Teacher's Role in A Collaborative Writing Environment Using ...

i

Teacher’s Role in A Collaborative Writing

Environment Using Wiki

Submitted by

Younis Jamil Al Shabibi

To the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Education.

June 2018

This thesis is available for library on the understanding that it is copyright

material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper

acknowledgment.

I certify that all the material in this thesis which is not my own work has been

identified and that no material is included for which a degree has previously

been conferred upon me.

Signature……………………………………….

i

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the Wiki teacher’s role in a collaborative writing

environment using a Web 2.0 tool, Wiki. Besides that, the Wiki teachers’

perception on using Wiki technology in their collaborative writing classes was

sought after as well as the challenges that they faced through the five Wiki

classes.

The study took place in the CPS in the SQU. It was conducted by two EFL

teachers who were a male and a female. Being an observer and an interviewer

in a qualitative case study research, I utilised two main research instruments

including observations and semi-structured interviews.

The findings revealed that teachers had a positive attitude of using Wiki in a

collaborative writing class. The findings also revealed that the Wiki teachers

showed six main roles which were managerial roles, Wiki teacher as assessor,

social roles, pedagogical roles, technical roles and psychological role. In their

managerial roles, the Wiki teachers carried some preparations before the Wiki

class. They included assigning students in groups and assigning group leaders

for each group. The roles included also organizing the Wiki class work which

included dividing the work among students’ and watching group leaders’ work.

In their technical role, the Wiki teachers were to facilitate students work on Wiki,

train students how to use Wiki, and use online materials to assist students’ work

on Wiki. More interestingly, the study findings showed a technical cooperation

between the Wiki teachers in which they exchanged their experience when

teaching on Wiki. In their social role, the Wiki teachers were deducted through

teacher to students’ interaction (T-S), which was observed throughout the Wiki

ii

five projects. Being an encouraging Wiki teacher, it led to student to student

interaction, (S-S), to take place through students’ interaction on Wiki. Teacher’s

presence encouraged (S-S) interaction which led also to other reasons that

enhanced interaction between students (S-S). The Wiki teachers as assessors

could be deducted as the Wiki teacher’s ability to let students comment and

give feedback on each other’s work. It also focused on the Wiki teacher’s

feedbacks, comments and rewards for students work in a Wiki environment. At

the end of the Wiki classes, the Wiki teachers asked students to reflect upon the

five Wiki lessons they did. In their pedagogical role the Wiki teachers were first

and foremost teachers who would enable students to grasp pedagogical goals

of learning on Wiki. Besides that, the Wiki teachers facilitated learning on Wiki

for their students through pre and during Wiki classes. In pre-Wiki classes, the

teachers made some pedagogical preparations which were used to prepare to

the next Wiki classes and design course materials. Through during-Wiki

classes, the Wiki teachers prepared pedagogical activates which differentiate

between types of teaching and learning. In the psychological roles, the Wiki

teachers showed personal motives, leading motives, mental motives and

emotional motives when teaching collaborative writing using Wiki technology.

Finally, the study investigated the challenges that a Wiki teacher faced in a Wiki

environment. These challenges were linked to the students’ readiness to work

on Wiki as well as some technical problems. There were some other

challenges, caused by different factors.

At the end of the study, my thesis recommends some further studies. They are

to open new doors for new studies, based on the study findings. They are also

to reflect on the limitations of the current study.

iv

Acknowledgement

I dedicate this work to my parents, my kind and caring father Jamil Al Shabibi

and my beautiful and humble mother, Fatma Al Yahmadi. I would like to thank

my caring aunt, Bishara Al Khamisi whom I considered my second mother.

I am very grateful to my family starting with my wife, Sheikha Al Manthri who

has spent great efforts and deduction to walk with me along the PhD long and

tiring journey, starting from the scratches. During my journey, she was my close

friend whom I trusted her advice. She was my counsellor whom I would always

open my heart to. She was my coach who would motivate me to do my best. I

would not forget my kids whom I consider my precious jewels, Haneen, Fatma,

Ahmed, Zakaria, and Hoor (Dad’s Girl).

The completion of this work would have been impossible without the support,

assistance, guidance and encouragement of my both great supervisors, Dr. Li Li

and Dr. Philip Durant. I would like to thank them for their constant support

during every stage of this thesis.

I would like also to thank Dr. Ali AL Musawi whom I believe is the Omani

scholar, leading the field of technology and education nowadays in Oman. I did

really benefit a lot of his knowledge, patience, and great cooperation since I was

an undergraduate at the SQU. I am really honoured to follow his steps when I

was doing my Master at the SQU. Because I believe that he is always

collaborative, he was not hesitant to guide me when I was collecting data for my

PhD thesis in the SQU.

I would like to thank all the staff in the Centre of Preparatory Studies (CPS) at

the Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) for their sincere cooperation, especially

Khamis Al Harasi, Abdullah Al Rawahi, Mohammed Al Hadharami and Ahoud Al

Hatali.

I would like to dedicate my work to the soul of my deceased brother, Salim (May

his Soul Rest in Peace) who always used to say: “I always keep you in my

prayers.” I do also keep him in my prayers and would keep this thesis as an

evidence for the love that I hold in my heart for him.

I would like to thank all my brothers, Ali, Abdul Aziz, Abdullah, Taher, Maher,

Naif, Ibrahim and Mohammed. I would like to thank also my sisters, Noof, AL

Anood, Maryam, Ma’ali and Miznah.

Last but not least, I would like the people of Exeter for being my second family

abroad throughout the PhD years. I would like to thank all my Omani brothers

and sisters in the Omani Students Society in Exeter which I was honoured to be

its first head.

5

LIST OF CONTENTS

Abstract ......................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgement ..................................................................................... iv

Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................. 12

1.1 Background and rationale ...................................................................... 14

1.2 Statement of the problem ....................................................................... 16

1.3 The significance of the study ................................................................. 17

1.4 The aims of the study ............................................................................. 19

1.5 Research questions ............................................................................... 20

1.6 Overview of the Thesis .......................................................................... 21

Chapter Two: Context of the Study .................................................... 22

2.1 The Geographical and Historical Background of Oman ......................... 22 2.1.1 2.1.1 Location ............................................................................................. 22

2.1.2 Glimpses of Oman History .......................................................................... 22

2.2 Education in Oman ................................................................................ 26 2.2.1 Glimpses of Education in Oman before 1970 .............................................. 26

2.2.2 Education in Oman after 1970s .................................................................. 28

2.2.2.1 Public General (Pre-tertiary) Education System ................................... 29

2.2.2.2 Basic education ................................................................................... 31

2.2.2.3 Post Basic Education ........................................................................... 31

2.2.2.4 Public Higher (Post-Secondary, Tertiary) Education System ............... 31

2.2.3 Higher Education Institutions under in Oman .............................................. 32

2.2.4 The Sultan Qaboos University .................................................................... 33

2.2.4.1 Centre for Preparatory Studies (CPS) .................................................. 34

2.3 English in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) ...................................... 36

2.4 Technology in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) ............................... 38

Chapter Three: Literature Review ....................................................... 43

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 43

3.2 Theoretical Base for Collaborative Writing: Vygotsky Sociocultural Theory

(SCT) ..................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1 Zone of proximal development (ZDP) ......................................................... 44

3.3 Collaborative Writing (CW) .................................................................... 45 3.3.1 Student-Student Relationship in a Collaborative Writing Environment ........ 46

3.3.2 Teacher–Students (T-S) Relationship is essential in a CW Environment .... 48

3.3.3 Teacher-Student (T-S) Relationship in a Collaborative Writing Environment

…..49

3.3.4 Teacher’s Role in A collaborative Learning Environment ............................ 51

6

3.4 Teacher’s in Online environment (from traditional to online) .................. 54

3.5 Teacher’s Role in a collaborative Online Environment........................... 56 3.5.1 Collaborative online environment ................................................................ 56

3.5.2 Collaborative Writing in Online Environment ............................................... 57

3.5.3 Teacher’s in a collaborative Online Environment ........................................ 57

3.5.4 Teacher’s Roles in an Online Environment ................................................. 58

3.6 Teacher’s Role in Online Learning Environment Using Wiki .................. 66 3.6.1 Wiki Technology as a Web 2.0 Tool in Learning ......................................... 66

3.6.2 Web 2.0 in Online Learning Environment .................................................... 68

3.6.3 Teachers’ Perception of Wiki Use in Learning............................................. 68

3.6.3.1 Pre and In- Service Teachers .............................................................. 68

3.6.3.2 Students’ Perception of Wiki Use in Learning ...................................... 71

3.6.3.3 Challenges of Using Web 2.0 and Wiki for Teachers and Students ..... 72

3.7 Teacher’s Role in A Collaborative Writing (CW) Environment Using Wiki

Technology ............................................................................................ 74

3.7.1 Teacher in a Wiki

Environment………………………………………………..…………….74

3.7.2 Teacher as a Facilitator in a Wiki Environment …………………...77

3.7.3 Different Roles for a Teacher in a Wiki Environment ………….….78

Chapter Four: Methodology ................................................................ 82

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 82

4.2 Theoretical framework ........................................................................... 83 4.2.1 Interpretivism .............................................................................................. 84

4.2.2 Philosophical and Theoretical Assumptions ................................................ 85

4.3 Research design (Methodology) ............................................................ 88 4.3.1 Case Study ................................................................................................. 90

4.3.2 The socio-political context ........................................................................... 94

4.3.3 Theory and practice .................................................................................... 95

4.4 Instruments ............................................................................................ 96 4.4.1 Semi-structured interview ........................................................................... 96

4.4.2 Purposes of Using Semi-Structured Interviews ........................................... 97

4.4.3 Observation ................................................................................................ 98

4.4.4 The Researcher Role as a complete Observer ......................................... 101

4.5 Participants .......................................................................................... 102 4.5.1 Ali ............................................................................................................. 103

4.5.2 Sheikha .................................................................................................... 104

4.6 Setting .................................................................................................. 104

4.7 Data collection procedures .................................................................. 105 4.7.1 Phase I: Preparations ............................................................................... 106

7

4.7.1.2 Pilot Study ......................................................................................... 106

4.7.1.1 Before I started the research project (actual study): ........................... 106

4.7.2 Phase II: Actual Study .............................................................................. 116

4.7.3 Teachers and students in Wiki Environment ............................................. 117

4.7.3.1 Observation ....................................................................................... 117

4.7.3.2 Semi-structured interviews (Pre Wiki classes) ................................... 118

4.7.3.3 Semi-structured interviews (Post Wiki Classes) ................................. 119

4.7.3.4 Wiki classes…………………..…………………………………………..120

4.7.4 Phase III: After the Study .......................................................................... 122

4.8 Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 117 4.8.1 Analysis of Observation Field notes Data ................................................. 124

4.8.2 Analysis of Interview Data......................................................................... 125

4.8.3 Process of Analysing of Observation Field Notes and Semi-Structured

Interviews ............................................................................................................... 125

4.9 Quality of research ............................................................................... 131 4.9.1 Trustworthiness: Quality in Qualitative Stance .......................................... 132

4.10 Ethical considerations................................................................... 137

Chapter Five: Findings and Data Analysis ...................................... 140

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 140

5.2 Research Question I: What are the Teacher’s Perceptions on Using Wiki

in a Collaborative Writing Environment? .............................................. 140 5.2.1 Perceived Teacher’s Roles ....................................................................... 141

5.2.1.1 Technical or Language Supporter “It was more IT than English…But,

during the following classes, it was more English” ............................................... 142

5.2.1.2 Teacher’s Presence to Organize the Class Work: “I tried to be the

organizer” 144

5.2.2 Teachers’ Perceptions about the Wiki Program ........................................ 145

5.2.2.1 Perceptions about the Wiki Program .................................................. 146

5.2.2.2 Positive Views ................................................................................... 146

5.2.2.3 Concerns about using the Wiki Program ............................................ 150

5.2.3 Perception about Students in the Wiki Classes ......................................... 154

5.2.3.1 Positive Views ................................................................................... 154

5.2.3.2 Concerns about Student Using Wiki .................................................. 158

5.2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 159

5.3 Research Question II: What are the Teacher’s Roles in a Wiki Class? 160 5.3.1 Managerial Roles ...................................................................................... 161

5.3.1.1 Preparations before the Wiki class (Groups and Group Leaders) ...... 163

8

5.3.1.2 Organizing Wiki classwork ................................................................. 166

5.3.1.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 172

5.3.2 Assessor ................................................................................................... 172

5.3.2.1 Assessment in a Wiki class is crucial, “We have to assess”! .............. 173

5.3.2.2 Feedback ........................................................................................... 177

5.3.2.3 Praise and Rewarding……………………….…………………………………138

5.3.2.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 183

5.3.3 Technical roles ......................................................................................... 184

5.3.3.1 Teacher facilitated students work on Wiki .......................................... 185

5.3.3.2 Teacher Trained students how to use Wiki “Training had a great impact

on their performance” .......................................................................................... 193

5.3.3.3 Assisting Materials “Technology assists technology.” ........................ 194

5.3.3.4 Technical Cooperation between Wiki Teachers ................................. 198

5.3.3.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 202

5.3.4 Social Roles ............................................................................................. 202

5.3.4.1 Teacher’s Role in Teacher-Student (T-S) Interaction ......................... 203

5.3.4.2 Wiki Teacher encouraged (S-S) Interaction ....................................... 205

5.3.4.3 Teacher’s Presence encouraged (S-S) Interaction ............................ 210

5.3.4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 212

5.3.5 Pedagogical Roles .................................................................................... 212

5.3.5.1 Teachers first and foremost are Teachers, “Pedagogical goal” .......... 213

5.3.5.2 Facilitating Learning on Wiki (Pre- & During-Wiki Class) .................... 214

5.3.5.3 Preparing to the Next Wiki Class ....................................................... 215

5.3.5.4 Designing Course Materials ............................................................... 217

5.3.5.5 Verifying between Traditional Teaching and online Teaching (Wiki) .. 220

5.3.5.6 Autonomous learning Vs. Scaffolding learning (collaborative) ............ 222

5.3.5.7 Pedagogical Outcomes of Using Wiki “if a student can write a paragraph

then, he can write a book”…………………………………..………………………….228

5.3.5.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 228

6.3.6 Psychological Roles…………………………………………….………………...……..231

6.3.6.1 Personal Motives………………………………………………………………232

6.3.6.2 Leading motives………………………………………………………….…....233

6.3.6.3 Mental Motives…………………………………………………………………234

6.3.6.4 Emotional Motives………………………………………………………..…...238

6.3.6.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………..……238

9

5.4 Q.III: What are the Challenges that the Wiki teachers faced in a Wiki

environment? ....................................................................................... 237 5.4.1 Students’ Readiness to Work on Wiki ....................................................... 237

5.4.1.1 Troubles in Logging in ....................................................................... 238

5.4.1.2 Troubles in Students’ Online Collaboration ........................................ 238

5.4.1.3 Not Taking Working Online Seriously ................................................ 242

5.4.2 Technical Problems .................................................................................. 244

5.4.2.1 Internet Poor Connection ................................................................... 244

5.4.2.2 Technical Problems in the Wiki Program ........................................... 246

5.4.3 Colleagues, Students, and SQU Administration ........................................ 248

5.4.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 250

Chapter Six: Discussion of the Research Findings ........................ 252

6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 252

6.2 Teacher’s Perceptions on Using Wiki in a Collaborative Writing

Environment ......................................................................................... 253 6.2.1 Technical or Pedagogical Role? ............................................................... 253

6.2.2 Assessment .............................................................................................. 255

6.2.2.1 Assessing Online Work ...................................................................... 257

6.2.2.2 Online Work: a process or a product .................................................. 257

6.3 Teacher’s Roles ................................................................................... 261 6.3.1 Managerial Role ....................................................................................... 262

6.3.1.1 Group Leader “Teacher’s Assistants” ................................................ 262

6.3.1.2 A Group Leader in a Wiki Environment .............................................. 266

6.3.1.3 Conclusion: Group Leaders in Small Groups ..................................... 268

6.3.2 Technical Role .......................................................................................... 268

6.3.2.1 Technical Wiki Teacher’s Role in a Wiki Environment ........................ 268

6.3.2.2 Wiki is User-friendly, no Need for Much Technical Role ..................... 270

6.3.2.3 Context of Teacher’s Technical Role ................................................. 272

6.3.3 Social Roles ............................................................................................. 274

6.3.3.1 Teacher’s Presence for Effective (S-S) Collaboration on Wiki ............ 277

6.3.3.2 Interaction for Successful Social Role ................................................ 275

6.3.3.3 Teacher’s Presence for Effective (S-S) Collaboration on Wiki………..279

6.3.4 Pedagogical Roles .................................................................................... 279

6.3.4.1 Pedagogical Role of Wiki Teacher “Teachers first and foremost are

Teachers” . .......................................................................................................... 282

10

6.3.4.2 Intellectual or Pedagogical Role?....................................................... 280

6.3.4.3 Wiki teachers as Course Designers ................................................... 282

6.3.4.4 Wiki teachers as facilitators to students’ learning on Wiki. ................. 283

6.3.4.5 Wiki Teacher Mostly Course Designer and Content Facilitator .......... 284

6.3.4.6 Traditional and Online Teaching on Wiki ............................................ 285

6.3.5 Assessor ................................................................................................... 286

6.3.5.1 Assessor Skills: Feeddback Skills ..................................................... 289

6.3.5.2 Conclusion: Online Assessing is Progressing .................................... 290

6.4 Challenges ........................................................................................... 291 6.4.1 Teacher’s Challenge in a Wiki Program .................................................... 292

6.4.2 Students Face Challenge Using Wiki ........................................................ 292

6.4.3 Technical Challenges ............................................................................... 294

6.4.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 296

Chapter Seven: Conclusion .............................................................. 297

7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 297

7.2 Research Findings………………………….……………………………...300

7.3 Research Contribution……………………………………………………..302

7.4 Pedagogical Implications of the Study ................................................ 301 7.4.1 Implications on In-Service Teaching in Omani HE Institutions .................. 302

7.4.2 Implication on Using Technology to Teach English in Omani HE Institutions

302

7.5 Limitations of the Study ........................................................................ 303

7.6 Recommendations for Further Research ............................................. 305

References ......................................................................................... 308

Appendices ........................................................................................ 331

Appendix (1): Observation Sheet .............................................................. 331

Appendix (2): Pre Wiki Class Semi-structured Interview ........................... 334

Appendix (3):Post Wiki Class Semi-structured Interview........................... 336

Appendix (4): Final Semi-structured Interview ........................................... 340

Appendix (5): Consent Form ..................................................................... 359

Appendix (6): Information Sheet (Lecturer) ............................................... 360

Appendix (7):Consent Form (Students, Arabic) ......................................... 366

Appendix (8): Information Sheet (Students, Arabic) .................................. 368

Appendix (9): Certificate of Ethical Approval ............................................. 372

Appendix (10): Example of Daily Journal Notes ........................................ 373

Appendix (11): Example of PowerPoint Lessons in Wiki Classes ............. 374

Appendix (12.A): Wiki Rules ...................................................................... 376

Appendix (12.B):Group Leaders in Teams (in blue) .................................. 377

Appendix (13): Examples of Students’ Training on Wiki ............................ 378

Appendix (14): Analysis............................................................................. 379

Appendix (15): The Terminology ............................................................... 384

11

List of Figures

Figure 4-1: Phase 1 (Wiki Groups Work) ............................................................. 121

Figure 4-2: Phase 2 (Teacher Work on Wiki) ...................................................... 121

Figure 5-1: Teacher’s Perception ........................................................................ 141

Figure 5-2: Teacher’s Roles in CW Using Wiki .................................................... 161

Figure 5-3: Managerial Role ................................................................................ 162

Figure 5-4: Organizing Wiki students in Teams ................................................... 163

Figure 5-5: Students in Teams (Ali Wiki classes) ................................................ 165

Figure 5-6: Assessor ........................................................................................... 173

Figure 5-7: Wiki Teacher Feedback (YouTube Video) ........................................ 181

Figure 5-8: Technical Role .................................................................................. 184

Figure 5-9: Wiki Calendar .................................................................................... 195

Figure 5-10: Online Dictionary ............................................................................. 197

Figure 5-11:What’sApp ........................................................................................ 198

Figure 5-12: Group Organizer ............................................................................. 200

Figure 5-13: Social Role ...................................................................................... 203

Figure 5-14: Pedagogical Role ............................................................................ 213

Figure 5-15: Add Discussion ............................................................................... 227

Figure 5-16: Challenges ...................................................................................... 237

Figure 5-17: Engagement Page .......................................................................... 241

Figure 6-1: Research Findings ............................................................................ 252

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Schools, Teachers and Students in Oman from 1971 to 1975 (Al

Manathari, 2001) ................................................................................................... 29

Table 2.2:Schools, Teachers and Students in Oman 2017/18 .............................. 30

Table 3.1:Goodyear et al. (2001) Teacher Roles in Online Environment. ............. 61

Table 3.2: Online Teacher’s Roles and Competencies (Bawane & Spector, 2009)

.............................................................................................................................. 64

Table 4.1: The Project Phases ............................................................................ 105

Table 4.2: Pilot Study Stages .............................................................................. 108

Table 4.3: Phase II: Actual Study ........................................................................ 117

Table 4.4: Final Interview Questions ................................................................... 123

Table 4.5: Observations and Interviews Codes ................................................... 127

Table 4.6: Major Themes Table ........................................................................... 128

Table 4.7: Main Themes ...................................................................................... 129

12

Chapter One: Introduction

From the early 1970s, human communication has developed over distributed

computer networks. This development has launched a new environment for

education called online education. Although the online education shares certain

fundamental with face-to-face educational environment. It, nonetheless, has

elements which makes it distinctive (Harasim, 1996). Some of these aspects which

make online education unique are teacher’s roles, teacher’s perceptions and

challenges they face in online education. To investigate teacher’s roles in online

environment, Thach (1994) conducts a study aims to investigate perceptions of

distance education experts regarding the roles that a distance teacher should

maintain. Her study results in 11 roles for a distance teacher. These roles as

instructor, technician, administrator, and instructional designer have been deducted

by so many studies later (Berge, 1995; Goodyear et al., 2001; Aydin, 2005; Lee,

2010). Others, as technology expert, librarian, and graphic designer are rarely

found in recent studies. It is either because of their little importance or because of

the advanced technological online tools which require no much experience of the

teacher.

However, online education is consistently developed since Thach (1994) attempt to

define these roles, so and new studies have emerged. Thach (1994) study is

criticized for that it is too broad. It has included the main roles with competencies

which results in11 roles. Besides that, teacher’s roles and perception in online

environment depends on the online tool that a teacher adopts. Therefore, more

studies have emerged later. These studies seem to be more specific to define

teacher’s role in online environment. Yet, these studies depend on the quantitative

13

approach to investigate teacher’s roles and perceptions when using a technological

device in an online environment. Recently, more studies have emerged which

investigate teacher’s role in an online environment. Most of these studies have

been derived from Berge (1995) or Goodyear et al. (2001).

Berge (1995) identifies four dimensions of a moderator in online learning:

pedagogical, technical, social, and managerial roles. Goodyear et al. (2001)

identify eight roles, based on a workshop of online experts. They conclude that an

online teacher should act as process facilitator, advisor-counsellor, researcher,

assessor, content facilitator, technologist, designer, and manger administrator. The

roles in both studies are interchanged. In a word, it seems that from Berge (1995)

onwards, studies have developed depending on these two main studies. Therefore,

recent studies investigate teacher’s roles in online environment have roles in

common with these two studies. Since these studies depend on quantitative

approach, I believe that adopting qualitative approach will enhance researchers to

investigate teacher’s roles in online education in more depth. Thus, it will provide

more understanding to these roles, perceptions and challenges, so they can be

dealt with by policymakers and curriculum designers.

In what follows, the chapter will discuss first the background and rationale of the

study in which I will discuss why an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher

should know her or his roles in an online environment. Next, I will state the problem

in higher education institutions and what consequences result of it. After that, the

chapter will show the significance of this qualitative study as it should work as a

road map for further qualitative studies to show teacher’s roles in online

environment. The objectives as well as the research questions are then stated in

14

this chapter. Briefly, this investigation focuses on three aspects. It focuses, first,

mainly on the Wiki teacher’s roles in a Wiki environment using a Wiki technology. It

also focuses on the teacher’s perception of using Wiki in collaborative writing

classes. The last focus of the investigation discusses the challenges that a Wiki

teacher might face in a collaborative writing environment using a Wiki technology.

The chapter will end with an overview of the structure of the research project

starting from chapter one to chapter seven. It should be noted that although the

study findings are not to be generalized. However, its implications may be of

interest of policymakers, EFL teachers, and curriculum designer to focus more on

online tools when teaching English as a foreign language.

1.1 Background and rationale

Higher education institutions in Oman encourage teachers and students to use

collaborative learning strategies when learning English as a foreign language

(EFL). They also encourage teachers to introduce new devices in their

collaborative learning classes. English language is used as a medium of instruction

(MoI) in most of the public higher education institutions as the Institute of Health

Sciences, Higher Colleges of Technology, The College of Applied Sciences, and

The Sultan Qaboos University. It is also used as medium of instruction in the

private education institutions (Al-Jadidi, 2009).

Therefore, Technology is widely used in teaching in general and in language

teaching in specific to enhance English language skills for students. In Oman, the

higher education institutions provide different technological devices for teachers to

use them in their classes to improve students English language skills, mostly

reading and writing. For example, teachers can use Web CT, Moodle, online

15

collaborative project-based learning (PBL), Turnitin, and Web 2.0 tools (Wikis,

Podcasts, blogs, e-forums). Using these technological devices result in positive

learning outcomes for students (Al Abri, 2009; Al Rawahi & Al-Mekhlafi, 2015; Al-

Senaidi, et al., 2009; Al Musawi, 2018).

Like students, teachers have positive views in using technological devices in an

online collaborative environment. In Oman, using technology in teaching has

resulted in positive results for Omani teachers. Al Adi (2009) investigated the

attitudes of Omani English teachers towards integrating the internet in teaching

English as a foreign language. The study showed a positive attitude by the majority

of teachers. They also agreed that using internet would enhance their standard of

teaching and make it more productive. It would make also a great contribution to

education (Al Adi, 2009).

Al Khatri (2018) finds that EFL Omani teachers believe that incorporating

technology in EFL classrooms promotes the development of 21st century

competencies/skills. On the contrary, the majority of Omani teachers are reluctant

to use technology in their teaching. Most of them had never used Web 2.0 tools as

blogs, Wikis, and podcasts (Al Adi, 2009). This reluctance could be due to the fact

that they have a disbelief in integrating these tools in their teaching. When

investigating the perceived barriers to adopting information and communication

technologies (ICT) in Oman, Al-Senaidi et al. (2009) state five main factors which

hinder Omani teachers from using technologies in teaching. The one which is

related to teachers is that disbelief in ICT benefits. More importantly, the online

teachers have very little knowledge of their roles in online environment. Whereas

some teacher’s online practices can promote students’ collaboration in an online

16

environment. Others, on the other hand, could hinder this collaboration in various

ways (Al Ghasab, 2014). Consequently, El Miniawi & Brenjekjy (2015) conclude

that the teacher’s vital role in online environment needs to be clarified and

identified to be productive and effective.

In a word, it seems that knowing teacher’s roles in online environment play a vital

role in teacher’s acceptance to use different technological devices by teachers in

their classes. It also affects positively or negatively on the student-students (S-S)

and Teacher-Student (T-S) online collaboration and interaction (Duke, 1991;

Harwood, 1995; Mercer, 1996). Thus, in the current study, I have shed light on the

teacher’s roles in a collaborative environment using a Web 2.0 technology, Wiki. I

have also showed the perception and the challenges that an EFL teacher might

find in an online environment. Investigating these factors would help the teachers

to be aware of what they might find and how they should act in the online

environment.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Most of the Omani Higher education institutions use different Web 2.0 tools to

enhance English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). They

also apply collaborative learning strategies to teach these skills in English

language classes (Al Abri, 2009; Al Rawahi & Al-Mekhlafi, 2015; Al-Senaidi, et al.,

2009; Al Musawi, 2018).

However, EFL teachers believe that there is no need to know their roles in these

online collaborative environments since they apply their face-to-face strategies to

teach online classes (Al Ajmi & Ali, 2014). Being unable to understand their roles

when teaching collaborative learning groups, teachers face some challenges. For

17

example, unproductive group members, unfair assessment to students work on

collaborative group work, and lack of time to finish planned classes (Al Ajmi & Ali,

2014). Thus, teachers are advised to be knowledgeable about these roles, so they

would anticipate and address the challenges rather quitting using online

collaborative tools as methods for promoting language learning (Al Rawahi & Al-

Mekhlafi, 2015)

This study, consequently, investigates the teacher’s roles in a Web 2.0 technology,

Wiki. The Wiki teacher shows some roles which are necessary to be maintained by

her or him. Although some of them are similar to face-to-face teacher’s roles. Yet,

there are differences in the competencies of conducting each role whether online

or face-to-face. In the current study, I did not aim to compare between the two

strategies. I aimed to investigate these roles through studying two cases of higher

education teachers in high education institution in Oman. It would also give a

solution to teacher’s phobia of using technology in EFL teaching as it have been

often pointed out (Al Adi, 2009; Al Musawi, 2007; Al Senaidi et al., 2009)

1.3 The significance of the study

In Omani higher education institutions (HEIs), EFL teachers ‘perceive’ positively

using technology in teaching English as a foreign language. However, teachers are

reluctant to use it. As Al Musawi (2007: 379) calls it ‘technophobia.’ They resist the

use of technology in their classes. It might be because that HEI teachers doubt the

effectiveness of technology to improve learning outcomes. They also fear that

technology might replace them in classes (Al Musawi, 2007: 379). Furthermore,

EFL teachers are not interested to use technology in language teaching because of

education institutions in Oman which do not do their ultimate to encourage EFL

18

teachers to use technology in the English classes. As a result, EFL teachers

complain from the negligence of these education institutions to develop them

professionally. Besides that, the EFL teachers do not know the roles they should

maintain in online environment (Al Ajmi & Ali, 2014; Al Khatri, 2018). Wiki, as an

online environment, is taken in this study as an example to explore and investigate

the roles that an EFL teacher shows while teaching English.

Besides that, through my experience as an English teacher, I used to avoid using

technology tools in English classes. I used to believe that using these technological

devices would hinder my scheduled plan to finish language classes on time.

Besides, using these devices required time and effort to use them effectively and

productively in classrooms. Likewise, a participant in the study confirmed that EFL

teachers were concerned of the designated time to finish the planned classes on

time. In order to do that, it should be as one of the teachers said: “leave it simple,

not this complicated please!"

This study showed that using these devices helped EFL teachers to have more

productive and effective classes. This study is one of the rarest studies a

qualitative approach to investigate the teacher’s roles in a Wiki environment. It

used a case study methodology to investigate the objectives of the research

objectives. Most of the previous studies have adopted the quantitative approach to

investigate teacher’s roles in an online environment. Others depend on online

expert educators to list the possible roles (Berge, 1995; Goodyear et al., 2001).

The recent studies as Aydin, (2005), Egan and Akdere, 2005; Richey et al., 2005;

Varvel, 2007, Bawane & Spector, 2009 and Lee, (2010) depend on the previous

studies mainly Berge (1995) and Goodyear et al (2001) to show teacher’s roles in

19

an online environment. The current study adopted Berge, (1995) and Goodyear et

al., (2001) studies. It, nonetheless, investigated in depth, using a case study

methodology, the teachers’ roles in an online environment. Consequently, using a

qualitative approach resulted in new sub-themes emerged and needed more

investigations. Further to note, Al Aufi and Al Azri (2013) found that fewer studies

have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of Web 2.0 technologies in

language teaching and learning in the Omani context. Therefore, this study will

enrich the literature of Omani studies in the online education area.

