Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 307 – 314
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of TTLC2013. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1428
ScienceDirect
TTLC 2013
Patterns of interaction among ESL students
during online collaboration
Lim Peck Choo *, Gurnam Kaur,Chan Yuen Fook, Teoh Chee Yong
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, SelangorAbstract
Research has shown that the value of online collaboration is that it supports and fosters effective learning. Underpinning the notion of online collaboration is learning is a social process. This underlines the importance of social interaction which many researchers view as crucial for meaningful learning. The key to online collaborative learning is that it can enhance peer interaction and work in groups which facilitate shared meaning making and learning. In addition, knowledge construction that takes place is captured online thus making visible how knowledge emerges through a network of interactions. In order to understand how students construct knowledge, this study examines the patterns of interaction of ESL students during online collaboration. Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson’s (1997) Interaction Analysis Model was used for this purpose. The results show that co-construction of knowledge was evident among the ESL students during online collaboration. Nevertheless, the results also show that they were chiefly engaged at the lower levels of interactive phases. This has implications on the role of instructors during online collaboration.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of TTLC2013. Keywords: Online collaboration; patterns of interaction; knowledge construction
1. Introduction and Purpose
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 . E-mail address: [email protected]
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of TTLC2013.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
The advent of new technology combined with the new economic order have had a bearing on the teaching and learning of the English language. Internet technology has enabled alternative modes of delivering language teaching and learning. This new medium of communication can shape both the processes and the products of communication (Long & Richards, 2000). Thus, there is a need to investigate the influence of technology on language learning.
In addition, the current socio-economic factors have placed greater emphasis on the exchange and interpretation of information and the development of knowledge (Castells, 2000). This implies that language educators need to teach new skills which would require teaching students to critically interpret and analyze information in English and carry out complex negotiations and collaboration in English in the networked society (Warschauer, 2000).
Wegerif (2006) posits that online collaboration (OC) is the obvious pedagogic medium for this networked society. Lipponen (2002) defines online collaboration (OC) as collaborative learning supported by technology which facilitates sharing and distributing of knowledge and expertise among community members.
While the efficacy of online learning to foster learning and co-construction of knowledge has been well documented in literature (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997; Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers, 2006), there is still a lack of clarity about how OC facilitate the process of knowledge construction and what constitute productive collaborative activity. Hence this study is aimed at analyzing the patterns of interaction among ESL students during OC. This would shed light on the processes of dynamics and evolution of collaborative learning.
2. Theoretical framework
Gerlach (1994) theorizes that collaborative learning (CL) is based on the idea that learning is a naturally social act in which the participants talk among themselves and that it is through this talk that learning occurs. During CL, students of mixed-abilities, work together in small groups toward a common goal. The students are responsible for one another's learning as well as that of their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students to be successful. Because collaboration stresses the idea of co-construction of knowledge and mutual engagement of participants, it can be considered a special form of interaction.
The idea of CL is based largely on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory (SCT) of learning emphasizes that learning takes place in a social context and that higher cognitive processes originate from social interactions. His notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) posits that an individual’s cognitive development can be positively influenced by the assistance of a more capable peer. This view assumes that because of engagement in collaborative activities, individuals can master something they could not do on their own without collaboration. In other words, learning takes place in the ZPD during collaboration. Vygotsky’s ideas also emphasize the role of mutual engagement and co-construction of knowledge. Knowledge emerges through the network of interactions and is distributed and mediated among those (humans and tools) interacting (Cole & Wertsch, 1998).
Piaget’s (1928) idea of how collaboration can bring about learning is based on socio-cognitive conflict. Children on different levels of cognitive development, or children on the same level of cognitive development with differing perspectives, can engage in social interaction that leads to a cognitive conflict. This conflict may create a state of disequilibrium within participants, resulting in construction of new conceptual structures and understanding. An equilibrium is thus established which is at a higher level of cognitive development (Tudge & Rogoff, 1989). The co-construction of knowledge takes place through one’s increasing ability to take account of other peoples’ perspectives. In essence, underlying Vygotsky and Piaget’s ideas is that collaboration facilitates the co-construction of knowledge and mutual understanding.
Online collaboration (OC) is primarily concerned with studying how people can learn together with the help of computers. From this perspective, OC refers to how technology supports CL and improves interaction which
facilitates the sharing and distributing of knowledge (Lipponen, 2002). The key to OC is social interaction (Gunawardena et al., 1997; Schrire, 2006).
