Difference between revisions of "Garcia1998a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
Line 10: Line 10:
 
|Volume=21
 
|Volume=21
 
|Number=3
 
|Number=3
|Pages=299-317
+
|Pages=299–317
|URL=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022146620473#page-1
+
|URL=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022146620473
|Abstract=This paper reports the results of a pilot study of computer-mediated classroom
+
|DOI=10.1023/A:1022146620473
discussions using a "quasi-synchronous" program called Aspects. The data
+
|Abstract=This paper reports the results of a pilot study of computer-mediated classroom discussions using a “quasi-synchronous” program called Aspects. The data for this study are a discussion in a college classroom involving three students. Each students' computer monitor was videotaped, and the information on all three screens was collated onto a single transcript. This single case analysis uses ethnomethodological conversation analysis to discover how participants coordinate their actions in this new type of speech exchange system. In quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication participants do not have access to each other's messages until they are completed and sent to a group posting board. Thus, participants cannot rely on the ordinary means of coordinating turn exchange and other conversational activities (e.g., monitoring speakers' utterances-in-progress). We found that students' attempts to import conventional procedures from oral conversation resulted in misunderstandings and confusion. Specifically, we found that students experienced what we called phantom responsiveness, phantom adjacency pairs, virtual simultaneity, and the misinterpretation of silence.
for this study are a discussion in a college classroom involving three students.
 
Each students' computer monitor was videotaped, and the information on all
 
three screens was collated onto a single transcript. This single case analysis
 
uses ethnomethodological conversation analysis to discover how participants
 
coordinate their actions in this new type of speech exchange system. In
 
quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication participants do not
 
have access to each other's messages until they are completed and sent to a
 
group posting board. Thus, participants cannot rely on the ordinary means of
 
coordinating turn exchange and other conversational activities (e.g., monitoring
 
speakers' utterances-in-progress). We found that students' attempts to import
 
conventional procedures from oral conversation resulted in misunderstandings
 
and confusion. Specifically, we found that students experienced what we called
 
phantom responsiveness, phantom adjacency pairs, virtual simultaneity, and
 
the misinterpretation of silence.
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 23:43, 26 October 2019

Garcia1998a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Garcia1998a
Author(s) Angela Cora Garcia, Jennifer B. Jacobs
Title The interactional organization of computer mediated communication in the college classroom
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology, Computer-mediated communication, Classroom, Education
Publisher
Year 1998
Language English
City
Month
Journal Qualitative Sociology
Volume 21
Number 3
Pages 299–317
URL Link
DOI 10.1023/A:1022146620473
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a pilot study of computer-mediated classroom discussions using a “quasi-synchronous” program called Aspects. The data for this study are a discussion in a college classroom involving three students. Each students' computer monitor was videotaped, and the information on all three screens was collated onto a single transcript. This single case analysis uses ethnomethodological conversation analysis to discover how participants coordinate their actions in this new type of speech exchange system. In quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication participants do not have access to each other's messages until they are completed and sent to a group posting board. Thus, participants cannot rely on the ordinary means of coordinating turn exchange and other conversational activities (e.g., monitoring speakers' utterances-in-progress). We found that students' attempts to import conventional procedures from oral conversation resulted in misunderstandings and confusion. Specifically, we found that students experienced what we called phantom responsiveness, phantom adjacency pairs, virtual simultaneity, and the misinterpretation of silence.

Notes