Last but not least, the study shows teacher’s roles in an online environment using a

Web 2.0 tool, Wiki. These roles might differ completely or partially from traditional

teaching environment which an EFL teacher should know. Unfortunately, EFL

teachers should adopt traditional teaching role when teaching in an online

environment since the absence of knowledge of what to do or how to behave in

online environments. The study can be a road map for improving online learning

worldwide and in Omani higher education institutions in specific. It can help in-

service and pre-service teachers to know their roles in online environment using

Web 2.0 tools.

1.4 The aims of the study

The area of online teaching is hardly covered in Oman. Most of the studies focus

on students using online tools. For example, Al Rawahi & Al Mekhalfi (2015)

investigated the effect of online collaborative project-based learning on EFL

learners' language performance and attitudes. The study showed positive results of

using online collaborative project-based learning in students’ writing. Al Abri

(2009) investigated the effect of using Moodle based activities such as Wikis and

20

e-forums Wikis and e-forums on the writing performance and attitudes of Omani

students. On the contrary, this study was an attempt to shift EFL Omani

researchers’ attention to teachers in online environment. As a result, little focus

has been shown to teacher’s in online environment. Omani studies found that

training for teachers to use technology in classes for pre- and in-service teachers in

Omani education institutions was below their expectations and insufficient. As a

result, in-service teachers recommended more attention from these education

institutions to train them adopt technological tools in their teaching (Al Huneini,

2006; Al Adi, 2009; Al Khatri, 2018).

The study’s aims are derived from Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning and

development. Through interaction between the teacher with her or his environment,

it would meet the objectives of the study which are:

• To uncover perception of Wiki teacher’s on using Wiki in a collaborative

wiring environment.

• To list teacher’s roles in a Wiki environment as it represented a technology

environment.

• To find the outstanding roles of Wiki teachers in a Wiki environment.

• To uncover the challenges which Wiki teachers faced in a Wiki environment

while teaching collaborative writing.

1.5 Research questions

To achieve the above mentioned objectives, three research questions were

proposed. These questions were reformulated from the objectives of the study. The

research questions were:

21

1. What are the teacher’s perceptions on using Wiki in a collaborative

writing environment?

2. What are the teacher’s roles in a Wiki class?

3. What are the challenges that the Wiki teachers faced in a Wiki

environment?

1.6 Overview of the Thesis

This thesis consists of seven chapters as follows:

• Chapter One is the introduction of the thesis.

• Chapter Two gives a brief description of the geographical and historical

background of Oman, Overview of the Educational system in Oman (Basic

Education, Post Basic Education, and Higher Education).

• Chapter Three discusses relevant literature.

• Chapter Four provides details the research, design and methodology used

in this study. The study uses semi-structured interviews and observations.

The approach used here is a case study methodology.

• Chapter Five presents the analysis of data generated from the semi-

structured interviews and observations of five Wiki classes. It also presents

the analysis of the data in light of the three research questions.

• Chapter Six discusses the findings in light of the literature of the study.

• Chapter Seven presents the conclusions from the current study and

recommendations for further studies.

• The References and Appendices are attached at the end of the thesis.

22

Chapter Two: Context of the Study

2.1 The Geographical and Historical Background of Oman

2.1.1 2.1.1 Location

Sultanate of Oman is located in south-eastern part of the Arab semi-peninsula,

between latitudes 16.40 and 26.30 and longitudes 51.50 and 59.40. Its shore

extends from Hormoz in the north to Yemen republic in the south, so it is open to

three seas: Arab Gulf, Oman Sea and Arab Sea. Oman is bordered by UAE and

Saudi Arabia in the west, Republic of Yemen in the south, Hormoz bay in the north,

and Arab Sea in the east. This location has given Oman its historical role in

connecting Arab Gulf states with these countries. The population of Oman stands

at 4,558,847 by the end of June 2017. Its area is about 309500 km². Oman is the

third largest country in Arab peninsula.

The Sultanate of Oman is divided into eleven governates, and each governate is

formed of several Willayats (towns or cities). The mostly visited cities in Oman are

Muscat, Salalah, Mirbat, Sur, Ibra, Al-Mudibi, Nizwa, Samael, Ibri, Buraimi, Sohar,

Rustaq and Khasab. These cities are the administrative capital for each governate

in which most of the government offices are located.

2.1.2 Glimpses of Oman History

Oman is considered one of the oldest countries in the Gulf countries which are

Oman, King of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen and Iraq.

Oman’s history goes back more than 3.000 years. It is recognized through trading

with ancient nations like Sumerians and the Ancient Egyptians. Sumerian’s ancient

manuscripts, for example, refer to a country named "Magan" as a source of

23

copper. It seems certainly that they refer to Oman. Evidence from excavations near

Sohar shows that copper mining industry was well developed by the year 2000BC.

Frankincense from Dhofar, which was so important in the social religious life of

ancient people, also provides evidence of the existence of an early trading

community between Oman and the old nations, like Sumer and the ancient Egypt.

It is also clear that there were farming and fishing settlements from the earliest

times.

The ancestors of present day Omanis are believed to have arrived in two waves of

migration over a number of years, the first from Yemen and the second from

northern Arabia at a time when various parts of the country were occupied by the

Persians.

The call of the Prophet Mohammed to the Omanis to become Muslims altered the

course of their history. It was in about 630 AD that Amr Ibn al-As arrived in Oman

carrying a letter from the Prophet Mohammed (Peace be Upon Him) to Abd and

Jaifar, the two sons of al-Julanda, who ruled Oman jointly. After they embraced

Islam, they fought the Persians and expelled them form the entire Oman.

The early Imamate in Oman arose out of a vision to create the true and ideal

Muslim state. The first Ibadhi Imam (It is a sect of Muslims), Julanda bin Mas'ud,

was elected in 751 AD but he died in a battle and it was not until 801 AD after a

period of turmoil that Warith bin Kaab was elected. There then followed a period of

peace, stability and prosperity lasting more than three hundred years. Maritime

trade flourished and Sohar became the greatest sea port in the Islamic world

through their manners as Muslim traders. As they travelled and traded, the Omanis

24

spread the message of Islam, as well as Arab culture and language, reaching as

far east as China.

Unfortunately, Oman was invaded by the Portuguese in the early 16th century.

They occupied Muscat for a century and a half in order to dominate the trade which

had until then been an Arab monopoly. The Portuguese were expelled from Muscat

in 1650 by Sultan bin Saif al-Yarubi. After the expulsion of the Portuguese no other

foreign power has ever occupied Oman, apart from a brief period when the

Persians made a partial occupation. The Ya'aruba Imams introduced a period of

renaissance in Omani fortunes both at home and abroad, uniting the country and

bringing prosperity. It was under the Ya'aruba dynasty that many of the imposing

castles and beautiful buildings that have been restored recently, such as the fort at

Nizwa and the Palace at Jabrin, were built.

Unfortunately, on the death of the Imam, Sultan bin (son of) Saif II, civil war broke

out over the election of his successor. Persian troops occupied Muttrah and

Muscat but failed to take Sohar which was defended by Ahmad bin Said, who

continued to fight the Persians and drive them from Oman after the civil war had

ended.

In 1744 Ahmad bin Said, who was a man of outstanding personality and courage,

was elected Imam. He faced a number of difficulties in reconciling the rival factions

after the civil war, but he managed to build up the Omani navy into a power to be

reckoned with, personally leading expeditions against pirates and driving the

Persians out of Basra. When he died in 1783, his son Said was elected Imam but

he was not popular, being replaced by his son Hamad, who had been de facto ruler

in Muscat while his father remained in Rustaq. Hamad died suddenly in 1792 and

25

his uncles, Sayyid Sultan bin Ahmed, assumed power until his death in 1804. He

had exercised such tight control over Oman and trade in the Gulf that European

powers dealt with him as the dominant ruler of the country. Sayyid Sultan was

succeeded by his son, Sayyid Said bin Sultan, who consolidated his father's

achievements at home and abroad during his reign from 1804-1856. It was in this

period that Oman reached its peak as a regional power with possessions on both

sides of the Gulf and in East Africa. Sayyid Said concentrated on developing his

country's economy and trading ties with other nations. He made Zanzibar his

second capital and signed agreements with the European powers, as well as

sending a special envoy to the United States, making Oman the first Arab state to

establish diplomatic relations with that country.

Thereafter, however, there followed a period of decline and, at the time of the First

World War, Oman's share of international commercial activities was very limited.

Indeed, Oman remained largely isolated from the rest of the world until, in 1970;

His Majesty Sultan Qaboos came to power.

In 1970, the Sultan Qaboos bin Said came to power. The country was living its

worst period of time for decades. Therefore, His Majesty's reign was the beginning

of a bright new era that renewed Oman's historic glories and opened a new chapter

of development, prosperity and social and economic progress. When the Sultan

Qaboos came to power in 1970, so many fields have been dramatically developed

and boosted. One of them is the education sector which left the majority of the

Omanis in illiteracy before 1970s.

26

2.2 Education in Oman

In Oman, education is mostly divided into two eras, before 1970s when the modern

education was not common in all parts of Oman. The second phase was after the

1970s when Sultan Qaboos bin Said ruled the country. In this phase, the modern

education has ever spread in every corner of Oman. It was one of His Majesty

priorities to develop the education system in Oman and modernize it, so it would

become as equally standardized as the developed education system in the

developed world. In the second Omani national Day, 18th of November 1972,

Sultan Qaboos bin Said in his annual speech:

“Education was my great concern, and I saw that it was necessary to direct

efforts to spread education. We have given the Ministry of Education the

opportunity and supplied it with our capabilities to break the chains of

ignorance. (Ministry of Information, 2015: 19)

2.2.1 Glimpses of Education in Oman before 1970s

Education in Oman before 1970 was divided into two main types, the modern

education and the Quran education. In the Quran education the students were

taught only the science of Quran, the principles of Islam, Arabic language, and

numeric. There were so many Quran schools which were scattered in all Oman

from the east to the west and from the south to the north. These schools in Oman

were mostly in mosques. It is important to mention that these schools created

famous scholars and great leaders whom Oman is still proud of them up to date. In

a word, these schools had been replacing the modern schools for ages. As a

result, Omanis were not ‘completely’ illiterate before the modern schools emerged,

in huge numbers after the 1970s. Yet, most of the students were males at that

time.

27

On the other hand, the modern education started in the 1930s. It started with few

schools. Most of them were traditional or Quran schools shifted into modern

education schools. In these schools more subjects were taught, besides the

subjects that were taught in the Quran schools. These schools were supervised

and run by the Omani government. In these schools students could study the

Quran, Arabic Language, Science, Health, History, Geography, Sport, Civic

Education and other subjects. Not all, but most of these schools, provided these

courses. It depended on the school that the student studied in, because these

schools, unfortunately, did not have the same curriculums for all of them. Besides

that, these schools were very few and located mostly in Muscat, the capital and

other main cities in Oman as Salalah and Nizwa. The first Sultaniyah School,

supervised by the government, was established in 1930 during the era of Sultan

bin Faisal. The second school was the second Sultaniyah School which was

replaced from the previous school year in 1935. The third school was the Saidyah

School in Salalah which was the first school for boys in Dhofar Governorate. The

fourth school was Al Sayidyah School in Muscat which was established in 1940

and stopped opening activities by the previous school in Muscat to begin a more

advanced stage of formal education and government. Its building was restored

especially for the educational purpose. It consisted of modern classrooms,

conference room, new teachers and seminars. The education system consisted of

two phases: the first phase of the two-year pre-primary. The second phase is the

primary period of six years, which the pupils was awarded, if finished it successful,

a certificate issued by the Knowledge Chamber. The teachers were Omanis and

others from Arab countries, like Egypt and Palestine. The textbooks, taught in Al

Saidiyah School in Muscat, were brought from Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine. The

28

fifth well known modern school before 1970s was Al Saidiyah School in Mutrah. It

was opened in November 1959 and was then based in Beit Al Falaj (Ministry of

Education, 2018).

Unfortunately, most of the students in modern schools were boys, since parents

did not prefer to send their girls to modern schools at that time. They were sent

only to the Quran schools to learn to recite Quran and write. Besides that, most of

them used to get married as young as 13 years old. It is considered too early

today, but at that time it was considered acceptable since girls were able to take

care of households and raise children. Most of them were considered illiterate,

although they did not get enough education.

Besides these modern schools, there were so many private schools which were

mixed of Quran schools and modern schools. They were established for specific

religious sects or ethnics. Therefore, their students used to be from the same tribe,

religious sects, or the ethnic group. However, these schools were known, but not

supervised by the government as the modern schools at that time. (Ministry of

Education, 2018).

2.2.2 Education in Oman after 1970s

After the 1970s, Oman started a new era of development and modernity. In the

new era, new schools, colleges and university have been established ever since.

Besides that, education has played a key role in putting Oman in the right truck of

the developing world countries.

29

2.2.2.1 Pre-tertiary Education System

In 1970, His Majesty Sultan Qaboos took over the country regime. In his first days

of ruling Oman, he showed great concern over education since it is the core of any

nation success among surrounding nations. In the 1972 national day, Sultan

Qaboos Said:

“Schools have been opened regardless; the important thing is that there

should be education, even under the shadow of trees. In 1970 there were

three schools in the country comprising 900 students. In 1971 there were16

schools, and 7000 students and in 1972 there were 45 schools and 15,000

students. This figure will be doubled in accordance with the ministerial plans

prepared for the coming school year (Ministry of Information, 2015: 19)

Year Schools Teachers students

1970 16 196 7000

1971 42 445 15000

1972 68 735 24000

1973 111 1195 36000

1974 176 2115 49000

1975 207 2230 56000

Table 2.1: Schools, Teachers and Students in Oman from 1971 to 1975 (Al Manathari, 2001)

Before 1970s, there were only three government boys schools in the whole

Sultanate, with a total of 909 male students and 30 teachers. Besides that, there

were some private modern schools as mentioned in (2.2.1) which were shifted from

Quran Schools to modern schools. However, the number of teachers, students and

schools started to increase dramatically from 1970 to 1975, as shown in Table

(2.1). In 1971, a year after Sultan Qaboos became the ruler; there were 42 schools

and 15000 students. In 1972 there were 68 schools and 42000 students who were

30

taught by 735 teachers. So the public demand for education was great in the early

stages, so schools had to be set up in tents and classes held in shifts. Not only the

number of schools increased, even, the number of girls in modern schools started

to grow dramatically. (Ministry of Education, 2018; Ministry of Information, 2015; Al

Otman, 2013; Al Musawi, 2018).

Whereas in 1970, there were three schools with almost 900 male students taught

by 30 teachers. In this school year 2017/2018, there are 1124 schools in Oman

which have 579024 students. In the school year 2017/18, there were more than

56385 teachers.

Total

students Teachers Schools

M F M F

291068 287956 38126 18259 1124

579024 56385

Table 2.2: Schools, Teachers and Students in Oman 2017/18

The pre-tertiary education in Oman is divided into basic education and post basic

education. The post basic education consists of two cycles and lasts for ten years.

The first cycle lasts for four years, from grade one to grade four (1-4). The second

cycle consists of six years, from grade five to grade ten (5-10). The post basic

education lasts for two years, from grade eleven to grade twelve (11-12). Thus,

students study for 12 years in the pre-tertiary education schools in Oman. It

consists of basic education which lasts for ten years (1-10) and post basic

education which lasts for two years (11-12).

31

2.2.2.2 Basic education

The Basic education lasts for ten years of study. At the end of it, students move to

the post-Basic Education which covers four semesters in two years. The ten years

of Basic Education is divided into two cycles:

1. First Cycle (grades 1– 4): Students of both sexes are taught in the same

classes. In these schools, the school staff consists of females only.

2. Second Cycle (grades 5 – 10): Male and female students at this level are

taught in boys or girls schools. Accordingly, the staff can be either made up

of males in boy schools or females in girl schools.

2.2.2.3 Post Basic Education

Post basic education (grades 11 &12): It represents the second main cycle of basic

education in terms of teaching students by either male or female teachers. After

this cycle, the successfully graduated students are offered general post education

diploma certificate. The Grade 12 diploma certificate (G 12 Diploma) can be used

to enrol in higher education institutions in Oman or abroad.

2.2.2.4 Higher or Post-Tertiary Education System in Oman

After grade 12, year 12 graduates apply for admissions at public and private higher

education institutions through a unified online system, called Higher Education

Admission Centre (HEAC) http://www.heac.gov.om. Every year, HEAC offers more

than 30,000 local and international study opportunities to Omani students (HEAC,

2018).

http://www.heac.gov.om/

32

2.2.3 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Oman

To apply for higher education institutions in Oman, there are over than (60) public

and private higher education institutions in Oman. The ministries of higher

education, Manpower, Defence, Health, Central Omani Bank and others run these

education institutions. Besides that, the Ministry of Higher Education sends

students on scholarships abroad. There are currently Omani students study in

Asia, Australia, Europe, the United States, and some Arab countries. The Ministry

of Higher Education run six Colleges of Applied Sciences to provide the current

manpower market in fields such as business administration, communication,

design, and IT with one of them offers an education degree.

As mentioned earlier, the modern education in Oman started in Oman before the

1970s very slowly (2.2.1). Then, after the 1970s, the number of students, schools

and teachers increased dramatically (2.2.2). As a result, the Omani government

had to find higher education institutions. In 1970s and 1980s, the Omani

government established public colleges with an emphasis on vocational education

and training, particularly in teaching and health. During this period, the Sultan

Qaboos University was established and inaugurated officially in 1986. From 1990s

up to the present, foreign programs have been imported and delivered in Omani

private and public HEIs (Baporikar & Shah, 2011).

As the 2016 statistics show, the higher education system in Oman comprises sixty-

three (63) education institutions located across the different regions and

governorates. They vary in status between universities, university faculties, and

specialized institutions. Among these, thirty-five (35) are public education

institutions, including Sultan Qaboos University; six (6) are applied science

33

faculties under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education; seven (7) are

colleges of technology under the supervision of the Ministry of Manpower; one is a

faculty for Islamic studies under the supervision of the Ministry of Endowments and

Religious Affairs; and another a faculty for banking and finance under the Central

Bank of Oman, in addition to the higher education institutions, affiliated to the

military apparatuses. Furthermore, the Education Council ratified a proposal to turn

thirteen medical institutions under the supervision of the Ministry of Health into

faculties, in addition to the Higher Judicial Institute affiliated to the Ministry of

Justice. The Military Technological College (MTC) was inaugurated in 2012 under

the supervision of the Ministry of Defence. It includes four engineering majors:

System Engineering, Marine Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering, and Civil

Engineering (Military Technological College, 2018). The private higher education

institutions are twenty-eight: eight (8) universities and (20) faculties. They play a

crucial role in redressing the admission gap by accommodating the graduate

students who could not be admitted to the public institutions that have reached full

capacity (Educational Council, 2018).

2.2.4 The Sultan Qaboos University (SQU)

Besides these higher education institutions, there is the Sultan Qaboos University

(SQU) which welcomed the first batch of 500 students in 1986. It is considered the

first government university in the country up to date. It is considered the highest

ranking university in Oman. In 2018, the university was ranked from 801 to 1000th

universities in the world according to the world university ranking (Al Musawi, 2018,

SQU, 2018).

34

The SQU is not under the supervision of the ministry of higher education (MoHE),

therefore, it has its own regulations and rules which are sometimes different from

that of the education institutions which are under the supervision of MoHE.

Students are admitted to the university based on their performance in Grade 12

Diploma Certificate. Student enrolment has grown from 500 in 1986 to about

15,357 to more than 10,000 students in the academic year in 2017-2018 (Al

Musawi, 2018, SQU, 2018).

The university started with five colleges. There were the colleges of Education,

Engineering, Medicine, Science, and Agriculture. Now, the university has nine

colleges. Even the names of the old founded colleges have been updated since the

inauguration of the SQU. These nine colleges in the academic year 2017-2018 are

as follows: The College of Sciences, Engineering, Agriculture and Marine

Sciences, Economics and Political Science, Medicine and Nursing Sciences, Arts

and Social Sciences, Law, and Education.

Between 2010 and 2015, the university recruited students from 38 countries, while

academics hailed from 69 nations. The institution also collaborates with universities

across the world; it has agreements with universities in Asia, Europe, Australasia,

North America and South America (SQU, 2018; Al Musawi, 2018).

2.2.4.1 Centre for Preparatory Studies (CPS)

The university has two types of centres, research centres and support centres.

There are 9 research centres and 8 support centres. I conducted my study in a

support centre called, the Centre for Preparatory Studies (CPS) in which students

study intensive English courses, besides other courses, in the foundation program.

35

CPS is an educational centre that has a research department. The CPS at Sultan

Qaboos University has been designed to prepare students who have been

accepted to study at the university to achieve the required educational

goals. These educational goals (education outputs) are in accordance with the

Omani academic standards. Preparatory studies in English, mathematics,

information technology, and study skills aim to set the foundation for students’

successful academic endeavours. Preparatory studies became a mandatory

introduction for study in all of Oman’s Universities and Colleges since the

academic year 2010/2011. The aims of these courses are to:

• Improve English language proficiency, with some emphasis on technical and

business applications in preparation for undergraduate courses

• Reinforce the knowledge of basic mathematical and analytical techniques

that is considered obligatory for enhancing problem solving skills.

• Consolidate the knowledge of basic applications of computer science as

means for effective learning and interaction.

• Integrate the necessary study skills needed to effectively adopt, learn and

thrive through the years of study.

In the English Language Foundation Programme, there are six courses that

represent six levels. Each course lasts one semester and each week has 18

teaching hours (except for FPEL0604 which has 10 teaching hours). Students'

results in these courses are not counted in their GPA (General Performance

Achievement Academic). These courses are given to the students whose credit

college courses are taught (fully or partially) in the English language. These

colleges are: Sciences, Engineering, Agriculture and Marine Sciences, Economics

36

and Political Science, Medicine and Nursing Sciences, Law, some majors in the

College of Education (English, Science & Mathematics, Educational Technology,

and Pre-School Education). In addition to these, English Language and Literature,

Translation, Tourism, Mass Media, Information Studies, Geography and

Musicology in the College of Arts and Social Sciences are also included

(http://www.squ.edu.om/fp).

The students who participated in the study were prepared to study in the

Economics and Political Science College in the SQU. They were in Level Five

(FPEL 560). The FPEL 560 is described as “a semester-long Foundation Program

English Language (FPEL) course which covers the skills of reading, writing,

listening and speaking in the context of students’ specializations”. They were one

step to start the credit courses. It means that the students were capable of the

language main skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking). They did not have

many difficulties in the language according to the level they were in. The course

also continues to consolidate study skills necessary for college work and equip

students with skills crucial for writing a 500-word report. Students are assessed

through a combination of continuous assessment and formal examinations at mid-

and end of semester (http://www.squ.edu.om/fp).

2.3 English in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)

English is so pivotal in Omani education institutions since it is taught as a

second/foreign language in public or private schools in Oman. In Omani schools,

Omani students start studying English language from the first year, Grade One, of

their education. Each week, a pre-tertiary student has to study 5-7 English classes

which make about 3 to 4 hours a week. Besides English, there are other foreign

http://www.squ.edu.om/fp

37

languages as French and German. They are taught only in post basic education

schools (11 & 12) and they are selective subjects, starting from 2012. They are

taught in very limited public schools. They are, however, taught in some private

schools besides other languages. (Ministry of Education, 2018; Al Jardani, 2017).

On the other hand, English is considered the medium of instruction (MoI) in most of

the higher education institutions whether they are private or public. However, there

are very few colleges where Arabic is used as a medium of instruction like the

institutions which are supervised by the ministry of Awaqaf and Sharia, some

majors in the SQU and some majors in Applied Sciences Colleges which are

supervised by the ministry of higher education (Al Jadidi, 2009).

Although English is taught for 12 years in pre-tertiary schools at basic (1-10) and

post basic education (11 & 12). When students enrol in higher education institution,

they face difficulties to study different majors in English since it is the medium of

instruction. The English skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) are not

always enough for the purposes of higher education in Oman (Burns, 2013).

Unfortunately, many studies find that there are gaps between English language

teaching and learning exist between post-tertiary schools and higher education

institutions in Oman. These differences could be due to the teachers training,

curriculum, areas of learning, low proficiency in English, assessment and other

reasons (Al Seyabi Tuzlukova, 2014; Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi, 2012; Al Mamari, 2012).

To bridge the gap between the two phases of education and to enhance English

language skills for tertiary students, some solutions have been introduced. One of

them is General Foundation Programs (GFP) or Foundation Program of English

Language (FPEL) have been introduced in Oman to meet the academic

38

requirements of English-medium higher education providers, improve students’

skills for further studies and develop their linguistic competency and cognitive

skills. The General Foundation Program (GFP) curriculum consists mainly of four

components: the English language, mathematics, computer skills, and study skills.

The English language component of the program in Oman is aimed at further

developing students’ language and study skills and preparing them for their future

academic studies in an English-medium academic environment. The CPS in the

SQU introduces CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) programs which

are available for students and teachers. These programs which are available on

Moodle and the IC labs, aim to enhance FPEL students’ English language skills.

They aim to develop reading fluency and speed by regularly reading extensively

outside the classroom. They also aim to interpret texts using background

knowledge and identify ideas expressed in compound and complex sentences

(Centre for Preparatory Studies (CPS), 2012; Al Mamari, 2012).

2.4 Technology in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)

Tertiary or Post-Secondary education which is called Higher Education (HE) in

Oman started between the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, public colleges

and the Sultan Qaboos University were established. In 1994, the Ministry of Higher

Education (MoHE) was established. Then, the higher education in Oman

progressed from zero higher education institution (HEI) to more than 60 HEIs found

in most main cities in Oman. In the early years of its establishment up to 2000s, the

higher education was concerned about opening new higher education institutions,

and enrolling students in these institutions (Baporikar & Shah, 2011, MoHE, 2018).

39

After the 2000s, however, the higher education policymakers concern’s has shifted

from offering higher education to evaluating the quality of the offered education in

the Omani HEIs. Therefore, to improve the service in HEIs, a Royal Decree was

issued establishing the Oman Academic Accreditation Authority (OAAA). The

authority aims to investigate the quality of the higher education service offered in

the Omani HEIs. It also reviews the quality of higher education institutions. It

reviews the programs, offered to students in these institutions. It also reviews the

professional training that academic staff is offered in these institutions (OAAA,

2018). In 2008, the Higher Education Council issued a Ministerial Decision 72/2008

in which stated the General Foundation Program Standards to develop. These

standards call for the development of the instructors, technologies, and materials

used in the programs to be with a certain level (OAAA, 2018).

Each year, more than 80% of students entering higher education institutions (HEIs)

in Oman are required to take a general foundation program (GFP). In the program

which lasts for a year, a student has to study in four courses, English Language,

Mathematics, Computing and General Study Skills. These GFP courses are

supervised by the ministry of higher education but assessed by the OAAA. It is

called the ‘Omani Academic Standards for General Foundation Programs.’ One of

the requirements of these programs that an EFL teacher should use technology to

enhance language learning (Baporikar & Shah, 2011; OAAA, 2018). However,

some of these offered programs by private or public HEIs are criticized for being

weak and are not up to the designated standard. One of the challenges facing

HEIs in implementing GFP standards is that large numbers of teachers have not

experienced using new teaching methods that could help students achieve desired

40

learning outcomes. These teachers, mostly expatriates and work in private HEIs,

are recruited on contracts for one or two years. Since most of them might not have

had professional development opportunities in their countries, they might not have

so many chances to have professional development courses in these private HEIs

(Al-Mamari, 2012).

Since training to using technology in teaching might be expensive to some HEIs in

Oman, these HEIs face serious challenges as insufficient or limited

materials/supplies/space, inexperienced teachers, limited training of staff, and

need to employ skilled staff (Al Musawi, 2001). Al-Musawi (2007) suggests that

these institutions embrace low cost technologies that require less training and

more effective learning outcomes.

Seeking low cost technologies are highly demanded worldwide in teaching in

general and in Oman in specific, ICT (Information Communication Technology) has

been introduced to the curriculum to solve the problem. ICT can be generally

defined as technologies that compute, transmit, communicate and store

information (Hilbert, 2011: 6). ICT can be used for pleasure, study and work

purposes. EFL learners can use it for pleasure in terms of enhancing language

skills such as listening, reading, speaking, and writing to supplement their

classroom language skills. ICT has become a significant domain in the field of

teaching and learning. Omani HEIs, therefore, have shown recently overwhelming

interest in integrating computers and internet to improve the effectiveness of

teaching at formal and informal levels of education. Introducing these technologies

help in teaching and learning English language skills, reading, writing, listening and

speaking in Omani HEIs (Jose et al., 2015).

41

One of these ICT technologies is Web 2.0. Web 2.0 tools are widely used in HEIs,

as Moodle, Wikis, Blogs, Discussion Boards, and Podcasts. Web 2.0 technologies

are used in Omani HEIs since students demand for a change from the traditional

style of teaching to a modern one. Students also confirm that the traditional style of

teaching does not attract them because it is a poor way of presenting course

material. Besides that, students believe that there is not enough information

provided by the teachers. Furthermore, there is very little interaction between

students in the classroom which require a medium to enhance it (Mehmood &

Taswir, 2013; Al-Mukhaini, et al., 2014). To conclude, Al-Mukhaini, et al., (2014)

found that students found Web 2.0 technologies attractive, enjoyable and useful to

help them better understand the English classes. There was a consensus among

students that these technologies improved their educational performance.

Although Web 2.0 technologies have been widely used by EFL teachers, more

efforts are needed to be shown by private HEIs. These institutions do not show

much concern about Web 2.0 technologies. Some factors hinder to implement Web

2.0 technologies in HEIs are technical issues, lack of awareness, lack of training

and the slow speed of the network (Al Musawi et al., 2015). Low motivation of

directors (administration) to adopt using Web 2.0 tools in Omani HEIs have been

found an internal factor for not using these tools in these institutions (Al-Kharousi et

al., 2016).

In conclusion, Walker & White (2013: 145) conclude that the teachers’ anxieties

about using technology are mainly due to two factors. Firstly, teachers think that

using software may make learning experience less effective than in was without

technology. Secondly, it will in some sense ‘take over’ and dedicate how teaching

42

is carried out. In other words, teachers fear what Al-Musawi (2007) calls it

‘technophobia’. It is a fear that technology would replace teachers in the future or

teachers do not know how to deal with technology. Therefore, many teachers resist

using technology in their classes. They doubt that they could be replaced by

technology (Al Musawi, 2007). It is a hard claim since a teacher cannot be replaced

by a technology. It can effectively supplement teaching environment. It cannot also

replace the traditional face to face curriculum. Instead, it can supplement it (Jose et

al., 2015). This is what students approved in Mehmood & Taswir (2013) study.

They found that the majority of students felt that the presence of a teacher in a real

classroom could not be replaced by Web 2.0 technologies. In their study, El

Miniawi & Brenjekjy (2015) ask the question: “Can technology replace teachers in

the future?” The majority of the surveyed teachers, 96%, show that they are not

afraid from being replaced by technology in the future. Their answer shows that

they had a great sense of their importance in the education field. Finally, it is hard

for technology to replace teachers. There are situations in which classroom

learning-human, face-to-face interaction is preferable (Lin & Hsieh, 2001).

