臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著電腦科技日新月異的發展，越來越多教師使用非同步電腦溝通工具於語言教學。數十年來，文獻中相關研究已報導了非同步討論應用於提升語言學習的成效。然而，在台灣這個以英語為外國語的學習環境下，類似的研究以國中生為主體甚少。因此，本研究探討非同步討論應用於國一英語實驗班，作為課後輔助學習活動之成效。透過行動研究，本著教師即研究者的理念，探討學生利用此活動學習英語之成效，並從學生實際表現、學習態度、與所遭遇之困難做深入分析。
本研究共有35位學生參與，他們是南台灣一所國中一年級英語實驗班的學生，全班分成三組進行課後非同步討論活動，一組10-13位學生。研究資料包括學生在非同步討論活動的文字內容、活動結束後期末問卷、小組訪談資料、以及教師的教學觀察筆記。主要研究結果如下：
1) 學生在非同步討論活動中參與度極高，三組學生皆有超過90%的回覆率。此外，幾乎每位學生都達到了教師對其與同儕問答互動的要求。另也發現有四大因素可能影響學生在非同步討論活動的表現：互動模式、活動設計、父母角色、與科技使用。
2) 約有80%的學生認為非同步討論有益於提升他們學習英文單字、文法及寫作。在單字方面，學生認為這項活動幫助他們習得不同主題的相關字彙、學習用不同方式習得單字，以及從同儕習得字彙。在文法方面，學生認為這項活動幫助他們注意到常犯的文法錯誤，以及從同儕習得更多的文法使用。在寫作方面，學生認為這項活動幫助他們改進組織能力、增加文章長度、學習有效表達想法、增進寫作流暢度、以及提升寫作自信心。但有少數幾位學生認為這項活動沒有幫助語言學習，可能是受以下兩項原因之影響：一是他們語言能力仍顯不足，過於依賴翻譯軟體，因而無法真正以英文表達自己想法；二是有些學生的討論文章中有太多英文錯誤，因而無法從同儕討論中學習英文。
3) 大約有51%的學生表示喜歡這個活動，約12%不喜歡，約37%沒有意見。喜歡的原因如下：一是這項活動有助於他們學習英文；二是這項活動有助於建立良好的同儕關係；三是生性害羞的學生可以透過非同步討論自由發揮，不再有眾人面前講話的恐懼；四是這項活動很有趣，有如課後休閒活動。然而，少數學生不喜歡此活動的原因是他們認為這項活動只是浪費時間。
4) 約有20%的學生覺得這項活動很困難，約17%不覺得困難，約63%沒有意見。學生覺得困難的原因如下：一是學生的語言能力有限；二是同儕壓力。學生不覺得困難的原因，是他們會尋求別人的協助或者自己尋找相關資料來回答。另外，研究亦發現討論主題的困難度並不影響學生的參與和表現；反倒是討論題目的引導設計，會影響學生回應內容的長度。
最後，本研究將針對非同步討論活動在國中英語課程的應用，提出若干教學建議與未來可繼續研究之方向。

