Improving 3rd Grade Students Writing ability via Asynchronous Discussions: A Case Study

Tharrenos Bratitsis, Marina Kandroudi

Early Childhood Education Department University of Western Macedonia Florina, Greece bratitsis@uowm.gr, kandroudimar@hotmail.com AbstractThe aim of the research, presented in the current paper, was to examine the impact of asynchronous discussions usage in students writing ability. It is proposed that critical thinking skills could be cultivated through electronic discussions. In fact, through dialogues students have the opportunity to construct meanings, interact with others and thus acquire knowledge through meaningful communication. In support of this view, the present study was conducted with the participation of 27 3rd Grade students in a primary school in Athens, who participated in the creation of an electronic, interactive newspaper through online discussions. The activity was implemented using the DIAS system, an asynchronous discussion platform with integrated Interaction Analysis tools, exploited in this case to facilitate the researchers analysis. The results indicate that students made significantly fewer mistakes in the online environment, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Additionally, they took initiatives, worked individually and were engaged into a purposeful interaction with others, therefore reinforcing autonomous learning. Keywords: Asynchronous discussions; primary education; writing ability, interaction analysis, critical thinking I. INTRODUCTION Scardamalia and Bereiter [4] developed Knowledge Forum, an asynchronous learning environment, in order to support the process of knowledge building. Through Knowledge Forum, individuals and groups can share information, thoughts, ideas; they can also launch collaborative investigations and interact with other. Knowledge Forum is a collaborative environment in which students act as knowledge producers. In this environment ideas are explored, information is shared and knowledge is created. Research shows that Knowledge Forum supports students within processes such us defining problems, collecting information, analyzing data and collaborating. According to Scardamalia and Bereiter [4], the use of Knowledge Forum led to improvement of students confidence and competence. Students who were engaged in learning activities with the Knowledge Forum scored higher on basic skills (language, reading, and vocabulary) and in critical thinking measurements, as well. Besides, research shows that it is necessary for students to pose their own questions, test ideas, explain their theories, and collaborate on solutions in order to achieve successful results [4]. Knowledge Forum has been especially for Primary education and used by many researchers, worldwide. Several other, conventional asynchronous discussion platforms exist, but they are addressed to wider target groups. Some of them have been used in Primary education, implementing collaborative learning activities and emphasizing in their pedagogic and instructive aspects, but they do not integrate tools, especially designed to facilitate children. Other Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) tools addressed to young learners can be found in the literature, such as the iBee system, but none of them has been extensively researched upon [5]. Furthermore, there are specialized platforms such us DIAS (Discussion Interaction Analysis System), which integrates supporting tools for all the participants in dialogic learning activities [6]. The DIAS system is used in Primary education, 3rd Grade in particular, for the first time, in the research, described in the current paper. III. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Critical thinking is described as the intellectual activity, in which the individuals can evaluate the reliability of information [8]. According to Wegerif [9], thinking skills enable students ability to: a) evaluate what they read, hear

One of the core issues in education is that of learning and sustaining students progress [1]. In fact, learning is connected with Critical Thinking which is related to dialogue, educational discussions and students writings. Greenlaw and DeLoach [2] argue that electronic discussions could cultivate Critical Thinking because they can combine writing and in-class discussions. The current paper work investigates the impact (positive, negative, neutral) of writings in an asynchronous discussion forum, on 3rd Grade students cognitive level but also on their social interaction. II. STATE OF THE ART Asynchronous discussion forae can replace the traditional interaction among students with online discussions and additionally, enhance learning through active dialogues [3]. Many educational approaches incorporate online learning in their curriculum and thus the corresponding students participate in asynchronous discussion forae. Actually, this consists not only electronic learning but also Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) which aims at enhancing Critical Thinking and therefore learning itself [7].