The value of OC is well documented in literature which shows that it supports and fosters effective learning, shared understanding and critical thinking (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003) and improved performance (Fauziah et al., 2004; Sopiah & Merza, 2006). More importantly, OC is seen as a shared social activity which emphasizes mutual engagements of participants in the development of collective understanding in the collaborative construction of knowledge (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997; Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers, 2006).
Central to OC is social interaction (Dixon, Dixon & Axmann, 2008; Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003) which is crucial to meaningful learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2001). Dewey (1916) notes that interaction is the fundamental component of the educational process that occurs when learners transform the inert information passed to them from another and constructs it into knowledge with personal application and value. The underlying assumption is that knowledge is created through interaction and not simply transferred. Hence, OC is important because it promotes social interaction which is critical to the negotiation of meaning and the collaborative construction of knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003; Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers, 2006).
Kern and Warschauer (2000) observe that “the nature of interaction has been one of the most important areas of research in second language learning” (p.15). The computer is considered to be an ideal medium for students to gain from interaction as the discussions posted online enable students to reflect on the form and content of the communication. Kern and Warschauer (2000) further observe that OC enables the study of how and in what ways students actually negotiate meaning with each other. According to Mynard (2004, as cited in Kabilan, 2009) OC can assist English language students to apply “a range of coping and comprehension strategies, make connections and observations, transfer learning from other contexts, and demonstrate an increasing degree of audience awareness” (p. 2). It therefore, facilitates the study of the social construction of knowledge among (ESL) students during OC.
Online collaboration facilitates the study of the changing and evolving nature of the cognitive state. Currently, many studies on online collaboration have focused towards examining the complexities of interactional dynamics during group processes (Kapur, Voiklis & Kinzer, 2008; Schellens et al., 2007). Data from the online discussion would shed light on the group processes that brought about the convergence of shared meanings during interaction.The study of group processes is made possible because the data are confined in the online transcripts which capture the written nature of the students’ discussions (Macdonald, 2003). The online discussion threads would facilitate the study of the evolution and development of the patterns of interaction. The patterns of interaction would reveal the process through which co-construction of knowledge occurs.
According to Pea (1993) knowledge construction is seen as a social, dialogical process in which different perspectives are incorporated. This emphasis on shared meaning making and learning has prompted calls to focus work in this area (et al., 2006). Pena-Shaff et al. (2004) reiterate that to discover whether OC can encourage the process of knowledge construction, it is important to analyze both the content of the messages and the patterns of interaction.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
The participants in this study comprised an intact ESL class in a local university in Malaysia. The semester four Bachelor of Accounting students were enrolled for a Reading for Academic Purposes (RAP) course. There were altogether 28 students between the ages of 19-20.
The students were divided into seven groups. Each group comprised four students of mixed English language abilities. The students were graded based on the results of a reading comprehension test.
From the seven groups, three groups were investigated to trace the dynamics of their group interaction. The selection of the groups was based on their performance in the pre and posttest reading comprehension scores. The stratified sampling procedure was used to ensure that the groups that registered the highest, average and the lowest improvements in the posttest mean scores were sufficiently represented.
3.2. The Task
After learning a new reading skill, the reading task for that particular skill was posted online. Hence, ESL students were required to go to the RAP website to check for their weekly reading task. This allowed them to view the RAP notes while they were working on the reading task collaboratively with their group members. The ESL groups were required to complete three reading tasks online i.e. Previewing and Predicting (P&P), Identifying Sentence Patterns (ISP) and Paraphrasing (P). Each reading task comprised questions that tested the skills covered in the RAP course content.
3.3. Online Transcripts
The online transcripts of ESL groups were used to identify the patterns of interaction during OC. The online transcripts were obtained when ESL groups worked on different reading tasks of Previewing and Predicting, Identifying Sentence Patterns and Paraphrasing. Wertsch (1994) posits that online discussions support the investigation of group processes during collaboration because it makes visible how knowledge emerges through interactions. The written nature of online interaction enables researchers to understand the full impact of the evolution and development of the convergence of shared meanings during online interaction in the language classroom.
3.4. Data Analysis
Data from the online transcripts were used to determine the patterns of interaction demonstrated by ESL groups during OC. Gunawardena et al. (1997) define interaction as “the totality of interconnected and mutually responsive messages” (p.407). They further add that online transcripts allow for the close analysis of interaction that takes place between participants. This would reveal the process through which co-construction of knowledge occurs.