43

Chapter Three: Literature Review

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the literature, linked to this study. The

review of the literature is limited to the collaborative writing (CW), the theoretical

base for collaborative writing in online environment, and teacher’s role in a

collaborative environment, teacher’s role in a collaborative writing environment and

teacher’s role in a Wiki environment using Wiki technology.

3.2 Theoretical Base for Collaborative Writing: Vygotsky Sociocultural

Theory (SCT)

In collaborative writing, the social interaction between the teacher and the learners

helps the teacher to act as a guide who facilitates students’ collaboration. In

Vygotsky Sociocultural Theory (SCT), the teacher does not act as the dominant of

the class work. On the contrary, the teacher facilitates students’ work and the

teacher has other roles which appear through interaction with the social context.

Most theories of research studies investigating second language acquisition and

learning are based on cognitive process. They are usually in experimental

conditions, but do not take the broader social context into account (Turuk 2008;

Borthick et al. 2003; Warschauer, 1997, Bayer’s, 1990). By contrast, a sociocultural

perspective, based on the pioneering work of L.S Vygotsky (1896-1934), places

the social context at the heart of the learning and communication process. In his

theory Vygotsky emphasises that human learning cannot be understood separately

from the social and cultural forces which impact individual (Vygotsky, 1978). In

other words, Vygotskian thinking indicates that the origin of knowledge construction

44

should not be sought in the mind. On the contrary, it should be sought in the social

interaction constructed between a more and a less knowledgeable individual.

Therefore, sociocultural interactions play a vital role in learning. Social interaction

is considered the basis core of learning and development in Vygotsky sociocultural

theory (Barnard & Campbell, 2005; Walqui, 2006; Lee, 2009, Shabani, 2016). In

the current study, the social interaction between the Wiki teachers, the content and

the students helps the teachers show different roles when using Wiki technology in

a classroom. It helps them also show their perceptions before and after they use

the Wiki technology. Finally, using the Wiki technology emerges challenges before,

during and after they use it which the Wiki teachers are to be cautious of in the

future use.

3.2.1 Zone of proximal development (ZDP)

Besides the social interaction, the zone of proximal development (ZDP) is

considered one of the core tents underlying Vygotsky’s (SCT). As Walqui (2006:

106) considers it the ‘primary activity space in which learning occurs.” The ZDP, as

Vygotsky (1978: 86) defines, is “the distance between the actual development

level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential

development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in

collaboration with more capable peers.” The concept of ZDP implies that a less

knowledgeable person (i.e. learner, novice, and/or tutee) gets engaged in

developmental changes through interaction with a more significant other which can

be a mentor, teacher educator, trainer, observer, and so on (Shabani, 2016).

Vygotsky (1962) stresses that collaborative learning, either among students or

between students and a teacher, is essential for assisting each student in

45

advancing through his or her own zone of proximal development. This is the gap

between what the learner could accomplish alone and what he or she could

accomplish in cooperation with others who are more skilled or experienced.

3.3 Collaborative Writing (CW)

Collaborative Writing (CW) in L2 context, as Storch (2011) defines is “the joint

production of a text by two or more writers” (Strorch, 2011: 278). Collaborative

writing has been used to encourage writing. Unfortunately, students consider

writing activity is boring since students’ writings are usually done solitary.

Therefore, collaborative writing is used to motivate students to write collaboratively

in a group or groups (Magee, 1993). Collaborative writing (CW) is useful for

students, since it can build up students’ confidence. Further, students are able to

produce more ideas when working with others. They can also improve their

language (Magee, 1993; Storch, 2005; Storch, 2011). However, it has been found

that while engaging in CW activities, a number of students show reluctance to

criticize others. They fear it might hurt their peer’ feelings. Some students doubt

their language skills, so it affects their contribution on CW. Moreover, some

students think of collaborative writing as an individual activity not as a collaborative

one (Storch, 2005; Storch, 2009; Shehadeh, 2011).

Collaborative writing is seen through two aspects. They are the aspect of teacher-

student relationship and the student-student relationship. Whereas so much

literature is found on the student-student relationship in a collaborative learning

environment, very little is found on the teacher-student relationship (Duke, 1991;

Harwood, 1995; Mercer, 1996; Shehadeh, 2011).

46

3.3.1 Student-Student Relationship in a Collaborative Writing Environment

On the one hand, the studies which have investigated the learner-learner

relationship focus in certain aspects. Most studies confirm that students show

positive attitude towards using collaborative writing (Storch, 2005; Storch, 2009;

Shehadeh, 2011). Students show positive attitude because they can learn from

each other’s and compare their ideas with others (Storch, 2005). Students’ writing

becomes significantly positively affected when working in pairs or small groups

(Shehadeh, 2011). When working in small groups, students produce better and

more accurate texts than the ones produced by individuals (Storch, 2005). This

relationship is collaborative, not competitive as found in traditional education.

Traditional education differs from that of collaborative education. Whereas the

traditional education, as Madison (1972 cited in Bruffee 1974) emphasizes, isolates

students from one another to compete each other. As a result, it could affect the

relationship between them which is essential to learning (Bruffee, 1974).

Collaboration activities, as Storch (2005) confirms, need careful preparation from

the teacher before being applied. It is noticed that most studies focus on preparing

students to have an effective collaboration, but not enough for teachers.

Vygotsky (1978) asserts that social interaction and collaboration are important to

result in learning. He explains that a person needs scaffolding in which a child

(novice), less able member is in need for help from a more able member in the

society. This help is obtained through social interaction between its members.

However, Duke (1991) argues that collaboration is not always successful, if one of

the collaborators dominates the stage and does not consult the other collaborator

of his or her decisions. Likewise, Storch (2002 & 2007) argues that it is not a

47

matter of working in small groups or pairs. It is a matter of the type of dynamic

interaction between collaborators. Storch (2002) investigated the nature of a dyadic

interaction in a university second language (ESL) classroom setting. The results

showed four types of dyadic interactions. They were collaborative, expert/novice,

dominant/dominant, and dominant/passive patterns. The collaborative pattern was

the predominant pattern. The differences in the nature of dyadic interaction

resulted in different outcomes in terms of second language development. The

findings showed that collaborative and expert/novice patterns showed instances of

a transfer of knowledge between students more than dominant/dominant, and

dominant/passive pattern.

Storch and Al Dosari (2012) investigated how best to assign students in pairs. The

students were assigned according to their language proficiency, (High-High), (Low-

Low), and mixed-L2 proficiency pairs. Findings showed that the dyadic relationship

between the learners might be of a greater importance than their language

proficiency when they work in pairs. This is due to the fact that the pairs, detected

as collaborative and expert/novice pairs, produced more LREs (Language related-

episodes) than dominant/dominant and dominant/passive pairs.

The previous studies, as it can be seen, focus on the engagement between the

students, but give no enough attention to the engagement between the students

and the teacher. Vygotsky (1978) argues that engagement between (expert) and

(novice) will result in desirable outcomes. Most researchers limit this conception, in

case of collaborative writing, to the learner-learner relationship. However, more

attention should be focused on the teacher-student relationship in a CW

environment. That is because while working in a collaborative environment in

48

classrooms the teacher-learner relationship affects positively or negatively the

group interaction and collaboration in their small collaboration groups (Duke, 1991;

Harwood, 1995; Mercer, 1996). The next section will shed more lights on the T-S

relationship and how important it is in the small group collaborations.

3.3.2 Teacher–Students (T-S) Relationship is essential in a CW Environment

It seems from the previous studies that the (T-S) relationship in collaborative

writing activities needs to be further investigated. To start with, when students are

assigned in undesirable patterns (dominant/dominant, and dominant/passive); it

results in undesirable or negative outcomes (Duke, 1991; Storch, 2002 & 2005;

Storch & Al Dosari, 2010). Moreover, some studies show teacher’s instructions are

important when conducting an activity collaboratively in pairs or small groups

(Storch, 2005). It seems that collaborative activities in general and collaborative

writing activities in particular need a lot of preparation from teachers. They are to

be carefully designed, carried out and supervised by teachers. It is so crucial to

result in desirable and effective outcomes. As Storch (2008 & 2011) claims that it is

not language itself but the depth of attention and engagement that may be

important in collaborative writing tasks and subsequently in L2 development. This

engagement might include also encouraging or allowing students to work

collaboratively with whom s/he feels comfortable. This action can be carried out by

the teacher (Storch, 2002). Although many studies emphasize on the engagement

when conducting collaborative writing in L2 contexts in terms of student-student (S-

S) interaction. Very few of them, however, show the effect or teacher’s roles in CW

tasks (Storch 2002 & 2005). I believe that there is a need to study in more depth,

the social interaction which occurs between students and teachers. These

49

investigations will framework the teacher-student (T-S) relationship. It will provide

further roles for the teacher when working in a collaborative environment.

3.3.3 Teacher-Student (T-S) Relationship in a Collaborative Writing

Environment

Collaborative education, on the contrary, is based on the philosophy of

collaboration. Collaboration encourages interaction among learners. Individuals are

responsible for their actions including learning and respect the abilities and

contributions of their peers within their group and other groups (Laal & Ghodsi,

2012). It seems that what distinguishes collaborative education is social interaction

between group members. Theories, such as social constructionism show the

importance of social interaction as an effective tool to achieve effective

collaborative learning. Social interaction encourages talk which produces desired

positive outcomes of collaborative learning (DeCiccio, 1988; Onrubia and Engel,

2012).

Social interaction is crucial to maintain desirable learning outcomes (DeCiccio,

1988; Onrubia and Engel, 2012). For example, Harwood (1995) attempted to

introduce young children to social and political knowledge through students’

engagement in a collaborative group work. However, the students could not

sustain continuity in discussion. Some learners dominated the on-going

discussions between the group members and other students could not justify their

ideas with reasons. When the teacher was present in the discussions, she

encouraged the quiet students to participate and give reasons to their ideas by

asking them challenging questions. The teacher could stop competition between

groups by encouraging collaborative work between them. The teacher gave

50

chance for every member in the group to participate and less dominant learners

were encouraged to participate in the group.

Mercer (1996) aimed to analyse the quality of talk in collaborative activity in a

classroom in the light of four main themes. One of them is the role of teacher in

fostering certain kinds of discourse. The learners were assigned randomly. The

findings showed three types of talking and thinking amongst students. They were

disputational, cumulative, and exploratory talk. Disputational talk, which was

characterised by disagreement and individualised decision making. Cumulative

talk, in which speakers built positively but uncritically on what others have said.

Exploratory talk, in which partners engaged critically but constructively with each

other's ideas. Before assigning students in pairs for the second time, the teacher

stressed that students should share information and suggestions with peers. They

also should provide reasons to back up their suggestions and opinions. With their

peers, they should reach an agreement about what actions they should take to

solve a problem. They should be responsible for failures and successes of their

groups. As a result, this vivid role of the teacher caused a dramatic increase in the

amount of the desired exploratory talk in the assigned groups in comparison with

the previously stated results before the teacher’s intervention (Mercer, 1996).

Although teacher’s social interaction with learner’s in a collaborative learning

environment has proved to positively affect the language development in L2. Yet, it

seems that there are some concerns when teacher intervenes in a collaborative

learning environment. Duke (1991) found that her presence in a class group work

stopped students to collaborate. Instead, they would depend on the teacher’s

feedback to work on the given activities, ignoring the other pair. Likewise, Harwood

51

(1995) found that the teacher affected learners engaged in a collaborative writing

activity negatively. In many observed occasions, the teacher controlled the pace

and direction of discussion between learners. As a result, the learners stopped

asking each other’s or initiate new ideas. Instead they trusted the teacher’s

feedback to initiate new ideas. They depended on the teacher’s ideas more than

on their peers’.

Therefore, Harwood (1995) concludes that teachers should monitor their role and

intervention carefully when they work with learners in collaborative groups. This will

allow learners to have more initiatives in the teacher’s presence. Onrubia & Engel

(2012) recommend that teachers should be aware of patterns of assistance they

should give and how. DeCiccio (1988) concludes that there are several strategies

can be employed to encourage collaborative learning among learners in a

collaborative environment. One of them is redefining the teacher’s role in the

writing process.

3.3.4 Teacher’s Role in A collaborative Learning Environment

Classes have moved from traditional classroom (teacher-centred) where the

teacher stands at the front of the room and rows of students face forward. The

teacher, as Harmet (2007 in Walker & White, 2013) describes, is the ‘controller’ of

activities in the classrooms. Many academic institutions have chosen to renovate

traditional classrooms and turn them into spaces more conducive to collaboration

(student-centred) (Beery et al., 2013). In the traditional classrooms, teacher’s talk

exceeds students’ talk. Instruction occurs frequently with the whole class; small

groups or group instructions occur less often. Use of class time is largely

52

determined by the teacher. Finally, the teacher looks upon the textbook to guide

curricular and instructional decision making (Cuban, 1993 in Relan & Gillani, 1997).

On the other hand, collaborative learning or ‘student-centred’ learning, students’

talk is equal or greater than teacher talk. Most instruction occurs in small groups.

Students help choose the content to be organized and learned (Cuban, 1993 in

Relan & Gillani, 1997). As a result of learning change from teacher-centred into

student-centred learning, higher education institutions around the world has

changed. Therefore, teacher’s role needs to be modified in the new context (Cole,

2009). In another word, the teacher in a collaborative learning environment acts as

a ‘guide’ who facilitates collaboration for students who collaborate to ‘make

connections between new ideas and prior knowledge, use language as a tool for

learning, and develop language and thinking competencies (Bayer, 1990: 7).

Several attempts have been conducted to define the teacher’s role in a

collaborative learning. Wiener (1986) provides some roles for a teacher in a

collaborative learning environment. To start with, a teacher in a collaborative

learning environment acts as a ‘Task Setter’ in which the teacher asks ‘what is

essential? Is that the task lead to answer or solution that can represent as nearly

as possible the collective judgement and labour of the group as a whole (Wien,

1986: 56). In this role, the teacher is also to “stimulate active learning that leads to

an important outcome.” The teacher prepares the tasks for the groups’ work and

highlights the main issues to be addressed in this writing task. Next, the teacher is

as ‘Classroom Manager’, who would implement the actual act of collaboration,

organizes the social relations in which learning will occur. The teacher would

maintain students’ learning, forming groups easily and demonstrating ability to

53

work together fairly. Besides that, the teacher should pay attention to class chairs if

organized in well-spaced clusters. The teacher should maintain timing to the

collaborative groups’ work. Finally, the teacher should check on students’ work on

collaborative groups and provide feedback on them (Wien, 1986: 57). The third role

of a teacher in a collaborative learning environment is ‘Teacher During Group

Work’ in which teachers should pay attention to their behaviour while the groups

are working. They should move from a group to another, answering questions from

students, participating in discussions, probing with further questions, guiding

responses, and focusing students’ attention on the task (Wien, 1986: 57). Wien

(1986) moves to the last role of a teacher in a collaborative learning environment.

The teacher acts as a ‘Synthesizer’ after the activity in groups is complete. Once

the groups finish their work, it is important for each one to share the group’s

consensus with the rest of the class. With this done, the teacher must help class as

a whole to make sense and order out of the sometimes conflicting and

contradictory ideas (Wien, 1986: 58).

DeCiccio (1988) advises that the teacher should act as a facilitator who sets up an

environment for students, so they can interact with each other’s on all writing

stages. The teacher might act also as a co-worker, enablers, resources, and even

a referee (DeCiccio, 1988).

In a word, these roles focus on the traditional roles of a teacher in a collaborative

learning. It seems the most important for a teacher is to coordinate a collaborative

classroom, so students can work collaboratively with each other within a group or

with other groups. The coming section will discuss the teacher’s role in online

environment in general and in a Wiki environment in specific. Do teachers in a

54

traditional collaborative learning classroom display same roles as to that for

teachers in an online classroom, Wiki environment as an example?

3.4 Teacher’s in Online environment (from traditional to online)

Online courses are provided by many education institutions in higher education

institutions (HEIs). However, these courses mostly depend on teachers’ traditional

strategies to apply them on online courses. Consequently, teachers face difficulties

in transferring effective strategies to online classes from their traditional classes.

When being in online environment, teachers are required new strategies and skills

for a successful transfer of knowledge when utilizing the Web (Fisher, 2003).

In constructivist learning model (learning-centred approach), knowledge is created

by learners. In some situations, it seems that the constructed knowledge by

students needs for expert to guide, construct, motivate the learners work, and

advise them. Unfortunately, most current use of web-based teachings transfer

traditional classroom/lecture-based methods to the online setting (Lin & Hsieh,

2001). In a study conducted of web-based teaching, Oliver and Omari (1999)

reported that the students frequently indicated that they valued the input of the

teacher and saw this component as a valuable part of teaching and learning. The

authors suggested that the need to remember the important role of the teacher in

any learning process and the need to ensure students have adequate access to,

and lines of, communication with their teachers. Besides that, there are some

barriers to online collaboration between teachers and students. For example,

instructors and students could sometimes lack of experience with virtual

collaboration. Instructors could be also not knowledgeable of facilitative roles for

online teaching since they inherit these roles through developing them from

55

experience in traditional classes or from other instructors. Online collaboration

roles, however, might be different from those which require physical presence of a

teacher (Borthick et al., 2003). It is difficult since shifting from traditional

classrooms to online environment might be difficult to teachers as Fisher (2003)

concludes. Therefore, some education institutions as well as their teachers find

online courses need new strategies are required for the successful of transfer of

knowledge utilizing the web. One of these pedagogical strategies that a teacher

should acquire is designing courses (Fisher, 2003).

Kear et al. (2016) suggest, consequently, that the effectiveness of any educational

technology cannot be predicted from the technology itself. To put it another way,

technology does not determine outcomes. There are factors related to the social

context of using the technology. One of the factors that might affect its usefulness

is the perspectives of the users, the teachers in this context.

Kear et al. (2016) study findings showed that the teachers were considered by

students working in social technology tools (Wiki, photo-sharing, and bookmarking)

as ‘experts’ whom they trusted their feedback. Besides that, other students were

unwilling to interact with other students’ to give them recommended resources or

feedback since they viewed it as the ‘teacher’s responsibility.’ So, the teacher’s

interaction with students was considered a vital factor for the success or failure of

online collaboration and interaction between students and students (S-S) as well

as between teachers and students (T-S) (Kear et al., 2016: 49).

Bayer (1990) concludes that a teacher in a collaborative learning environment acts

as a guide who facilitates students’ collaboration. Likewise, Vygotsky in his theory

encourages teachers not to focus too much on teaching concrete facts. Instead, he

56

encourages teachers to push their students into an abstract means to assisting

them to develop multiple skills that will enable them to deal with complex learning

tasks. Thus, the collaboration enables students to connect between new ideas and

prior knowledge, use language as a tool for learning, and develop language and

thinking competencies (Ellis, 2000).

In conclusion, Lin & Hsieh (2001) argue that teachers are being aware of how they

teach and how their students learn in a web-based environment. Nonetheless,

traditional-led learning will not disappear since there are situations in classroom in

which learning-human, face-to-face interaction is preferable. It can be concluded

that transferring to online environment, Wiki as an example, requires a teacher

special strategies and skills for a successful transfer. The required transfer will

enable successful interactions between students and students (S-S) and teachers

and students (T-S).

3.5 Teacher’s Role in a Collaborative Online Environment (COE)

In online environment, teachers use plenty of online tools. These tools have similar

or different features. Therefore, the teacher’s roles when using these tools might

be different or similar. In the coming lines, I first investigated the teacher’s online

roles in general. Then, I shed some lights on their roles when using Wiki tool in a

collaborative writing environment.

3.5.1 Collaborative Online Environment (COE)

In online environment, a teacher has some common roles which I will shed lights

on. These roles, in the following studies, might have similarities in general or have

some slight differences between them. To investigate teacher’s roles in an online

57

environment, most of the studies are heavily leaned on some of the main studies

as Berge (1995) and Goodyear et al. (2001). In the coming lines, these studies are

discussed more critically.

3.5.2 Collaborative Writing (CW) in Online Environment

Collaboration in online environment is not always predictable that a collaborative

tool can offer collaborative work among students. Collaborative tools, as Brodahl

(2011) argues, cannot provide sufficient evidence that they are easy to use,

effective, enhance motivation, and increase collaboration. However, collaboration

and social interaction, as aspects of online collaboration, do have potentials of

using learning for students’ collaborative learning. It occurs with students’ peers,

parents, national and international students, and other members of the community.

This collaboration helps to increase communication among students and the

mentioned members (Berge & Collins, 1995).

3.5.3 Teacher’s Role in a collaborative Online Environment

Hillebrand (1994) argues that teachers should transfer some authority to students

to work collaboratively in groups when working in online environment. However, it

has been found hard for teachers who work in a collaborative learning

environments, especially old or long-experienced teachers, to transfer authority or

‘give away the complete grip’ (Kollias, 2005: 304). Teachers consider transferring

authority to students is challenging. They commented that students needed more

instructions of how to give feedback to other students when working collaboratively

in groups (Kollias, 2005). Hillebrand (1994) suggests that a teacher might have

certain responsibilities in a collaborative classroom. Teachers’ responsibilities

resemble to the ones of a ‘play’s director’ which means that the presence of a

58

teacher in a collaborative classroom is essential, but requires teachers’ knowledge

of theory and practice of collaborative learning (Hillebrand, 1994: 72). De Laat et

al. (2007: 258) suggest that online teachers should act as a ‘guide on the side’. In

this sense students would be stimulated to take active control over their own and

collaborative learning processes.

In a word, Bruffee (1984) describes a teacher in a collaborative class`room as

metteur en Scence which refers to as the scene director who directs the scene of

the collaborative learning process (Bruffee, 1984). It seems that the teacher’s role

in a collaborative online classroom should not be the centre stage authority. It

should be, on the contrary, of the facilitator who makes the best out of the

surrounding environment to students to learn and interact with their colleagues in a

collaborative learning environment.

3.5.4 Teacher’s Roles in an Online Environment

However, teacher roles in an online collaborative classroom are not discussed in

details in terms of online environment. Hamalainen & Vahasantanen (2011)

reviewed critical studies in technology-enhanced learning settings. It has been

found that there is a problem in reducing or even neglecting the role of teachers in

supporting collaboration. This is due to the fact that the focus in virtual

environments is to enhance interactions without real-time teacher’s support

(Hamalainen & Vahasantanen, 2011). It seems also that technology pays no much

attention to teacher roles in a collaborative learning environment. So, can

technology alone guarantee collaboration between students when they work in

small groups or dyads? Although computers, as part of technology, can enhance

and facilitate collaboration process because of its nature. They, nonetheless,

59

cannot guarantee collaboration among students or ensure teachers acting as

facilitators and learning partners (Wang, 2002). It seems crucial, as Kollias et al.

(2005) conclude that teachers need more support to understand and guide

students’ learning when they work in an online collaborative learning environment.

They need also more support to understand the social structure of the classroom

when a collaborative learning environment is implemented.

Since it is stated above why online teachers should be aware of their roles in an

online collaborative learning environment, it is crucial to browse the literature to

find the most recent studies which show teacher roles in online environments. To

start with, based on a review of the literature, Berge (1995) examined the roles of a

computer conference moderator in distance education. Berge (1995) highlighted

the role of technology in distance education; interactions in learning, including

synchronous and asynchronous interaction. Berge (1995) identified four

dimensions of a moderator in online learning: pedagogical, technical, social, and

managerial roles.

In the pedagogical role, the moderator “revolves around their duties as an

educational facilitator. The moderator uses questions and probes for student

responses that focus discussions on critical concepts, principles and skills (Berge,

1995: 23).”

In the social role, the moderator should “create a friendly; social environment in

which learning is promoted is also essential for successful moderating. This

suggests promoting human relationships, developing group cohesiveness,

maintaining the group as a unit, and in other ways helping members to work

together in a mutual cause (Berge, 1995: 23).”

60

In the managerial role the moderator should “set the agenda for the conference:

the objectives of the discussion, the timetable, procedural rules and decision-

making norms. Managing the interactions with strong leadership and direction is

considered a sine qua non of successful conferencing (Berge, 1995: 24).”

In the technical role, the moderator “must make participants comfortable with the

system and the software that the conference is using. The ultimate technical goal

for the instructor is to make the technology transparent. When this is done, the

learner may concentrate on the academic task at hand (Berge, 1995: 24).”

Goodyear et al. (2001) conducted a workshop for online teachers from the UK and

the USA for 48 hours. The participants aimed to list competences and roles of

teachers in online environment. The findings showed the possible roles for online

teacher as shown in Table 3.1.

Role Definition

The process

facilitator:

Is concerned with facilitating the range of online activities that

are supportive of student learning.

The Advisor-

Counsellor:

Works with learners on an individual or private basis, offering

advice or counselling to help them get the most engagement

of the course.

The Assessor: Provides grades, feedback, and validation of learners’ work.

The Researcher: Is concerned with engagement in production of new

knowledge of relevance to the content areas being taught.

The Content

Facilitator:

is concerned directly with facilitating the learners’ growing

understanding.

The Technologist: is concerned with making or helping make technological

choices that improve the environment available to leaners.

The Designer: is concerned with designing worthwhile online learning tasks.

The Manger is concerned with issues of learner registration, security,

61

Administrator: record keeping, and so on.

Table 3.1:Goodyear et al. (2001) Teacher Roles in Online Environment.

Based on these earlier studies which show teacher roles in different online

environments, several empirical studies have been conducted later to show

teacher roles in online environments. To start with, Kollias et al. (2005) conducted

a study with teachers from four countries. They participated in an online project

called Technologies for Collaborative Learning Project. Then, they were

interviewed to investigate their attitudes and beliefs about the collaborative learning

environments (CLEs). The interviewed teachers focused mostly on three roles in

the project. In regard to teacher roles as a technical support, the teachers felt that

in a CLE they might be overwhelmed by the students’ need for technical advice.

They felt usually they could face the challenge. In regard to teacher’s role as

planner of the activities that would take place in the classroom, all the teachers

expressed the strong belief that CLEs demand careful planning. In regard to the

teacher’s performance in the classroom as s/he monitors and guides students, the

teachers differed in the specificity of their thinking about teachers’ guiding role in

the classroom during the project. Teachers explained that students needed a lot of

guidance through all phases. Moreover, teachers were themselves might have had

no clear ideas of the teacher proper guidance in the CLEs (Kollias et al., 2005).

Aydin (2005: 1) argues that online teaching requires a teacher different roles and

competencies than a traditional classroom teacher. Based on Goodyear et al.

(2001) study, Aydin (2005) conducted a study which resulted in that the online

mentors who participated in the study considered facilitating the learning process,

being content expert, designing online courses, and providing technical support as

62

being essential roles for successful online teaching. However, the participants

considered adviser/counsellor role as being not essential as the others, since the

mentors rarely performed this role. Aydin (2005) argued that interaction is essential

to online education initiatives, but the design of the program (IMP) did not really

require and promote any kinds of interactions. As a result, some problems

appeared as feeling of isolation, lack of adequate support among students as well

as mentors. The participant online mentors agreed on the importance of the skills,

attitudes and resources listed in the “Online Teaching Roles, Competencies and

Resources Questionnaire” (OTRCRQ) for teaching online successfully. The

participants also expressed that they possessed these skills at an adequate level.

Nevertheless, they needed improvement related to some factors to be able to

perform better in online teaching. For instance, it might be beneficial for IMP if

online mentors get more training on online teaching skills, such as motivating

distance students. Additionally, they could be supported with some resources

particularly related to technology, time and online education factors.

De Laat et al. (2007) aimed to study the online teaching style of two teachers who

tutored a networked learning community (NLC), within the same workshop. One of

the teachers was experienced in online teaching, but the other was not. However,

both of them showed the following roles when teaching in a collaborative learning

environment online. To start with, they allowed each group to show its

competences and abilities to others. They let students consult with each other and

engage effectively with their peers. Although they did not interfere in groups’ work,

they, nonetheless, kept a close look on their work. More crucially, the teachers

were aware of their role in the course, since they had a general understanding and

63

a pedagogical framework of it. In general, the teacher’s attitude towards teaching

online the course was positive since they understood and recognized their role in

the course.

Other scholars define the role of the teacher in a broader term. Alverez et al.

(2009) investigated the university teacher roles and competences in online learning

environments. The findings identified five roles for the teacher. They were the

designer/planning role, the social role, the cognitive role, the technological domain,

and the managerial domain. Onrubia and Engel (2012) identified patterns of

teacher assistance to the collaborative work developed by the groups. The findings

showed the type of assistance, teachers offered as follows: organization,

elaboration, technology, management, and social.

Unlike the previous studies which focused on the online teacher’s point of view,

there are studies which focus on students’ point of view of online teacher’s roles.

For instance, Lee (2010) investigated students’ perception of the teachers’ role in

an online learning environment in Korea. Based on surveys of the study, the

students identified five different aspects of the teacher’s role in online environment.

These roles were, pedagogical, managerial, technical, affective and differentiating.

Besides that, Gómez-Rey et al., (2017) investigated the most crucial roles of an

online teacher from the students’ point of view. To reach the objective, they made a

survey to 925 students and interviewed a group of them. The findings revealed that

the online teacher should have pedagogical, designer, social, technical,

managerial, and sill promoter roles.

64

To conclude, based on different studies, Bawane & Spector (2009: 390) arrived to

a comprehensive list of eight online instructor roles and the competencies for each

role as in Table 3.2:

Role Competencies

Professional

• Comply with ethic and legal standards

• Communicate effectively

• Undertake efforts to update knowledge

• Demonstrate commitment and favourable attitude

Pedagogical

• Design instructional strategies

•Develop appropriate learning resources

• Implement instructional strategies

• Facilitate participation among students

• Sustain students’ motivation

Social

• Maintain a cordial learning environment

• Resolve conflict in an amicable manner

• Refrain from undesirable behaviours

• Promotes interactivity within the group

Evaluator

• Monitor individual and group progress

• Assess individual and group performance

• Evaluate the course/program

Administrator

•Manage the time and course

• Demonstrate leadership qualities

• Establish rules and regulations

Technologist

• Access various technological resources

• Select the appropriate resource for learning

• Develop different learning resources

• Suggest resources to the students (resource provider)

Advisor/counsellor • Suggest measures to enhance performance

• Provide guidance based on student needs

Researcher • Conduct research on classroom teaching

• Interpret and integrate research findings in teaching.

Table 3.2: Online Teacher’s Roles and Competencies (Bawane & Spector, 2009)

The listed roles are found in most previous studies which I believe that they make a

link between past studies on online teacher’s roles and future studies with little

65

differences. It seems that the researchers showed a great effort to prioritize the

identified online instructor roles which will help in teacher education programs in

the future. As shown in Table 2.1, the studies (Berge, 1995; Dennis et al., 2004;

Thach and Murphy, 1995; Wiesenberg and Hutton, 1996; Gold, 2001; Goodyear et

al., 2001; Williams, 2003; Dennis et al., 2004; Aydin, 2005; Egan and Akdere,

2005; Richey et al., 2005; Varvel, 2007 in Bawane & Spector, 2009) were reviewed

and analysed to arrive to the previous list in Table 2.1 .