Along with the rapid development of computer technologies, asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) tools have become more prominent in language teaching. Over the past decades, the studies documented in the literature have reported the effectiveness of using asynchronous discussion activities to enhance language learning for college students. However, few studies have been conducted in Taiwan to explore the effects of using asynchronous discussion activities to facilitate junior high school students’ learning of English as a foreign language. Therefore, this study aims to investigate whether and how the use of an asynchronous discussion activity can help seventh graders in an experimental English class to learn English more effectively. Through an action research design, this study examined the students’ performance in an asynchronous discussion activity carried out over a period of 14 weeks and their perceptions of the effectiveness of this way of language learning. In addition, it explored students’ learning attitudes and what difficulties they encountered when doing the asynchronous discussion activity.
The participants were 35 seventh graders from an English experimental class in a junior high school in southern Taiwan. They were divided into three groups and each group had 10-13 students. Data included the transcripts of the students’ asynchronous discussions on seven topics, the students’ responses to a questionnaire, three focus group interviews with the students, and the instructor’s observation notes. The major findings are summarized as follows:
First, the students’ participation and performance in the asynchronous discussion activity was satisfactory. The three groups all had more than 90% of the students responding to the instructor’s questions. Moreover, almost every student in the three groups met the instructor’s requirement for peer interaction. There were four factors that may have affected the students’ performance: group interaction patterns, activity design, parents’ role, and technology use.
Second, students believed that doing the asynchronous discussion activity helped them greatly improve their English vocabulary, grammar, and writing. In vocabulary, students thought that this activity helped them expand their vocabulary on various topics, learn new vocabulary in multiple ways, and learn new vocabulary from peers. In grammar, students thought this activity helped them become more aware of their grammar errors and learn grammar use from peers. In writing, students thought this activity helped them improve organization, increase the length of their postings, learn to express their thoughts more fluently, and increase their confidence in writing. In contrast, few students did not think this discussion activity helped them improve their language learning. The reasons might be because, first, their English ability was limited and relied too much on the translation software, and second, they read some postings from their peers that had too many mistakes.
Third, the result showed that 51.4% of the students indicated that they liked doing the asynchronous discussion activity, while 11.6% disliked it. About 37% of the students did not comment on their preference. Those who had a positive attitude thought that doing this activity helped them learn English and build rapport with their peers. In addition, shy students preferred doing online discussions because they could write their responses more freely instead of having to speak in front of the whole class. Moreover, some students felt that doing this activity was fun, like a leisure time activity. In contrast, those who had a negative attitude thought that doing this activity was a waste of their time.
Fourth, 20% of the students indicated that doing the asynchronous discussion activity was a difficult job, while 17% disagreed. Around 63% of the students did not comment on the difficulty. The reasons why some students perceived it as difficult might be the students’ limited language proficiency and peer pressure. On the other hand, some students did not think doing this activity was difficult because they would seek help from others or use available resources to help themselves participate in the discussion. Moreover, it was found that students’ performance in response to different topics was not influenced by the difficulty of the topics. However, the prompt that the instructor provided for each topic did have an influence on students’ writing performance, particularly in terms of length.
Finally, the study offers pedagogical implications on how asynchronous discussion activities can be more effectively implemented in junior high school English classes. Moreover, recommendations for future research on the use of such activities for language learning are provided.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (CHINESE) I
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS VIII
LIST OF TABLES XI
LIST OF FIGURES XII
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Motivation 4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 8
Organization of Chapters 9
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 10
Theories for Social Cognitive Learning 10
Social Constructivist Theory 11
Social Cultural Theory 13
Social Learning Theory 14
Learning through 15
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) 15
Advantages of Asynchronous Discussions 16
Disadvantages or Problems of Asynchronous Discussions 22
Communicative Competence 23
Combination of CLT and CMC 25
Issues on the Implementation of Asynchronous Discussions 28
Activity Design 28
Peer Interaction 32
Instructor’s Role 33
CHAPTER THREE METHODS 40
Participants 40
The Design of the Study 41
The Asynchronous Discussion Activity 43
Data Collection 48
Transcripts of Asynchronous Discussions 48
Students’ Responses to Online Discussion Questionnaire 48
Focus Group Interviews 50
Instructor’s Reflection Notes 52
Data Analysis 53
Quantitative Analysis 53
Qualitative Analysis 53
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 55
Students’ Performance 55
Students’ Responses to the Instructor’s Questions 56
Students’ Replies to Their Group Members’ Postings 57
Sustainability 58
Possible Factors for Students’ Performance 58
Students’ Perception of Effectiveness 68
Group Difference 70
Vocabulary 71
Grammar 73
Writing 75
Other Benefits 83
Students’ Attitudes 85
Group Difference 86
Mixed Feeling 92
Group Difference 96
Difficulty in Terms of Topics 100
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 110
Peer Interaction 110
Activity Design 113
Instructor’s Role 117
Parents’ Role 121
Technology Use 122
Affective Influence 123
Implications of the Study 125
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies 129
REFERENCES 133
APPENDIX A – A Guide for Students 145
APPENDIX B – An Announcement to the Students 149
APPENDIX C -- A Questionnaire on Student Responses to the Nicenet Discussion (Chinese Version) 150
APPENDIX D -- A Questionnaire on Student Responses to the Nicenet Discussion (English Version) 154
APPENDIX E – The Questions for Focus Group Interviews 158

