A Case Study of International Business students’ Experiences with Exploratory Talk Ground Rules in Online Group Work

References

• Abrami, Philip, Robert Bernard, Eva Bures, Eugene Borokhovski, and Rana Tamim. 2011. “Interaction in Distance Education and Online Learning: Using Evidence and Theory to Improve Practice.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 23 (2–3): 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aggarwal, Raj, and Y. Wu. 2020. “Online Teaching in International Business.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 31 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2020.1738755.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aggarwal, Raj, and Wu. Yinglu. 2022. “Teaching International Business Considering Students’ Multiple Facets.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 33 (2–3): 101–05. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2022.2133422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akdeniz, M. Billur, Chun Zhang, and S. Tamer Cavusgil. 2019. “Innovative Pedagogical Approaches in Teaching International Business.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 30 (2): 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2019.1668333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, Douglas. 2008. “Exploratory Talk for Learning.” In Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes, edited by Steve Hodgkinson and Neil Mercer, pp. 1–16. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279526.n1.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, Emma, Alan Bryman, and Bill Harley. 2019. Business Research Methods. Fifth edition. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, Robert M., Philip C. Abrami, C. Anne Wade Eugene Borokhovski, Rana M. Tamim, Michael A. Surkes, Edward Clement Bethel, and E. C. Bethel. 2009. “A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education.” Review of Educational Research 79 (3): 1243–89. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesta, Gert. 2004. ““Mind the Gap!” Communication and the Educational Relation.” Counterpoints 259:11–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978490.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, John B., and Catherine So-Kum Tang. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University : What the Student Does. Buckingham;,Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education : Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie, Norman. 2007. Approaches to Social Enquiry. 2 ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borokhovski, Eugene, Robert M. Bernard, Rana M. Tamim, Richard F. Schmid, and Anna Sokolovskaya. 2016. “Technology-Supported Student Interaction in Post-Secondary Education: A Meta-Analysis of Designed versus Contextual Treatments.” Computers & Education 96:15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Burkert, Anja. 2015. Collaborative Learning and Joint Construction of Knowledge and Understanding Language Learning in Higher Education. Berlin, GermanyVol. 5 (1) pp. 197–222.
   Google Scholar
• Calcagni, Elisa, and Leonardo Lago. 2018. “The Three Domains for Dialogue: A Framework for Analysing Dialogic Approaches to Teaching and Learning.” Learning, Culture & Social Interaction 18:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Jiun-Shiu, Scott Mooty, Jeffery Stevens, and Barron Brown. 2020. “Course Delivery Format, Global Openness, and Openness to Experience in International Business Classes.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 31 (1): 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2020.1729293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, John W. 2014. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Crotty, Michael. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Cunliffe, Ann L. 2016. “Republication of “On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner.” Journal of Management Education 40 (6): 747–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916674465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, Norman K, and Yvonna S Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Easterby-Smith, Mark, Richard Thorpe, and Paul Jackson. 2013. Management Research. 4 ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Erstad, O., and F. Siddiq. 2023. “Educational Assessment of 21st Century Skills—Novel Initiatives, Yet a Lack of Systemic Transformation.” In International Encyclopedia of Education, edited by. R. Tierney, F. Rizvi and K. Erkican, pp. 245–55. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.09038-2.
   Google Scholar
• Feng, Jing Betty. 2016. “Improving Intercultural Competence in the Classroom: A Reflective Development Model.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 27 (1): 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2016.1172540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guðmundsdóttir, Greta Bjork, Gunstein Egeberg, Karoline Hultman Tømte, Dina Dalaaker, and Ove Edvard Hatlevik. 2014. “Interactive Technology. Traditional Practice?” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 1 (1): 23–43. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-01-05.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, John. 2015. “The Applicability of Visible Learning to Higher Education.” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1 (1): 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021.
   Google Scholar
• Havnes, Anton, Bjørg Christiansen, Ida Torunn Bjørk, and Elisabeth Hessevaagbakke. 2016. “Peer Learning in Higher Education: Patterns of Talk and Interaction in Skills Centre Simulation.” Learning, Culture & Social Interaction 8:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessy, Sara, Tatjana Dragovic, and Paul Warwick. 2018. “A Research-Informed, School-Based Professional Development Workshop Programme to Promote Dialogic Teaching with Interactive Technologies.” Professional Development in Education 44 (2): 145–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1258653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman, Aguinis, and Angelo M. Solarino. 2019. “Transparency and Replicability in Qualitative Research: The Case of Interviews with Elite Informants.” Strategic Management Journal 40 (8): 1291–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse, Friedrich W., Jürgen Buder, Kai Sassenberg, Mihai Ungureanu, and P. Griffin. 2015. A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills. Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7_2.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, Christine, and Manzoorul Abedin. 2013. “Classroom Dialogue: A Systematic Review Across Four Decades of Research.” Cambridge Journal of Education 43 (3): 325–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, Christine, Hennessy Sara, and Mercer. Neil. 2019. “Classroom Dialogue and Student Attainment. Distinct Roles and Teacher-Led and Small-Group Interaction.” In The Routledge International Handbook of Research and Dialogic Education, edited by Neil Mercer, Rupert Wegerif, and Louis Major, pp. 182–95. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-16.