All in all, this section has reviewed teacher roles in online environment from

different perspectives. There is some evidence that a teacher has some common

roles when teaching in different online environments. The most frequent ones show

an online teacher in a collaborative environment as a facilitator, advisor,

technologist, managerial and social roles. However, some of these roles do not

resemble to the roles of teachers in traditional collaborative classrooms. It means

that the online teaching requires different skills that the ones found in traditional

teaching (Aydin, 2005). De Laat et al. (2007: 259) conclude that “online teaching

requires different and often new skills, for the teacher, as well as a different attitude

towards teaching or being a teacher.” In other words, embracing a new technology

requires a teacher to have an attitude towards using it. It requires a teacher to have

different skills to use technology effectively in the class. Likewise, a Wiki

technology is one of the Web 2.0 technologies; it is also used in classes to foster

online learning and teaching. In the following section, I will discuss the Wiki

technology and its value in online collaborative classrooms and the possible

teacher roles, found in some studies.

66

3.6 Teacher’s Role in Online Learning Environment (OLE) Using Wiki

In online environment, teachers are involved with mainly two types of interactions.

They are interaction with content and interpersonal interaction (i.e. interaction with

people) (Berge, 1995). Consequently, since Web 2.0 tools (e.g. Wikis, Podcasts,

blogs, e-forums) share the same types of interaction, it leads to common

similarities to teacher’s roles in online environment (Berge, 1995; Goodyear, et al.,

2001; Aydin, 2005). Wiki, as a Web 2.0 tool, is used to investigate teacher’s roles

in an online environment. It has common features with other online tools as well as

its advantageous features (Parker and Chao, 2007; Wheeler et al., 2008;

Karasavvidis, 2010; Al Zahrani, 2013; Hadjerrouit, 2014). In the following lines, I

will shed light on Web 2.0 and Wiki technology as Web 2.0 technology and their

use in learning.

3.6.1 Wiki Technology as a Web 2.0 Tool in Learning

Web 2.0 tools are considered collaborative and interactive tools between teachers

and students. What make them outstanding from other online tools used in higher

education classes are the network as platform and spanning all connected devices;

“Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of

that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better

the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources,

including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form

that allows remixing by others, creating Network effects through an “architecture of

participation,” and going beyond the stage metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user

experiences (O’Reilly, 2005 in Bohely, 2010: 7).

67

A Wiki technology is considered a collaborative learning tool. It provides new

opportunities to foster collaborative learning. A Wiki technology, as Parker & Chao

(2007: 1) define, is “a web communication and collaboration tool that can be used

to engage students in learning with others in a collaborative environment.” It is one

of the Web 2.0 technologies. It is among the most promising E-learning tools

because it requires active student engagement which facilitates constructivist

learning. A Wiki technology is known to be easy to use, rapidity of development,

and making possible to share powerful information and let students collaborate

straightforward. Users of Wikis need no special technical skills to use them. Wikis

allow their users to engage in dialogues with other users in a collaborative

environment. In terms of composition, Wikis allow students to collaboratively, mix,

edit, and synthesise subjects in a shared and open accessible space. Wikis, being

student-centred, give students a chance to work together and collaborate on their

work without the strong presence of the teacher. Furthermore, Wikis can facilitate

interaction between students (Parker and Chao, 2007; Wheeler et al., 2008;

Karasavvidis, 2010; Alshumaimeri, 2011; Al Zahrani, 2013; Hadjerrouit, 2014).

However, collaborative activities, conducted by students on Wiki, are criticized for

many reasons. One of them is that students do not feel comfortable to give sound

feedback to their colleagues and they feel reluctant to participate online. Some

studies confirm that online co-authoring may take time because of the group

relationship that might affect getting used to each other. Consequently, students

might be reluctant to let others see their own work and check it. This in return

causes students to show less level of collaborative learning than expected. Other

students disapprove their peers to change their contributions on Wikis. Some

68

students contribute on Wikis when they are in classrooms not outside the

classrooms or when they are asked to do so. Students’ role is not clear, so they

might lose interest in online leaning within time (Parker and Chao, 2007; Wheeler

et al., 2008; Karasavvidis, 2010; Storch, 2011; AL Zahrani, 2013; Hadjerrouit,

2014).

3.6.2 Web 2.0 in Online Learning Environment (OLE)

Web 2.0 is perceived positively in learning in general. Yusop (2015) concludes that

intentions, beliefs and attitudes towards using Web 2.0 technology in classes are

important determinants of success or failures of these tools in Web 2.0 classes.

Sadaf et al., (2012) confirm that pre-service teachers’ intentions to use Web 2.0

technologies are related to their beliefs about the value of these technologies for

improving student learning and engagement, its ease of use, its ability to meet the

needs/expectations of digital age students, the participants’ high self-efficacy in

use and its potential for affording students anytime/anywhere access to learning

and interaction. Sadaf et al. (2012) conclude that pre-service teacher intentions to

use Web 2.0 technologies in their future classrooms are influenced by their

behavioural, normative, and control beliefs.

3.6.3 Teachers’ Perception of Wiki Use in Teaching

It seems that there is no difference between pre- and in-service teachers’

perception of using Wiki in a collaborative online environment.

3.6.3.1 Pre and In- Service Teachers

Pre-service teachers perceive using Web 2.0 in classes positively. For example,

Baltaci-Goktalay & Ozdilekc(2010) conducted a study aimed to examine the pre-

69

service teachers’ perception about Web 2.0 technologies. To answer the objective

of the study, 101 pre-service teachers filled a survey which consisted of three

components: demographic data, Web 2.0 attitude scale, and Unified Theory of

Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) scale. The results showed that

participants’ perceptions about Web 2.0 technologies were high and positive.

When asked: “What do you think of using Web 2.0 technologies within a

classroom?” Data analysis revealed that pre-service teachers believed that the

integration of Web 2.0 technologies into the teaching and learning environment is

useful and has the potential to improve students’ learning. This perceived

usefulness of Web 2.0 technologies was driven by the value of Web 2.0 technology

for improving student engagement, interaction, communication, and enhancing the

overall learning experience by using innovative learning tools to which students

can relate (Sadaf et al., 2012).

In-service teachers, likewise, perceive the Web 2.0 technologies positively. For

instance, Yuen et al. (2011) examined teachers’ use of Web 2.0 tools in education,

assessed teachers’ awareness and perceptions of the pedagogical benefits of Web

2.0 technologies, and investigated teachers’ willingness to adopt Web 2.0 tools to

support and supplement classroom instruction. Responses indicated that social

networking sites and social video tools were currently the Web 2.0 tools most

utilized by instructors. Additionally, teachers reported positive experiences using

social video, social networking, and podcasts. Teachers indicated positive

perceptions of the pedagogical benefits and importance of Web 2.0 tools for

teaching and learning, and expressed interest in gaining further skill and

70

understanding in order to more effectively and seamlessly integrate Web 2.0 tools

to support and supplement classroom instruction.

Quek & Wang (2014) explored three potential affordances (social, technical and

pedagogical) of Wikis in the context of designing 32 teachers’ learning of

classroom management cases. The teachers’ perceptions of the Wikis’ affordances

to support their case-based learning were surveyed quantitatively. The five point

Likert scale survey ranked technical affordance highest, followed by social

affordance and pedagogical affordance. Qualitative data from their online

discussions and reflection logs were also analysed to probe the variations in

perceived affordances. Participants experienced ease of use and freedom from

technical difficulties in achieving their learning goals.

In this study Kim et al. (2012) a Wiki was integrated into a professional

development model that systemically addressed early-career teachers’ needs. This

study was conducted to examine the impact of Wiki-based professional

development activities in a scientist-teacher professional learning community. It

also focused on early-career teachers’ perceptions of the role of Wiki technology

and knowledge of teaching through inquiry. One of the research questions was:

“How have early-career teachers’ perceptions of using a Wiki in support of their

professional development changed after participation in the PLC-METS program?”

Data revealed that teachers in the study showed a meaningful change and positive

perception toward the role of a Wiki as a useful tool in science professional

development.

71

3.6.3.2 Students’ Perception of Wiki Use in Learning

Studies have also resulted that students have positive attitudes towards using

Wikis in learning. Li (2015) investigated the results of an attempt to integrate a

collaborative technology, Wiki, into learning within a course in a teacher education

programme based on social constructivist learning theory. A total of 56 students

participated in this study. They completed a number of collaborative tasks using a

Wiki during the learning process, and were then invited to complete a

questionnaire designed to solicit their perception of the usefulness of Wikis and

their attitudes towards using a Wiki. The findings revealed favourable perceptions

of the use of a Wiki as a collaborative learning tool in the course. Qualitative data

collected from open-ended questions also reflected similar favourable results.

Active learners were also found to be significantly different from reflective learners

in accepting the Wiki as a learning tool.

In another study, where students were in a Wiki-based international collaboration

project which aimed to explore the collaboration between them. In the first case,

the students were enrolled in English Language School in Sweden and England

and they communicated in English. The second case was South Korea and Russia

for students who were studying English as a second language. The results showed

a great amount of collaboration between students. Besides that, students

perceived comfort for participating in Web 2.0 based on international collaboration.

They also perceived comfort for participating in Web 2.0 international collaboration

(Ertmer et al., 2011).

72

3.6.4 Challenges of Using Web 2.0 and Wiki for Teachers and Students

Yet, using Web 2.0 and Wiki technology in online learning environment has some

challenges for teachers and students. To start with, although pre-service teachers’

perceptions showed their comfort level on using Web 2.0 technologies. However,

their actual use of blogs, Wikis, and social bookmarking is “limited”, most teachers

recognize value in employing Web 2.0 technologies in instruction (Baltaci-

Goktalaya & Ozdileka, 2010.

Crook et al. (2008: 51) reported that “more than a third (37.4%) of teachers

believes that adopting Web 2.0 resources would be time-consuming for them and

teachers frequently (18.7%) and occasionally (47.0%) find that student use of the

internet in class can be hard for them to manage”. Crook et al. (2008) also

identified other staff perceptions with the potential to act as barriers to the

adaptation of Web 2.0 tools; these included: a) fear that Web 2.0 tools would act as

a time burden impacting their already crowded schedule, b) fear of becoming

overly reliant on technologies that may not remain available (due to budgetary

restrictions within the university, policy change in the service provider, financial

collapse of the service provider, or due to technical failures that are beyond the

instructors’ control), c) fear that students with access to the internet would not stay

on task, d) and fear that technology in general would have a negative impact on

education or society.

Wiki, as a Web 2.0 technology has also some challenges. For example, Yuen

(2011) concludes that a gap exists between teachers’ positive perceptions and

their actual integration of Web 2.0 technologies in classrooms. Essentially, though

teachers viewed Web 2.0 applications as being useful and promoting students’

73

learning in a number of positive dimensions, their actual use of Web 2.0 tools for

teaching and learning did not parallel their indicated perceptions.

Although, O’Bannon (2013) reported a positive perception of the 78 pre-service

teachers on using Wiki as a tool for collaboration. They agreed that the use of Wiki

technology promoted collaboration between members and they reported comfort

with the software. They, however, did not regularly (weekly) read, post, or modify

information. Modifications were limited primarily to format, grammar, and

aesthetics. Failure to modify the narrative sections was attributed to discomfort in

editing the work of others.

Although teachers and students perceived Web 2.0 in general and Wiki in specific

positively. Web 2.0 and Wiki as a technology of Web 2.0, nonetheless, have some

challenges. Cole (2009) concludes that Wikis have little impact on students’

engagement. The most likely cause of the little impact were the participant

students chose not to post on the Wiki and the format was poorly designed and

supported. Therefore, it should be emphasized that how well-designed the content

of the course to match and suit the students learning. Kessler and Bikowski (2010)

considered that the nature of the participants’ contributions to content revisions, the

willingness to contribute to Wiki text changed over time. In other words, students’

contribution on a Wiki activity was affected negatively over time. Although students

were active to contribute in the Wiki content at the beginning of the Wiki classes.

They became less active and interactive with their peers on Wiki over time.

74

3.7 Teacher’s Role in A Collaborative Writing (CW) Environment Using

Wiki Technology

3.7.1 Teacher in a Wiki Environment

Yang (2014: 187) argues that the assumption that a language teacher who is good

at teaching face-to-face class can easily be good at online classes is a “common

myth”. Therefore, teacher’s role in a collaborative writing environment using Wiki is

crucial. To result in successful collaborative writing on Wiki, Doult & Walker (2014)

conclude that teachers need to take an active role in Wiki, praising instances of

learners’ co-authorship, and exchanges of perspective through face-to-face

comments or the discussion tab of Wiki. Lund & Smordal (2006), similarly, confirm

that teachers play a key role in Wiki designs. Therefore, Wiki designs need to allow

a role which can support a group knowing. The authors identify two levels of Wiki

users. They are normal users who are the learners and instructors who are the

teachers. The teachers can prevent pages from editing, delete or undelete pages.

The authors give more active and persistent teacher’s presence in a Wiki

environment which results in a number of roles in a collaborative online

environments and a teacher’s space in the Wiki environment. They conclude that

the teacher’s space is not a fixed position in a structure but it is an activity space in

which Wiki features make it possible for the teacher to trigger, stimulate, monitor

and guide online as well as offline activities conducive to learning.

Some studies focus on the use of the Wiki technology in a collaborative writing

environment. What is common between these studies that they all argue that a

teacher should play a role in any collaborative learning activities. Guo & Stevens

(2011) reported findings of an investigation of the factors influencing the use and

75

the usefulness of Wikis in an introductory, undergraduate information systems.

One of the factors which influenced students’ use of Wiki was their teacher’s

attitude towards technology. To start with, De Pedro et al. (2006) explored the

writing documents in higher education students in both traditional vs. Wiki

methodology. The results showed that Wiki methodology showed a clear

enhancement in quality for big groups of 15 students, but not clear results for

smaller groups. One of the possible reasons could be teacher’s motivation to

convince students to give the new methodology a try.

Morgan & Smith (2008) conducted a project in which students researched topics of

their choice and created online multimedia reports using the Wiki technology to

enhance collaboration between students peers, the classroom teacher, and the

college students. The teacher’s role in the project was divided into two levels,

before starting the project in which the teacher taught students how to use Wiki in

basic ways. During the project, the teacher could act as a collaborator, editor, or

site administrator. The results showed that the teacher and the students’

experience of using Wiki was positive in general. The students enjoyed their

composition. It seems that the clear teacher’s role in the project fostered students

learning and resulted in positive attitude towards using Wiki in learning

collaborative writing.

Li et al. (2014) explored the effects of a Wiki-based Collaborative Process Writing

Pedagogy (WCPWP) on writing ability and writing attitude among Primary Four

students in Shenzhen in China. The study also investigated students’ collaborative

writing process with the WCPWP. The findings revealed a general picture of the

students’ collaborative writing process and showed that WCPWP had a positive

76

effect on students’ writing, yet not significant. Besides that the WCPWP had a

positive significant effect in students’ attitudes towards using it. It was due to

different factors such as student-centred writing activities, collaborative activities,

writing club, process writing, and the teacher’s role. The teacher accepted the Wiki

and had positive attitude towards the WCPWP. The teacher was essential to

assign a group leader, facilitate face-to-face group discussion, and facilitate the

collaborative writing process between learners.

However, when teachers’ role is not well defined in a Wiki environment, it can

result in negative consequences. For example, Cole (2009) reported on a failed

experiment to use Wiki technology to support student engagement with the subject

matter of a third year undergraduate module. Cole (2009) tried to answer the

following question: Can Wiki technology be used to support student engagement?

The results revealed that two thirds of the students had visited the Wiki, but zero

had posted anything. It was due to the academic pressure from other courses,

technical problems, self-confidence, and totally lack of interest. Cole (2009)

concluded that students needed some form of instructional scaffolding. They

needed some guidance in using a Wiki. Students were reluctant to post, so the

teacher could encourage them to do so without being hesitant or afraid of what

they would post.

Likewise, Hadjerrouit (2014) evaluated the level of collaborative writing of students

who composed in a Wiki-based environment. The results showed that the level of

collaborative writing in terms of clarifying each other’s contribution was low in

comparison to the total number of actions. Besides that, the results showed that

the amount of collaborative writing did not increase significantly. It seems that

77

students did not fully take advantage of MediaWiki functionality, or that the existing

functionality does not fully support collaboration, discussion, and design of user-

oriented user. Another explanation is that students lack collaborative skills. As a

result, they were not about to fully use MediaWiki potentialities to achieve a high

level of collaboration, discussion, and content adoption. It is also possible that

additional factors may have influenced collaborative writing. One of them as

Hadjerrouit (2014) mentioned was the teacher. Hadjerrouit (2014) found that

putting students together could not guarantee collaborative learning. The teacher,

in a Wiki-based environment, should create positive and collaborative atmosphere

of trust and confidence that stimulates students to interact with their peer in the

group. The teacher should provide specific guidance to assist students in the

writing and peer-editing process. The teacher should work as a facilitator in the

sense s/he should not control the learning materials and the writing methods.

Instead, students should feel confident with methods that personal learning style.

The teacher should plan carefully to a successful collaborative learning.

3.7.2 Teacher as a Facilitator in a Wiki Environment

Teacher’s role in a Wiki environment has changed. As a result, the teacher has

moved from being the dominant in face-to-face language classrooms to be the

facilitator of language learning in online environment (Yang, 2014; DiPasquale,

2017). DeCiccio (1988) advises that a teacher should act as a facilitator who sets

up an environment for students, so they can interact with each other’s on all writing

stages. The teacher might act also as a co-worker, enablers, resources, and even

a referee (DeCiccio, 1988). As facilitators, Wiki teachers need to encourage the

78

use of Wiki as such as opposed to simply just an implement for editing. They, the

instructors, play an important role in explaining the importance of constructive

criticism, and designing tasks that truly require collaboration (Esichaikul et al.,

2013).

Being facilitators of work on Wiki, teachers provide scaffolding which is necessary

for successful Wiki collaboration. It is the instructor who determines the kind of

collaboration that will occur among participants (Meishar-Tal & Gorsky, 2010).

Khatoon & Akhtar (2010) described a strategy they called it Peer assisted learning

strategy (PALS). In this strategy teachers were like facilitators whose role was to

facilitate learning between group leaders (coaches) and their peers (players).

PALS combined peer tutoring with instructional principles and practices. Teachers

identified and paired children who require help with specific skills (‘players’) with

children who were the most appropriate to help other children learn those skills

(‘coaches’). They conclude that the instructor’s role, in PALS strategy, is not to

transmit information, but to serve as a facilitator for learning. It involves teachers

create and manage meaningful thinking through real world problems, learn

experiences and stimulate students’ learning. As a result, this strategy approves to

improve the learning achievement of slow learners (players) by their group leaders

(coaches) under the supervision of their teachers.

3.7.3 Different Roles for a Teacher in a Wiki Environment

Teacher’s roles in a Wiki environment have been investigated ever since. Studies

recommend that an online teacher should support students success by providing

feedback to students, assess students’ online work regularly. They also

recommend that clarity and relevance through content structure and presentation

79

should be provided. Besides that, they recommend online teachers to encourage a

supportive learning community and be better prepared and more agile as an

educator (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2018).

When using Wiki in teaching, Goldstein & Peled (2016) examined the pedagogical,

organizational and social approaches of it. The results showed that teachers’

pedagogical approaches to use Wiki in classes were as follows: to bring about

intellectual curiosity, to try a new pedagogy, to develop academic and informational

literacy, to empower a self-oriented learner, to create active learning, to enhance

critical thinking and constructive feedback, to give students an opportunity to

express themselves, to create meaningful learning through formative evaluation,

and to model pedagogical uses of Wikis among pre-service teachers. Besides the

pedagogical roles, the Wiki teachers showed organizational roles in Wiki

environment. They stressed the importance of preparing students to work with the

Wikis. All the instructors had spent time familiarising the students with the Wiki

environment and gaining some experience in working with it. Some of the

instructors spent much time explaining the structure of an academic entry and its

important elements, and compared them to samples of non-academic entries.

Finally, Most of the instructors related to the social aspect of learning only near the

end of the course rather than in the early stages. One instructor emphasised the

need for a dialogue with the students on ethics and equality in their assignments.

Another instructor combined social activity with technical experience in order to get

the students to know each other and have them debate issues concerning

collaborative writing.

80

One of the rare studies that shows the importance of social and pedagogical role of

a teacher in a Wiki environment is Umar & Rathkrishnan (2012) based on Berge

(1995) study. As earlier mentioned, Berge (1995) identifies four dimensions of a

moderator or teacher’s role in online learning: pedagogical, technical, social, and

managerial roles. Umar & Rathkrishnan (2012) investigated the effects of online

teacher’s social roles and students’ learning style on their performance and critical

skill in a Wiki environment. The students were instructed to write in and edit their

essays in Wiki with the assistance of e-moderators with their social roles (SORT)

or pedagogical roles (PORT). The findings indicated that the SORT group

performed significantly lower in essay performance than PORT group. Umar &

Rathkrishnan (2012) argue that the presence of an online moderator, either with

pedagogical or social role, is vital to assist the students performing better and

exhibiting better critical thinking skills in their essay writing. However, it has been

concluded that some online teacher’s practices seemed to promote collaboration

while others hindered it in various ways when students work on online

environments (Umar & Rathkrishnan, 2012). In another word, the teacher presence

in online learning can promote students’ participation but does not necessarily

assist collaboration between students (Al Ghasab, 2014).

Because of the complexity and criticality of teacher presence in online learning,

therefore, it is more challenging than traditional educational environments due to

characteristics of technology. Online teachers have to overcome potential barriers

caused by technology, time, and place. Meanwhile, they have to make decisions

among the expanded choices and opportunities that online tools provide them for

creating effective, efficient and appealing learning environments. Thus, online

81

teaching requires different roles and competencies than classroom teaching

(Aydin, 2005). Thus, one of the limitations in the previous studies that they have

not given a teacher voice to show the roles s/he plays in a collaborative Wiki

environment. The teacher seems to be much more aware of the role s/he should

play to result in desirable and effective learning for students who participate in a

collaborative online learning. Therefore, the current study aims to show the

teacher’s role when teaching collaborative writing activities using Wiki, as Web 2.0

technology.

Since the previous studies have focused on many roles for a teacher when using

an online tool, these roles differ from an online tool to another. This study

investigated the teacher’s roles in a collaborative writing environment using a Web

2.0 tools, Wiki. The investigation depended on two main cases. They were EFL

teachers in CPS at SQU. The investigation aimed to answer the following research

questions:

1. What are the teacher’s perceptions on using Wiki in a collaborative writing

(CW) environment?


3. What are the challenges that the Wiki teachers face in a Wiki environment?

82

Chapter Four: Methodology

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical framework underpinning the

study, research design (methodology), and the methods (instruments) employed in

the study. Then, an account of data collection procedures along with data analysis

processes are presented in details.

The main methods to collect the research data were semi-structured interviews

and observation field notes which were analysed using Nvivo program. Since

conducting a qualitative research has its ethical considerations, this study, likewise,

had to undergo some ethical considerations which could have affected the study, if

not carefully dealt with. However, the quality of this qualitative research was

assured through trustworthiness to ensure quality in it (Shenton, 2004; Harrison et

al., 2001). Lastly, there were some potential limitations of the study which could not

be avoided in any qualitative research.

The research aims were derived from Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning

and development. Through interaction between the teachers with her or his

environment, it would meet the objectives of the study (1.6) .To achieve these

objectives, three research questions were proposed. These questions were

reformulated from the objectives of the study, as follows:


environment?



83

4.2 Theoretical framework

A theoretical perspective is a way of looking at the world and making sense of it

(Crotty, 2003: 8). The reality that we try to understand is divided into two theoretical

perspectives: the social and the natural. Pring (2000: 33) points out, ‘there are

distinctions between the objective world of physical things and the subjective world

of ‘meanings’, between the public world of outer reality and the private world of

inner thoughts, between a quantitative method based on a scientific model and the

qualitative method based on a kind of phenomenological exposure’. In ancient

philosophy this was called the ‘ancient dualism’ between mind and body.

Theoretical framework of a research/study is crucial for a researcher to think of. If a

researcher ignores it, it could lead to serious confusion and waste of time

(Richards, 2003: 28). Pring (2000: 90) also argues that “without the explicit

formation of the philosophical background, researchers may remain innocently

unaware of the deeper meaning and commitment of what they say or how they

conduct their research.”

In general, three theoretical perspectives namely scientific, interpretive-

constructive, and critical theory inform the investigations performed by educational

researchers. My research project can be seen as interpretive-constructive by

nature. It is closely aligned with interpretivist-constructivist ontology and

epistemology since it seeks to capture the participants’ perceptions, roles in a Wiki

environment, and faced challenges through using Wiki in a collaborative writing

environment.

84

4.2.1 Interpretivism

To meet the objective of the aforementioned research questions, I found it most

appropriate to choose the interpretive paradigm. The interpretive paradigm seeks

culturally-derived and historically-situated interpretations of the social world that we

live in (Crotty, 1998). Interpretivism as defined by Crotty (2003: 67) is “an approach

which understands human and social reality”. Schwandt (2007: 160) defines it as

“an approach that assumes that meaning of human action is inherent in that action,

and the task of the inquirer is to unearth that meaning”. In other words, the

interpretative approach aims to understand the context within which participants

act and understand the process by which events take place, telling us from an emic

viewpoint why they have happened (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). This includes

developing a description of an individual or setting by looking at the issue from

different perspectives, analysing data for themes or categories, and finally making

an interpretation or drawing conclusions about the meaning, both personally and

theoretically (Wolcott, 1994).

Cohen et al. (2007:22) advocate the use of interpretivism in educational research

stating that (1) individuals are unique and largely non-generalizable; (2) there are

multiple interpretations of, and perspectives on, single events and situations; (3)

situations need to be examined through the eyes of the participants, rather than the

researcher only.

In align with the aforementioned, the interpretive approach to conduct this study

helped me to investigate the perception of Wiki teachers in the Wiki classes. After

and before each Wiki class, the teachers provided the researcher with detailed

data of their opinions in the Wiki classes as well as their performances. Through

85

their experience in the Wiki classes, the Wiki teachers construct and interpret their

own reality based on interaction and collaboration in the Wiki classes with their

students and the Wiki content. Further, the Wiki teachers reflected and commented

on their roles in the Wiki environment. In the conducted interviews, the Wiki

teachers provided valuable feedback on their performance in the Wiki classes.

Observing the teacher in a real context provided the researcher rich description of

the teachers’ behaviour. It also created interdependent and logical description of

the teacher’s roles in Wiki environment as well as the challenges that the Wiki

teachers faced. Yet, the descriptions did not aim to generalize the findings. On the

contrary, it tried to make an interpretation of what was found through the five Wiki

classes, rather than trying to explain and seek causal and mechanical

relationships. The found data enabled me to interpret them from different

perspectives. At the end of the study, I drew some conclusions for the study which

could be worked on for further studies.

4.2.2 Philosophical and Theoretical Assumptions

Any research has its philosophical and theoretical assumptions, so it is the

researcher's responsibility to identify the paradigmatic stance that helps to achieve

the researcher's objectives of conducting a research. A paradigm framework is "a

lens through which we view the world" (Lynch, 2003: 2) as well as the set of basics

that guides our actions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Therefore, it is crucial that at the

very beginning that a researcher is concerned about the choice of methodology

and methods of her or his study. Besides that, the researcher should report

justifications of the used methodologies and methods (Crotty, 2003).

86

Developing a framework at the very beginning of a research is advantageous

because if it involves detailing philosophical/ideological foundations of the

research. These are typically represented as a stance toward the nature of social

reality (Ontology), views of knowledge and its generation (epistemology) which are

seen to inform the methodology adopted in any given research investigation

(methodology) (Creswell, 2007, Crotty, 2003).

On the one hand, Ontology is defined by Crotty (2003:10) as “the study of being

and the nature of reality” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Ontology addresses questions

such as: what is the nature of reality and what can be known about it? (Guba &

Lincoln, 1994) and when is something real? (Creswell, 2007). The assumption

underpins the interpretive paradigm is ontological position that suggests the

existence of multiple realities within the social world. Yilmaz (2013: 314) comments

that, according to the ontological assumption of qualitative research, "reality is

multiple", which means that realities are subjective; they differ from person to

person and are mediated by our senses. Yilmaz (2013: 12) states that the

relationship between the knower and the known is "interactive", and the knower is

the only source of reality (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004: 14). Depending on the

activities of our minds, this constitutes "a subject-object relationship" (Smith, 1983:

8). Thus, the qualitative methodology is mostly directed at understanding

phenomena from an individual's perspective. (Yilmaz, 2013; Scotland, 2012; Smith,

1983).

In this study, the teachers experienced using the Wiki technology in collaborative

writing classes for five weeks with their students The participants’ perceptions were

sought after since reality would be seen as multiple and experientially based (Guba

87

& Licoln, 1994). Besides, I aimed to know teachers’ roles when conducting a

collaborative writing class when using a Wiki technology. Since reality cannot be

fully reached in qualitative researches, I conducted post Wiki class interviews in

which I asked about certain aspects I witnessed in the observed classes. The Wiki

teachers could comment and give further feedback on these observations. Besides

that, I gave some transcribed interviews and observation field notes to a qualitative

researcher in order to compare between his interpretations and mine. Lastly, the

Wiki teachers reviewed their interviews and observation field notes and

commented on them. I aimed to see whether my interpretations were in

accordance with what they did in the Wiki classes or not.

In a word, I believe that the ontological position underlining the current study is that

of different versions of reality as seen by different people in the world. To reveal

the identity and the characteristics of this world, I used two different data collection

instruments, observation field notes and semi-structured interviews. They helped

me to explore the perceptions, roles and challenges facing teachers when using

Wiki technology in a collaborative writing environment.

Epistemology, on the other hand, is another branch of philosophy concerned with

the nature of knowledge. Crotty (2003:3) states that “epistemology is a way of

understanding and explaining how we know what we know.” It is the way of

explaining and understanding what we know and how we know it. It also, as Guba

& Lincoln (1994) add, underpins the relationship between the knower and the

known.

In this study, I used constructionism as the epistemological stance. It is defined by

(Crotty, 2003:42) as “the view of that all knowledge and therefore all meaningful

88

reality as such is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of

interaction between human beings and their world and developed and transmitted

within an essentially social context”. Thus, meaning is not discovered, but

constructed through the daily interactions between people in the course of life in

different situations.

Epistemologically, social constructionism as the adopted stance is fulfilled in the

current study as follow. First, meaning was socially constructed about the

perceptions, roles and challenges of Wiki teachers were investigated by different

views of the Wiki teachers. Second, these socially constructed views were verified

by the methodological triangulation shown in the data collection (i.e. semi-

structured interviews, and observations). Finally, constructionists say that there is

no true or valid interpretation. Therefore, suggestions for further researches were

an invitation to reinterpretation of aspects of relevance to the current study (7.4).

4.3 Research design (Methodology)

Methodology is “the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the

choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of the

methods to the desired outcomes.” (Crotty, 2003: 3). It aims to describe, evaluate

and justify the use of particular methods (Wellington, 2000). Within the interpretive

paradigm, knowledge is viewed as being socially constructed and endorses

eclecticism and pluralism. Different, even conflicting, theories and perspectives can

be useful ways to gain an understanding of people and the world (Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004). It is also the plan of how to gather information needed for the

research and the theory that describes and rationalises the objectives for using a

specific method (Ernest, 1994; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Wellington, 2000).

89

Consequently, the researcher has to justify the selected methods and evaluate

how practically serve aims of the research questions.

Before designing a research, a researcher should identify the considerations which

lead to choosing a specific approach. The used qualitative approach was a case

study, as it aims to provide in-depth and interpreted understanding of the social

world. This can be achieved by learning about people’s social and material

circumstances (Ormston et al., 2014). I chose this approach for various

considerations. First of all, the research problem was new and had never been

studied, before conducting the research project, in the researcher’s community.

Secondly, as a novice researcher, I felt that students and teachers need to verify

their methods of learning English in general and writing in specific in higher

education institutions in Oman. As a qualitative researcher, I looked for answers to

questions which show how social experience is created and given meaning

through stressing the socially constructed nature of reality (Creswell, 2003;

Silverman, 2005). Last but not least, this study was directed to the policymakers.

When they design new curriculum of teaching English as a foreign language in the

future, they should adopt using online tools to enhance language learning

(Creswell, 2003).

To design a research, Creswell (2003: 5) addresses three questions:

1. What knowledge claims are being made by the researcher (including a

theoretical perspective)?

2. What strategies of inquiry will inform the procedures?

3. What methods of data collection and analysis will be used?

90

Philosophically, researchers make claims about what knowledge is (ontology), how

we know it (epistemology), and the process of studying it (methodology)? In this

research, I aimed to find the Wiki teachers’ perceptions, roles and challenges

facing them when using Wiki technology in a collaborative writing environment.

These objectives were reformulated in the research questions (4.1). To answer

these questions, I found it best to use a case study which appeared to be the most

appropriate choice to explore and provide a detailed account of individual two case

experiences, actions and reflections of using Wiki in a collaborative writing

environment. To obtain this purpose, observation field notes and semi-structured

interviews were used to collect data which answered the research main questions.

4.3.1 Case Study

Since the nature of the current study was exploratory, case study appeared to be

the most appropriate choice to explore and provide a detailed account of individual

cases’ experiences, and reflections using Wiki in a collaborative writing

environment. I used the case study methodology also because it allows the

exploration and understanding of complex issues that depends on “in-depth”

investigation (Zainal, 2007; Shcwandt & Gates, 2018: 344). Besides that,

researchers are more concerned about using a case study methodology in

research. It is because of the limitations of quantitative methods in providing

holistic and in-depth explanations of the social and behavioural problems in

question. Case study can also enable a researcher to closely examine the data

within a specific context since in most cases a case study selects a small

geographical area or a very limited number of individuals as the subjects in the

current study (Cohen, et al., 2007; Zainal, 2007). The primary uses of case studies

91

are: (1) description (2) hypothesis generation or theory development, (3)

hypothesis and theory testing, and (4) development of normative theory. Although

these uses are distinct, however, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive

(Shcwandt & Gates, 2018).

Yin (2014: 16) introduces twofold definition of a case study. The first part begins

with the scope of a case study: A case study is “an empirical inquiry that

investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) in depth and within its real-

world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context

may not be clearly evident.” The second part of the definition of case studies arises

because phenomenon and context are not always sharply distinguishable in real

world situations. Therefore, other methodological characteristics become relevant

as the features of a case study: “a case study inquiry “copes with the technically

distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data

points, and as one result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing

to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result benefits from the prior

development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis (Yin,

2014: 17).”

The twofold definition covers the scope and features of a case study, shows how

case study research comprises an all-compassing method covering the logic of

design, data collection techniques, and specific approaches to data analysis. In this

sense, case study research is not limited to being a data collection tactic alone or

even a design feature alone.

There are two case study research designs. They are single case study design

which is chosen when a researcher has a critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or

92

longitudinal case. The second design is the multiple-case design in which the same

study contains more than a single case, as it with this study. I could only recruit two

cases which I investigated in depth the objectives of the research. When this

occurs, the study has a multiple-case design (Yin, 2014). Multiple case designs are

more preferable over single case designs because a multiple case researcher has

more chances of doing a good case study than a single case study. Besides, the

analytic benefits from having two or more cases may be substantial (Yin, 2014).

However, when a researcher chooses a multiple case study, the issue becomes:

how many cases should s/he choose? There is not a number of cases.

Nevertheless, the more cases a case study researcher studies, the less the depth

in any single case. Therefore, no more than four to five cases are suggested to be

included in the qualitative case study research (Creswell, 2007). In my study, I

could find only two cases which agreed willingly to take part in the study. They

were a male and a female EFL teacher. However, I believe that the data I collected

observing and interviewing these two cases could provide in-depth details. I

believe also that the data was rich and could be used to answer the research

questions.

Although a case study methodology has various advantages in that they present

data of real-life situations and they provide better insights into the detailed

behaviours of the subjects of interest. They are, however, criticised for their

inability to generalise their results and being not easily open to cross checking.

Besides that, they may be selective, biased, personal, subjective, and being time

consuming (Stake, 2005; Flyvbjerg, 2006, Zainal, 2007; Tsang, 2014 & Yin, 2014).

93

To tackle generalization issue in a qualitative case study, Tsang (2014) identifies

two types of generalization. They are theoretical and empirical generalization. On

the one hand, empirical generalization is concerned with whether certain

characteristics of a case or sample are typical of the population from which the

case or sample was drawn or of a case or sample was drawn or of another

population. A common type of empirical generalization is statistical generalization.

On the other hand, theoretical generalization researchers develop explanations of

the relationships between variables observed in their studies. Such theoretical

explanations are supposed to be applicable to the populations on which the studies

are based or to other populations.

Silverman (2005) argues that a case study researcher can generalize from cases

to populations without following a purely statistical logic. He suggests that a case

study researcher uses “theoretical sampling”. Bryman (1988 in Silverman 2005)

argues also that qualitative research follows a theoretical logic, rather than

statistical, in terms of generalizability. Theoretical sampling, as Silverman (2005:

129) emphasises, should be couched in terms of generalizability of cases to

theoretical propositions rather than to propositions or universes. Flyvbjerg (2006:

228) adds that a case study researcher can generalize from a single case, “one

can often generalize on the basis of a single case, and the case study may be

central to scientific development via generalization as supplement or alternative to

other methods. But formal generalization is overvalued as a source of scientific

development, where the ‘the force of example is underestimated.” In a word,

theoretical generalization, or theory building from case study is increasingly

popular and relevant research strategy that forms the basis of a large number of

94

influential studies. Some scholars argue further that case study can produce the

best theory (Tsang, 2014). Therefore, most qualitative case study researchers

focus on theoretical generalization as opposed to quantitative methodologies used

to obtain generalization (Tsang, 2014). The current study, in conclusion, adopts

theoretical generalization. It did not aim to generalize the findings. Yet, it aimed to

examine a phenomenon within its real-life context. It also aimed to obtain in depth

understanding of the contemporary phenomenon (Zainal, 2007; Shcwandt &

Gates, 2018: 344).

4.3.2 The socio-political context

Any conducted research is shaped and impacted upon by the socio-political

context that could influence the research in different ways. Hammersley (2003)

proposes two approaches to social inquiry. The first one is the academic approach

which aims to contribute to the accumulated knowledge that already exists and is

explored in the literature review, and the immediate audience of fellow researchers.

The practical approach, on the other side, aims to provide knowledge that will be of

immediate practical use to an audience formed from policymakers and

practitioners.

Most of conducted research in Oman, noticeably, fall under the practical enquiry

since they satisfy the policymakers in the country. This study brought the two

approaches together. First of all, it was a multiple case study of two EFL teachers.

They participated in the study and experienced collaborative writing using a Wiki

technology for five classes for each teacher. Then, the viewpoints and perceptions

of the participants were sought to understand in-depth how they felt about their

experience.

95

Unfortunately, most of the taught English language skills programs in the Higher

Education Institutions (HEIs) in Oman are teacher-centred, not learner-centred (Al-

Adi, 2009; Al Rawahi & Al-Mekhlafi, 2015). This study, consequently, aimed to

address the policymakers in Oman to try more practical approaches to teach

writing in English as a foreign language rather than depending heavily on the

teacher-centred ways of learning and teaching the language. Furthermore, I

believe teaching writing and other English language skills should be learner-

centred since the number of students in classes has increased noticeably in the

recent years. It is also advantageous because it helps HEI teachers to reach more

students. The teacher, as Berge (2008) emphasizes, is no more the only leader in

the 21st century classes. They become guides who path the way to effective

learning to students. Their roles have changed from leading class work to

coordinating it. Learners, on the other hand, have become more interactive,

collaborative and flexible in online environments when interacting with instructors,

students and class content (Berge, 2008).

4.3.3 Theory and practice

The existing relationship between theory and practice emerged from a historic and

diverse debate. On the one hand, Kessels & Korthagen (1996) argue that

educational research primarily sheds light on theory formation which results in

developing a gap between theory and practice. Some researchers, on the other

hand, perceive theory and practice to be distinctive. Consequently, this could be

explained as a division of interests between academics and policymakers

(Atkinson, 2000). Hargreaves (1996) sees theory as irrelevant and abstract, and is

unable to capture the complexity of real life. Atkinson (2000), nonetheless,

96

perceives it to be an essential infrastructure to teachers' daily practice. Educational

research can inform policy makers in education field in order to help them to make

better decisions.

4.4 Instruments

Since the nature of the current study is exploratory, I found it most appropriate to

use a case study methodology to reach the objectives of the study. To serve the

objectives more, I chose two main qualitative methods to provide rich and detailed

data of the studied cases. They were semi-structured interviews and observation.

4.4.1 Semi-structured interview

To start with, Kvale (2007) states that qualitative interviews do allow the

participants to express their opinions and views more freely from other qualitative

methods. Therefore, it is widely used in qualitative research since it allows new

ideas to be generated throughout the interview, based on what the interviewee

says. Besides, Kvale (2007) opines that the purpose of such interviews is to obtain

meaning from the lives of the participant through their experience. Nonetheless,

asking participants to share their personal feelings and experiences necessitates a

mutual relationship, rather than an asymmetrical connection. Wellington (2000)

views interviews as a two-way exchange that allows the interviewer to be more of a

participant rather than merely a 'sponge' absorbing the data. Moreover, the

researcher should be adoptable and flexible during the interview to allow the

participants to elaborate thoroughly on the topics discussed to gain a deeper

insight. Hence, semi-structured interviews construct an atmosphere that allows the

interview to become a place where social forms are staged rather than merely

becoming a resource for knowledge (Back, 2010). In a word the aforementioned

97

aspects of the interview serve some of the research project objectives and provide

a better understanding of how teachers in a collaborative writing environment

construct their knowledge and reality through using Wiki. More importantly, the

interviews helped the researcher obtain more understanding to the observed

teachers and students’ actions in Wiki classes aspects, especially unclear ones.

However, a researcher has to be cautious when using interviews in conducting a

research. Yee and Anderson (2006) warn that since a rapport must be established

with the participants, this could lead them to ask the researcher about their

personal opinions on the subject matter which could result in too much disclosure

on the researcher's behalf. Besides, they might ask the researcher's advice or

guidance about their personal problems or difficulties they might encounter. This, in

turn, might potentially block whole areas of the interview (Yee and Anderson,

2006). To avoid that, I set a semi-structured interviews protocol pre and post each

interview with the teachers (See Appendices 2, 3 & 4). These protocols helped me

be focused on asking the research questions. They helped me also got as much

data as I could from the teachers when they were in the Wiki class. Finally, these

interviews could uncover some of the hidden pictures of the teachers and students’

observed behaviour in the Wiki classes and provide clearer explanation.

4.4.2 Purposes of Using Semi-Structured Interviews

The semi-structured interviews were the main method for data collection in the

study. I used the semi-structured interview for three main purposes. First of all, the

semi-structured interviews were used to reflect on the teacher’s observed Wiki

classes. During the Wiki classes, there were some issues which were clarified

through the post Wiki class interviews. Secondly, the semi-structured interviews

98

were used to check teacher’s preparations before the Wiki classes. Finally, I used

the semi-structured interviews for the final interview. The final interview was

directed to the Wiki teachers after they used Wiki in five classes. It aimed that they

would reflect on their experience on using Wiki in their classes, perception, roles

and challenges.

4.4.3 Observation

Observation is considered a commonly used qualitative method for data collection

especially in studies relating to behavioural sciences. It is considered effective

since it offers researchers live data from naturally occurring social situations which

is considered its unique strength (Kothari, 2004; Cohen et al., 2013.).

Hilberg et al., (2004) state four specific areas in which systematic classroom

observation has been found. One of them is describing instructional practise which

is align with the research questions two and three in this study (4.1). In my study, I

used observation as a research method to answer the second and third main

research questions (4.1). These two questions were answered by semi-structured

interviews. However, I used observation to triangulate the finding from these semi-

structured interviews. As Robson (2003: 310) confirms that “what people do may

differ from what they say they do.” Therefore, observation provides a reality check

which enables a researcher to report details of an observant crucial behaviour to

be studied (Cohen et al., 2013). It also enables the researcher to gather data on

the interactions that are taking place, formal, informal, planned, unplanned, verbal,

non-verbal…etc. (Morrison, 1993) which other qualitative research methods might

lack. In a word, observation, as Flick (2011) concludes, provides a direct access to

processes and practices and focus on the visual reality of social reality.

99

Observation is widely used in qualitative research; it is still not considered a

qualitative method unless it has some features. Observation, as Alder and Alder

(1998: 80) define, is “gathering impressions of the surrounding world through all

relevant human faculties.” Observation is used widely because it has so many

advantages. If done accurately, it is subjective bias eliminated. It also relates to

what is currently happening. It is independent of respondents’ willingness to

respond as it the case with interviews or questionnaires. Besides that, observation

provides the researchers more detailed and precise evidence than other data

sources. It permits researchers to study the processes of education in naturalistic

settings. Observation in research findings, last but not least, provides a coherent,

well substantiated knowledge base about effective instruction (Kothari, 2004;

Hilberg et al., 2004; Cohen et al., 2013).

However, observation has its limitations. To start with, observation is time

consuming. While I was collecting my data, I spent lots of time observing Wiki

classes and writing the observation field notes of these classes. Observation is

considered an expensive method since it requires sometimes special tools for

observation. It provides limited information which could be affected by unforeseen

factors. Although, it already mentioned that observation is subjective bias is

eliminated. It is, nonetheless, prone to bias in terms of what, why, when, where,

who and how the observer is observing (Kothari, 2004; Hilberg et al., 2004; Cohen

et al., 2013). As a qualitative researcher, I was aware of these limitations. Thus, I

was careful when I conducted the study, so they would not affect its process.

There are many types of observation. They depend on the ‘nature of observation’.

Cohen et al. (2013: 458) list a table of dyads of the most types of observation.

100

They are classified according to three elements which decide the kind of

observation, “incidence, presence and frequency”. Two of these dyads are

structured and untrusted observation. If an observer goes into a situation with a

prepared observation schedule, it is considered ‘structured observation.’ If, on the

other hand, an observer goes into a situation and let the elements of the situation

speak for themselves, it is called a less or unstructured observation (Cohen et al.,

2013: 458). Structured observation is considered appropriate in descriptive studies,

whereas in exploratory studies the observational procedure is most likely to be

relatively unstructured. The former, structured observation, takes much time to

prepare but the data analysis is fairly rapid. Whilst the latter, less structured

approach, is quicker to prepare but the data takes much longer to analyse.

Structured observation is useful for testing hypotheses, whilst unstructured

observation provides a rich description of a situation which, in turn, can lead to the

subsequent generation of hypotheses. This study depended on ‘unstructured

observation’ since it provided me with rich and detailed data of the Wiki teachers’

behaviour in the Wiki classes. It allowed me to have a direct access to the Wiki

teachers’ practices in the Wiki classes for five weeks. The unstructured

observation, furthermore, describes the reality of the context in which the

participants’ behaviour occurs.

Not only many types of observation are available, even the researcher in an

observation field has some roles. They are defined according to the role that a

researcher should play through observation process. Gold (1958: 220) suggests

the well-known classification for observer’s roles in sociological field observations.

In his classification, he lists four roles: the complete participant, the participant as

101

observer, the observer as participant, and the complete observer. In the current

study, I acted as a complete observer. I designed an observation field notes sheet

by which I could observe the most important events and episodes in Wiki classes

(See Appendix 1).

4.4.4 The Researcher Role as a complete Observer

As already mentioned (4.2.2), I acted as a complete observer. Gold (1958: 222)

defines the role as: “the complete observer role entirely removes a field worker

from social interaction with informants.” In other words, a researcher should not

participate in the field activities happen in the field. In the observational field,

likewise, I did not interfere neither in the teachers’ nor the students’ work and

actions during the Wiki classes. I believe such a stance enabled me to obtain

confidential data which reflected teachers work in Wiki classes.

Being a complete observer in a Wiki classroom field, I had to consider some ethical

considerations which were very crucial. Before undertaking the observational

sessions, I had to get the informed consent of participation for the teachers and the

students. Although, students signed the informed consents at the beginning,

female students, however, were reluctant and shy to be observed in the Wiki

classes. I made some modifications in the observation field, one of them was to

remove video recording. Female students, unlike male students, disagreed to be

video-recorded since I intended to video record them to keep them as evidence for

data collection. Female students strongly disagreed to be video recorded.

Therefore, I was advised to keep away from video recording since it could create

undesirable sequences. Consequently, they became acceptable by all students,

especially females. Thus, I could get the informed consent from all students.

102

In conclusion, although observation is considered a very practical method in

qualitative research. There are some considerations an observer has to be aware

of. Cohen et al. (2013) advise an observer that s/he should be aware of reactivity.

It is the situation in which the participants may change their behaviour if they know

that they are being observed. For example, they may try harder in class more than

they are used to work to please the observer. Another issue an observer should be

aware of is to make decisions on how to record the observational session to gather

data. Unfortunately, I had to change the video recording method before I started

the research project. Some students felt reluctant to participate in the study while

being observed and video recorded. Last but not least, an observer has to assure

the observational classes by ensuring reliability. The observer should have good

concentration, focus on details and has the necessary experience to make

informed judgment (Cohen et al., 2013).

4.5 Participants

The study was conducted in an Omani higher education institution, The Sultan

Qaboos University (SQU) in Muscat. I chose it because it was the only public

university in Oman, at the time of conducting the research. The SQU facilitates

technology in learning in general and in English in particular as Moodle, Turnitin,

WebCT and more others (AL Musawi, 2018). Besides that, it has a research centre

which facilitates researchers’ projects conducted in the university as well as writing

centre which is interested in the research projects which focus on writing.

The participants were two English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers who

worked in the centre for preparatory studies (CPS) in the SQU, a male and a

female teacher. They had varied experiences in teaching English as foreign

103

language and experienced teaching in different levels. I used pseudonyms to cover

their identities. I called the male teacher, Ali and the female teacher, Sheikha for

the study purposes.

Finally, the study sample was selected purposively. The purposive sampling will be

utilized to give a better understanding of the research problem involved (Creswell,

2009), it is also consistent with the case study research as it does not attempt to

generalize the findings.

4.5.1 Ali

Ali worked in the centre for preparatory studies (CPS) for six years and had his

M.A in English language from Australia three years ago. He had taught English

language levels from one to six. It means that he taught all English language levels

in the CPS. As he mentioned, English levels differed from a level to another. In the

first three levels (1-3), teaching English focuses on basic structure, sentence level.

At the end of these first levels, students should “produce paragraphs, actual

paragraphs, but we (teachers) focus on producing structurally correct sentences”.

In the three upper levels (4-6), English language teachers move to paragraphs,

topic sentences and supporting details. By the end of level six, CPS students

should be able to write a full essay, as Ali stated: “Then after that they are

introduced to the academic writing where they need to write a full essay with an

introduction, three body paragraphs and an introduction.”

Ali had never heard or used Wiki before this experience. He, nonetheless, was

interested in using technology in language learning. He had used some

technological devices in teaching English as a foreign language such as Google

Docs, Google Drive, Turnitin, mobiles and Moodle. In the CPS’s webpage, he was

104

also in charge of running some pages. These pages consisted of many language

activities included the four skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). They

were ‘optional’ as the teacher said. He believed that: “Technology facilitates

learning but it doesn't guarantee learning.”

4.5.2 Sheikha

Sheikha was a 2 year-experienced EFL teacher in the CPS. She did not have her

M.A yet, but B.A in Teaching EFL. She did not have that much experience in

teaching all English language levels in the CPS.

She decided to take part in the project, because she was interested in using

technology in language learning, as she stated: “I was really interested in your

project because I'd like to learn more about integrating technology in the

classroom, especially when it comes to writing.” She had a very little experience

with Wiki as she was a B.A student in the university. She had a technology in

education module which is taught by the college of education. However, as she

said: “I’m fond of technology”. She used devices such as Turnitin, mobiles, some

mobile Apps as What’s App, PowerPoint, and Moodle in teaching her English

classes. She believed that teachers should “give the students the chance to be

independent in their learning.”

4.6 Setting

The research took place at the highly ranked public university in Oman, Sultan

Qaboos University (2.1.2). It is in the capital of Oman, Muscat. It was opened in

1986 and received the first batch of 500 students in 1986. In 2018, the university

105

was ranked from 801 to 1000th universities in the world according to the world

university ranking (Al Musawi, 2018, SQU, 2018).

4.7 Data collection procedures

The investigation was carried out as an exploratory study in three phases, as

shown in Table 4.1. In Phase I, I contacted the university. Then, I contacted the

Centre of Preparatory Studies (CPS) to get the required approvals to start the

study. After that, I could start the pilot study which lasted for two weeks. In Phase

II, I started the actual study which lasted for five weeks. During this phase, I did all

the observation sessions. I did also pre and post interviews to collect as much data

as possible. Phase III was the last phase in which I did the final interview for the

recruited teachers in the study. In the coming lines, I will give a briefing of what

happened in each phase.

Phase

Phase I Preparations

&Pilot Study

Phase II Actual Study Phase III

After the

Field Work

What was

done?

-Contact the SQU to

start the study

-Recruiting teachers

-training session to Wiki

teachers

-Pilot Study (2 weeks)

-Training teachers and

students to use Wiki

- Actual Study: Actual

Wiki classes (5 weeks)

- Observation & semi-

structured interviews

(pre & post Wiki classes)

Final

Interview

Used

Instrument(s)

-Interviews

- Observation sessions

- Pre & Post Semi-

structured Interviews

Observation sessions

Pre & Post Semi-

structured Interviews

Semi-

structured

Interview

Table 4.1: The Project Phases

106

4.7.1 Phase I: Preparations

In the preparation phase, I made some preparations before I started the actual

study. I conducted the pilot study which enabled me to make necessary

methodological changes in the actual study. In this phase, I recruited teachers for

the pilot study as well as the actual study.

4.7.1.1 Pilot Study

I conducted the pilot study at the end of the first stage. I did the pilot study before

recruiting the teachers for the actual study. The pilot study was useful in the sense

it helped me make so methodological changes in my study.

A pilot study has so many interchangeable names as feasibility study, small

sample study, and controlled trial. Although these names share some common

aspects, they, nonetheless, have specific definitions, aims and are associated with

specific approaches of analysis (Vogel & Draper-Rodi, 2017). In this study, I used

the term pilot study which is defined by Polit et al., (in Van Teijlingen & Hundley,

2001: 1) as a “small scale, or trial runs, done in preparation for the major study”.

Purpose of the Pilot Study

Lancaster et al. (2004) emphasize that the objectives of conducting a feasibility

study (pilot study) are to test the study protocol, the data collection, the

randomization procedure, the recruitment and the consent procedures, the

acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of using selected outcomes

measures. Furthermore, pilot studies are conducted to generate initial data to

preform sample size calculation for a larger trial. In other words, pilot studies are

used to generate initial results which can be predicted in the main study conducted

107

later. They also give advance warning about where the main research project could

fail, where protocols may not be followed, or whether proposed methods or

instruments are inappropriate or too complicated (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001;

Vogel & Draper-Rodi, 2017). Likewise, the pilot study helped me to adopt some

methodological changes regarding the sample of the study, the interviews, and the

conducted observations.

However, Arian et al. (2010) criticize pilot studies as sample sizes are small and

therefore offer imprecise between-treatment group effect size estimates.

Consequently, the size of the pilot study can produce inaccurate estimates of the

true effect, resulting in an incorrect estimate of the sample of the sample size

needed for the main trial. Lancaster et al. (2004) add that although pilot studies

play an important role in research, but they can be misused, mistreated and

misrepresented. Thus, it is the researcher’s role to be careful when treating the

outcomes of the research and making the appropriate methodological changes

necessary to the research.

Although, the pilot study outcomes are criticized for offering imprecise outcomes.

They, nonetheless show valuable indicators and give cautions for the researchers

when conducting actual studies (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001; Arian et al.,

2010; Vogel & Draper-Rodi, 2017). This study aimed to pilot the main study

before, during, and after the procedures in which I could make some

methodological changes.

108

Piloted the Project Procedures

Before I conducted the actual study, it was hard for me to start it. Therefore, the

pilot study helped me to make some changes on the actual study before, during

and after the study, as shown in Table 4.2.

Piloted Stage Piloted Elements Changes Made

Before Participants (Teachers

and Students)

Find more interested

recruited teachers in the

project.

Need some training

During Methods (Semi-Structured

Interview & Observation).

Pre and Post Wiki class

interviews Developed

Observation Sheet (3

Sections)

After Final Interview Omit some questions

Table 4.2: Pilot Study Stages

1. Before the Pilot Study

I first designed a time table in which I planned the steps I will do throughout the

project. The pilot lasted for two weeks. It was because the students were about to

finish the first semester. They were not eager to start a project at the end of the

semester. Organizing time to do a qualitative study is really crucial. I also kept a

daily journal where I wrote some important points about the pilot study (Appendix

10).

During these two weeks, the work was divided fairly to carry out the pilot study.

Because of the administrative huge work, I had to do; I spent four weeks preparing

109

for the pilot and actual study. I had to fill so many administrative documents. I had

also to meet so many officials to start my project. To conduct a research project in

the Sultan Qaboos University (SQU), a researcher has to undergo so many

administrative procedures and fill some paper forms which kept me late. I could not

start the actual study on time.

Consequently, I had to use Plan (B) in which I studied the people and the place

where I would conduct my study. I could meet some lecturers through my

colleagues in the Centre for Preparatory Studies (CPS). I could arrange with one of

the teachers to help me in the pilot study, so I did not lose much time during the

four preparation week. Salim, the recruited teacher for the pilot study, was really

helpful and willing to do his best in the study. Salim was a 3-year experienced EFL

teacher in the CPS. He had an M.A in TESOL form the UK. Yet, he was not that

much interested in using technology in teaching English. I could guess that through

the two sessions I conducted with him before starting the pilot study.

In the first meeting, I gave the teacher a brief idea of how to use collaborative

writing in a classroom. I took his consent for participating in the project. I clarified

the ethical issues that the researcher and the participants should be aware of.

What I found out in the interview that Salim had some ‘negative ideas’ about

collaborative writing. He insisted that when a teacher applies collaborative writing,

students might be ‘left behind’. I gave a brief idea about the Wiki program. He

seemed to be familiar with using technology in language learning. He used Moodle

program to communicate with his students. However, he confirmed that he was

“dissatisfied with the program because teachers suffer with students a lot.” The

foundation students, as he noted, “were reluctant to use the program and did not

110

welcome the idea of working collaboratively.” It seems that working with

technology does not guarantee a full participation of a teacher. In this case, the

teacher had to work with technology in teaching English. However, Salim was not

willing to work with other technological devices when teaching English language. I

agree totally with Salim’s point since I faced a difficulty with recruiting teachers as it

was shown later on the research project (4.7.2).

Then, I met Salim’s students and told them about my project. I took their consents

to participate in the research project. I clarified the ethical issues that they should

know.

By the end of the two pilot study sessions, Salim was convinced and described

using the program as a “motivational aspect” in teaching writing collaboratively. He

also would use the Wiki program to let students write collaboratively in small

groups. However, the teacher raised some points to present the program more

effectively for future lessons. He insisted that “a PowerPoint presentation about

Wiki program should be designed to show how to use Wiki in a classroom.” He

also insisted that I “should write a summary of the collaboration the students

showed online during the pilot study period.” It would help the teacher in teaching

students collaborative writing. Therefore, I agreed with the teacher to design a 20

minute PP presentation about the research project and how to use Wiki in a

collaborative writing activity. It was on the Wikispaces site, designed for the

students. On the actual study, I advised the teachers to see Salim’s two Wiki

sessions. They liked the idea of designing a PowerPoint presentation about the

Wiki. Sheikha, adopted the same idea. She found it useful, but Ali used the same

PowerPoint presentation designed for Salim’s Wiki classes.

111

In conclusion, the main issue I should focus on in the actual study would be the

recruited teachers. They should have some interest in using Wiki in their

collaborative writing classes. Teachers in the actual study should also benefit from

the pilot study teacher experience.

2. During the Pilot Study

In this stage, I piloted the semi-structured interviews as well as the observations,

as it will be shown in the coming lines.

Piloted Semi-Structured Interviews

In the pilot study, I thought that asking questions after two classes would be

enough. I did not have any attention to ask questions after every Wiki class, post-

Wiki class interviews. However, I found it effective to ask after each Wiki class

(Appendix 3) which resulted in more detailed and rich data.

Besides that, I found it valuable to have interviews before Wiki classes. It would

indicate how prepared the Wiki teacher was (Appendix 2). As I noticed that the EFL

teachers in the CPS were not required to have pre-lesson written preparations.

Therefore, the pre class interviews enabled the Wiki teachers reflect upon their

coming Wiki classes.

However, it was hard to keep one protocol for all pre and post Wiki class interviews

since each class was different from the other classes. However, in each interview

there were repeated questions as, “How did you prepare for your lesson?” “How

was your last lesson?” “Do you have anything to add?” Each Wiki class had its own

uniqueness. Therefore, the asked questions depended on the issues observed

during the Wiki class or before it.

112

Piloted Observation

Observation, as Cohen et al (2013) confirm, provides a reality check which enables

a researcher to report details of an observant crucial behaviour to be studied. In

the current study, I could not observe some of the elements which I intended to ask

in the final interview. As Salim believed that these questions ‘needed more time’ to

be shown in the Wiki classes. He also commented: “It’s hard to answer these

questions since I am not familiar with these teachers’ roles. The whole experience

is new to me!”

When observing the teacher’s work, I had to develop an observation sheet

(Appendix 1), in which I divided it into three sections. The first section was

concerned with ‘before Wiki class’ activities. In this section I would write all the

preparations which the Wiki teacher did before the Wiki class. The second section

was concerned with ‘during Wiki class’ activities. In this section, I would pinpoint all

the teacher’s activities, behaviours, and actions during the Wiki classes. The third

section was concerned with ‘after Wiki class’ activities. In this section, I put

possible questions to be answered in the post-Wiki class interviews. These

questions would clarify ambiguous observations during the Wiki classes. I would

also write notes of the issues which should be given further attention in the coming

Wiki classes whether by the teacher or me.

3. After the Pilot Study: Piloted Final Interview Questions

In the final interview questions, Salim could not answer some of the questions

because they were ambiguous and the Wiki classes were not enough to show

them clearly. Therefore, I decided to change them in the actual study in order to

113

get proper answers or even exclude the one which I felt not needed. The actual

study final interview questions are shown in Phase III (4.7.3), (Appendix 4).

4.7.1.2 Before I started the research project (actual study):

In Phase I, it was the preparations phase in which I had to prepare for the actual

study. First of all, I had to fulfil some documents in order to get the approval of

conducting the research project in the SQU. These forms were from the university

administration, and then from the CPS. It took time to finish these papers. I found

it, nonetheless, useful to know how the procedures of conducting a research in a

high education institution in Oman. They were a bit different from the UK. For

example, in most UK universities, a researcher has to fill the Certificate of Ethical

Approval online. In the SQU, on the other side, a researcher has to fill the

documents on paper. Then, s/he can submit them to the educational institution

administration.