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Seven Discussion Topics for Asynchronous Discussion Forums 47
Table 3.2 Five Areas of Interest in the Questionnaire for Students 50
Table 3.3 Reasons for Choosing Students for Focus Group Interviews 51
Table 4.1 Students’ Responses to the Instructor’s Questions 56
Table 4.2 Students’ Replies to Their Group Members’ Postings 57
Table 4.3 Student’s Sustainability of Doing Discussion Activity among the Three Groups 58
Table 4.4 Students’ Responses to Perceived Effectiveness in Language Learning 69
Table 4.5 Comparison of the Students Reponses to Language Learning Perceived Effectiveness 71
Table 4.6 Student’s Attitudes toward the Asynchronous Discussion Activity 86
Table 4.7 Comparison of the Students’ Preference of Doing the Online Discussions among Three Groups 87
Table 4.8 Student’s Perceived Difficulty of Doing the Online Discussions 96
Table 4.9 Comparison of the Students’ Perceived Difficulty of Doing the Online Discussions among Three Groups 97
Table 4.10 Students’ Responses to the 7 Discussion Topics (Difficulty) 102
Table 4.11 Students’ Actual Performance of the 7 topics 103
Table 4.12 The Question Design and the Students’ Actual Performance 105

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 The Website of Nicenet 66
Figure 4.1 Students’ Reactions to Limitations Set by Parents 66
Figure 4.2 A Student’s Reaction to the Improvement of Writing 79
Figure 4.3 A Student’s Reaction to Perceived Effectiveness of Doing the Activity 81
Figure 4.4 A Student’s Reaction to the Discussion Activity 82

Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29(4), 489-503.
Agostinho, S., Lefoe, G., & Hedberg J. (1997). Online collaboration for learning: a case study of a post graduate university course. Paper presented at the 1997 Third Australian World Wide Web Conference, AusWeb97, Southern Cross University. Retrieved February 10, 2002, from: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/proceedings/agostinho/paper.html
Amstutz, D. & Whitson, D. (1997). Accessing information in a technological age. Kreiger: Malabar.
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57, 13-18.
Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asyncrhonous Learning Networks, 4(2).
Bahruth, R. E. (2000). Changes and Challenges in Teaching the Word and the World for the Benefit of All of Humanity. Paper presented at the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Beaudin, B. P. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41-53.
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversations in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455-464.
Beauvois, M. H. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28(5), 177-190.
Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives. Computer mediated communication, 1,129-137.
Bradley, T. & Lomicka, L. (2000). A case study of learner interaction in technology-enhanced language learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(3), 347-368.
Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18-35.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bruner, J. S., & Garton, A. (1978). Human Growth and Development. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Buell, J. (1999). CALL Issues: Resources for CALL. CALL Environments: Research, Practice and Critical Issues, pp. 216-238.
Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers. Computers and the Humanities, 24, 49-65.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chen, C. F. (2005). Experience-based language learning through asynchronous discussion. Paper presented at the 22nd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei. June, 2005.
Retrieved May 5, 2008, from: http://www2.nkfust.edu.tw/~emchen/Home/CV.htm

Choi, J. & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K. L., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 177-201.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave New Schools: Challenging Cultural Illiteracy through Global Learning Networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cunningham, K. (2000). Integrating CALL into the writing curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(5). Retrieved July 9, 2006, from: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Cunningham-CALLWriting
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148.
Dick, B. (2002). Action research: action and research [On line]. Available at
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.html
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Donaldson, R., & Kotter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom into the target culture. CALICO Journal, 16(4), 530-557.
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.

Duffy, G., & Roehler, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 55-58.
Egbert, J. (2002). A project for everyone: English language learners and technology in content area classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 29(8), 36-54.
Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). CALL Environment: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues. Teachers of English to Speakers of other Language, Inc.
Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126.
Everett, D. R. & Ahern, T. C. (1994). Computer-mediated communication as a teaching tool: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 336-357.
Freiermuth, M. R. (1998). Using a chat program to promote group equity. CALL Journal, 8(2), 16-24.
Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2: 2-3, 1-19.
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.
Gass, S. M. & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Gilbert, P. K. & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.
González-Bueno, M. & Pérez, L. C. (2000). Electronic mail in foreign language writing: A study of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quantity of language. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 189-198.
Grabinger, R. S. & Dunlap, J. C. (2000). Rich environments for active learning: a definition. In D. Squires, G. Conole & G. Jacobs, (Eds), The changing face of learning technology (pp. 8-38). Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395-429.
Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-25.
Halstead, J. & Coudret, N. (2000). Implementing Web-based instruction in a school of nursing: Implications for faculty and students. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16, 273-281.
Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: an environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 36-67). New York: Praeger Press.
Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part 1. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 247-262.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111-1124.
Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. New Jersey: Ablex, Norwood.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Hudson, J. M. & Bruckman, A. S. (2002). IRC Français: The creation of an Internet-based SLA community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2), 109-134.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics: Ethnography of Communication. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
Johnson, H. (2007). Dialogue and the construction of knowledge in E-learning: Exploring students’ perceptions of their learning while using Blackboard’s asynchronous discussion board, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.
Jonassen, D., Davison, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Bannan, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-454.
Kimmel, D. C., & Irving, B. W. (1995). Adolescence : A Developmental
Transition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kivela, R. (1996). Working on networked computers: Effects on ESL writer attitudes and comprehension. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 85-93.

Klemn, W. R. (1998). Using computer conferencing in teaching. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22, 507-518.

Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator. An autobiographical journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koeckeritz, J., Malkiewicz, J., & Henderson, A. (2002). The seven principles of good practice. Nurse Educator, 27, 283-287.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. City: Longman.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. CA: The Alemany Press.

Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457-482.

Lamy, M. N. & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Reflective conversation in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 43-61.
Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: a key component in online learning. Journal of CMC, 7(4), 1-18.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. New York: Cambridge UP.
Leahey, T. & Harris, R. (1985). Human learning. City: Prentice-Hall.
Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16-23.
Levin, J., Kin, H., & Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. Online education:Pperspectives on a new environment, pp. 185-213.
Levine, A., Ferenz, O., & Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers? TESL-EJ, 4. Retrieved March 21, 2004 from: http://www.writing-berkely.edu/TESL-EJ/ej16/al.htm
Liaw, M. L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language instruction. System, 26, 335-351.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: A new metaphor. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 391-407.
Liu, M., Moore, X., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computer based technology use in second language learning: Review of literature from 1990 to 2000. Educational Review Journal, 34(3), 250-273.
Luke, C. L. (2004). Inquiry-based learning in a university Spanish class: An evaluative case study of a curricular implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussion, Educause Quarterly, 4, 38-41.
Mason, R. & Lockwood, F. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.
May, S. (1993). Collaborative learning: More is not necessarily better. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 39-50.
Mazzolini, M. & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost: The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers and Education, 40, 237-253.
McLoughlin, C. & Marshall, L. (2000). Scaffolding: A model for learner support in an online teaching environment. In A. Herrman & M. M. Kulski (Eds), Flexible futures in tertiary teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved April 13, 2002, from: http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin2.html

Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: forms of online instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class. System, 33(1), 89-105.
Meunier, L. E. (1998). Personality and motivational factors in computer-mediated foreign language communication. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and FL education (pp. 145-197). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Montero, B., Watts, F., & García-Carbonell, A. (2007). Discussion forum interactions: Text and context. System, 35(4), 566-582.

Moore, M. G. (1991). Computer conferencing in the context of theory and practice of distance education, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Conferencing, 1-9.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48, 484-495.
Nunan, D. (1990). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Ocker, R. J. & Yaverbaum, G. J. (2001). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 427-449.
Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed Cognitions, pp. 47-87. City: Cambridge University Press.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practices (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W., & Stephenson, H. (2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: Students’ attitudes, expectations, and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 409-410.

Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243-265.
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41-68.
Pérez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 89-104.
Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162-177.
Pratt, E., & Sullivan, N. (1994). Comparison of ESL writers in networked and regular classrooms. In Paper presented at the twenty-eighth annual TESOL convention. Baltimore, MD: publisher.
Rice, R. (1994). Network analysis and computer-mediated communication systems. Advances in social network analysis (pp. 167-203). Newbury Park, CA: publisher.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behaviour in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16: 2-3, 155-172.
Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd Ed.) (pp. 397-432). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.
Ross, J. A. (1996). The influence of computer communication skills on participation in a computer conferencing course. Journal Educational Computing Research, 15, 37-52.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16.
Rovai, A. P. (2003). Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in Internet-based university courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10(1).
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussion effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 77-88.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: state of the art, TESOL Quarterly, 25, 261-277.
Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice Texts and Contexts in Second Language Learning (2nd edition). Palatino state: The Clarinda Company.
Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Schafer, W. D., Swanson, G., Bene, N., & Newberry, G. (2001). Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content areas. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(2), 151-170.
Sherritt, C., & Basom, M. (1997). Using the Internet for higher education. Position paper, WY: University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Singhal, M. (1998). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for enhancing foreign language/culture education. On-Call, 12(1). Retrieved July 20, 2004, from: http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/singhal121.html
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31(1), 29-53.
Social Learning Theory. (n. d.). Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://tip.psychology.org/bandura.html
Solomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual''s cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Solomon (Ed), Distributed cognitions (pp. 111-138). City: MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from: http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo
St. John, E., & Cash, D. (1995). Language learning via e-mail: Demonstrable success with German. In M. Warschauer (Ed), Virtual Connections: Online Activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 191-197). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165-180.
Sullivan, N. & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491-501.
Sutherland, J., Watts, F., Garcia-Carbonell, A., Montero, B., & Eidsmo, A. (2003). Fostering a sense of community in networked environments: IDEELS telematic simulations. In Rodrigo Peñarrocha, V. & Ferrando Bataller, M. (Eds), Networked Universities and E-Learning. Networked Universities. Retrieved November 25, 2006. from: http://www.upv.es/menuconf/CD%20MENU%20CONFERENCE/1B%20Education/janet_sutherland.pdf
Tagg, A. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in encouraging student participation on computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 10(2). Retrieved November, 29, 2006 from: http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol10.2/taggdickinson.html
Tella, S. (1996). Foreign languages and modern technology: Harmony or hell? In M. Warschauer (Ed), Virtual Connections: Online Activities and Projects for Networking Language Learners (pp. 3-18). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ulitsky, H. (2000). Language learning strategies with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(3), 285-322.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Thought and language 3rd edition. City: MA: M. I. T. Press, Cambridge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes., MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), 1-14.
Warschauer, M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (1996b). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 29-48). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line Learning in Second Language Classrooms: An Ethnographic Study. Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. New York: Cambridge UP.
Wergerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49.
Wilhelm, S., Rodehorst, T. K., Young, S., Jensen, L., & Stepans, M. B. (2003). Students’ perspective of the effectiveness of an asynchronous on-line seminar. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(5), 313-319.
Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67-89.
Yang, S. C., & Chen, Y. J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 860-879.

Youniss, James, & Jacqueline, S. (1985). Adolescent Relations with Mother, Father, and Friends. The University of Chicago Press.

Young, S. S. C. (2003). Integrating ICT into second language education in a vocational high school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 447-461.

Zeiss, E. & Isabelli, G. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 151-169.
Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology. Indianapolis, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397849)
Zorkoczy, P. (1989). CMC in distance education and training: the broader context. Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education (pp. 50-62). New York: Pergamon Press.