums and wikis as tools for online collaborative learning. Computers & Education 111. 158–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.006.Search in Google Scholar

Cherny, Lynn. 1999. Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Chodos, David, Eleni Stroulia, Sharla King & Mike Carbonaro. 2014. A framework for monitoring instructional environments in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology45(1). 24–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01370.x.Search in Google Scholar

Chua, Yan Piaw & Yee Pei Chua. 2017. How are e-leadership practices in implementing a school virtual learning environment enhanced? A grounded model study. Computers & Education 109. 109–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.012.Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, Linda. 2009. The POD model: Using communities of practice theory to conceptualise student teachers’ professional learning online. Computers & Education 52(3). 521–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.006.Search in Google Scholar

Coffing, Caroline. 2013. Using systemic functional linguistics to explore digital technologies in educational contexts. Text & Talk 33(4–5). 497–522.10.1515/text-2013-0023Search in Google Scholar

de Oliveira, Janaina Minelli, Vanessa Esteve-González & Mar Camacho. 2013. Interaction in the virtual world: An analysis of students’ construal of pedagogic subject positions in a 3D virtual learning environment. Text & Talk 33(3). 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0016.Search in Google Scholar

de Oliveira, Janaina Minelli, Danah Henriksen, Linda Castañeda, Marta Marimon, Elena Barberà, Carles Monereo, César Coll, Jabari Mahiri & Punya Mishra. 2015. The educational landscape of the digital age: Communication practices pushing (us) forward. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal 12(2). 14–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i2.2440.Search in Google Scholar

Doering, Aaron & Richard Beach. 2002. Preservice English teachers acquiring literacy practices through technology tools. Language Learning & Technology 6(3). 127–146.Search in Google Scholar

Freiermuth, Mark. 2011. Debating in an online world: A comparative analysis of speaking, writing, and online chat. Text & Talk 31(2). 127–151.10.1515/text.2011.006Search in Google Scholar

Fu, Ella, Jan van Aalst & Carol Chan. 2016. Toward a classification of discourse patterns in asynchronous online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 11(4). 441–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9245-3.Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Fei & Lan Li. 2016. Examining a one-hour synchronous chat in a microblogging-based professional development community. British Journal of Educational Technology 48(2). 332–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12384.Search in Google Scholar

Giles, David. 2016. Observing real-world groups in the virtual field: The analysis of online discussion. British Journal of Social Psychology 55(3). 484–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12139.Search in Google Scholar

Gisbert, Mercè & José Luis Lázaro Cantabrana. 2015. Professional development in teacher digital competence and improving school quality from the teachers’ perspective: A case study. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 4(2). 115–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.7.123.Search in Google Scholar

Gisbert, Mercè, Vanessa Esteve-González & José Luis Lázaro Cantabrana. 2016. Improving digital competence in teacher training: The design and implementation of learning tasks in 3D virtual learning environments. Canada: EdMedia 2016, in Vancouver.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1984. Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin Fawcett, Michael Alexander Halliday, Sydney Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The Semiotics of Culture and Language. 1. Language as Social Semiotic (Open Linguistics Series), 3–35. London: Pinter.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Christian Matthias Ingemar Martin Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Herring, Susan. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.39Search in Google Scholar

Herring, Susan. 1999. Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(4). 0–0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x.Search in Google Scholar

Higgins, Robert. 1991. Computer-mediated cooperative learning: Synchronous and asynchronous communication between students learning nursing diagnosis. University of Toronto. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. http://www.cybercorp.net/rhiggins/thesis/.Search in Google Scholar

Ho, Caroline Mei Lin. 2004. Computer-mediated communication: Practice, projects and purposes. Teaching English with Technology 4(1). 0–0.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Wenting. 2017. Interdependence of roles, role rotation, and sense of community in an online course. Distance Education 38(1). 84–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1299564.Search in Google Scholar

Jung-Ivannikova, Liubov. 2014. Communication challenges learners face online: Why addressing CMC and language proficiency will not solve learners’ problems. British Journal oOf Educational Technology 47(2). 239–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12219.Search in Google Scholar

Kern, Richard. 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal 79(4). 457–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/329999.Search in Google Scholar

Kitade, Keiko. 2000. L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13(2). 143–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/0958-8221(200004)13:2;1-d;ft143.Search in Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther. 2003. Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203299234Search in Google Scholar

Lapadat, Judit. 2003. Teachers in an online seminar talking about talk: Classroom discourse and school change. Language And Education 17(1). 21–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780308666836.Search in Google Scholar

Lázaro-Cantabrana, José Luis, Vanessa Esteve-González, Mònica Sanromà-Giménez & Mercè Gisbert-Cervera. 2016. El desarrollo de la competencia digital docente en los estudiantes del grado de educación mediante un entorno de simulación 3D: diseño y validación de actividades. In Rosabel Roig-Vila (ed.), Tecnología, innovación e investigación en los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje, 2606–2615. Barcelona: Octaedro.Search in Google Scholar

Lester, Jessica & Trena Paulus. 2011. Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies 13(6). 671–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421361.Search in Google Scholar

Ligorio, Beatrice. 2001. Integrating communication formats: Synchronous versus asynchronous and text-based versus visual. Computers & Education 37(2). 103–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(01)00039-2.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.59Search in Google Scholar

Mikroyannidis, Alexander, Alexandra Okada, André Corrêa & Peter Scott. 2016. Inquiry-based learning on the cloud. In lee Chao (ed.), Handbook of research on cloud-based STEM education for improved learning outcomes, 291–310. Information Science Reference. Hershey PA, USA: IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-4666-9924-3.ch019Search in Google Scholar

Muhr, Thomas. 2004. User manual for ATLAS. ti 5.0. Berlin: ATLAS. ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.Search in Google Scholar

Murray, Denise. 1988. Computer-mediated communication: Implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes 7(1). 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90003-8.Search in Google Scholar

Nguyen, H. 2017. The sequential organization of text and speech in multimodal synchronous computer-mediated communication. Text & Talk 37(1). 93–116.10.1515/text-2016-0039Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Kathy. 2010. Students’ appraisal of emotional and relational experience whilst collaborating online using text based communication. Computers & Education 54(3). 799–807. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

Sauro, Shanon. 2011. SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal 28(2). 369–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.369-391.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel. 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29(01). 1–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500001019.Search in Google Scholar

Sengupta, Sima. 2001. Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain. Language Learning & Technology 5(1). 103–134.Search in Google Scholar

Simpson, James. 2005. Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse Studies 7(3). 337–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605052190.Search in Google Scholar

Strømsø, Helge, P. Grøttum & Kirsten Hofgaard Lycke. 2007. Content and processes in problem-based learning: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23(3). 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00221.x.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00221.xSearch in Google Scholar

Teng, Daniel, Nian-Shing Chen & Ommaso Leo. 2012. Exploring students’ learning experience in an international online research seminar in the synchronous cyber classroom. Computers & Education 58(3). 918–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.018.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.018Search in Google Scholar

Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-01-30

Published in Print: 2020-02-25

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-2056

Keywords for this article

text-based communication; computer-mediated communication; synchronous communication; online learning environments; systemic functional grammar