Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Computer-supported collaborative argumentation is an online activity that can engage students in deep discussion and analysis of complex problems. Given the potentially confrontational nature of argumentation, using polite language becomes a strategic approach to prevent breakdowns in group communication and nurture productive dialogues. This study aims to understand how politeness and argumentation moves influence subsequent conversation dynamics in online debates. Student postings in threaded discussions (from 20 online debates containing 2,008 messages posted by students across five semesters of a graduate-level course on distance education) were coded and scored on politeness and impoliteness using natural language processing software. The scored postings were examined to determine how impoliteness and politeness impact students' proclivity to engage in and produce more sustained argumentative exchanges to evaluate presented claims thoroughly. The findings show that impoliteness steadily increased by up to 84% as contentious discussion threads reached 7 levels deep, and impoliteness was significantly higher in frequency in postings presenting challenges. Correspondingly, the use of politeness increased steadily by up to 139% as discussion threads reached 6 levels deep, with the frequency of politeness nearly equal across postings presenting challenges, explanations, and evidence.
Jeong et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: