___

• Abrams, Z. (2008). Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: Using Internet-mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 141-160.
• AbuSeileek, A. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493–514.
• AbuSeileek, A. (2012). The effect of computer assisted cooperative learning method and group size on EFL learners' achievement in communication skills. Computers and Education, 58(1), 231-239.
• Acikalin, S. (2008). What about gender based pseudonyms in blogs? Anadolu University
• Journal of Social Sciences 8(1), 275–284. Al-Jehani, N. (1995). Mecca: Sociocultural change and elaborate courtesy in the speech of females. Journal of King Saud University, 6(2), 53-64.
• Barnett, R. C., & Rivers, C. (2008). The difference myth. In B. Rendtorff & A. Prengel
• (Eds.), Jahrbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft Kinder und ihr Geschlecht (Vol. 4, pp. 27-32). Leverkusen, Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing, New York: Basic Books.
• Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. (1999) Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48(2), 109-126.
• Bromley, H. (1995). Gender's dynamics online: What is new about new communications technology, Feminist Collection: A Quarterly Review of Women's Studies Resources, 16(2), 16-21.
• Bruce, B., Peyton, J.K., & Batson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms:
• Promises and realities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, D. (2009). Sex/gender, language and the new biologism. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 173-192.
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
• Cassel, J., & Stone, M. (2005). Teaching dialogue to interdisciplinary teams through toolkits. Proceedings of the Second ACL Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching NLP and CL, (pp. 9–14), Ann Arbor: Association for
• Computational Linguistics. Chapelle, C. (1997). Call in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigm?
• Language Learning & Technology, 1 (1), 19-43. Chartsbin. (2012). Mobile subscribers. Retrieved May 12, 2012 from http://chartsbin.com/view/1881.
• Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System 22, 17-31.
• Darhower, M. A. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the L2 classroom: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-2
• Escalera, E. (2009). Gender differences in children’s use of discourse markers: Separate worlds or different contexts? Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2479–2495.
• Fitz, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86.
• Goodwin, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status and exclusion. London: Blackwell.
• Guiller, J. & Durndell, A. (2007). Students’ linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2240–2255.
• Hiramoto, M. (2010). Utterance final position and projection of femininity in Japanese.
• Woman and Gender, 4(1), 99-104. Herring, S. (1994), Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Miami, USA: American Library Association.
• Herring, S. (1996). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in CMC. In C.
• Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives in computer-mediated communication (pp. 115- 145). Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Ho, M. & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290.
• Husseini, R. (2010). Women's rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Amman: Freedom House.
• Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 121-145.
• Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers:
• Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476. Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 146-166.
• Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer- mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 12 (1), 64-84.
• Light, V., Nesbitt, E., Light, P., & Burns, J. R. (2000). Let’s you and me have a little discussion: Computer mediated communication in support of campus-based university courses. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 85–96.
• Pérez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 21, 89-104.
• Richardson, H., & French, S. (2000). Education on-line: what’s in it for women?
• (Women work and computerization: charting a course to the future). Vancouver, BC: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554-577.
• Shehadeh, A. (1999). Gender differences and equal opportunities in the ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 53(4), 256-261.
• Sierpe, E. (2000). Gender and technological practice in electronic discussion lists: an examination of JESSE, the library/information science education forum. Library and Information Science Research, 22, 273–289.
• Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication, Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119.
• Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net: Women, power, and cyberspace. North Melbourne: Spinifex.
• Tomasil, D., & Volkow, N. (2011). Laterality patterns of brain functional connectivity: Gender effects. Cerebral Cortex, August 30, 1-8.
• Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face- to-face discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110-138.
• Ware, P., (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language
• Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
• Winegar, R. (2002). Genderized language in computer-mediated communication: A content analysis of online discourse. Unpublished PhD dissertation. USA: Union
• Institute and University. Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115-132.
• Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in Synchronous Computer
• Mediated Communication. ReCALL, 22(01), 20. Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts : A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457-477.