Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions

References

• Aoki, K. (1995). Synchronous multi-user textual communication in international tele-collaboration. Electronic Journal of Communication, 5, 4. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/ejcpublic/005/4/00543.html
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. McGee, Trans.), Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chou, C.C. (2001). Formative evaluation of synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centered on-line course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 3/4173–192.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183–193. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00084.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson-Shivers, G.V., Morris, S.B., & Sriwongkol, T. (2003). Gender differences: Are they diminished in online discussions. International Journal on E-learning, 2, 29–36.
   Google Scholar
• Day, M., & Batson, T. (1995). The networked-based writing classroom. In Z.L. Berge & M.P. Collins (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in higher education, 25–46.Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, T., Anderson, R.C., Kim, I.-H., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 4400–424. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.4.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, R., Green, R., Pitts, M., & Millward, G. (1995). What's the flaming problem? CMC—deindividuation or disinhibiting?. In M.R. Kirby, A.J. Dix & J.E. Finlay (Ed.), People and computers X, 289–302.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8–34. doi: 10.1177/0741088391008001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores, M.J. (1990). Computer conferencing: Composing a feminist community of writers. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first century, 106–117.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Greenfield, P., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2003). Online discourse in a teen chatroom: New codes and new modes of coherence in a visual medium. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 713–738. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handa, C. (1990). Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first century. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152. doi: 10.1023/A:1003764722829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadallah, M., Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., & Dong, T. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1194–230. doi: 10.3102/0002831210371498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29, 189–106. doi: 10.1080/01587910802004860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Dong, T., Archodidou, A., Kim, I.-H., Miller, B. (2007). Emergent leadership in children's discussion groups. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 75–111. doi: 10.1080/07370000709336703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light, V., Nesbitt, E., Light, P., & Burns, J.R. (2000). Let's you and me have a little discussion': Computer-mediated communication in support of campus-based university courses. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 85–96. doi: 10.1080/030750700116037
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R.E. (1985). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problem solving performance?. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Ed.), Understanding of expository text, 65–87.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• McLellan, H. (1999). Online education as interactive experience: Some guiding models. Educational Technology, 39, 536–42.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K.L., & Collins, M.P. (1998). Development of communication conventions in instructional electronic chats. Journal of Distance Education, 12, 177–200.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Anderson, R.C., Waggoner, M., & Rowell, B. (2006). Using literature discussions to reason through real life dilemmas: A journey taken by one teacher and her fourth-grade children. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Talking texts: How speech and writing interact in school learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Pedhazur, E.J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Harcourt Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child, In M. Gabain & Trans. (Ed.), New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pilkington, R.M., & Walker, S.A. (2003a). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41–63. doi: 10.1023/A:1022556401959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilkington, R.M., & Walker, S.A. (2003b). Using CMC to develop argumentation skills in children with a ‘literacy deficit’. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Ed.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, 144–175.Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Prinsen, F., Volman, M.L., & Terwel, J. (2007). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 1037–1055. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00692.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R.C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Ed.), Comprehension instruction, 319–334.New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K.T., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio & A. Alvarez (Ed.), Sociocultural studies of mind, 139–164.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, R.A. (2003). The effectiveness of online synchronous discussion. Retrieved from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/IS2003Proceedings/docs/077Schul.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology or telecommunications. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sotillo, S.M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82–119.
   Google Scholar
• Stritzke, W.G.K., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and computer-mediated communication: A self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6, 1–22. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0601_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24, 491–501. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00044-9
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Integrating online discussion in an Australian intensive English language course. TESOL Journal, 11, 331–35.
   Google Scholar
• Tu, C.H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 3131–150. doi: 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
   Google Scholar
• Veerman, A. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation. Utrecht: ICO.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, S.A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil's advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 172–182. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00082.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C.H. (2005). Questioning skills facilitate online synchronous discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 303–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00138.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 27–26.
   Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werry, C.C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of internet relay chat. In S.C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives, 47–63.Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Wertch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whiteman, J.A.M. (2002). Interpersonal communication in computer mediated learning. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED465997)
   Google Scholar
• Yates, S.J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S.C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication; Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives, 29–46.Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar