Dialogue online: Prospective teachers' discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussions

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 134-160

  Wade, Suzanne E ^a   Fauske, Janice R ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA SARASOTA MANATEE   (United States)

^c PMC101 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2942588455     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1598/RRQ.39.2.1     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. ALVERMANN, D.E., COMMEYRAS, M., YOUNG, J.P., RANDALL, S., & HINSON, D. (1997). Interrupting gendered discursive practices in classroom talk about texts: Easy to think about, difficult to do. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 73-104.
2. BAKHTIN, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3. BELENKY, M.F., CLINCHY, B.M., GOLDBERGER, N.R., & TARULE, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
4. BILLINGS, L., & FITZGERALD, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia Seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 907-941.
5. BOESE, C. (1999). A virtual locker room in classroom chat spaces: The politics of men as "other." In K. Blair & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 195-225). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
6. BOGDAN, R.C., & BIKLEN, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
7. BONK, C.J., & KING, K.S. (1998). Computer conferencing and collaborative writing tools: Starting a dialogue about student dialogue. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. BURBULES, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. COOK-SATHER, A. (2002). Authorizing students' perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.
10. CRESWELL, J.W., CLARK, V.L.P., GUTMANN, M.L., & HANSON, W.E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. DAISLEY, M., & ROMANO, S. (1999). Thirteen ways of looking at an m-word. In K. Blair & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 327-352). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
12. DAIUTE, C. (2000). Writing and communication technologies. In R. Indrisano & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 251-276). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
13. DUFFY, T.M., DUEBER, B., & HAWLEY, C.L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of discussion systems. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.)., Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. ELBOW, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. ELBOW, P. (1986). Embracing contraries: Explorations in Learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford Press.
16. ELLSWORTH, E. (1992). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 90-119). New York: Routledge.
17. ERICKSON, F. (1992). The interface between ethnography and microanalysis. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. FAIGLEY, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject of composition. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
19. FETTERMAN, D.M. (1998). Webs of meaning: Computer and Internet resources for educational research and instruction. Educational Researcher, 22(3), 22-30.
20. 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 (pp. 106-117). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
21. GEE, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
22. GEE, J.P., MICHAELS, S., & O'CONNOR, M.C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 227-291). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. GERRARD, L. (1999). Feminist research in computers and composition. In K. Blair & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 377-400). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
24. GUZZETTI, B., & FEY, M. (2001). Critical perspectives on teacher research: Gender and post-typographical text. Reading Online. Retrieved July 9, 2003, from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/ newliteracies/guzzetti/index.html
25. HERRING, S. (1994, June). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Keynote address presented at the American Library Association annual convention, Miami, FL.
26. HERRING, S. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schriffrin, D. Tannen, & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
27. HSI, S., & HOADLEY, C. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 67(1), 23-36.
28. IKA, S. (2000). Overcoming cultural misunderstandings. In S.E. Wade (Ed.), Inclusive education: A casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers (pp. 129-134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. KENDALL, S., & TANNEN, D. (1997). Gender and language in the workplace. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp. 81-105). London: Sage.
30. KENDALL, S., & TANNEN, D. (2001). Discourse and gender. In D. Schriffrin, D. Tannen, & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 548-567). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
31. KUHN, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
32. LECOURT, D. (1999). Writing (without) the body: Gender and power in networked discussion groups. In K. Blair & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 153-175). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
33. LEVIN, B.B. (1996, April). Learning from discussion: A comparison of computer-based versus face-to-face case discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
34. LEWIS, C. (2001). Literary practices as social acts: Power, status, and cultural norms in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. LITOSSELITI, L. (2002). The discursive construction of morality and gender in argumentation. In S. Benor, M. Rose, D. Sharma, J. Sweetland, & Q. Zhang (Eds.), Gendered practices in language (pp. 45-64). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
36. MOJE, E.B., & SHEPARDSON, D.P. (1998). Social interactions and children's changing understanding of electric circuits: Exploring unequal power relations in "peer'-led learning groups. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 225-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. MONROE, B. (1999). Re-membering Mama: The female Body in embodied and disembodied communication. In K. Blair & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 63-81). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
38. MOORE, D.W. (1997). Some complexities of gendered talk about texts. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 507-530.
39. OKAMOTO, S. (2002). Ideology and social meanings: Rethinking the relationship between language, politeness, and gender. In S. Benor, M. Rose, D. Sharma, J. Sweetland, & Q. Zhang (Eds.), Gendered practices in language (pp. 91-113). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
40. ONWUEGBUZIE, A.J., & TEDDLIE, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. ORNER, M. (1992). Interrupting the calls for student voice in "liberatory" education: A feminist poststructuralist perspective. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 74-89). New York: Routledge.
42. PATTON, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43. PINEAU, E.L. (1994). Teaching is performance: Reconceptualizing a problematic metaphor. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 3-25.
44. PUTNAM, R.T., & BORKO, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 25(1), 4-15.
45. ROSKOS, K., VUKELICH, C., & RISKO, V. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: A critical review of literacy and general teacher education studies. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 595-635.
46. SELFE, C.L. (1990). Technology in the English classroom: Computers through the lens of feminist theory. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first century (pp. 118-139). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
47. TANNEN, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.
48. TANNEN, D. (1991, June 19), Teachers' classroom strategies should recognize that men and women use language differently. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B1, B3.
49. TANNEN, D. (1998). The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. New York: Ballantine.
50. TANNEN, D. (2000, March 31). Agonism in the academy: Surviving higher learning's argument culture. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B7-B8.
51. TURKLE, S. (1995). Life on the screen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
52. VOLMAN, M., & VAN ECK, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71, 613-634.
53. WADE, S.E. (2000a). A case-based curriculum on inclusive education for teacher education. In S.E. Wade (Ed.), Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Case pedagogies and curricula for teacher educators (pp. 25-47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. WADE, S.E. (Ed.). (2000b). Inclusive education: A casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. WADE, S.E., NIEDERHAUSER, D., CANNON, M., & LONG, T. (2001). Electronic discussions in an issues course: Expanding the boundaries of the classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(3), 4-9.
56. WEATHERALL, A. (2002). Gender, language and discourse. New York: Routledge.
57. WELLS, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58. WILSON, S. (1999). Pedagogy, emotion, and the protocol of care. In K. Blair & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 133-151). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
59. ZEICHNER, K.M., & LISTON, D.P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.