'I totally agree with you': Gender interactions in educational online discussion groups

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 368-381

  Guiller, J ^a   Durndell, A ^a  

^a GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Agreement; Computer mediated communication; Disagreement; Gender; Language

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748302025     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00184.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Adrianson L. (2001) Gender and computer-mediated communication: group processes in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior 17, 71-94.
2. Anderson T., Howe C., Soden R., Halliday J. & Low J. (2001) Peer interaction and the learning of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science 29, 1-32.
3. Barrett E. & Lally V. (1999) Gender differences in an online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 15, 48-60.
4. Baym N. (1996) Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29, 315-345.
5. Blum K.D. (1999) Gender differences in asynchronous learning in higher education: learning styles, participation barriers and communication patterns. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [Online], 3. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue1/blum.htm
6. Burrell N.A. & Koper R.J. (1998) The efficacy of powerful/ powerless language on attitudes and source credibility. In Persuasion: Advances Through Meta-Analysis (eds M. Allen & R. Preiss), pp. 203-215. Hampton, Cresskill, NJ.
7. Coates J. (1993) Women, Men and Language, 2nd edition. Longman, Inc., New York.
8. Garrison D.R., Anderson T. & Archer W. (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2, 87-105.
9. Guiller J. & Durndell A. (in press) Students' linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior, available from http://www.sciencedirect.com.
10. Harasim L., Hiltz S.R., Teles L. & Turoff M. (1995) Learning Networks - A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. MIT Press, Massachusetts.
11. Herring S.C. (1993) Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication [Online] 3, available: http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v3n293.htm.
12. Herring S.C. (1994) Politeness in computer culture: why women thank and men flame. In Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference (eds M. Bucholtz, A. Liang & L. Sutton), pp. 278-94. Berkeley Women and Language Group, Berkeley.
13. Herring S.C., ed. (1996) Two variants of an electronic message schema. In Computer Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Prespectives, pp. 81-106. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
14. Herring S.C. (2000) Gender differences in CMC: findings and implications. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility [Online] 18, available: http://archive.cpsr.net/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring. html.
15. Herring S.C. (2003) Gender and power in online communication. In The Handbook of Language and Gender (eds J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff), pp. 202-228. Blackwell, Oxford.
16. Holmes J. (1992) Women's talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society 3, 131-150.
17. Holmes J. (1995) Women, Men and Politeness. Longman, London.
18. Kaplan N. & Farrell E. (1994) Weavers of webs: a portrait of young women on the net. The Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture [Online] 2, available: http://ravem/ubaltedu/staff/kaplan/weavers/weavers.html.
19. Kaye A.R., ed. (1992) Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers. Springer, New York.
20. Lakoff R. (1975) Language and Women's Place. Harper & Row, New York.
21. Laurillard D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies, 2nd edn. Routledge Farmer, London.
22. Mayring P. (2000) Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online] 1, available: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-e/2-00halt-e.htm.
23. Michaelson G. & Pohl M. (2001) Gender in email based co-operative problem solving. In Virtual Gender (eds E. Green & A. Adams), pp. 28-44. Routledge, London.
24. Miller J. (2004) Gender, language and interaction styles in online learning environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Glasgow Caledonian University.
25. Mulac A. & Lundell T.L. (1994) Effects of gender-linked language differences in adults' written discourse: multi-variate tests of language effects. Language and Communication 14, 299-309.
26. Savicki V. & Kelley M. (2000) Computer-mediated communication: gender and group composition. CyberPsychology and Behavior 3, 817-826.
27. Savicki V., Kelley M. & Lingenfelter D. (1996a) Gender language style and group composition in Internet discussion groups. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication [Online] 2, available: http://jcmc.mscc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue3/savicki.html.
28. Savicki V., Kelley M. & Lingenfelter D. (1996b) Gender, group composition and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior 12, 549-565.
29. Savicki V., Kelley M. & Lingenfelter D. (1996c) Gender and small task group activity using computer mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior 12, 209-224.
30. Savicki V., Kelley M. & Oesterreich E. (1998) Effects of instructions on computer-mediated communication in single- or mixed-gender small task groups. Computers in Human Behavior 14, 163-180.
31. Savicki V., Kelley M. & Ammon B. (2002) Effects of training on computer-mediated communication in single or mixed gender small task groups. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 257-269.
32. Soukup C. (1999) The gendered interactional patterns of computer-mediated chatrooms: a critical ethnographic study. The Information Society 15, 169-176.
33. Stewart C.M., Shields S.F., Monolescu. D. & Taylor J.C. (1999) Gender and participation in synchronous CMC: an IRC case study. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century [Online] 7, available: http://www.emoderators.com/icpt-j/1999/nl-2/stewart.html.
34. Sussman N. & Tyson D. (2000) Sex and power: gender differences in computer-mediated interactions. Computers in Human Behavior 16, 381-394.
35. Tannen D. (1991) You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. Virago Press, London.
36. Tannen D. (1994) Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men in the Workplace: Language, Sex, and Power. Virago Press, London.
37. Thomson R. & Murachver T. (2001) Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology 40, 193-208.
38. Timmerman L.M. (2002) Comparing the production of power in language on the basis of sex. In Interpersonal Communication: Advances Through Meta-Analysis (eds M. Allen, R. Preiss, B. Gayle & N. Burrell), pp. 73-88. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
39. Wolfe J.L. (1999) Why do women feel ignored? Gender differences in computer-mediated classroom interactions. Computers and Composition 16, 153-166.
40. Yates S.J. (2001) Gender, language and CMC for education. Learning and Instruction 11, 21-34.