Along with the development of technology, computer-mediated communication (CMC) is becoming common practices in our social interaction. Unlike face-to-face conversation (FTF), these practices are unique because both production and reception footings only utilize verbal communication to perform an entire conversation. There are two different characteristics in which the utterances are transmitted in CMC. The first one is one-way transmission where the recipient is unaware of the process of creating the utterance (i.e. email conversation). The other is two-way transmission where the recipient can see the utterance as it is being typed. In this article, Anderson, et. al. study the nature of turn taking and conversation management in two-way transmission
…show more content…
Nonetheless, the occurrence of turn-takings, overlaps, pauses, and interruptions are noticeable and sufficient to proof that computer-mediated conversation employ not only some of the FTF conversation features but also has its own characteristics.
In addition, the data collection procedure did not resemble authentic conversation environment because the participants were told that they would be graded based on their participation frequency. There is no explanation why they need to explicitly tell the participants about the grade. This might motivate them to be involved in the conversation more than they initially would. I think the result will be more reliable if the participants perform the conversation in more natural …show more content…
In my opinion, it could have been better if in their table. 1. Summary of Findings (Anderson, et. al., 2010 p.15) provides not only the techniques used in CMC environment but also list of conventional FTF turn taking strategies as a comparison. This will provide a clearer presentation for readers on how turn takings are similar and different in both environment.
Another minor improvement can be done is in the organization of the writing. Some of the important terms introduced in the article was not explained until late in the section or in the next section. Novice readers might have difficult times following the article. I cannot tell for sure who the audience of the article are. However, judging from the complexity of the data provided, it is more likely intended for more general audience.
In conclusion, this research has a sound methodology, despite of the data size analyzed. A slight improvement can be made by making the conversation environment more natural. The organization of the writing is not really easy to follow by readers who are new in the area. Nevertheless, this research open possibility to explore more aspects of interaction in CMC that initially was considered only exist in FTF interaction. The result also yield a possible application of CMC to be better environment for communicating ideas and solving problem in term of equality among the
Nonetheless, the occurrence of turn-takings, overlaps, pauses, and interruptions are noticeable and sufficient to proof that computer-mediated conversation employ not only some of the FTF conversation features but also has its own characteristics.
In addition, the data collection procedure did not resemble authentic conversation environment because the participants were told that they would be graded based on their participation frequency. There is no explanation why they need to explicitly tell the participants about the grade. This might motivate them to be involved in the conversation more than they initially would. I think the result will be more reliable if the participants perform the conversation in more natural …show more content…
In my opinion, it could have been better if in their table. 1. Summary of Findings (Anderson, et. al., 2010 p.15) provides not only the techniques used in CMC environment but also list of conventional FTF turn taking strategies as a comparison. This will provide a clearer presentation for readers on how turn takings are similar and different in both environment.
Another minor improvement can be done is in the organization of the writing. Some of the important terms introduced in the article was not explained until late in the section or in the next section. Novice readers might have difficult times following the article. I cannot tell for sure who the audience of the article are. However, judging from the complexity of the data provided, it is more likely intended for more general audience.
In conclusion, this research has a sound methodology, despite of the data size analyzed. A slight improvement can be made by making the conversation environment more natural. The organization of the writing is not really easy to follow by readers who are new in the area. Nevertheless, this research open possibility to explore more aspects of interaction in CMC that initially was considered only exist in FTF interaction. The result also yield a possible application of CMC to be better environment for communicating ideas and solving problem in term of equality among the