Synchronous private messages are shorter, easier to read, and use fewer academic words than asynchronous notes in dual-mode online courses¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · associational r1–r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Synchronous messages are significantly shorter than asynchronous notes (31.8 vs 160.91 words on average). → Murat Oztok 2012 q2 i? Synchronous messages are significantly easier to read than asynchronous notes (reading ease 79.39 vs 55.69). → Murat Oztok 2012 (2) q2 i? Asynchronous notes contain a significantly higher percentage of Academic Word List words than synchronous messages (7.5 vs 3.9 percent). → Murat Oztok 2012 (3)

Evidence¶

Murat Oztok 2012¶

Murat Oztok, Daniel Zingaro, Clare Brett, Jim Hewitt. (2012). Exploring Asynchronous and Synchronous Tool use in Online Courses. Preprint submitted to Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Quantitative comparison of log data from nine fully online graduate courses, using the 190 students who wrote at least one synchronous message. A paired t-test confirmed the word-count difference between modes; the quote reports "31.8 words on average" versus 160.91.

"In terms of word count, we found that synchronous messages were significantly shorter (31.8 words on average) than asynchronous notes (160 .91 words on average)."

Murat Oztok 2012 (2)¶

Murat Oztok, Daniel Zingaro, Clare Brett, Jim Hewitt. (2012). Exploring Asynchronous and Synchronous Tool use in Online Courses. Preprint submitted to Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Paired t-test on each student's average Flesch reading ease in each mode, over the 190 message-writing students, in the same nine-course log dataset. The quote reports reading ease "79 .39 compared to 55 .69" with t(189) = 27.30.

"We found that messages were significantly easier to read than asynchronous notes (a reading ease score of 79 .39 compared to 55 .69; t(189) = 27.30, p = 0)."

Murat Oztok 2012 (3)¶

Murat Oztok, Daniel Zingaro, Clare Brett, Jim Hewitt. (2012). Exploring Asynchronous and Synchronous Tool use in Online Courses. Preprint submitted to Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Paired t-test comparing each student's average percentage of Academic Word List words in notes versus messages, same nine-course log dataset, 190 message-writing students. The quote prints "7 .5 percent compared to 3 .9 percent" with t(189) = 19.99.

"We found that asynchronous notes contained much more use of AWL words (7 .5 percent compared to 3 .9 percent; t(189) = 19 .99, p = 0)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• LIWC analysis shows synchronous messages carry more social and emotional language while asynchronous notes carry more cognitive-processing language — related
• Students communicate more frequently but with lower-quality content in the synchronous chat room than in the asynchronous discussion forum — related
• Forum discussion contains more social and regulative comments and longer messages; anchored discussion is briefer with more messages — related
• No significant correlation between number of messages written and average length of notes written — related
• Students write shorter notes as online class size increases — related
• Teacher-student online interaction pattern significantly moderates blended instruction effects, with synchronous + asynchronous interaction largest (SMD = 1.189) and absence of interaction smallest (SMD = 0.130) — related