and do, b) rationalize opinions and actions, c) draw inferences and make deductions, d) explain what they think, e) ask relevant questions, f) pose and define problems, g) generate and extend ideas, h) suggest hypotheses, and i) apply imagination. Moreover, Matsaggouras [8] supports that a student can develop critical thinking via interaction with other individuals. Students learn how to learn, therefore they acquire metacognitive skills. Metacognition is crucial when new knowledge is produced and thus for the overall educational process, as it helps individuals to regulate their learning [10]. Reflection, a metacognitive skill, is applied when a student examines the validity of information and draws conclusions, based on his/her research [7]. Reflection is directly connected with Critical Thinking, as students, through collaborative activities, are able to comprehend their errors, share knowledge and better understand a subject, while negotiating common meanings and posing common aims. According to Dillenbourg [11] an asynchronous discussion tool is a metacognitive tool through which a student reflects upon his/her older postings. Reflection can also be achieved, when the student receives feedback from his/her collaborators ([7]). Rudd et al [12] consider that students, through electronic communities, may self organize their learning via peer-topeer interaction, information sharing and communication. Furthermore, Oliver [13] considers problem-solving tasks as one of the most purposeful ways of developing Critical Thinking. Asynchronous discussion forae could facilitate the development of Critical Thinking skills, as they are suitable for problem based learning. Thus, learners may collaborate in order to reach a commonly agreed solution [13]. Additionally, Rumpagaporn and Darmawan [14] prove in their research that students could be assisted in developing Critical Thinking skills through integrating ICTs into teaching and learning processes. Electronic discussions provide a framework for the cultivation of Critical Thinking, as they capture the best of both traditional writing assignments as well as in-class discussion [2]. Cohen and Spencer [15] argued that writing is essential for Critical Thinking because the students learn how to formulate arguments, supported by logic and evidence. Alternatively, Hansen and Salemi [16] claimed that in-class discussion is a vital active-learning strategy because of the inherent dynamics. Greenlaw and DeLoach [2] note that electronic discussions combine writing and in-class discussion and thus seem to enhance Critical Thinking. In addition, in an electronic discussion every student has the possibility to be heard, as opposed to an in-class discussion, where usually a student may not have enough space to develop his/her thoughts [2]. Wegerif [17] argues that technology is a resource for dialogues in which thinking skills are taught, applied and learnt. The computer therefore can support learning conversations. As far as constructivism is concerned, Garrison [18] argues that the most important implication of the constructivism effect in education is the active, participative and evolving learning. He also supports that students construct meanings through dialogue, interacting

with others, thus they acquire the knowledge through meaningful communication and interaction [18]. Moreover, Vygotsky states that individuals could be engaged in collaborative activities and master something they could not, individually. In other words, collaboration is interpreted as a facilitator of individual cognitive development. Learning is rather a matter of participation in a social process of knowledge construction than an individual endeavor [19]. Asynchronous discussion platforms ideal provide means of collaboration for commonly constructed knowledge[20]. IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The research was conducted in a private primary school in Athens, with the participation of 27 3rd Grade students. The designed project was entitled Solets be journalists and implemented within a special section of the official curriculum, called Flexible Zone [21]. This section is suitable for crosscurricular learning activities, which are very flexibly designed and rely on the educators initiative. Considering the crucial role of ICTs in education, the core aim of the research was to explore the impact of asynchronous discussions usage in students writing ability. The duration of the project was six (6) months (October 2009 to March 2010) and was divided in three sections. In the first section, the researchers attempted to familiarize the students with journalism related concepts, such as journalism, journalists, national news and international news. Additionally, the students were introduced to the meaning of electronic and printed newspaper. Regarding the former, students were asked to bring into the classroom printed newspapers and were assisted in trying to understand how they can be read. Regarding the latter, students were introduced in news related websites and the concept of browsing through them, reading news online. During the second section of the project, students were assigned the role of a journalist, for 8 weeks. The young learners were writing news, as real journalists, in their textbooks. They were asked to analyze various subjects, such as the environment, swine flu, the weather, sports, etc. These newspaper articles were examined by the teacher, who provided feedback to the students. The last section of the project was implemented via computers. An electronic newspaper was implemented via an asynchronous discussion platform, named DIAS [6], which integrated Interaction Analysis (IA) related supporting tools (indicators) for the teacher, facilitating his/her moderating and evaluating tasks. Furthermore the IA indicators are exploited for facilitating the researchers analysis and monitoring tasks [5]. Actually, during the research project, 28 wider news themes were discussed; one assigned to each student and one for the entire classroom. However, all students could comment in their classmates theme articles, thus implementing an interactive newspaper. Students could access the asynchronous discussion forum in the computer laboratory of the school, twice a week. That was the only time allowed for them to write messages or comments in the discussion board, so that the teacher would