Patterns of interactions were analysed using qualitative methods to identify, label and categorize the transcripts from the online discussion of three groups when they worked on the reading tasks of Previewing and Predicting, Paraphrasing and Identifying Sentence Patterns. An adapted version of Gunawardena et al.’s (1997) Interactive Analysis Model (IAM) was used for this purpose. The IAM consists of four interactive phases i.e. Phase I: Sharing of information; Phase II: Discovering the inconsistency of ideas, concepts or statements; Phase III: Negotiating for meaning/ Co-constructing knowledge; and Phase IV: Making agreement statements/Applying newly-constructed knowledge. Each interactive phase is characterized by specific operations which may occur at each stage. The IAM begins with phases which represent the lower mental functions (Phases I and II) and moves to phases with higher mental functions (Phases III and IV).
A content analysis on the online transcripts was carried out whereby the messages were broken down into units of meaning. Once the interactive phases and the operations were identified, non-parametric statistical analyses were employed. To investigate the patterns of interaction, descriptive statistics (using frequencies and percentages) and inferential statistics (using Friedman analysis of variance and Wilcoxon signed-rank test) were used.
After the online transcripts were coded, the frequencies of operations that were generated were tabulated. The total number of operations generated by groups A, D and E when they worked on the selected reading tasks was computed. Percentages of operations used and percentages for operations by interactive phases were also created
to facilitate making comparisons. Descriptive statistics using frequencies and percentages not only provided an overall picture of operations used by ESL groups, but also presented the patterns of interaction.
4. Results
The results of the analysis revealed the process of knowledge construction during OC. The results are divided into two parts. The first will present the results from the descriptive statistics using frequencies and percentages of interactive phases of the online discussion. The second part of the results will present results from the inferential statistics using Friedman analysis of variance by ranks and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Table 1 displays the frequency and percentage of operations of the three groups during their online discussions on the three selected reading tasks. The 15 operations from the adapted version of the IAM were also ranked in order of frequency, with the lowest frequency being assigned the rank of 1 and the highest frequency the rank of 15.
Table 1. Frequency, percentage and rank-order of operations of ESL students on the reading tasks of Previewing and Predicting, Identifying Sentence Patterns and Paraphrasing
Rank-order Operations Frequency (Freq) Percentage (%)
15 Expressing a statement of observation or opinion 173 22.88
14 Expressing a statement of agreement from one or more other participants 111 14.68
13 Challenging others to engage in group discussion. 87 11.50
12 Asking and answering questions to clarify details of statements 82 10.85
11 Defining, describing, or identifying a problem 59 7.80
10 Identifying and stating areas of disagreement 49 6.48
9 Restating the participants' position, and advancing arguments or considerations supported by
references 41 5.42
8 Asking and answering questions to clarify the source and extent of disagreement 34 4.50 7 Corroborating examples provided by one or more participants 26 3.44
6 Negotiating or clarifying the meaning of terms 21 2.78
5 Summarizing of agreement 20 2.65
4 Proposing and negotiating new statements embodying compromise, co-construction 18 2.38
2.5 Applying new knowledge 16 2.12
2.5 Identifying areas of agreement or overlap among conflicting concepts 16 2.12
1 Integrating or accommodating metaphors or analogies 3 0.40
Total 756 100
The analyses reveal that the total number of operations generated by ESL groups was 756. Out of the 15 operations, the most dominant operation used by the groups was “Expressing a statement of observation or opinion”, which made up 22.88% (Freq=173). This was followed by “Expressing a statement of agreement from one or more other participants” with 14.68% (Freq=111). The least used operation was “Integrating or accommodating metaphors or analogies” which made up only 0.4% (Freq =3). There was also a tie in the use of the operations “Applying new knowledge” and “Identifying areas of agreement or overlap among conflicting concepts” which made up 2.12% (Freq=16) each.
Table 2 shows the four interactive phases and the respective operations generated by ESL students. In addition, the frequency and percentage of operations used by interactive phase are also presented. Of the four phases, the phase that generated the highest number of operations was Phase I: Sharing of information, comprising 71.15% (Freq=538) followed by Phase II: Discovering Inconsistency among Ideas, Concepts, or Statements, at 16.40% (Freq=124). The phase that generated the least number of operations was Phase IV: Making Agreement Statement(s)/Applying Newly-Constructed Meaning at 4.77% (Freq=36). The descriptive data in percentages suggest that there were differences in ESL students’ use of operations.