I started this phase by contacting the CPS admiration. It advised me to contact the

program coordinators (PCs) to contact their teachers. They were almost 215

teachers. The PCs sent emails with information sheets (See Appendix 6) about the

projects to all the CPS English teachers. Unfortunately, I could not succeed to

recruit any. Some of them sent me emails apologizing for not willing to participate.

Others, I think did not take it seriously. I think, this way was not successful

because, the program coordinator sent an email to the whole teachers at once, as

a circular. Therefore, teachers did not care, since they got tons of junk emails

every day. Another reason, as one of the program coordinator (PC) thought, my

project included ‘observation sessions’ which most teachers avoided. Based on his

experience when he was doing his PhD, one of his female colleagues frankly told

114

him: “I prefer to do 10 interviews than to be observed in one class.” Besides that,

most of the CPS teachers did not know me; therefore, they were not interested in

the program. Besides that, most of them were focusing to finish the course on time.

One of the PCs also strongly believed that because most of the teachers in the

centre were ‘females’ and it could be a reason that they preferred no male

observers in their classes. Last but not least, he added that more than half of the

English teachers were not Omanis, expatriates. So they might be afraid that I could

tell the administration about their performance in their classes which could

influence renewing their job contract with the SQU administration in the future.

Then, the teacher who helped me in the pilot study recommended an Omani

teacher for me, Ali. Ali was really active and willing to participate. He agreed to

participate in the actual study. He, in return, advised me to contact two active PCs

who would contact some specific teachers in the CPS for the project. As agreed,

the PCs sent the invitations and information sheets again to the recommended EFL

teachers in the centre. In the second trial, it seems that narrowing the circle of

search helped me hit the target. I could recruit also an Omani female teacher,

Sheikha. Although she was one of those who refused to participate in the first

attempt, she agreed to participate in the project in the second one. She was

enthusiastic and willing to work since she had good experience in using technology

in language learning.

The stage of recruiting participants to my research project taught me some lessons

in conducting a scientific research in general and a qualitative research in specific.

To start with, I learned that using some qualitative methods, observation as an

example, might not assure targeted participation by participants. Therefore, a

115

qualitative researcher should have other alternatives whether to carry out with the

method, change it, or cancel it. It depends on the research field that s/he deals

with. What was the secret which made the female teacher agree to take a part in

the research program? I believe that, face to face meeting and giving more details

would give the researcher a better chance to recruit more participants for her or his

study. Although, I sent information sheet about the project, some teachers had

some doubts of participating. They were, as Sheikha assured, afraid that the

project might affect negatively their teaching time table. They thought that the

project might overload their schedule, which was already overloaded. They were

afraid of the internet connection and the failure they might face. However, the most

important cause of their reluctance not to participate was ‘themselves.’ Some of

them did not trust technology in teaching at all. They were old-fashioned who

would trust pen and paper methods of teaching. They did not want to bother

themselves with extra work. Likewise, Ali confirmed most of these claims in the

interviews later.

Besides that, I think the meeting which I did with Sheikha did help me as a

researcher to clear the main points about the project. It helped the teacher to

decide quicker and more confident. In the meeting before deciding to participate, I

discussed with the teacher what she would do as a teacher in the class. I explained

also what I would do in the class. In a word, the meeting was a clear-cut

opportunity for the researcher to present the project in a clear picture. As a result,

the teacher decided to participate. She also told the researcher about her

experience in using technology in teaching English as a foreign language. In a

116

word, I believe also that a researcher should have more than one way to recruit

participants for a study. It is time consuming, but it is worth to try it.

To sum up, it is crucial that a researcher has a clear agenda for his or her research

project before presenting it to the participants. How far or close should the

researcher be from participants? As a novice researcher, she or he should play a

crucial role to guarantee a good start for his or her research. A researcher should

make use of the environment surrounding his research to guarantee a successful

start for the research. I think the great help which I got from the recruited teacher,

Ali and the PCs in the CPS helped me to start with less obstacles. Before I started

the project, I could recruit two teachers. What they had in common that they were

enthusiastic, interested in working with Wiki, and had experience in using

technology in language learning in general.

4.7.2 Phase II: Actual Study

In Phase II, as in Table 4.3, each Wiki teacher started Wiki classes with his or her

class for five weeks. Before teaching collaborative writing using Wiki, each teacher

had to train her or his students how to use Wiki. Then, I observed 5 Wiki classes

for each teacher. Before and after each Wiki class, I interviewed the Wiki teachers

to collect data for their performance in the Wiki classes. At the end of the project,

both teachers were interviewed to describe their experience in the program after

they finished 5 weeks Wiki project.

Week What was Done Note

One Introduction (how to use Wiki)

Writing sentences on Wiki

Two Writing Session.1 (Writing Introduction on Wiki)

117

Three Writing Session.2 (Writing Body on Wiki)

Four Writing Session.3 (Writing Conclusion on Wiki)

Five Writing Session.4 (Writing an Essay of 250 Words)

Table 4.3: Phase II: Actual Study

4.7.3 Teachers and students in Wiki Environment

I started the actual Wiki classes by training the teachers of how to use the Wiki in

online environment. It was not a hard task, since the teachers had no much

challenge to use the Wiki. They found it interesting and easy to use in classrooms.

Teachers in return taught their students how to use the Wiki in classes. The

training took only one class; the four remaining classes were designated for actual

Wiki classes.

4.7.3.1 Observation

Observation sessions lasted for two hours. Since I chose unstructured observation,

I wrote down as many field notes as I could (See Appendix 1). When I started the

pilot study classes, I noticed that I was lost. What to observe, how to observe,

when to observe, and how many times to write what I observed. These were the

questions which I had to find answers for them. Observation field notes which I

wrote cost me time and efforts to rearrange. After each Wiki class, I spent more

than two hours to rewrite the field notes which I wrote in the Wiki class. As Kothari,

(2004); Hilberg et al., (2004); Cohen et al., (2013) confirm that using observation

as a tool to collect data is time consuming and costly.

I was not experienced in taking field notes in observation, although I tried the

observation in the pilot study. However, I felt I needed more practice how to

observe systematically in a Wiki classroom. That goes in accordance with what

118

Cohen et al. (2013) emphasize that observation requires training to ensure the

researcher’s reliability. Therefore, I found myself getting better after each Wiki

class and could deal more carefully with the data which I collected during the Wiki

classes. I could also have a good concentration and not be disturbed by

unnecessary details during Wiki classes. To ensure more reliability, I followed a

stable way to write the field notes from the first to the fifth Wiki lesson. I did very

slight changes in my observation form.

4.7.3.2 Semi-structured interviews (Pre Wiki classes)

Pre-Wiki class interviews aimed to see the teacher’s readiness to teach the Wiki

class. Each interview lasted from three to five minutes. Unfortunately, CPS

teachers were not required to do a written preparation before classes. Therefore,

most of them, as Ali said did ‘mental preparation with some rough notes.”

Consequently, I found it useful to discuss their preparation before Wiki classes, so

they would be ready to teach using Wiki. Before each Wiki class, my questions

aimed to see three aspects in the class (Appendix 2).

The first aspect was: Wiki teacher’s preparation. I started asking the teacher

general questions to see how ready the Wiki teacher was to teach his or her

students collaborative writing using Wiki technology. The questions which I would

ask were as, “What are you doing for the next class? How are you preparing for the

next class?” or “I would like you to tell me. How did you prepare for your lesson?”

These questions were open question which I made to elicit the most important

points in Wiki teacher’s preparation.

The second aspect which I discussed in the pre-Wiki class interview was: What

Should have been done? I asked questions as “What would you do to overtake that

119

problem?” or “Do you mean that you are going to divide the work among the

teams?” or “Do you mean that later on you give students chance to comment or

give feedback on each other's work?” These questions aimed to make a link

between what was taught and what would be taught. It made a link between the

last class and the coming class. It also aimed to avoid challenges that the Wiki

teachers faced in the last Wiki class.

The last aspect of my prepared questions aimed to check the final readiness of a

Wiki teacher, I called it: Any Question(s)? In this aspect, I would ask questions as

“Do you have anything to add?” “So, you are ready for this class?” As mentioned

these questions aimed to check Wiki teachers’ readiness to teach collaborative

writing using Wiki. They were also to prepare the Wiki teacher in advance if s/he

faced any challenge.

4.7.3.3 Semi-structured interviews (Post Wiki Classes)

After the Wiki classes, the researcher would interview the Wiki teachers for 25 to

30 minutes (See Appendix 3). The interview aimed to find teacher’s experience of

using Wiki to teach collaborative writing. I would ask questions as “I would like you

to tell me in general how you found the first session, how was your impression

about it?” or “In general, I would like to ask you did your lesson go well?” These

questions were straightforward. I aimed also to detect the teacher’s overall

experience in a Wiki class. I asked questions as, “I like the word observer. Does it

mean that you are going to have a new role in the class?”

Thirdly, my questions aimed to detect the challenges that the teacher faced during

her or his Wiki classes. “Do you think that (students not seating with their peers in

the same group) affected the class study?”

120

Finally, the post-Wiki classes’ interviews aimed to check my understanding on

different aspects I observed during the Wiki classes and needed further

explanation. For example, I once asked “There are so many issues can be

discussed in your class. However, I will stop on three of them for the time being.

First of all, you gave your students a warming up. “Why was that?” or “what

aspects affect managing the class? In a way, when you deal with male or female

students. How do you respond in general?”

4.7.3.4 Wiki classes

The wiki classes were conducted in the language computer labs in the CPS. Each

class consisted of 18 students, divided into four or five groups or teams. Each

group consists of four or five members, with its GL. Both wiki teachers had to book

the computer labs before they conducted the wiki classes. Each class lasted for

two hours.

The wiki classes were conducted into two phases. In phase 1, the wiki groups were

formed with a group leader. Then, the wiki teacher divided the wiki work among

groups. After that, each group discussed the wiki work and divided the work

between them. Each student should write her or his part, and then discuss it with

group peers on wiki. They might use ‘Add Discussion’ to discuss each one’s part.

At the end, the GL upload the group work to be checked by the wiki teacher, as in

Figure (4.1).

121

Figure 4-1 Phase 1 (Wiki Groups Work)

In Phase 2, the wiki teachers worked with the whole groups to comment, edit and

give feedback to each other’s wiki group work, as shown in Figure (4.2). The wiki

group members gathered to work on the given feedback collaboratively.

Figure 4-2: Phase 2 (Teacher Work on Wiki)

Wiki Group Formed with

a GL

wiki work divided

students study wiki work

students distribute wiki work among themselves

each student writes her or his part, then discusses it with peers

GL uploads whole text on

wiki

122

4.7.3 Phase III: After the Study

In Phase III, both teachers were interviewed to talk about their experience in the

project and what they wished to see in the future when using Web 2.0 technologies

in language learning. In the final interview, both Wiki teachers reflected on their

experience in the project. As a researcher, I tried to get as much data as I could.

Both Wiki teachers could reflect on the five Wiki classes that they experienced

(See Appendix 4).

The research questions were developed based on the changes made in the pilot

study (4.7.1.2). I noticed that the recruited Wiki teacher could not answer the final

interview questions in the pilot study. Therefore, I made some changes on the

questions to result as follows:


environment?



No. The Research

Questions Final Interview Questions

1

What are

teachers’

perceptions of

their roles in a

Wiki

environment?

What is your perception of using Wiki in your class?

How did Wiki help you in Wiki classes?

How did your students deal with Wiki in Wiki classes?

Are you willing to use Wiki in the future? Why? Why not?

2 What are the

roles the EFL

teacher shows in

What were the repeated actions, activities that a Wiki

teacher repeated during the Wiki classes? (Teachers

became familiar with their roles in Wiki classes at the end

123

a Wiki

environment?

of the project).

What were the roles that you did during the program, after

you used the program?

How do you see yourself when using Wiki in collaborative

writing? As an English Teacher or Facilitator?

3

What are the

roles that the

EFL teacher has

difficulties to

master in a Wiki

environment?

What were the challenges in using Wikis in general,

before, during and after the Wiki classes?

Did you face any troubles with using the program?

Can you think of any possible factors that might hinder you

from using Wiki in the future?

4

What are the

roles which the

EFL teacher

feels more or

less comfortable

with in a Wiki

environment?

Included in questions 1 and 3.

Table 4.4: Final Interview Questions

I conducted the final interview in Ali’s office. I met both Wiki teachers for the first

time together. They were pleased to do the last interview together, as Sheikha

emphasized “it would reveal the hidden parts of experiencing Wiki in EFL courses.”

The interview lasted for an hour in which I tried to balance the participation of both

teachers as much as possible. The interview was fruitful and interactive, since the

Wiki teachers were open and ready to answer the interview questions.

4.8 Data Analysis

Data analysis is considered a complicated process in conducting a research. It is

so since a researcher tries to make sense of data in the best way she or he can

present it to readers in an easier and more understandable way. In a qualitative

124

research, a researcher deals with a detailed and rich data which requires a great

deal of focus and concentration. A qualitative researcher should have a good

knowledge of the material and the intellectual efforts of the stages in the analysis

(Randor, 2001; Robson, 2002).

Therefore, the qualitative researcher needs to obtain a reduced set of data as a

basis for thinking of its meaning (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Therefore, Miles &

Huberman (1994) suggest that data analysis process consists of three main

stages. These sages are: data reduction, data display, and data conclusion

drawing/verification. In the current study, I went through these three stages. I first

collected the data through two main qualitative methods. I could not deal with the

large amount of data which was time consuming to code them by using NVivo

program. I wrote also summaries for each session and highlighted the main points

in it. Then I used thematic analysis suggested by Braun & Clark (2006) to classify

the codes in themes and subthemes. Thematic analysis does not require the

theoretical and technological knowledge which is more accessible form of analysis.

However, the substantial literature on thematic analysis caused me to feel unsure

of how to conduct a rigorous thematic analysis. Finally, I interlinked the found data

with the main research questions (Nowell et al., 2017; Braun & Clark, 2006).

4.8.1 Analysis of Observation Field notes Data

Wiki class observations were done through filling field notes. Field notes, as Ruane

(2005: 170) defines, are “the words, or images used to record one’s field

observation”. Field notes were first written roughly in the classroom, and then were

organized and rewritten after the Wiki classes. According to Ruane (2005)

researchers can record field notes in different ways: they can either use audio-

125

recorder which I did not use because of ethical issues. The Wiki teachers did not

feel comfortable using the audio recorder, so I did not use it for both Wiki classes.

Instead, I practiced mental notes by writing short words and phrases that served as

prompt. After leaving the Wiki classes, I rewrote the field notes. It was really time

consuming because each 90-minute Wiki class took me more than two hours to

rewrite the field notes. Besides rewriting the field notes, I put some questions and

reflections on the Wiki session which would be asked in the post semi-structured

interviews (See Appendix 1). The process of analysing field notes was combined

with the interview data as shown in (4.8.3).

4.8.2 Analysis of Interview Data

In the study, there were pre and post Wiki class interviews. Since the Wiki teachers

conducted five classes, I had ten pre Wiki class interviews and ten post Wiki

classes for both of them and the final interview too. It means I conducted 21 semi-

structured interviews. As a result, discussable amount of data resulted from these

semi-structured interviews. Before each interview, I discussed with the teachers on

the interview questions which mostly based on my Wiki class observations and

notes which I made through rewriting the field notes. The process of analysing the

interviews was combined with analysing the observation field notes as shown in

(4.8.3).

4.8.3 Process of Analysing Observation Field Notes and Semi-Structured

Interviews

First of all, I read the data from semi-structured interviews and observations

method separately. I noticed that so many codes would be interchanged when

126

analysing each data separately. Therefore, I decided to have a list of codes, as

shown in (Appendix 14).

To analyse the observation field notes and the transcribed interview, I first read the

transcribed data more than two times. I made some general notes and ideas of the

data. I used some symbols to indicate specific issues in the transcribed interviews

and observation field notes. The letter (A) symbolized Ali, (Sh) symbolized

Sheikha, and (Y) symbolized the researcher. I highlighted the important ideas and

put a comment for further evidence on that code. Then, the transcribed codes were

given numbers (1, 2, 3 …etc.), as shown in Figure 4. below.

Figure 4.3: Transcribed Semi-Structured Interview

127

Figure 4.4: Observation Field Notes

After I read the data, I generated initial codes. As shown in Figures (4.3 & 4.4),

beside each letter, there is a number which shows the number of the code. For

example (A6) refers to A for Ali and 6 for code number 6 (Views on Students Using

Technology) in the coding list as in Table 4.5). More codes are shown in Appendix

(14).

No. Code

1 Experience

2 Levels of Writing

3 Views of Students’ writing

4 Impression before using Wiki, the program

5 Negative Impression before using Wikis

6 Views on Students Using Technology

7 Views on the program, why Wiki?

8 Views on Assessment

9 Views on Using Technology in language teaching

Table 4.5: Observations and Interviews Codes

128

I collected the codes in themes which resulted in 20 themes (Appendix 14), as the

example in Table 4.6).

No. Theme Codes

1 Perceptions

Views on Students Using Technology (6)

Views on Using Technology in language

teaching (9)

Teacher views’ on teachers’ using technology

(25)

Teacher’s views on students using online

devices (32)

Views on Using Wiki (72)

Reflection upon teachers’ role in online

environment or Wiki (76).

How to improve Wikis (program pitfalls) (78)

Table 4.6: Major Themes Table

I consulted a skilled researcher of how to solve the problem, so he gave me some

research advice to reduce the huge amount of themes. First of all, I should go back

to the literature and see what the main themes were and what the sub themes

were. The main subthemes could be included under the main themes. The second

advice was that I should avoid the themes which had little or less importance. As

Braun and Clarke (2006) emphasize that a theme might not be considered a theme

if it was present in 50% of the data items. They further add that ‘a theme might

appear in relatively little of the data set. So, researchers’ judgment is necessary to

determine what a theme is (Braun & Clarke, 2006: 82).” In another word, a theme

is not necessarily decedent on how many evidence on the data, but rather on

whether it captures something important in relation to the overall research

questions. Thus, I decided to modify the research questions and work on three

main questions which became three main themes of my study, as shown as an

example in Table (4.7). They were the perception of Wiki teachers of using Wiki in

129

a collaborative writing environment, roles of a Wiki teacher, and challenges facing

a Wiki teacher. Some of the themes became subthemes for the main themes which

reduced them consequently, as shown in Table (4.6).

Table 4.7) represents an example of the main three themes. The resulted 11

themes were identified and made up from a wide range of codes have been

grouped together. From these codes, I have developed sub-codes which exist

within the overall theme.

Main Theme: Challenge

Theme Sub-Theme Sub-

code (s)

Evidence

Students’

Readiness to

Work on Wiki

Troubles in Logging in “Wiki Spaces, I think because

it's onscreen, on a desktop,

there is no app for it, and this

might be a limitation maybe

because not all students will

have this initiative of going

and logging in and trying to

use Wiki Spaces unless they

get...”

Ali gave instructions before

starting working on Wiki. Ali

would assure that all students

logged in the program, “Are

you all logged in? Do you

have any troubles in logging

in?” (Observation, Ali)

Troubles in Students’

Online Collaboration

Technical

Problems

Technical Problems in

the Wiki Program

Internet

Table 4.7: Main Theme

130

At the end of these procedures, I used the NVivo program to write a final report

about the findings of the research. The final analysis of the report which I produced

was related back to the analysis to the research questions and literature of the

research (Braun & Clark, 2006).

First of all, I put the main themes into three main themes in Nvivo files, as shown in

Figure 4.). They are the teachers’ perceptions, the teachers’ roles and the

challenges that they face in using Wiki in a collaborative writing environment.

Figure 4.5: Main Themes

Then, the main theme was backed with the found data in the last coding, as in

Table 4.6. It enabled me to analyse each theme and sub-theme separately. It

enabled me also to change a sub theme or delete it, if the evidence not enough. It

also enabled me to join two sub-themes if the codes for both of them were alike.

Figure 4.6: Themes and Sub-Themes under Main Theme

131

At last, all the codes and sub codes were collected as in Figure 4.). I could finally

write a report about each theme through collecting all the codes that belonged to

that theme.

Figure 4.7: Codes for Writing a Report

The final report was written in Chapter 5 Findings and Data Analysis. In this

chapter, I tried to make sense of the collected data from the research methods in

the best way I could. I could also interlink the found data with the main research

questions. I aimed that the reader found it easier and more understandable to

comprehend what I was trying to explain in my data (Nowell et al., 2017; Braun &

Clark, 2006).

4.9 Quality of research

The quality of a research ensures a well-established outcome. In the current

research, the adoption of a qualitative approach required involving quality

strategies.

Qualitative researchers claim that a qualitative research cannot be contained by

fixed rules. It is due to reality comprising multiple, different intentions and

backgrounds. Furthermore, the qualitative research is an exploratory enterprise,

132

(Seale, 2002; Flick, 2007). Klein and Myers (1999) and Lincoln (1995),

nevertheless, propose general principles and guidelines to help novice researchers

to help assuring the quality of the qualitative research.

4.9.1 Trustworthiness: Quality in Qualitative Stance

Trustworthiness in the qualitative research, as opposed to the principles of

reliability and validity in the quantitative research, is one of the main aspects

implemented to ensure the quality of any research (Shenton, 2004; Harrison et al.,

2001). The trustworthiness is not something that naturally occurs, but instead “is

the result of rigorous scholarship that includes the use of defined procedures”

(Padgett, 1998, cited in Lietz, et al., 2006: 444). Lincoln & Guba (1985) present

four criteria that could ensure research trustworthiness. They are dependability,

credibility, transferability, and conformability.

4.9.1.1 Dependability

Dependability (in preference to reality): Are the findings likely to apply other times?

Dependability, as Lodico et al. (2006: 275), refers to "whether one can track the

procedures and processes used to collect and interpret the data." Similarly,

Schwandt (2001: 258) defines dependability as “the process of the enquiry and the

inquirer’s responsibility for ensuring that the process of the enquiry is logical,

traceable and documented”.

In order to maintain dependability, I used ‘methodological triangulation’ in which

two methods (observation and semi-structured interview) were used for gathering

data (Denzin, 78 in Flick, 2004: 178). Use of ‘overlapping methods’ as Shenton

(2004) emphasizes, strengthens ties between credibility and dependability of the

study. It also allows the reader to assess the extent to which proper research

133

practices are followed (Shenton, 2004). Besides that, using methodological

triangulation is to overcome the weakness in one method is balanced by the

strength in another (Flick, 2004), as it was shown in my research (4.4). Some

observed episodes, in the Wiki classes needed more explanations, were reached

through semi-structured interviews. In a word, observations allowed me to access

to what people do, but not to what people say about their actions. Thus, combining

these two methods provided clearer picture of what was observed and how it was

explained in words, if not clear to the observer (4.4.1 & 4.4.2).

Before I first conducted my study, I had to recruit teachers who should be

convinced to take part in the study. Therefore, I spent more than a month and a

half to recruit two teachers only. They were fully convinced to take a part in the

study. Therefore, I was convinced that I would get enough data for the study.

Then, I told the teachers and their students to sign informed consents to assure

that all willed to participate.

4.9.1.2 Credibility

Credibility (in preference to internal validity) is another criterion that could ensure

research trustworthiness. How believable are the findings? Given (2008: 38)

defines it as “the methodological procedures and sources to establish a high level

of harmony between participants’’ expressions and the researcher’s interpretations

of them”. In other words, qualitative research derives its data from multiple

constructed realities; consequently, qualitative researchers must assure that their

interpretations are credible to the research participants (Gass & Mackey, 2005).

The qualitative researcher also should pursue to match the constructed realities in

134

the interpretations of the data with the realities of the study participants (Guba &

Lincoln, 1989).

To maintain credibility, I used the methodological triangulation. I triangulated the

obtained data from Wiki class observations with the pre and post semi-structured

interviews. It seems that triangulating the obtained data, where different

perspectives were used after each observation class, helped me to clarify meaning

and verify interpretation (Stake, 2000). After each Wiki class, the Wiki teacher

would read her or his observation field notes and semi-structured interviews. Then,

they would give me feedback on my field notes and interviews. Thus, I could link

between what I wrote in the transcripts and field notes as well as what the Wiki

teachers read and confirmed on them. To maintain more credibility, transcripts and

field notes were double checked by the researcher and other researchers to

maintain their credibility.

During the observation sessions, I tried my best to write as many field notes as I

could which cover the second and third research questions, roles and challenges.

Then, I interviewed the Wiki teachers to check my understanding of the aspects

which I observed in their classes. Before each class, there was the ‘pre-Wiki class’

interview which aimed also to prepare the teacher to the Wiki class. It aimed,

furthermore, to check the mental preparation which the Wiki teachers had since

CPS teachers were not required to do written preparations.

4.9.1.3 Transferability

Transferability (in preference to external validity): Given (2008: 38) defines

transferability as, it “reflects the researcher’s awareness and description of the

scope of one’s qualitative study so that its applicability to other different contexts

135

can be readily determined”. In other words, do the findings apply to other context?

This case study research does not aim to generalise its findings. However, the

findings of this research can be extended and used in other contexts. Besides that,

this research might help other researchers who have the same interests with their

own work (Lodico et al., 2006).

In the current study, its findings were not concerned with the cases of the study.

Instead, I believe that they represented the Wiki teacher’s perceptions, roles and

challenges. In the future, more studies are required to approve or disapprove the

results of this study. However, I believe that the perception and the challenges

which face the Wiki teachers are representative to all the teachers worldwide.

Through the research literature and the Wiki teachers’ interviews and observations

both sides have so many commonalities. They share most of the perceptions and

challenges. However, I think more studies should be conducted to find more roles

of a teacher in a Wiki environment. What can be said about Wiki teacher’s roles in

Oman might not be identical to teachers worldwide, although they have some in

common.

4.9.1.4 Conformability

Finally, Conformability (in preference to objectivity) is defined as it “reflects the

need to ensure the interpretations and findings match the data (Given, 2008:39). In

other words, has the researcher allowed his or her values to intrude to a high

degree? Conformability ensures the findings and interpretations are the result of

the participants' views, experiences, and opinions rather than the preferences of

the researcher (Shenton, 2004; Given, 2008). According to Guba and Lincoln

(1989), conformability is established when credibility, transferability, and

136

dependability are all achieved. Thus, conformability should come as the last criteria

to assure trustworthiness in a qualitative research.

Data analysis was a systematic and iterative process which involved moving

between the raw data and the emergent findings. Consequently, it resulted in a

clear picture which showed the findings and their discussions in harmony. I had to

refer to the findings multiple times in order to result in the overall picture.

Previously, I gave a brief idea how interviews and observations were collected and

analysed. Besides that, I asked independent reviewers to verify that the research

processes and interpretations were consistent on both literature and

methodological levels which Given (2008: 39) calls it ‘an audit trial.’ Finally,

observation field notes as well as the interview transcripts were double checked by

the Wiki teachers. They made some comments and gave some sound feedbacks.

These procedures and the general guidelines presented by the aforementioned

researchers could help to some extent preserve the quality of this research.

However, as a novice researcher, it is advisable to assure the second aspect of

quality which is 'reflexivity.' Reflexivity, in education research, is a process which

helps to make bias apparent (Lichtman, 2012). It also allows the researcher to

stand back from his or her own actions and thoughts that might impact upon the

research. Furthermore, it is not associated with only one phase of the research.

Rather, it is engaged within all different steps of the research including analysis,

role of the researcher and formation of questions (Adkins, 2002; Skeggs, 2002;

Bolton, 2010; Lichtman, 2012).

In this research, I assured reflexivity through keeping a reflexive journal. In my

daily journal, I kept a self-critical account of the research process from the outset of

137

the project research till I finished the final interview. I also included some of the

episodes which could not be included in the research (See Appendix 10).

4.10 Ethical considerations

Ethics are concerned with making judgements of what is appropriate and what is

not when conducting a social science research (BERA, 2011, Articles 1, 2, 3).

Lincoln and Guba (1989) recognize the mostly considerable restraints in social

science inquiries. They are to ensure no harm on participants, fully informed

consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality and no deception.

Before I started collecting the data for my project, I had to show the procedures of

my project to a committee in the University of Exeter. The committee approved the

procedures which I would follow throughout my data collection journey. Thus, I got

the ‘Certificate of Ethical Approval’ form the university (See Appendix 9). Likewise,

I had to fill a form which contained ethical cautions in the Sultan Qaboos University

(SQU). It was almost similar to the one which I filled in the University of Exeter.

Unfortunately, I was not allowed to take a copy of it since it was filled on a paper

form, according to the SQU regulations. Then, I was approved to start my project

in the SQU in the Centre for Preparatory Studies (CPS). However, I should say that

it took me more than a month to get the ethical approval from the SQU which

affected the designated time of the project. Therefore, I advise any researcher to

check if the institution where she or he would conduct his project requires an

ethical certificate or not.

After that, I asked the informed consent of the participants, Wiki teachers and

students. To assure their full willingness to participate, I assured them that they

could withdraw any time (BERA, 2011, Article 15). I provided information sheet and

138

consent form in Arabic for students (Appendices 7&8) and in English for teachers

(Appendices 5 & 6). The Wikispaces site was invisible to people outside the class.

It means that only the students who were sent invitations by the Wiki teachers

could log in the sites. The Wiki teachers and I were assigned as ‘organizers’ in the

Wiki web page. It means that we were the only persons, eligible to see students’

activities on Wiki. They could also prevent any intruder from logging in the

students’ website. They could contact students ‘privately’ if there were any

problems between the peers in the group.

Since the researcher is from a society which has its own ethical considerations, I

was careful in adopting the BERA articles on participants. The most important

aspects to focus on were to give participants 'informed consent' in which the

participants had to sign it. The informed consent showed the purpose and nature of

the study as well as it gave the participants the right to withdraw if not willing to

participate. Then I assured the participants' 'privacy and confidentiality' before,

during, and after conducting the research (BERA, 2011, Articles 25-28). Before the

project, I assured the participants that the participation in the project would be

confidential and the obtained data would be used for the project purposes. I

assured the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality by using pseudonyms for

them. Lastly, I got written informed consent to use teachers’ observation sessions

and interviews, obtained from them prior to the beginning of the data collection

phase (See Appendix 5).

During and after the data collection procedure, I kept all the recordings and field

notes in a safe place that no one could read or hear them. I assured the

participants that their recordings would not be heard by anyone except the

139

researcher, Data Protection Act 1989. However, I got the participants’ verbal

permission to disclose the recordings to the supervisor and a colleague or any

person who helped me assuring the quality of my analysis and checking my

transcription of the recordings (BERA, 2011, Article 26).

140

Chapter Five: Findings and Data Analysis

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents and interprets the findings of the study. Following a thematic

analysis of the two main qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews and

observations. These several main themes, categories and sub-categories were

developed. As a result, the research questions which were designed before

collecting data were modified to the following research questions as follows:

1. What are the teacher’s perceptions on using Wiki in a collaborative

writing environment?


3. What are the challenges that the Wiki teachers face in a Wiki

environment?

The first question discusses perception and beliefs about using Wiki in a

collaborative writing environment. The second question discusses the main roles

that the teacher shows during a Wiki class. The third question discusses the

challenges that teachers face when using Wiki in an online class.

5.2 Research Question I: What are the Teacher’s Perceptions on

Using Wiki in a Collaborative Writing Environment?