be able to supervise. The activity was designed so, in order to omit any possible influence of the students parents, if they were able to access the discussion forum at home. There were 14 computers available in the laboratory. Consequently the students had to take turns, sharing the available time evenly among them. Overall, the students wrote 171 texts in their textbooks and 426 messages in the discussion forum. The core aim of this research project was to examine if students writings are diversified, when they use computers, asynchronous discussions in particular. For that matter, quantitative data were examined, regarding the number of orthographic mistakes, letters inversions, grammar mistakes, the size of texts and the students competence to write a text and externalize their thoughts, in more general thematic areas, outside the curriculums constraints, especially without parents assistance. Additionally, students social interaction and communication abilities were examined, in research for changes in their social relations. This part of the survey was conducted via discussions with the students, regarding their real life friendships and the impact they had on their interactivity within the virtual community. As aforementioned, the main purpose of this research was to explore the impact of asynchronous discussions usage in students writings. In the literature the effect of asynchronous discussions and CMC in general has been intensively researched, focusing more on the development of Critical Thinking and the related metacognitive skills. For that matter, content analysis has been applied in many cases and aspects such as participation ratio and extend, motivation and interactivity, have been studied. The current study was designed, having a two-folded aim. On one hand, the findings described in the current literature were to be validated by conducting research with 8 year old students. Apart from Knowledge Forum, which provides sentence openers as expression enhancers and has been intensively used [4], other asynchronous discussion platforms have not been used for research with young students, especially platforms which do not integrate means for the facilitation of argumentation and expression. On the other hand, most of the conducted research focuses on the study of the development of cognitive and metacognitive skills on a more abstract level. For example argumentation as a way to improve thinking skills has been studied [4]. Free form discussions have been used mainly with older students, in many cases adults [7]. In these cases factors such as the ability to write correctly, making no orthographical and grammar mistakes, have not been studied at all. Of course, one can expect that an adult or a high school student has already conquered these writing dexterities. Moreover, electronic tools for correcting written texts exist and are used by most of the adults computer users. In the current study, an asynchronous discussion platform supporting only free form text is used (no message types and/or sentence openers were supported), with the subjects of the research being 3rd grade students. Consequently, all the necessary writing dexterities have not been fully developed by them. In the current paper, the following research questions re being formulated:

Are the orthographic mistakes increased or decreased when students use asynchronous discussions? Is there an increased or decreased number of flawless texts in asynchronous discussions? Do the asynchronous discussions affect the variety (different types) of mistakes in students writings? Is the participation ratio increased in the online platform? At what extend does interaction take place? Do the students establish an enjoyable and motivating atmosphere in order to interchange meanings and comments through asynchronous discussions? Can the students with learning disabilities follow the technology based activities easier than the traditional ones? Is their improvement higher, if any? Do the asynchronous discussions activate the students existing knowledge, practice their thinking skills and trigger their thoughts? V. RESEARCH FINDINGS