An examination of the frequency data on the use of operations under each interactive phase reveals some interesting results. Under Interactive Phase I: Sharing of information, the foremost operation used was
“Expressing a statement of observation or opinion” with 32.16% (Freq = 173) of the total operations demonstrated. The frequency of this operation was very much higher than the frequencies of the other operations in Phase I. This was followed by “Expressing a statement of agreement from one or more other participants” at 20.63% (Freq =111) in Phase I. In Phase II, “Identifying and stating areas of disagreement” was the most frequently used operation with 39.52% (Freq=49). The frequency of this operation was also higher than the rest of the operations demonstrated in Phase II. The operation that registered the second highest frequency in Phase II was “Restating the participants' position, and advancing arguments or considerations supported by references” with 33.06% (Freq=41). In Phase III, the most dominant operation demonstrated was “Negotiating or clarifying the meaning of terms” with 36.21% (Freq=21) while “Proposing and negotiating new statements embodying compromise, co-construction” was second with 31.03% (Freq =18). The least used operation in Phase III was “Integrating or accommodating metaphors or analogies” with 5.17% (Freq =3). For Phase IV the most frequently used operation was “Summarizing of agreement” with 55.56% (Freq=20) followed by “Applying new knowledge” at 44.44% (Freq =16).
Table 2. Frequency, percentage of operations by interactive phase for the reading tasks of Previewing and Predicting, Identifying Sentence Patterns and Paraphrasing
Interactive Phase/Operations Freq %
(Type) % (Phase) Phase I: Sharing of Information
A. Expressing a statement of observation or opinion 173 32.16 B. Expressing a statement of agreement from one or more other participants 111 20.63 C. Corroborating examples provided by one or more participants 26 4.83 D. Asking and answering questions to clarify details of statements 82 15.24 E. Defining, describing, or identifying a problem 59 10.97 F. Challenging others to engage in group discussion. 87 16.17
Total 538 100 71.15
Phase II: Discovering Inconsistency among Ideas, Concepts, or Statements
A. Identifying and stating areas of disagreement 49 39.52 B. Asking and answering questions to clarify the source and extent of disagreement 34 27.42 C. Restating the participants' position, and advancing arguments or considerations supported
by references
41 33.06
Total 124 100 16.40
Phase III: Negotiating for Meaning/Co-Constructing Knowledge
A. Negotiating or clarifying the meaning of terms 21 36.21 B. Identifying areas of agreement or overlap among conflicting concepts 16 27.59 C. Proposing and negotiating new statements embodying compromise, co-construction 18 31.03 D. Integrating or accommodating metaphors or analogies 3 5.17
Total 58 100 7.67
Phase IV: Making Agreement Statement(s)/Applying Newly-Constructed Meaning
A. Summarizing of agreement 20 55.56
B. Applying new knowledge 16 44.44
Total 36 100 4.77
Overall Total 756 100 100.00
To confirm these differences statistically, the Friedman analysis of variance by ranks was applied on the overall frequency in the operations used by interactive phase (see Table 3). The resulting value of χr2 was
statistically significant, χr2 = 25.584; df= 3.0, p= .000.
Table 3. Results of the Friedman analysis of variance by ranks comparing operations by interactive phase Phase I: Sharing
of information Phase II: Discovering the inconsistency of ideas, concepts or statements Phase III: Negotiating for meaning/ Co-constructing knowledge
Phase IV: Making agreement statements/ Applying newly-constructed meaning χr2 df p 538 (71.16%) 124 (16.40%) 58 (7.67%) 36 (4.77%) 25.584** 3.0 .000
*significant level at p < .05
To further determine the nature of these differences, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. The analysis as shown in Table 4 reveals that in general ESL students employed significantly more operations in Phase I (Freq = 538) than Phase II (Freq = 124) at p< .05 (z = -2.666 , p =.008). Likewise, ESL students employed notably more operations in Phase I (Freq = 538) than Phase III (Freq = 58) at p< .05 (z = -2.666, p= .008) and Phase IV (Freq = 36) at p< .05 (z = -2.666, p = .008). In the same way, ESL students employed significantly more operations in Phase II (Freq = 124) as compared to that of Phase III (Freq = 58) at p< .05 (z = -2.530, p= .011) and Phase IV (Freq = 36) at p< .05 (z = -2.670, p = .008). Similarly, there is significant difference in the use of operations in Phase III (Freq=58) and Phase IV (Freq = 36) at p< .05 (z = -2.144, p = .032).