This section aims to answer the first research question: “What are the teacher’s

perceptions on using Wiki in a collaborative writing environment? Through Figure

(5.1), the data suggested that the teachers had positive views about their roles in a

Wiki environment. In the perceived teacher’s roles, the teachers perceived their

role in a Wiki environment in the beginning till the end of the of Wiki sessions.

141

Then, the data revealed positive views and some concerns of using Wiki in a

collaborative writing environment. Finally, the teachers had positive and negative

perceptions of students in the Wiki classes.

Figure 5-1: Teacher’s Perception

5.2.1 Perceived Teacher’s Roles

In their perceived roles, the results demonstrated two main findings. The first one

was that teachers believed they were IT teachers at the beginning of using Wiki in

collaborative writing classes. Then, they shifted to act as English teachers till the

end of the Wiki classes. The second finding showed that the Wiki teachers’

presence made them act as organizers of the collaborative writing, done in the Wiki

classes.

Teachers' perception on

using Wiki

teachers' perceived roles

teachers' perceptions about the Wiki program

perceptions about students in the Wiki classes

142

5.2.1.1 Technical or Language Supporter “It was more IT than English…But,

during the following classes, it was more English”

In the first Wiki classes, the Wiki teachers acted as technical supporter more than

being English teachers. They had to do lots of technical works to ensure the Wiki

classes go smoothly and easily. Therefore, the teachers did not focus much on the

students’ writing mistakes on the first Wiki classes. They were mostly concerned

about the technical support they offered to their students. Sheikha, for example,

found that she was an IT teacher in the first Wiki classes with her students. She

had to set up accounts and show students how to use the program. Gradually, she

turned to be an English teacher because students became familiar with the

program. Sheikha stated that she was an IT teacher more than English teacher in

the first Wiki classes, then, she became an English teacher. She confirmed:

“We are both. In the first class, it was more IT than English. Setting up

their accounts and having the students showing them how to use the

program and what to do here and there. But, during the following

classes, it was more English. Because they were writing and they had

to use English in writing. And we had to discuss the function, you know,

comparison and contrast or problem solution or so yeah. I think it was more

English in the following classes.”

Ali looked at it from a different angle. He believed that the technical knowledge

about any new program should be given the priority before implementing a new

technical device to a language classroom. The technical knowledge of the teacher,

as the data showed, would be crucial to maintain students learning in the applied

technical device class. Ali stated that his technical knowledge was vital in the Wiki

environment. The teacher should know something about the technological tool and

its use, he stated:

143

“This is the problem, I think using technology in the classroom, which are

students think that if you are going to use this with us then you are an

expert, you are responsible. They are right in a part, because this (is) their

learning, this is their time. They are there to learn. If you want to use this

tool with them, at least, you should have to know something about it.

You know how to deal with it. You know what your purpose is.”

He also confirmed that his students believed that he would be an ‘expert’ in using

the technological device, he stated:

“Since, when you want to try it with me, you are an expert. And they think

that you know everything about it every bit and piece about it”

To succeed in a newly-applied technical device, a teacher would be in need to

focus in technical support, since a teacher was considered an ‘expert’ as his

students believed. Ali, as the results revealed, focused on the technical support.

He thought his students strongly believed that the teacher must have a solution for

every encountered technical problem during the Wiki classes as he could solve

language problems that students might encounter. He was disappointed because a

teacher might know how to deal with a new tool, but he might not reach the extent

of being an ‘expert’ in dealing with that device. He stated:

“To me, I can add this to this point which is 'disappointment'. Students,

when you try a new tool with students, if you want to try it for the first time.

They don't know that this is something new. Since, when you want to try

it with me, you are an expert. And they think that you know everything

about it every bit and piece about it, so whenever any technical problem

they face, they expect this guy (the teacher) will come here and with two

clicks everything will be solved.”

144

5.2.1.2 Teacher’s Presence to Organize the Class Work: “I tried to be the

organizer”

Many studies conclude that teacher presence in online classes is crucial. The

teacher presence does encourage students to work more effectively and students

enjoy communicating with them online (Khalid & Quick, 2016; Huang, 2012;

Richardson, 2003)

The data showed, likewise, that teacher’s presence was effective in which the

teachers organized the Wiki environment. Organizing the Wiki class would make

students more collaborative. For instance, Sheikha would do most of the work

outside the class. In the Wiki class, however, she shifted the Wiki work on

students. They would do all the work. She stepped back and let students work. She

acted as an organizer for her students’ work. She said:

“I thought it that students would do most of the work. Actually, this

happened in the classroom. Students did all of the work during the class

time and I did all of the work outside of the classroom before the class

time. So, I think I was an organizer from behind the scene.”

Being an organizer of the Wiki class work, Sheikha could keep students’ work to be

done on time, set rules inside the Wiki class, assign leaders for each group and

monitor the group work. She said:

“I was basically a time keeper. The person who would give the rules like

(who) would be the leader for the lesson of what they should have and

what were the steps that they would have in the class?.”

As an organizer of the students work in Wiki classes, Ali gave his students work

which was conducted by their own. It was to make students ready for their Wiki

classes in advance. He also divided the work within their groups. He said:

145

“The tittle which Wikispaces gave me was an organizer only. So, I give

them work, and then ask them to go and do the work on their own. So,

I think oh yeah. It's just giving the work and dividing the work between

groups and then they do their own work.”

Although Ali organized the students work outside the Wiki classes, he,

nonetheless, faced some troubles when the Wiki classes started. He had troubles

with the internet poor connection which spoiled what he intended to give to his

students, as he stated:

“I tried to be the organizer, trying to do things outside of the classroom. But

because of this we spent time trying to fix things, trying to do things

ready in class. And what students did inside the classroom and outside of

the classroom maybe of 'minimal parts' of what I had planned to do.

That was only because of the internet connection. And it was expected. I

mean in using online platforms.”

Although data showed that the teachers presence in the Wiki environment made

them act as ‘organizers’ to Wiki work in their classes. Yet, they were faced with

some unexpected troubles which spoiled their teaching plans. Therefore, having

good organizational skills characteristic was one of the best practices that virtual

teachers had for being good virtual school teachers (DiPietro et al., 2010).

5.2.2 Teachers’ Perceptions about the Wiki Program

On the one side, the teacher had perceived the Wiki program positively, since it

facilitated their work and found it interesting in their lab classes. On the other side,

the teachers were concerned about assessing students’ work on Wiki and working

on the SQU domain which rejected some unsecure programs.

146

5.2.2.1 Perceptions about the Wiki Program

Using the program for five sessions, the Wiki teachers came with positive views

about using the program, but held some concerns about it.

A. Positive Views

On the one hand, the Wiki teachers found three main positive points about using

Wiki in collaborative writing classes. First of all, the Wiki facilitated teachers’ work

on Wiki. Since they found working on the program useful and feasible, they

decided to work using the program in the future.

Technology facilitated Teaching Process: “Technology is there to

facilitate things”

Before using the program, Sheikha had a very positive first impression about it.

Generally, Sheikha believed that technology would facilitate the teacher’s work.

The teacher would be an observer of the class instead of being controller of it. As a

result, the teacher would focus on students’ work instead of interfering on what

they were doing all the time or giving those instructions of how to write in the class,

she stated:

“I think it (Wiki) would help me to be more of an observer for the class,

instead of a controller. I would be able to observe students instead of

interfering in what they are doing all the time or giving them

instructions, so they would initiate the conversation, they would initiate the

whole process of writing.”

Like Sheikha, Ali had a very positive view of using technology in language learning.

Ali believed that technology facilitated his work

“Yeah it (technology) doesn't guarantee learning, but it facilitates

it…Yeah, technology is there to facilitate things. All of these tasks that

147

we are doing now; we have been doing long time ago. But, the only

differences the more technology that appears, the easier it becomes for

teachers.

Wikispaces, as a technology device, would facilitate teachers’ work and make it

easier and feasible for them, as he further confirmed:

Now we have Turnitin, we have Wikispaces, we have different other tools

that are helping us (teachers) to facilitate what we have been doing.

They are not replacing. They are making it much easier more feasible for

the teachers.”

Besides that, technology would help teacher have less work with students on Wiki.

Instead, they would teach each other’s in doing their work on Wiki. Thus, the

teacher would save time and efforts in the Wiki classes. In Ali’s classes for

example, the students provided peer-learning for Wiki groups, as he confirmed:

“I think a lot of students are still struggling when it comes to writing. And I

think having them work in groups would make things easier because

they would work with their friends, they would explain things to each

other in a simple language maybe, or they would give their friends

comments that are more helpful, because they are at the same level.”

Finally, Ali emphasized that technology was designed to facilitate online learning.

As an English teacher, he picked what could be suitable for him and his students.

“Yeah, to me you don’t want to stick to one tool and say this is the only or

the last. I mean you use technology to facilitate online learning. But, if

one feature is not up to what you expect, so you can shift to another which

is better in that particular area.”

Interesting Tool: “I found it really interesting”

The teachers mentioned that they had no or little knowledge of dealing with the

program. Sheikha used the program when she was an undergraduate at the Sultan

Qaboos University (SQU). On the other hand, Ali had never used the program or

148

heard about it. However, they both showed comfort and satisfaction after they used

the program. For example, the designated plan for the Wiki project was over.

Nonetheless, the Wiki teachers were still working on the program. Ali was working

on the program because he found it ‘interesting.’

“I found it really interesting...I am planning, I am actually continuing

with it. Just today I asked them to do something with it. Because I found it

easier to have them work there for certain reasons that I might mention

later.”

Ali continued using the program, although the five Wiki classes with the

researchers were over, because he found the whole experience was ‘interesting’,

he added:

“To me the whole experience (using Wiki) was interesting because it was

something new. I usually like discovering new technical devices, technical

tools that might facilitate learning.

He also added in another occasion that he found using Wiki in collaborative writing

was ‘promising’ and ‘not difficult’ to conduct in the online classrooms. He added:

“To me, it's something promising and I'm planning to continue

working on it, develop my skills and it isn’t something difficult. Maybe

in one setting, you can discover new things. Not new things, but all the

things that the Wikispaces offer to a teacher or to a student.

Wiki is feasible for future writing classes “I’m planning to integrate

Wikis with writing”

Each teacher had plans based on their experience in using the program. They

were eager to fulfil these plans after they finished the semester. They were

planning to use Wiki in the future writing classes. For instance, after using the

program, Sheikha was planning to use the program for her next Wiki classes in the

149

next semester. Since she found the program useful, she had positive plans for it in

the future. She stated:

“I’m planning to integrate Wikis with writing right from the beginning

of the semester. I’m planning to work on the program either individually or

in groups. I’m planning to assign students to work individually, then in

groups”.

Ali was also planning to use the Wiki in the future. He was eager to use

‘discussion’ section of the Wiki because he did not use it a lot in the Wiki classes,

he noted:

“I am planning to use it more in the future. But, you can make

discussions with the students why this and why that? Why you used this for

example this one? Or if students need more clarifications on something,

they can ask.”

In the future, Ali was also planning to use more roles for a Wiki teacher, besides

the ones he already used. He believed that there were more Wiki roles, as an

English teacher, he did not show them.

“I need more roles in the future in setting thing up in discussions,

linking it to assessment. So that they are, if not intrinsically motivated,

instrumentally motivated, they had to do it.”

Ali also believed that the Wiki was a ‘valuable’ tool. Therefore, he would use it in

his future writing courses.

“I think, I don't regret using Wikispaces. I should thank you. I should have

brought you a gift. Really. Because, you have introduced me to this very

valuable tool that I can use, God Wills, in my future course. And, I'll

keep you updated about the new things that I will do in the future.”

In a word, the Wiki teachers used Wiki because it helped them to make teaching

writing classes more interesting. They also believed that this technology (Wiki) was

150

designed to facilitate their work in their classes. Thus, it encouraged them to adopt

the new technology in the class. As a result, they would keep using the tool in the

future writing classes: “I found it really interesting”

B. Concerns about using the Wiki Program

On the other hand, the data of the five Wiki sessions confirmed that the Wiki

teachers were concerned about some issues after using it. The Wiki teachers were

concerned about assessing students’ work on Wiki and the difficulty that the

teachers faced when using the program within the SQU domain.

Assessment: “Assessment is a key which guarantees students’

active participation”

Wiki teachers were concerned about assessing students before, during and after

using the program. Based on his previous experience, Ali expected that students

would not work on online tools even before using it. Unfortunately, students did not

taker non-assessed online work seriously. Likewise, work on Wiki was optional, so

Ali expected that his students might not work on it seriously, as he stated:

“So I give them two activities which are required and the others are

optional. I really worked hard on them but they are optional. But almost

nobody accesses the optional ones, they only do those two that are

required and they forget about the rest. Though we do encourage them

that they try to do those exercises which are optional, because they need

extra practice and time in class is not enough, but still they won't do it.”

During the Wiki classes, the Wiki teachers linked students work to assessment to

get better students’ work on Wiki. They used assessment for different purposes.

Ali, for example, wanted his students to be more serious when they use Wiki for

collaborative writing. He wanted them to feel that they were doing a useful task for

151

their learning. He, therefore, linked students work on Wiki to their final grade in the

course. He stated:

“I actually do two things. The first thing is scaffolding. The second thing is

you make it really related to what they are doing. So, they don't feel that

what they are doing online is not something unnecessary. But, I want

them to feel that what they are doing is really related to their report

(assessment at the end of the semester). This is a micro report.”

Sheikha, likewise, linked some of the students’ Wiki activities to assessment. She

aimed that her students would take Wiki classes more seriously, as she said:

“I thought the same for discussion. I wanted to say, if I want them to work in

the discussion, I will tell them that there is a 'grade' for this (their work

on Wiki). So, they maybe will be encouraged to do this.”

In the writing classes, students were required to collect their work in a portfolio.

The collected work would be graded at the end of the semester. In the first Wiki

classes, Sheikha asked her students to include Wiki work in their portfolios. She

assured her students that some parts of their portfolios would include their work on

Wiki. This work would be assessed.

“First of all, I told them that we will have a re-election for the portfolios

and it would be graded. So, you have to do the work. Another thing was

that, it shows me when you work. If it is a green line or a red line (on Wiki).

It shows me the kind of work that you did and which point. So, I can grade

our work based on what you do here. Some of them believed that others

would say you are lying to us.”

Although the teachers used the Wiki in the collaborative writing classes,

assessment was still one of the biggest concerns that they thought to focus on

when they use Wiki in the future. Ali believed that assessment would make

students become motivated to work on Wiki in the future, he stated:

152

“I think I'm more ready to work on Wikispaces than before. My students, I

think I need more roles in the future in setting thing up in discussions,

linking it to assessment. So that they are, if not intrinsically motivated,

instrumentally motivated, they had to do it.”

Sheikha agreed that more attention should be paid on assessment. She believed

that assessment would generate active participation when using the program, she

noted:

“I believe that assessment is a key which guarantees students’ active

participation in the program. So, I would pay more attention to it in the

coming classes.”

Sheikha believed that the key success for the program would be assessment. If the

program was linked to assessment, it would result in students to be more serious

to use it in their learning.

“Yeah. If the assessment part was attached to this program. Or you

know, they said using the program for assessment, students will be

more serious, and they will be more willing to learn more about it. So,

yeah.”

She also confirmed that if students’ work on Wiki was linked to assessment,

students would be more ‘serious’ in working with their group peers, as she noted:

“Ah: Yes, if it was related to assessment, students will be more serious and

they would use the functions there, you know more often. They would learn

much more.”

What Ali and Sheikha concluded in their experience to assess students’ work was

confirmed with what DiPetro et al., (2010) found in their study. They found that

most teachers agreed that applying multiple strategies to assess student learning

led to success in teaching online. The virtual teachers found that applying different

assessing strategies led to better learning by students. The students also worked

153

in collaborative groups. They worked together to come up with decisions to their

groups (DiPetro et. Al, 2010). Like teachers, students, as Allen et al. (2014), found

that they had very positive attitudes towards assessment. They were pushed to be

active learners and worked within the collaborative groups with their colleagues.

The program might not work with the SQU domain

Before using the Wiki program in his classes, Ali was concerned that the program

might not work with the SQU domain. It appeared that the SQU domain was

programmed to reject unsecure programs. Therefore, students should have Gmail

accounts to work on the Wikispaces.

“For example, if you have 15 students then you have 15 shared documents.

This one to me is missing something which is being user-friendly and it also

makes the task of teachers, not students, accepting this idea much harder,

because you need to make sure that all students have Gmail

accounts.”

However, Ali could solve the problems by writing the link of the websites and

sending it to their students. As a result of this, the problem was solved and the

teachers did not have to create Gmail accounts to their students, as Ali explained:

“I had to write the link of the website to get the students; I couldn't

even send them the invitations to enrol in this Wikispaces thing because of

security reasons. I could have actually done it one by one but I didn't know

about that before.”

In a word, assessing students’ work on Wiki and SQU domain were ones of the

main concerns that teachers were worried about while using the Wiki program.

However, the teachers did not stop using the program. They could find solutions to

overcome these challenges.

154

5.2.3 Perception about Students in the Wiki Classes

The Wiki teachers had positive views on students who used the Wiki program for

collaborative writing. The results showed that the students had different roles when

working in Wiki groups. Besides that, collaboration and interaction between

students made work on Wiki feasible between them. Teachers were impressed that

students showed autonomous learning between them and felt positive to use Wiki

for collaborative writing. However, the Wiki teachers felt that students had some

concerns when using Wiki. The students were hesitant to use Wiki in their groups

especially in the first classes.

5.2.3.1 Positive Views

Different Student Roles: “Students were cooperative”

After the students used the Wiki in the classroom, they had different roles in the

online classes, as the teachers viewed. Ali, for example, noticed that his students

were cooperative and they could initiate ideas of how to use Wiki in classes, as he

explained:

“I liked some things. I liked that students were cooperative and they

themselves initiated the idea of using their mobile phones with URLs, a

bit unexpected.”

Besides that, Wiki students were, as Ali stated, ‘initiators’. It showed that students

were active and shared their ideas, thoughts, and experience with group members,

as he stated:

“Yeah, so they were not only receivers, to me they were initiators of new

things.”

155

Besides working cooperatively with group members, the Wiki students acted as

‘teacher-assistants’. The group leader, for example, would help absent group

members to work with other group members who would teach him how to edit, type

and how to do the Wiki work properly. This cooperation also saved the teacher

time from working with the students who needed help when working on Wiki, as Ali

confirmed:

“Yes, they are. To me, they are teacher-assistants. Because, what

happened today, one student was absent in the last class. And the group

leader showed him to edit, how to type, and how to do the work. I didn’t

those students to do so. It was one of the ladies and one of the boys. I did

not contribute on the work of those students. They were doing the

task. I told them that you have from 8.30 till 9 to do the task. They took

some burden from my shoulder.”

Interaction and collaboration between students: “they were helping

each other”

One of the positive points which distinguished students work on Wiki was

collaboration between them. They were helping their group members and they

showed collaboration between them, as Ali said:

“Yeah, they were helping each other actually. They were helping each

other - what to do, where to go, what to write here. So there was actually

collaboration in even enrolling. There was collaboration this time.”

Sheikha, similarly, was happy to see interactions between students while they were

working on the Wiki collaboratively. Students were also interested to get comment

or feedback from their group mates on their Wiki work, as she stated:

“I liked when the students were eager to find someone leaving a

comment in their topics. Like, one of the female students was very

disappointed that nobody commented on her topic. She said: "Miss, there is

nothing here". I told her to refresh the page. When she refreshed the page,

156

she did not find anything there. She said: "Oh, no comment yet…Yeah, so I

think students are very interested to see others comment on their

work. I was happy with that.”

Teacher believed Students felt positive about using Wiki

Having new roles in Wiki classes, the students, as the teacher believed, felt

positive about using Wiki in online classes. Ali asked them to make sure that they

were enjoying the experience. They replied that they were enjoying the experience

and they were willing to participate in the project.

“I asked them (the students) actually to makes sure, they are enjoying the

experience? They are….actually! Yeah, you don’t know who they might

feel they are imposed to do, not something they are willing to do. What I

taught them at the beginning of the course that should do what they want to

do not what others told you to do. You do it for the sake of learning.

Ali’s students also added that they found the experience useful and enjoyable, as

he said:

“It seems they showed that they are enjoying the experience and they

find it useful, they find it beautiful more than pen and paper.”

Based on her students’ behaviour, Sheikha, as Ali, found her students interested in

using Wiki in online classes. She believed that her students enjoyed the

experience. It was a new experience for them which they never tried it, she

confirmed:

“Yeah, I think judging students' behaviour from yesterday's class. I think

they would be more interested in the coming classes. They will be

active. Because it is something that they've never done before. Yeah, I

think they are going to learn a lot. Because it is a collaborative learning.

And sometimes, it's good to have a collaborative learning and

individual learning. Specially, when it comes to writing.”

157

Autonomous Learning: “my goal from using Wikispaces in the

classroom was to encourage students to be more autonomous”

Students worked autonomously in the Wiki classes. The Wiki teachers let students

work autonomously. Ali believed in autonomous learning; therefore he encouraged

his students to work on their Wiki activities. He believed that his students could

help each other’s on Wiki work instead of asking the teacher’s guide or help, as he

showed:

“But, I also believe that students can find their way and if you saw in the last

class when I asked them, despite the fact that they wanted to know the

answer, I think. I told them, you have your computers and you can go and

search what the different instructions, they got it (clicking) like this (fast, he

meant). And they tried to explain it to each other’s. I saved the time to

speak (to them) and getting the idea across. So, I think, 'with the availability

with so many sources, it is much easier for students to work together, and

to teach each other’s instead of being the teacher who gives them

everything being a facilitator or a guide.

Sheikha also encouraged autonomous learning in the Wiki classes by encouraging

them to work in Wiki groups. She asked students to use ‘Add Discussion’ chat

forum to enable them help each other in the Wiki classes. She did not also interfere

in their work on Wiki. She wanted her students to be autonomous and discuss their

own studying without the teacher’s interference, as she explained:

“I used the discussion option, but it was students to students, not students

to teacher. I did not interfere on their discussions. Because I think my

goal from using Wikispaces in the classroom was to encourage

students to be more autonomous. Because, I think it was a good

opportunity for me to stand back and have them have their own things and

discuss their writings, or the problems that they have.”

158

Although she encouraged students use ‘Add Discussion’ chat forum, she was not

pleased with her students’ autonomous learning. Students were in a chaos. They

were shouting to communicate with each other’s. She said:

“… and also I'd like to add one more thing. When it came to discussion

function, I gave them like five minutes. I say you can discuss your writing.

They were shouting. Like one was here. He shouted: "I posted a

comment there, go and check it out. Did you receive it?" They just kept

talking through it. So, it was not real online discussion.”

Ali, likewise, used ‘Add Discussion’ chat forum to encourage students work

collaboratively and in groups. Opposing to Sheikha position, Ali regretted that he

did not interfere much on their work. His interference, as he stated, “it could have

evoked more discussion among students,” because students might have felt more

secure. He stated:

“I did not use the discussion option much. I used it only students to

students. To me, I regret not using this option much, because it...I

could have evoked more discussion among students by adding my

own discussions. When you interfere, the students feel okay that the

teacher is observing. He is with us. So, they can ask more questions. You

can even initiate some discussions. What do you think about this? Students

start discussing.”

5.2.3.2 Concerns about Student Using Wiki

Students had no interest to do tasks online “hesitation among

students”

Before the students used the Wiki program for collaborative writing, the teachers

had some concerns about their students. Although Ali convinced that students’

generation was literate to use technology every day, still they had some hesitations

to use it for the educational purposes, he confirmed:

159

“Yeah, the reactions it depends. Even if you say that this new generation is

literate in terms of technology and they are technology natives...Yeah they

are, but the problem is - this is based on my own experience - when it

comes to using technology for educational purposes, for learning, you

find this kind of hesitation among students. Because I'm the guy

responsible for Moodle for our program and I don't know whether you

considered Moodle 2.0...”

Based on his experience in the CPS, the foundation students had also some

carelessness when it related to online classes. They did not show much interest in

these classes since they were ‘optional’ classes. In another word, these classes

aimed to enhance students study skills, so they were not assessed as other

classes.

“Yeah, there is none. That was the only option with the forum where you

can discuss. But from my experience, students when you tell them that this

will be on Moodle, it's like saying 'Don't read it' or 'Don't do it, it's

optional'.”

He also emphasized that students did not care about online classes because they

were not highly assessed. They valued very little marks out of the overall mark, as

he pointed:

“They keep away from it. And that's why even with some students they

come to ask me...I remember last semester one of the students came to

ask 'How many marks for Moodle?'

I said, 'Three (out of 100)'.

He said, 'Ah okay three, then I won't to do it'.”

5.2.4 Conclusion

Although, using Wiki in a collaborative writing environment was acceptable by Wiki

teachers. They, nonetheless, had some concerns on using assessment when

160

teaching using Wiki technology. Using the Wiki technology was also affected by the

technical problems which the Wiki teachers tried to overcome them. As a Wiki

teacher, it is still a controversial issue how to use assessment for a collaborative

work among Wiki students. Wiki teachers should be careful when assessing

students in a collaborative Wiki program. Finally, the Wiki teachers had difficulties

to maintain her or his main roles in a Wiki environment. The findings seem to

suggest that a teacher was apart between different roles in the Wiki environment.

Although at the beginning of the Wiki classes, they showed a role more than

others. They, nonetheless, found it more challenging to shift from a role to another

in the Wiki environment during the Wiki classes. The results provided no

convenient evidence of what roles a Wiki teacher should maintain. However, they

provided evidence that a teacher could shift from a role to another throughout the

Wiki classes, technical, pedagogical and managerial.

5.3 Research Question II: What are the Teacher’s Roles in a Wiki

Class?

This section aims to answer the research question: “What are the teacher’s roles in

a Wiki class?” In literature, most of the conducted studies have focused on the

teacher’s roles in online environment (Berge, 1995; Goodyear et al., 2001, Aydin ,

2005; Kollias et al., 2005; De Laat et al., 2007; Alverez et al., 2009; Onrubia and

Engel, 2012) and their findings were mostly compatible with each other’s.

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate Wiki teacher’s role when teaching in a

Wiki environment. To analyse these roles, I used two methods which were semi-

structured interviews and observations.

161

Through observing their classes and interviewing them, the Wiki teachers showed

six main roles. They were managerial, assessing, social, pedagogical,

technological and psychological roles, as shown in Figure (5.2). The analysis of

this section was taken from the content of students and teachers’ work on Wiki,

semi-structured interviews, and observation.

Figure 5-2: Teacher’s Roles in CW Using Wiki

5.3.1 Managerial Roles

Berge (1995) defines managerial role as: “this role involves setting the agenda for

the conference: the objectives of the discussion, the time table procedural rules

and decision-making norms. Managing the interactions with strong leadership and

direction is considered a sine qua non of successful conferencing” (p.24).

Goodyear et al. (2001) defines managerial role as: “The Manger Administrator: is

concerned with issues of learner registration, security, record keeping, and so on

(p.69).” Throughout the definitions, it seems that the managerial role of a teacher in

Te

ac

he

rs' ro

les

in

CW

us

ing

Wik

i

1. Managerial

2. Assessor

3. Technical

4. Social

5. Pedagogical

6. psychological

162

an online environment is to set the learning atmosphere for a proper online

learning, leading the online learning environment, and managing administrational

issues (i.e registration, record keeping, assessing, absence taking…etc.). In the

current study, as shown in Figure (5.3), the managerial roles for a Wiki teacher

involved teacher’s preparations before the Wiki class. They included assigning

students in groups and assigning group leaders for each group. The roles included

also organizing the Wiki class work which included dividing the work among

students and watching group leaders’ work.

Throughout the study, the teachers were observed in two phases, preparations

before the Wiki classes and organizing Wiki classwork. In the coming lines, I will

discuss their roles in the light of these two phases.

Figure 5-3: Managerial Role

Main Roles Managerial

Preparation before Wiki Class

Organising Wiki classwork

163

5.3.1.1 Preparations before the Wiki class (Groups and Group Leaders)

In the Wiki class observations, I observed that the Wiki teachers prepared the Wiki

classes in order to start their Wiki classes with fewer troubles before the Wiki

classes. The teachers would ensure that computer labs were available before

conducting their classes, as observed in both teachers’ Wiki classes:

“The Wiki teachers needed to make some preparations to ensure that the

Wiki classes would go without any obstacles. Before the Wiki classes

started, both teachers assured that the computer lab were not

occupied or booked by other teachers in the centre” (Observation, Ali &

Sheikha)

Figure 5-4: Organizing Wiki students in Teams

Pre-Wiki classes, Sheikha assigned students into teams and showed them on the

screen later (See Appendix 12). As shown from the screen in one of her Wiki

164

classes, the persons in blue were the team leaders. Teams 1,2,3,4 & 5. The

assigned teams worked together in Wiki projects (Figure 5-4).

Attending Wiki classes was highly prioritized by Sheikha. As observed in her Wiki

classes, she ensured that the group members and the team leaders were present.

It seems that Sheikha was concerned about the students’ presence in a Wiki class.

She confirmed that the less number of students a Wiki group had, the work on Wiki

would not be affected. Besides, the group members would help their peers to track

what she or he missed, she confirmed:

“If more than 50% of the students were absent, so it is yeah. But, if one or

two students are absent, I don’t think so. Because, we have four

members in each group. So, if one person is absent. It means we have

three. So, we still have people in there. And so, if the person is absent,

he or she can be able to track what other students did. They can check

it from wherever they are. Like later on the day or the next day. Because

they will have a week to do all the work. And because we have a

leader.”

Ali, on the other hand, preferred to assign his students into groups (Figure 5-5), not

teams as Sheikha advised him. It was because his students faced some troubles

dealing with ‘teams’ rather than ‘pages.’ As a result, he decided to go back to the

old plan. He said:

“…I told them go to the project thing and find your team and click on the team. Because this is what I saw as a teacher, as an organizer. But, students sent me emails we couldn't find this. We couldn't find this. I

didn't know that the project will appear on the page on the right side. On the

right side of the page. So immediately after receiving emails, I said Okay.

I'll create pages after creating teams and projects. So, I created pages

and I said Okay, forget about teams now, go to pages.”

Before starting the Wiki class, Ali first organized groups from last class and put

them in the same group, as I observed in his Wiki:

165

“Ali first organized groups from last class and put them in the same group.

He insisted each student keep his or her group: “Please, go back to your

group (Observation, Ali).”

Figure 5-5: Students in Teams (Ali Wiki classes)

He insisted each student keep his or her group: “Please, go back to your group.”

He assigned a leader for each group, and allowed students to work only with her or

his designated group. As observed:

“Ali divided students into groups and assigned a leader for each group

as Sheikha did. If the group was not completed, so students preferred to

sit with other groups. Ali insisted that students had to sit in their group even

if the group was not completed. He told a student who did not keep her or

his group: “Please, go back to your group.” (Observation, Ali)”

Both Wiki teachers believed in having a group leader for a Wiki group work. The

group leaders were believed to have crucial roles in a Wiki environment when

166

teaching collaborative writing for a small group. Ali believed that choosing a good

group leader would maintain active participation from group peers. In one of the

collaborative working groups, he was satisfied with the group work. He believed

that the good collaborative group work because of the group leader, as he stated:

“Yeah, I think it was because of the leader. I know what kind of person

she is. She is a kind of person who likes things to get done. Maybe she

has pushed others to do get work done on time.”