As far as the first question is concerned, the research data indicate that the students orthographic mistakes were decreased significantly when they used computers. Generally, the mistakes to total words ratio was decreased by 30% (mean value). Almost half of the students (13 out of 27) appeared to make 10-40% less mistakes in the forum settings, as opposed to their textbooks, whereas 17 of them had an improvement ratio of more than 20%, 7 of which improved their mistakes ration over 50%. Only 2 students appeared to increase their orthographic mistakes when using computer media. One of them made almost the same mistakes (increased by 2,02%) and the other significantly increased her mistakes (20,57%). It is obvious that in computer mediated writing, students improve themselves, in matters of orthographic mistakes. This could be because of increased attention when writing online, which can be intrinsic or due to the fact that the other students will be able to read their postings. An important aspect of the learning activity is that the students did not have any indication of their mistakes when using the online environment. This is common in contemporary online text editors, when misspelled words are usually underlined. Regarding the second question, the number of flawless writings was considerably increased when students wrote in asynchronous discussions. Comparing the average numbers of unmistakable writings in textbooks and the computer, the difference is enormous; only 1,71% of the textbook writings contain no mistakes, whereas 41,34% of the forum messages are totally correct (2319,17% increase). Only 3 students wrote flawless tests in their textbooks, as opposed to the forum, in which only 4 students made mistakes in all their messages (Figure 1). In fact, almost half of them (13), made no mistakes in 40% or more of their writings. It is to be noted that these differences are partially influenced by the nature of the messages, posted in the forum. Allowing

interaction among the students in the forum, lead to smaller texts, as many of them were comments upon other postings. Thus, up to a point, the forum writings were simpler and thus

expected to contain fewer mistakes. Nevertheless, the aforementioned increase was remarkable, having 4 students making no mistake in over 70% of their writings.

Percent of Flawless Texts Written

100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% Flawless Texts 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Student Textbook Forum

Figure 1. Percent of flawless Texts written.

With reference to the types of students mistakes, the research results indicate that there was a positive impact when students wrote in the computer. In the latter case, 24 out of 27 students made only orthographic mistakes. On the contrary, 8 out of 27 students made other types of mistakes in their textbooks, such as letter inversions, letter mirroring, word repetitions and letter or syllable omissions. Thus, the students made fewer mistakes in the online environment, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Examining the participation ratio, there was a noticeable increase, during the phase in which the discussion forum was used. The majority of the students (24 out of 27) increased their participation significantly. Almost half of them (14) wrote over 45% more messages in the electronic medium, whereas 6 of them increased their productivity more than 100%, 4 of which more than 200%. Figure 2 shows the increase in number of texts written in the two distinct phases of the learning activity. .

Number of Texts written

30 25 20
Texts 15

Textbooks Forum

10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Student

Figure 2. Number of Texts written.

Of course, the nature of the activity during the latter face was differentiated. Students were able to interact by commenting each others newspaper articles. Thus, an increase in participation was expected. Nevertheless, in some cases it was remarkable. For example students with special needs (students 11 and 18, Figure 2) had an above medium participation ratio in the electronic discussion, but could not complete any texts in their textbooks. Also the increase of the participation ratio by some students, such as Students 1, 5, 9, 20 and 21 (Figure 2) is over 300%. Additionally, the size of the texts varied between phases. In their textbooks, students wrote bigger articles, following the notion of an essay, addressed to the teacher for grading. On the other hand, in the asynchronous discussion, they wrote smaller postings, which were often followed up, thus indicating that the students expected interaction in order to further extend their writings. In a way, they received feedback, which motivated to write more.

