Written Communication Jan 2001

Comparing E-Mail and Synchronous Conferencing in Online Peer Response

LEE HONEYCUTT

Abstract

This article details study results comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing as vehicles for online peer response. The study draws on Clark and Brennan's theory of communicative “grounding,” which predicts that participants use different techniques for achieving mutual knowledge depending on the type of media being used. Content analysis of transcripts from both types of response sessions showed that when using e-mail, students made significantly greater reference to documents, their contents, and rhetorical contexts than when using synchronous conferencing. Students made greater reference to both writing and response tasks using synchronous chats than when using e-mail. Students' individual media preferences showed no significant differences in terms of message formulation, reception, and usefulness of comments in aiding revision. However, in a forced comparison scale, students rated e-mail more serious and helpful than chats, which were then rated more playful than e-mail. Implications of the study's results and areas for future research are also discussed.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2001-01-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088301018001002
Open Access
Closed
Topics
revision

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. Baker et al. (2021)
    Feature: Transforming the Feedback Paradigm: A Qualitative Study Examining a St…
    Teaching English in the Two-Year College
  2. Guardado et al. (2007)
    ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback
    Computers and Composition
  3. Wolfe (2002)
    Annotation technologies: A software and research review
    Computers and Composition

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Schleppegrell (1998)
    Grammar as Resource: Writing a Description
    Research in the Teaching of English
  2. Zappen et al. (1997)
    Rhetoric, community, and cyberspace
    Rhetoric Review
  3. Sirc (1995)
    The twin worlds of electronic conferencing
    Computers and Composition
  4. MABRITO (1991)
    Electronic Mail as a Vehicle for Peer Response
    Written Communication
  5. Gere et al. (1985)
    Talking About Writing: The Language of Writing Groups
    Research in the Teaching of English
Also cites 3 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1007/BF00115028
     ↗
  2. 10.3758/BF03200653
     ↗
  3. 10.1177/001316446002000104
     ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 38 View in citation network →

Related Articles

  1. Written Communication Feb 2026
    Reading Medium and Communicative Purpose in Writing: Effects on Pausing Behaviour and Text Quality, Controlling for Reading Comprehension and Executive Functions ↗
    Ángel Valenzuela; Cristian A. Rojas-Barahona; Ramón D. Castillo; Ladislao Salmerón
    assessment curriculum design multimodality multilingual writers revision
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly Jan 2026
    “Review of Rethinking Peer Review: Critical Reflections on a Pedagogical Practice” ↗
    Joe Schicke
    multilingual writers revision
  3. Written Communication Jan 2026
    The Contributions of Student-Level and Classroom-Level Factors for Australian Grade 2 Students’ Writing Performance ↗
    Anabela Malpique; Mustafa Asil; Deborah Pino-Pasternak; Debora Valcan
    multimodality multilingual writers revision
  4. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 2026
    Exhausted: The Toll of Hyper-revision on a Writing Center Administrator ↗
    writing centers revision
  5. Research in the Teaching of English Aug 2025
    Useful and Appropriate: Preservice ELA Teacher Reactions to Feedback on EL Student Writing ↗
    Meghan Odsliv Bratkovich; Michael B. Sherry; Homood Alharbi
    qualitative research translingualism revision