   Google Scholar
• Kardes, Ilke. 2020. “Increasing Classroom Engagement in International Business Courses via Digital Technology.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 31 (1): 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2020.1729292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, Phil. 2009. “Group Work and Multicultural Management Education.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 20 (1): 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930802671273.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Min Kyu, In Heok Lee, and Yinying Wang. 2020. “How Students Emerge as Learning Leaders in Small Group Online Discussions.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 36 (5): 610–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klarin, Anton, Boris Inkizhinov, Dashi Nazarov, and Elena Gorenskaia. 2021. “International Business Education: What We Know and What We Have Yet to Develop.” International Business Review 30 (5): 101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwok, Chuck C. Y., Robert Grosse, Carl F. Fey, and Marjorie A. Lyles. 2022. “The 2020 AIB Curriculum Survey: The State of Internationalizing Students, Faculty, and Programs.” Journal of International Business Studies 53 (9): 1856–79. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00547-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, Karyn. 2012. “Assessing Participation Skills: Online Discussion with Peers Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 37.” 8: 933–47.
   Google Scholar
• Lew, Duan Ning Magdeleine, and Henk G. Schmidt. 2011. “Writing to Learn: Can Reflection Journals Be Used to Promote Self-Reflection and Learning?” Higher Education Research and Development 30 (4): 519–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littleton, Karen, and Neil Mercer. 2013. Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work. London: Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809433.
   Google Scholar
• Luckin, R., E. Baines, M. Cukurova, and W. Holmes. 2017. Solved! Making the Case for Collaborative Problem-Solving. London: Nesta.
   Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen, Kristine, Rune Johan Krumsvik, and Jens Breivik. 2020. “Behind the Scenes: Unpacking Student Discussion and Critical Reflections in Lectures.” British Journal of Educational Technology 51: 2478–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen, Kristine, Ingunn Johanne Ness, and Sue Timmis. 2019. “Writing on the Wall: How the Use of Technology Can Open Dialogical Spaces in Lectures.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 34:100559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen, Kristine, Krumsvik, Rune Johan, Breivik, Jens 2020 Behind the scenes: Unpacking student discussion and critical reflections in lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology 51 2478–2494. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Major, Louis, Paul Warwick, Ingvill Rasmussen, S. R. Ludvigsen, and V. Cook 2018 Classroom Dialogue and Digital Technologies: A Scoping Review Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9701-y.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, Neil, Sara Hennessy, and Paul Taylor Warwick. 2017. “Dialogue, Thinking Together and Digital Technology in the Classroom: Some Educational Implications of a Continuing Line of Inquiry.” International Journal of Educational Research 1–13. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.13777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, Neil, and Christine Howe. 2012. “Explaining the Dialogic Processes of Teaching and Learning: The Value and Potential of Sociocultural Theory.” Learning, Culture & Social Interaction 1 (1): 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, Neil, and Dawes. Lynn. 2008. “The Value of Exploratory Talk.” In Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes, edited by Steve Hodgkinson and Mercer Neil, p. 55. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279526.n4.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, Matthew B, A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3 ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, Catherine, and Sarah Michaels. 2007. “When is Dialogue ‘Dialogic’?” Human Development 50 (5): 275–85. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Säljö, R. 2010. “Digital Tools and Challenges to Institutional Traditions of Learning: Technologies, Social Memory and the Performative Nature of Learning.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (1): 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. Keith. 2011. What Makes Good Teachers Great?: The Artful Balance of Structure and Improvisation. structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching. United States: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997105.002.
   Google Scholar
• Schmid, Richard F., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, Rana M. Tamim, Philip C. Abrami, Michael A. Surkes, C. Anne Wade, and Jonathan Woods. 2014. “The Effects of Technology Use in Postsecondary Education: A Meta-Analysis of Classroom Applications.” Computers & Education 72 (C): 271–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002.
   Google Scholar
• Siddiq, Fazilat, and Ronny Scherer. 2017. “Revealing the Processes of students’ Interaction with a Novel Collaborative Problem Solving Task: An In-Depth Analysis of Think-Aloud Protocols.” Computers in Human Behavior 76:509–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegerif, Rupert. 2008. “Dialogic or Dialectic? The Significance of Ontological Assumptions in Research on Educational Dialogue.” British Educational Research Journal 34 (3): 347–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701532228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegerif, Rupert 2019. “Towards a Dialogic Theory of Education for the Internet Age.” In The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education, edited by Louis Major, Neil Mercer, and Rupert Wegerif, 1st ed., p. 13. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677.
   Google Scholar