Another significant issue which explains the difference in text sizes was the fact that the students had less available time to use the computers. They had to split the laboratory time, so that everybody would have equal opportunities in reading and writing messages. In regard to the motivation for a meaningful interaction among students in the asynchronous discussions, the observation showed that indicators which present the number of writings in every topic had a vital role. Specifically, the students took into consideration the number of messages in every topic, then they tried to participate in a popular discussion and simultaneously they tried to change their own topics making them popular as well. In support of this view, it seemed like a game to increase the number of messages in each topic, particularly in their personal one. Additionally, they thought that they were obliged to reply in a commenting message, addressed to them, even if this reply was only one word. The overall interaction within the discussion forum was adequate, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Activity Indicator

The chart in Figure 3 corresponds to the Activity Indicator, one of the integrated Interaction Analysis indicators of the DIAS system. On the x-axis, the number of messages written by the participants is counted for. The y-

axis corresponds to the number of messages, written by other participants, that each individual has read, providing a metric for interactivity. The size of the circle, corresponding to every student grows proportionally to the number of

discussion threads this student initiates. Based on this indicator, one could argue that the interaction that took place was adequate. The latter is confirmed by the SNA diagrams shown in Figure 4. The SNA Answers Indicator in Figure 4a shown only one isolated student. The vortices correspond to students and the connecting arrows correspond to answering messages. An arrow from Student A towards Student B

indicates that Student A has posted at least one answer to a message written by Student B. Likewise, in the SNA Reads Indicator shown in Figure 4b, the arrow indicates that Student A has read messages written by Student B. The structural data of these SNA diagrams (density, complexity, etc), show that the interaction among the participants was intense and the students interacted rather bilaterally.

Figure 4. SNA Answers Indicator and SNA Reads Indicator

It is evident that students have no opportunity to interact likewise in their textbooks. Moreover, they are not motivated at all to write as much, as the only person who will read their texts is always the teacher. Admittedly, even if they could exchange their notebooks, principally they could not write on them, as the restrictions within the educational system and the social structure (students parents) are too many. Hence, there would be no real interaction. Apart from that, time would be never enough for all the students to read each others notebook during the lesson. Two students of the research population had significant problems (learning disabilities and/or special needs). One had a serious socializing problem and the other both socializing and cognitive problems. They both appeared to try more in order to achieve their classmates acceptance through the electronic medium. Thus, they were the students with the bigger improvement, in matters of types and amount of mistakes made. Especially, the first student who had social problems in real life, in virtual community seemed to be more socially active and interacted meaningfully with her classmates. Likewise, the other student who additionally had serious learning problems, displayed significant improvement in the online environment. In his notebook he did not manage to complete any text, but in the online discussion he wrote 19 messages, with 50%of them containing no mistakes. Moreover, in one case he made a

letter inversion but in the very next message (replying to the former) he corrected it, something that never had done in the textbook. Because of the asynchronous discussions he could prove to his classmates that he could read and write. The latter is granted for this age, but for him it was not. The observation of the overall behavior, during the research conduction period, revealed that this student was happier and could adapt better with the students team after his participation in asynchronous discussions, socializing with them during free time. As for the last research question, it appeared that the discussion forum involved students in a topic under discussion, by posing thought provoking tasks which in turn motivated their interest. Students responded freely, expressing their views and exchanging ideas. It was of vital importance that students related their personal experiences with the lesson and brought their outside world into the classroom. For instance, students had the opportunity to write about football matches. This would not have been accepted in the textbook, due to restrictions related to the curriculum. Moreover, some students wrote about their experiences regarding the zoo, swimming pools, tennis and other topics and seemed to have developed their writing skills at the same time. They undertook the role of the journalist, commenting facts from the current timeliness, at the time, thus connecting their everyday life and experiences