Table 4. Results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing operations by interactive phase
Interactive Phases Freq (%) Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase I: Sharing of information 538 (71.16%) z=-2.666** (p= .008) z=-2.666** (p= .008) z =-2.666** (p= .008) Phase II: Discovering the
inconsistency of ideas, concepts or statements 124 (16.40%) z=-2.530** (p= .011) z= -2.670** (p= .008) Phase III: Negotiating for
meaning/ Co-constructing knowledge
58
(7.67%) z= -2.144* (p= .032)
Phase IV: Making agreement statements/ Applying newly-constructed meaning
36 (4.77%) *significant level at p < .05
5. Discussion
The key finding of the study shows that ESL students were engaged in all four phases of interaction when collaborating online; albeit with differing frequencies in the use of the operations. This shows that the process of knowledge construction took place when ESL students collaborated online despite the differing frequencies of operations used.
The findings show that most of the interactions occurred in Interactive Phases I and II. Although the dynamics of interaction for the four phases were evident, there was evidence to suggest that limited operations were generated in Phases III and IV. Quantitative analyses of the frequency data also confirmed that differences in the frequency of operations used were significant. This illustrates that the major concern of ESL students during OC was to share their understanding of the task.
Gunawardena et al. (1997) IAM began with phases which could be described as lower mental functions (sharing of information and cognitive dissonance) and then moving on to higher mental functions described (negotiating for meaning/co-constructing knowledge, and making agreement statements/applying newly-constructed meaning). Thus, Phases I and II were described as phases which represented lower cognitive functions whereas Phases III and IV represented phases with higher mental functions. The findings in this study indicate that ESL students tended to interact at the lower levels of interactive engagements since close to 60% of the operations generated were from Phase I. In addition, the data suggest that ESL students were primarily concerned with sharing their understanding of the online tasks by employing a variety of operations. The large extent at which they concentrated on sharing, inevitably led to the discovery of conflicting ideas regarding the tasks. However, when they sought to resolve their disagreements so that they could reach a new understanding, they seem to display a limited repertoire of operations to do so. Likewise, they appear to demonstrate a limited range of operations at applying newly-constructed meaning.
These results show that ESL students were engaged at the lower levels of interactive engagement pointing towards the limited efficacy of OC in this study. Whilst ESL students in this study generally benefited from OC, they were mostly engaged in the lower levels of cognitive engagement.
References
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.) Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Beyond the Individual-Social Antimony in Discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Retrieved January 31, 1998, from http://www.massey.ac.nz/~Alock/virtual/colevyg.htm
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Dixon, R.C., Dixon, K.C., & Axmann, M. (2008). Online student centred discussion: Creating a collaborative learning environment. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings of the ASCILITE Melbourne 2008. Retrieved March 21, 2010 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/dixon.pdf
Fauziah, S., Hanafi, A., Rozhan, M. I., & Hisham, D. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: A Study of the Web-Based Synchronous Collaboration. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 1(2), 58-66.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education.
American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/cmc/CTinTextEnvFinal.pdf
Gerlach, J. M. (1994). "Is this collaboration?" In K. Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques, New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 17(4), 397-431. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kabilan, M. K. (2009, November). Critical considerations for planning and implementing a CALL program. US-China Education Review, 6 (11). Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://www.teacher.org.cn/doc/ucedu200911/ucedu20091106.pdf
Kapur, M., Voiklis, J. & Kinzer, C. K. (2008). Sensitivities to Early Exchange in Synchronous Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Groups. Computers & Education, 51(1), 56-66.
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96
Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 72-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M., & Richards, J. (Series Eds.) (2000). Series editors’ preface. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers & Education, 40, 377–391.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 47-87.
Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42 (2004) 243–265.
Piaget, J. (1928). The judgement and reasoning in children. London: Routledge and Kegan.
, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–246.
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.
Sopiah, A., & Merza, A. (2006). The effects of inquiry- based computer simulation with cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 3 (2), 1-16.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tudge, J. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63 (6), 1364-1379.
Tudge, J., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In M. Bornstein & J. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processess (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 470-481. Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1,
143–157.