to the actual learning activity. In addition they came up with new ideas. For example, two of the students thought it would be good to create an advertisement for their topics in order to make them more popular. Finally, students were taking initiatives and they were working individually, therefore they reinforced autonomous learning. VI. DISCUSSION This study aims at examining the impact of asynchronous discussions usage in students writing ability. Research results indicate that autonomous learning and thus critical thinking development could be cultivated through asynchronous learning activities [2]. Students have the opportunity to construct their own knowledge, share it with their classmates and receive feedback from them. The study, described in the current paper, indicates that asynchronous discussions could be successfully integrated in primary schools in order to promote active learning and enhance students performance. The findings of the current research support this view. Almost all students improved themselves, in matters of orthographic mistakes. The mean value of the improvement percentage was 30%. Additionally, the amount of flawless texts in the discussion forum was increased severely, in comparison to the corresponding amount in the textbooks. Actually, the latter were quite few, thus making the assumption that students could not write texts containing no mistakes in their textbooks, quite realistic. On the contrary, more than 40% of the forum messages were correct. Moreover, although students made various types of mistakes in their textbooks, such as letter inversions and word repetitions, they made only orthographic mistakes in the electronic medium. The conclusion is that students made fewer mistakes, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while increasing the number of flawless texts written. Trying to interpret this improvement, the simpler explanation is that students paid more attention to their writings, when using the asynchronous discussion platform. On the other hand, the two main phases of the So lets be journalists activity, were partially overlapped. Students wrote in the interactive newspaper and in their personal newspapers, that is their textbooks, at the same time during a certain period. The differences were equally observable during that time too. Consequently, the improvement is not an evolvement effect, where students write better and with fewer mistakes over time. It seems to be based on the expression medium (computer over textbook). That makes the conclusion that the use of asynchronous discussion forae actually influences the students writing abilities; they write, making fewer mistakes, while some types of mistakes seem to not appear in the electronic medium. Moreover, the students seemed motivated to participate in the online discussions, thus writing more texts than in their textbooks. The difference in the participation ratio was quite big. One of the researchers was also the students regular teacher, having the opportunity to monitor their actions constantly. The enthusiasm of the students, every time they moved to the computer laboratory, was very high. Additionally, after the completion of the project, the children

were asked to report their impressions of the overall project, through small, open-ended discussions. They were asked: a) if they enjoyed the learning activity, b) if they wanted to participate ina similar activity again, c) if they would like such activities to be extended throughout the whole academic year, and d) to report any comments freely. The majority (25) stated that they would like to participate again in such projects. They also expressed their preference to activities of a longer duration, throughout all the academic year, if possible. Moreover, they wanted to be able to use the computer laboratory more frequently, in order to interact with each other, within learning activities of this kind. One of them stated that the project was nice because all the classroom could participate. Another supported that I enjoyed the project because of the communication among classmates. Finally, a student proposed the implementation of a new activity, in which the teacher would open a new topic, setting a theme of discussion for the students to write their comments in. Only 2 students did not like the project. When asked to justify their answer, one of them gave no explanation. The second student stated that he would have liked the project if every student had his/her own computer in the laboratory. So, he did actually liked the setting of the learning activity, but he was disappointed by the fact that the time in the laboratory was limited and the children had to take turns in using the computers. It seemed that this disappointment was too intense, overriding his actual opinion about the whole activity. Regarding the students behavior during the research project, it was obvious that they were excited when the online discussion took place. Although there were some technical problems, students overcame these difficulties and they easily corresponded to the project. The students of this classroom were familiarized with computer use since the 1st Grade. However, they had never participated in asynchronous discussion forae before. Therefore the teacher organized an instructive session using a smart board, in order to thoroughly explain the DIAS system and the forum functionalities. The discussion topics were introduced to the students from the teacher, through the smart board. Finally, regarding the quality of the texts, it was obvious that the students could correspond to free form discussions, related to their everyday life and habits. They had the opportunity to freely express themselves, formulating their thoughts and externalizing their points of view and their beliefs. It was important that writing in the discussion forum was intuitionally not connected to the rules that normally underlie essays, which are handed over to the teacher for evaluation. Even the selected topics were not similar to the ones the usual class related assignments. Thus, students were able to write and interact with each other, at free will. It is possible that the students, being relieved from the normal assignment anxiety, were able to perform better in their writings. On the other hand, it seems that the electronic medium enhanced this performance improvement as well. The writings in the textbook were not as good, even though the corresponding topics were equally differentiated from the school norm.

Taking into account all the aforementioned observations, it would be legitimate to support that the students were able to cultivate an enjoyable and motivating atmosphere for collaborating in order to develop their: a) high order thinking skills, b) social dexterities, c) argumentation, and d) overall writing ability. Future plans include thorough content analysis of the students writings in order to fully examine all the qualitative aspects, related to writing ability and cognitive development, as well as metacognitive skills. Furthermore, additional case studies are needed in order to verify and refine the observations in the current research, so as to be able to generalize the research findings. Finally, a repetitive case study, with the same research population is under consideration, as a follow up research during the next academic year. The aim is to study the permanency of the observed improvements, both on the cognitive level (use of written language) as well as the social level (real life interactions which were initiated by the online interactions). REFERENCES
[1] G. Kress. Learning- a semiotic view in the context of digital technologies. In N. Davis & A. Brown (eds.): Digital technology, communities and education. London: Routledge, 2004 S.A. Greenlaw & S.B. DeLoach. Teaching Critical Thinking with Electronic Discussion. Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 34(1), pp 36-52, 2003, Helen Dwight Reid Foundation M.A. Andresen. Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations, Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1), pp 249-257, 2003. M. Scardamalia & C. Bereiter. Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.): Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp 97-118. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006. T. Bratitsis, A. Dimitracopoulou. Interpretation of Computer Based Interaction Analysis Indicators: a significant issue for enhancing collaboration in Technology Based Learning. In Kock, N. (ed.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on E-Collaboration: Emerging Trends and Applications, Advances in E-Collaboration Book series, IGIGlobal, USA, p 31-59, 2010 T. Bratitsis & A. Dimitracopoulou. Studying the effect of interaction analysis indicators on students selfregulation during asynchronous discussion learning activities. 8th International Conference on

[7]

[8] [9] [10] [11]

[12] [13]

[14]

[15]

[2]

[16]

[3]

[17] [18]

[4]

[19]

[5]

[20]

[6]

[21]

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL2009: CSCL Practices. June 8-13, Rhodes, Greece, 2009 T. Bratitsis. Development of flexible supporting tools for asynchronous discussions, via analysis of interactions among participants, for technology enhanced learning.Doctoral thesis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece, 2007, Unpublished I. Matsaggouras. Teaching Strategies: Critical Thinking in Education. Athens: Gutenberg, 2002. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 3449. S. Panteliadou. Learning disabilities and Education. What and Why. Athens: Ellinika Gramamta, 2002 P. Dillenbourg. What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, Oxford: Elsevier, pp 1-19, 1999 T. Rudd, F. Colligan.& R. Naik. Learner voice. Bristol, Futurelab, 2006 R. Oliver. Seeking best practice in online learning: Flexible Learning Toolboxes in the Australian VET sector. Australian Journal Of Educational Technology, 17(2), 2001, pp 204-222. M.W. Rumpagaporn,G.N. Darmawan. Students critical thinking skills in a Thai ICT schools, pilot project. International Education Journal, 8(2) , 2007, pp 125-132. A.J. Cohen & Spencer. Using writing across the curriculum in economics: Is taking the plunge worth it?, Journal of Economic Education 24 (Summer), 1993, pp 21930 W.L. Hansen & M. K. Salemi. Improving classroom discussion in economics courses. In P. Saunders & W. B. Walstad (eds.): The principles of economics course: A handbook for instructors, pp 96 110. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990 R. Wegerif. Thinking skills, technology and learning: a review of the literature. Bristol: NESTA FutureLab, 2002 D.R. Garisson. A cognitive constructivist view of distance education: An analysis of teaching-learning assumptions. Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 14,1993, 199 211. L. Lipponen. Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, January 07-11, 2002, Boulder, Colorado Doolittle, P.E. (1999). Constructivism and Online Education. In Proceedings of Online Conference on Teaching Online in Higher Education, Fort Wayne, USA . Greek Ministry of Education. A cross thematic curriculum framework for compulsory education, Greek Ministry of Education, 2003