Sheikha believed that all group members could be assigned as ‘group leaders

(GLs).’ In another word, she could assign a group leader or a Wiki class. Then she

changed her or him in the next Wiki class throughout the five Wiki classes.

Therefore, she planned to assign a leader in every Wiki class. She said:

“I think, it will be easy. And I am planning, if it's possible to have a leader

every time”

5.3.1.2 Organizing Wiki classwork

To organize the students work in the Wiki classes, the teachers had to divide the

work among students. They had also to watch group leader’s work and organise

students’ work on Wiki. In the coming lines, it will be shown how the Wiki teachers

worked during the Wiki classes to organize them, so their students would focus on

interacting and collaborating during Wiki classwork.

Dividing Wiki work among students

As Wiki teachers, they had to divide Wiki work among their students, so they would

ensure more collaboration among the group members on Wiki. Ali, for instance,

distributed Wiki work among his students. Then, he ensured that students did what

he told them to do in the Wiki classes through the group leaders. He also ensured

167

that students worked with their groups on what the teacher asked them to do as a

group.

“…They were able to do what I wanted them to do, which is getting the

work done on time. For them, they didn’t finish actually. For them, they

couldn’t finish on time. I had to go for something else, but after the class, I

made sure that everybody made sure what to do and what to add to

their own group.”

Sheikha, likewise, divided students into teams and made sure that the team

leaders were present. To ensure work was divided among students, she ensured

that each Wiki group did their paragraph (introduction, body and conclusion) of the

planned essay. She gave each group a paragraph to finish it within designated

time.

“Oh, yeah. So, each team will write one paragraph only. And they would have about twenty minutes for writing the whole paragraph. Afterwards, I will gather everything from their Wikis. I'll print it out for each

student. So, that we can go through the structure of the essay.”

As observed, Wiki work among group was well distributed. In her Wiki classes,

Sheikha would distribute the Wiki group work, so her students would know what

they were required to do in the Wiki classes.

“Sheikha showed students on screen who to do each activity, for

example, team 1 answer question 1, team 2…Please, and move to q.3,

team 3… (Observation, Sheikha)”

Sheikha distributed work among teams. Each team worked on a paragraph

(introduction, body and conclusion) of the essay which would be produced by the

whole class at the end of the Wiki class. Then, the teacher would review the whole

essay with the class, as she commented:

“Oh, yeah. So, each team will write one paragraph only. And they would have about twenty minutes for writing the whole paragraph.

168

Afterwards, I will gather everything from their Wikis. I'll print the out for each

student. So, that we can go through the structure of the essay.”

Watching group leaders’ work: “A leader has a role…”

The Wiki teachers prioritized group leaders’ work. They treated them as teacher

assistants in the Wiki classes. The group leader was responsible for some of the

teacher’s Wiki work, as following up with late students or absentees and dividing

the work among his or her colleagues. It was observed,

“Ali made it the responsibility of the group leader to let his or her

group members know about what happened in the class, if their

colleagues did not attend the class or was late. The group leader would

also divide the writing text among the group members (Observation, Ali)”

In Sheikha’s Wiki classes, she emphasized on the duties of a group leader as a

teacher assistant. They took over some teacher’s roles when teaching using Wiki.

Sheikha insisted that the group leader should ensure that group members work

with their group peers collaboratively. She said:

“A leader has a role to tell what each member he or she has to do. So, the

group leader will be in charge to make sure that all members are

working and collaborating in the in the group with their friends.”

The group leader’s work was vital in a Wiki class, so it was motivated and caused

students work on Wiki to become motivated too. It was also emphasized in Ali’s

Wiki classes that the group leader responsibility was to let them know about what

happened in Wiki classes. Group leaders made sure that all students knew their

part in the writing text. They helped their peers to work with each other. The group

leaders were also responsible to divide work among the group members. Ali even

insisted that what was left behind not properly done from the Wiki work was the

group leaders’ responsibility. He said:

169

“Yes, today, I did. Actually, I think today they took really seriously.

Leaders, I told them, you are responsible you are fully responsible for

whatever happens there. So, I won't go to any member, I will ask you. And

what happened today they were really motivated and they motivated

other members in the group.”

Being treated as teacher assistants, the group leaders would follow some assigned

rules by the Wiki teachers. To maintain good work, Sheikha set rules for the group

members and the leaders in the observed Wiki classes.

“Before she started her Wiki classes, Sheikha made a set of rules. She

kept reminding her students of these rules, so students were fully aware

of how to behave in the Wiki classes. In these rules, Shiekha stated the

group leader responsibilities throughout the Wiki class (Observation,

Sheikha.”

She also added that the nominated group leaders would direct the group work in a

Wiki class, as she said:

“I was basically a time keeper. The person who would give the rules like

(who) would be the leader for the lesson of what they should have and

what were the steps that they would have in the class.”

However, some students were discouraged to work in collaborative writing groups.

They were concerned that some group leaders were ‘bossy’ in the sense that they

would not distribute the group work among group members fairly. In one of the

Sheikha’s Wiki classes, some students were ‘discouraged’ to work collaboratively

with their peers because the group leader did not distribute the work fairly. She

said:

“The only thing I faced was some of the students were really discouraged

to write collaboratively. It was during using the Wiki. Because some of

them thought the it might the groups leader would put the entire burden on

my shoulders.”

170

She also added that a group member wrote the whole essay in a class. Therefore,

he did not collaborate with his peers in the next class since he did all the work in

the first class. Thus, he told them to do the work without his help:

“And actually, one of them wrote the whole essay at one point. And

when we came to the following class, he said that he would not do

anything in the class because he had done all the work last class.”

Organizing Students’ work on Wiki: ‘I was an organizer from behind

the scene’

As Wiki class teachers, they had to observe students’ work online. They had to

watch the activities timing, so students would work within the designated time for

the activities. The data showed that Ali found his role in the Wiki classes was an

organizer. He would give his students activities they would work on. Then, he

would ask the different groups in the class to distribute the work between them.

“The tittle which Wikispaces gave me was an organizer only. So, I give

them work, and then ask them to go and do the work on your own. So, I

think oh yeah. It's just giving the work and dividing the work between groups

and then they do their own work.”

Sheikha had a different view of being a classwork organizer. She would do all the

Wiki work outside the Wiki class, before the class time. Her students, on the other

side, would do all the Wiki work in the class time. Consequently, she described

herself as ‘an organizer behind the scene’, as she explained:

“I thought that students would do most of the work. Actually, this happened

in the classroom. Students did all of the work during the class time and I did

all of the work outside of the classroom before the class time. So, I think I

was an organiser from behind the scene.”

171

What she mentioned, could be observed in some of her Wiki classes. In Wiki

classes, she would keep silent and let the students do the Wiki work. She would

also let students do the work in their Wiki groups without her interference. I believe

that she was, as she noted, ‘an organizer behind the scene.’

“In some of her Wiki classes, Sheikha kept silent, but students were

working like ‘bees’ moving from a place to another. She also sometimes

stopped interfering on students’ Wiki work. It gave students space to finish

their work within their groups. It gave students a chance to work

collaboratively. She would give help, if she was asked only (Observation,

Sheikha).”

In a word, Sheikha was as an observer and organiser of students’ work on Wiki.

She was watching the students while they were working on their writing texts on

Wiki.

During Wiki classes, the teachers gave students activities to work on. Being Wiki

teachers, they had to be ‘time watchers’ to ensure that students work with the

designated time given by the teachers, from 5 minutes to 40 minutes as observed:

“To ensure that students did not exceed the proposed timing when doing a

Wiki activity, the teachers would keep reminding them of the left time to

finish each activity. They might also browse an online stop watch and

display it on the whiteboard to show students time for each activity

(Observation, Ali & Sheikha).”

During the Wiki classes, Ali made sure that students were working on Wiki

activities, not being distracted by the internet sites or any other online distractors,

as he explained:

“I observed Ali catching some students browsing unrelated sites to the Wiki

work. He went around during the Wiki class to make sure no troubles facing

students and to make sure that all students were working on the activity. He

assured on class leaders’ duties in organizing group’s work and get along

172

with his/her partners. He moved around also to check students’ answers

and to give feedback and guidance (Observation, Ali).”

5.3.1.3 Conclusion

In conclusion, the Wiki managerial role was to prepare a Wiki environment before

and during the Wiki classes and assign a group leader. The preparation focused

mainly on assigning students in Wiki groups, then assigning a group leader for

each group. It seems that a group leader had much priority for Wiki teacher since

they were treated as ‘teacher assistants.’ They played a crucial role in maintaining

group collaborative writing on Wiki. However, group leaders sometimes had

difficulties maintaining group work which affected students work on Wiki and in

their groups (5.4.1). The group leader, thus, needed to know to maintain more

knowledge of how to display her or his roles in a Wiki group (6.3.1).

5.3.2 Assessor

Wiki teacher as an assessor is another role highlighted by the data of this study. In

her or his role as an assessor, Wiki teachers were observed through teaching the

Wiki classes. Online teacher as an assessor, defined by Good year et al. (2001:

69), “provides grades, feedback, and validation of students’ work.” In Goodyear et

al. (2001) definition, it seems that providing grades, assessment and giving

feedback are the elements within the online assessor roles. Unfortunately, little

attention is given to the online teacher in online environment which result in that

students do not take online work seriously which goes in accordance with the

results of this study. Therefore, the assessor role is perceived as a very important

when teaching online successfully (Aydin, 2005). In the current study, as shown in

Figure (5.6), being an assessor can be seen as the Wiki teacher ability to let

173

students comment and give feedback on each other’s work. It also focuses on the

Wiki teacher’s feedbacks, comments and rewards for students work in a Wiki

environment.

Figure 5-6: Assessor

5.3.2.1 Assessment in a Wiki class is crucial, “We have to assess”!

The Wiki teachers strongly believed that assessment was crucial when doing

online activities in general and Wiki activities in specific. Consequently,

assessment was one of the concerns that the Wiki teachers pointed and observed

throughout their experience (5.2.2.1.2a). Ali, as instance, knew that his students

would not approve to put, so many marks on lab work in general and in Wiki work

in specific. He considered it a ‘negative mark’, as he noted:

“So this might just evoke some prior knowledge of assessment and this

is negative marks.”

Based on his experience as an EFL teacher in the centre for preparatory studies

(CPS), Ali noticed that students did not take the online activities seriously. Some of

Main Roles Assessor

Assessment in a Wiki class is

crucial

Feedback

Prasie & Rewards

174

these activities did not worth many grades or optional. If they were compulsory, as

the teacher insisted, the students would be more serious and do them on time. He

said:

“So I give them two activities which are required and the others are

optional. I really worked hard on them but they are optional. But almost

nobody accesses the optional ones.

Almost nobody accesses the optional ones, they only do those two

that are required and they forget about the rest. Though we do

encourage them that they try to do those exercises which are optional,

because they need extra practice and time in class is not enough, but still

they won't do it.”

Therefore, he wanted students to be clear that work on Wiki would be assessed for

each student accordingly. He commented:

“Yeah, they need some time at the beginning of the next session where I'll

tell them just what to do and how I will comment on their work. I did tell

them about the assessment thing, that it will show them who works and

who doesn't but they still need to see this in reality, in front of them. When

things bit clear next time.”

He assured that what made students not to take doing the online activities

seriously that they did not value much in overall assessment. Therefore, they found

it not worth to do these activities, as he noted:

“I remember last semester one of the students came to ask 'How many

marks for Moodle?'

I said, 'Three'.

He said, 'Ah okay three, then I won't to do it'. 'I won't to do it. It's only 3 (out

of 100) because it's 3 I'm not going to go to the trouble going through

Moodle.”

175

Ali further added that since he did not link the students’ work on Wiki to

assessment, it led to students not being serious to do the work on Wiki.

“I didn't really link it to assessment. That's way some of them didn't

take it seriously. Some of them, I mean not all of them. For some tasks

you see some students are working, but for other tasks the others are

working. I don't know if they manage to distribute work among themselves?”

Therefore, Ali believed strongly that these online activities, like Moodle, should be

assessed more conveniently to guarantee students’ participation in the future, as

he further noted:

“Yeah, okay. Yeah I do agree actually, that's why actually we had to have

this 'Required thing’ (assessed online activities) as part of Moodle,

otherwise students...”

Sheikha, likewise, insisted that convenient assessment would make better result in

Wiki learning and would encourage her students to work more on their Wiki

activities. She said:

“I thought the same for discussion. I wanted to say, if I want them to work in the discussion, I will tell them that there is a grade for this (assessment). So, they maybe will be encouraged to do this.”

Sheikha also insisted that she would focus more on assessing students’ work on

Wiki. The assessment, as she believed, would encourage students to be active

when working on Wiki activities in the future.

“I will pay more attention to ‘assessment’ as I believe it is a key which

guarantees students’ active participation in the program.”

Ali, besides that, went further on assessing students’ Wiki work. He asked his

students to reflect upon their experience on using Wiki to write online

176

collaboratively. He considered the attempt as a way of assessing his students’

participation and willingness to work on a tool he might introduce in the future.

“I told them that you'd have a Wiki reflection. Or reflect upon Wiki and

how what worked and what didn't work. What they liked and what they

didn't.”

Ali regretted that the program had no assessment on it; otherwise, his students

would take the experience more seriously.

“Yeah. If the assessment part was attached to this program. Or you know,

they said using the program for assessment, students will be more

serious, and they will be more willing to learn more about it. So, yeah.”

Sheikha emphasized on students’ seriousness, by assessing students’ work on

Wiki ‘individually.’ She insisted that students would be more serious, if their work

was assessed ‘individually’ not as a group work.

“Sheikha: Yes, if it was related to assessment, students will be more

serious and they would use the functions there, you know more often. They

would learn much more.

She was not convinced of the assessment that she did in the class to students’

work because she could not differentiate between the individual work and the

group work. She stated:

“Yeah, because they weren't even try (to) write in a separate computer and

then having everything comes together in one screen. So, yeah, if they

though the teacher would assess me as an individual and then as a

group. Each one will think about something to write”

She was sure that linking assessment to course objectives would make students

more active in the Wiki classes. She confirmed:

177

“Yes, if it was related to assessment, students will be more serious

and they would use the functions there, you know more often. They would

learn much more.”

Assessment, in a word, should be shown more focus when students work on Wiki

since some students failed to do Wiki tasks, because they were not assessed

conveniently. To ensure more students interaction on Wiki, Wiki teachers should

pay more attention to students’ Wiki activities. Although, Wiki teachers confirmed

that students’ work on Wiki should be assessed. Yet, they were not certain how to

assess it, individually or as in a group.

5.3.2.2 Feedback

Throughout the Wiki classes, the findings showed that students received two kinds

of feedback. The first one was peer feedback and the second one was teacher

feedback. In Wiki environment, peer feedback was from a student to a student, but

the teacher feedback was from a teacher to students.

Peer Feedback

It was concerned with the feedback that students got from their peers in the group.

It was carried out on the student to student level and group to group level. On the

student to student level, Ali let students comment and give feedback on their peers’

work, peer feedback.

“Yeah, basically, they will be criticizing their own work and their peers work

as well.”

The peer feedback was conducted, as Sheikha thought, to enable students criticize

their classmates work. She copied the paragraphs that students worked on Wiki on

paper. She thought that allowing students to give feedback on paper would

178

encourage students to interact with the writing text they wrote or their peers did, as

she explained:

“Yeah. I copied all paragraphs in one word document paragraph, printed

out and then I made copies.”

She added:

“I wanted students to see each other's work. So, team one would see the

work of team two and team three. And to compare their work with

other groups. So, they will be able to critique their work and others' team

work.”

She preferred paper feedback rather than online feedback because her students

might not take it seriously. They could interact more with paper than online. She

added.

“I think for the online feedback, students usually because they don't

have a paper on their hand. They don't take it seriously, maybe. Maybe

since it is online, it might be lost or smothering. But, if they have it on paper

and they can see it. They can write on it with a pencil or a pen. They would

be more able to interact more with a piece of paper.”

The paper feedback, she noticed, was more effective than online feedback. It

made students work better on the written texts.

“Yeah, I have tried both of them and I think paper feedback is more

effective to students more than the online feedback.”

The students preferred to work on the paper feedback, as she believed, because

they were used to it in the classroom.

“I think because they are used to it. They get paper feedback in almost

all of the courses. They never get online feedback, I think.”

179

Ali, on the contrary to Sheikha, did not intend to let his students use paper

feedback. He was convinced that feedback on Wiki was more effective than on

paper.

“For next semester; I’m planning to give a session on using Wikispaces as

a part of PD (professional development) sessions. I’m also planning to

make the Wikispaces the only tool for writing. I won’t do anything on paper.

I find Wikispaces is more effective on giving comments and feedback

more than (on) paper.”

Ali disapproved using paper feedback, since it did not allow the teacher to give

comprehensive feedback to the students’ writing texts.

“Yes, may this is....they complete each other. For example, in my

comments for students is that what I really like about Wiki spaces if it is only

on a paper you can write the marking symbols and you say spelling

mistakes, let’s say for, let's say if a student had six or seven problems

with articles missing...missing articles or unnecessary articles...You

cannot give comprehensive feedback on that.”

Both teachers, to conclude, emphasized in the importance of peer feedback. They,

nonetheless, had different views of how to conduct the feedback, paper or online

(Wiki). Ali, on one side, preferred Wiki feedback in which students would have

more space to express about themselves. Sheikha, on the other side, found paper

feedback more effective and productive, since students could comment and give

feedback on their peers Wiki work.

Teacher Feedback

The teacher feedback was concerned with feedback that teachers gave to their

students in Wiki classes. In Wiki class observations, I noticed Ali gave feedback

and clear instructions to make sure students were in the right track. He also

180

gathered the same group again to reflect on the teacher’s comments and feedback

he typed for each group on their Wikis.

“Ali gives instructions to students who are gathered in the same Wiki group.

He gave his students feedback on their Wiki work. Ali also asks his

students to reflect on their peers comments and feedback (Observation,

Ali).”

Some of the advantages of electronic feedback are that comments can be added

by the tools themselves, a Wiki in this case. This makes feedback easier to store

and easier to be create ‘comment banks’ for frequently used comments (Walker &

White, 2013). Ali, while using Wiki, spent time of some classes on feedback and

gave comments on students’ Wiki work. Ali gave groups time to work on their

edited work. They had time to see the teachers’ comments and feedbacks.

Consequently, Ali commented that Wiki gave him more space to give feedback:

“I gave students more comments in comparing and contrast. Second, I

gave students individual essays in order they become ready for the final

exam for the seek of feedback. I felt that there was enough space to give

feedback on the Wikispaces.”

Ali approved giving feedback on students’ writing texts on Wiki because he could

link his students to videos, as shown in Figure (5.7). If students had problems with

their grammar, for example, he would choose the best tutorial video to solve the

problem.

“….Let's say referring a student to a video or a link. What I did actually in

Wikispaces, I had a link there for each group. If the problem is reoccurring

in the particular group. For example, let's say, fragments. I noticed that in all

groups, almost in all groups is that they had this problem of fragments.

Fragment sentences...incomplete sentences. And it was difficult, actually to

explain what is fragment. I found a YouTube video. I said to students

please, check. I chose a very easy one very short and very easy. They

181

can watch it together and try to correct together and trying to correct

the mistakes.”

Figure 5-7: Wiki Teacher Feedback (YouTube Video)

Sheikha gave feedback on spelling and on the structure of words on the students

work on Wiki. She said:

“Yeah…In the introduction. I just gave them like feedback on spelling on the

structure of words; word forms”

I noticed that Sheikha gave students immediate feedback on their writings which

appeared on screen, ‘Is that a full sentence?’ she asked each group to correct their

wrong sentences. Then, she also asked students to give their friends feedback on

their work, ‘How can you make it better?’ she gave feedback whenever students

asked for. In some activities, I noticed that she could not finish all activities

because they were time consuming. Therefore, she asked them to finish these

activities as ‘homework’, ‘It is your homework, we have no time left’. If she could

not give students immediate feedbacks, she promised to check students writing

online and give them the appropriate feedback.

182

It was also observed during the Wiki classes that Sheikha contacted the team

leader to notify him or her about the updates. She had also sent some comments

and feedbacks on the team Wiki writings. They were to show what should be done

by students in the same team. She distributed students previous work which they

did last lectures. She swapped students work with different teams. She wanted all

teams to work and give their peers feedback not just to get it from the teacher.

Giving feedback on “Add Discussion” was one of feedback options that Sheikha

used in her Wiki classes. She asked students to ask for feedback from their team

members through “Add Discussion.” One student said: “It is like chat. It is really

fun.” Since the online feedback was so crucial on Wiki activities, Ali planned to give

'intensive feedback' by using the Snagit, a screen capturing tool used to create

images and videos. He felt that it would work more effectively.

“SNAGIT is a screen capturing tool. So, after highlighting the mistakes, I

will tell students what were there mistakes by showing a video on the

screen. I will share it with them. It will be saved automatically in my Google

drive. From Google drive, I will share it with them, because they all have

Gmail (accounts in Gmail, done with help of the teacher), so they can, as a

group, watch the video. This will give me, more spaces to give more

comprehensive comments and to ask students and to... In a way, it is not

2.0 interaction, but there is more space to talk and to let's say, hopefully,

facilitate marking.”

5.3.2.3 Praise and Rewarding

It was a part of the assessment. It was concerned with the positive enforcement

that the students got from the teacher during the Wiki classes. For instance, group

work was praised by showing it on the class screen board, as Ali did.

“Ali praised the work of some of the students while they were working on

their Wikis. He also praised some groups after finishing their work on time.

Their work was organized and well done. Besides that, he showed the

183

group good work on the screen and gave it a mark for being good work

(Observation, Ali).”

Sheikha had different ways to show appreciation to her students’ Wiki work. She let

students, who finished their Wiki work, leave class earlier than their peer in other

groups. She would also show the new ideas of students on Wiki on the screen

board, and asked students to use their peers work as good examples.

“Sheikha gave those who finished early a reward. She lets them leave the

class early and shows their work on the screen as an example for the

others. Sheikha encouraged students who do something new or creative

by showing his or her work for the whole class on the screen. For

example, some students knew where to change their user names and

passwords. She showed their work on screen and asks the students to

follow their example (Observation, Sheikha).”

Besides that, she encouraged students to do their best, to answer the questions, to

work collaboratively with their team members “Please, work with your

partners…This team is doing a great job…”

5.3.2.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, Goodyear et al. (2001) require an online teacher for being an

assessor is to provide feedback, give assessment and validate students’ work in

online environment. Similarly, the Wiki teachers showed these roles in the current

study. To ensure students’ work on Wiki, moreover, the Wiki teachers praised and

rewarded their work on Wiki. Being an assessor in online environment should be

shown sufficient importance since it encouraged students to work in a collaborative

writing environment using Wiki technology.

184

5.3.3 Technical roles

The online teacher has a technical role to fulfil. As Berge (1995) shows that online

instructor is to make technology transparent, so learners concentrate on the

academic task on hand (Berge, 1995). It means that the online teacher is to

facilitate student work online and helping or making technological choices that

improves the online environment for learners (Goodyear et al., 2001). To facilitate

Wiki work, the Wiki teacher’s technical role was observed in different events. In the

current study, the technical roles of the Wiki teachers, as shown in Figure 5-8,

were to facilitate students work on Wiki, train students how to use Wiki, and use

online materials to assist students’ work on Wiki. More interestingly, the study

findings showed a technical cooperation between the Wiki teachers in which they

exchanged their experience when teaching on Wiki.

Figure 5-8: Technical Role

Main roles technical

facilitate students' work on Wiki

training students how to use Wiki

use online materials to assit students'

work on Wiki

technical cooperation between the Wiki

teachers

185

5.3.3.1 Teacher facilitated students work on Wiki

The Wiki teachers as facilitators to students’ work on Wiki had to cover four areas,

as the results highlighted. The first one, the Wiki teachers had to give instruction to

students work on Wiki effectively. The second one was the Wiki teacher had to act

as a Wiki problem solver since so many troubles faced the Wiki teachers and their

students during using the Wiki program. Since students had no previous

experience to work on the Wiki program, they needed some guidance to know how

to work on it. They needed also help how to work collaboratively in groups with

their group members. To facilitate classwork on Wiki, the teachers helped students

in starting the Wiki, helped students work in Wiki groups collaboratively, and gave

tips and advice of how to work on Wiki. Each one of these areas will be elaborated

in details in the following lines.

Giving instructions to students

To make Wiki classes more effective, Wiki teachers had to give clear instructions.

Ali, for example, believed that clear instructions motivated his students to work

more successfully on Wiki and making them more motivated to use it, as he noted:

“Just as any activity to be successful, whether it was online or whatever it

is. It needs to be clear. But with online activities, if it is new to students, I

think you need to be clearer and try to lead students to using it, I mean the

online tool, effectively. So, the students will get the impression of whether

this tool is user-friendly or not from the first or the second time. If you don't

give clear instructions from the beginning (on Wiki), it will be a barrier

or let's say, or adapting or let's say using it with more motivation.”

Therefore, students, as observed in the Wiki classes, needed some advice how to

work on the Wiki program. It was difficult for them to deal with some bits of the

program. Therefore, the teachers were there to give tips when necessary.

186

As observed from the Wiki classes, the Wiki teachers gave instructions for different

purposes. Before each class, the Wiki teachers would ask students first to go to

Wikispaces and start the program. Sheikha, for example, gave instructions to ask

students first to go to Wikispaces to start the program and log in the Wikispaces in

every Wiki class.

“No need to repeat same instructions every day, you know it is lab class,

and it is Wikispaces time, please go to Wiki (Observation, Sheikha).”

When her students heard this sentence, it meant that they had to log in the

program and started working on Wiki.

As observed in her Wiki classes, clear instructions and guidance helped students

in their Wiki work. They allowed students to work with their peers, interact with

them or solve emergent problems when interacting on Wiki.

“Sheikha gave instructions to allow students work with their peers to solve a

problem, to collaborate to write a paragraph, and to ask questions. Sheikha

asked her students to go to ‘Add Discussion’ chat forum and start chatting

with their peers. She asked them to ask any question regarding their first

draft and how was their experience (Observation, Sheikha).”

Besides that, clear guidance was also useful to show students what to do in their

Wiki classes.

‘Sheikha asked students to look at the screen board. It was pointing to the

Wiki project. She told them to go to the right slot. It was the first one on the

project. It was written “Compare and Contrast”. 2nd Draft (Observation,

Sheikha).”

More interestingly, Sheikha used short instructions to stop students work on Wiki,

she said: “Time is up…I’ll lock the activity.” She used it also to end an activity the

187

students were doing on Wiki, she said: “I locked the activity now; I’ll mark them,

then will allow you to see your work.”

Ali, similarly, gave instructions before starting working on Wiki. Ali would assure

that all students logged in the program, “Are you all logged in? Do you have any

troubles in logging in?” To sum up, giving instructions helped guiding students

when working on Wiki. It was also useful since it saved teacher time and made

work on Wiki much easier and clearer.

Teacher as a Wiki problem solver

Technical challenges were dominant in some of the Wiki classes in which they

hindered learning (5.4). However, the Wiki teachers acted as problem solvers

when teaching using Wiki. The collected data revealed that students faced some

problems while they were working on the program, so teachers had to act

immediately. Ali’s students, for example, did not know how to write on the Wiki

properly. Therefore, he showed them the correct way of writing on the Wiki

program.

“Yeah, actually...for example format. Some students when they write

their essays they wrote it right to left. Instead left to right. I mean

alignment. The alignment of the paragraph is right to left which makes it

more difficult to me to read it from right to left. It doesn’t also look good for

academic writing. So, I try to help them how to set it right. I mean...sort

it right. I mean the whole lay out of the essay.”

During my Wiki class observations, I noticed that students faced some troubles

with the Wiki (5.4.3) which the Wiki teachers interfered to solve them. The teachers

used their knowledge of online programs to solve these troubles. In another

example, one of the Wiki classes, a student could not work with group in section

188

30. He was unrolled in the group. Therefore, Ali helped him to enrol and work with

his group members. He commented:

“One student only...I don't know how he did it. It was not clear, but section

30 didn't appear. I don’t know how he did it. I don't know really what he

did. He had to enrol again (by the teacher help).”

Before starting the program, Ali had to create a page on the Wiki for his students.

Unfortunately, there was a problem with the sent link. To solve the occurring

problem, Ali sent emails to his students since the students could not log in. Acting

as a problem solver, Ali advised students to click on the sent link via emails which

enabled the students to log in.

As observed in his morning classes, Ali usually came early to prepare the class for

his students. Unfortunately, the technician was not there in the early morning, if

any technician problem occurred. Therefore, Ali solved most of the connection

troubles he faced. One of the troubles he faced was setting the computers for the

students. Another one was connecting the teacher desktop computer to the class

main screen. All the faced problems were solved by Ali. As a result, this made the

Wiki class go smoothly and the students focus on the given content. In one of the

cases where Ali had to solve technical problems himself, the internet connection

was poor. To solve the problem, he contacted the department which was in charge

to solve technical problems, (CIS), as he explained:

“Actually, I went to the technician and explained and insisted that the

problems should get solved. He assured me that the problem is not from

here. We have already contacted CIS (Computer & Internet Support) and

they replied that they are solving the problem. But still. This is what I could

only do. Apart...”

189

Being competent in solving technical issues raised a controversial question when

using such technical devices: should a Wiki teacher be capable of solving

emerging technical problems? One of the obstacles that hinder EFL teachers not to

use technical devices in their work, Ali earlier mentioned, was that they do not

know how to deal with technical problems when they appeared. He called it ‘phobia

of technology’ (5.4.3). This phobia was described as ‘lack of confidence’ to use ICT

tools by Omani higher education teachers (Al Senaidi et al., 2009: 580).

Sheikha’s students, likewise, had some troubles with the Wiki program. Some of

her students could not save their edited Wiki works. To solve the problem, she

asked her students to write the corrections on a piece of paper. Then, they could

edit their work online.

“Sheikha helped students save their work on Wiki. Sheikha asked some

students to help their peers of how to save their work. Sheikha showed

students work how to save their work on screen (Sheikha,

Observation).”

In my observations, I noticed that some students had fear of losing what they

worked on. To solve the problem, Sheikha advised them to copy their corrections

on a paper, and then write it on the Wiki. In another class, Sheikha also suggested

that they saved what they worked on Wiki step by step. She commented:

“This is something which we are discouraged to use technology. They don't

trust it. They think that's something that might happen that the electricity

might go off and I'll lose everything.”

She also added:

“You can save it before, once you enter every number, go

1 save,.... 2 save,.... 3 save,.... 4. save,..”

190

However, it should be noted that what made the teachers act less as problem

solvers when using Wiki because of the device itself, the Wiki. To start with, the

Wiki, as the teachers described was ‘user-friendly,’ although they were concerned

about using it before the project started (5.3.2.2). Therefore, they expected less or

some problems to use it in their Wiki classes. Ali was pleased to find it ‘user-

friendly tool:

It is the same with me. It's user-friendly and it isn't complicated and has

no many options. So, you can even discover it, if you are really serious

about it in one day. You can get things clear from the first day. If you

navigate and start trying different options.

Sheikha, besides that found no real technical problems on the tool and it was easy

for students to use.

“Oh no. The students were really, I mean, we know that the students of this

generation are aware of technology. Yeah, and they can pick it up. Because

there are far more complicated technology programs that they use. So, I

think this (using Wiki in groups) was easy for them”

Besides dealing with user-friendly tool, the Wiki teachers were pleased that their

students were ‘technology native’ students, as Ali described them:

“Yeah, the reactions it depends. Even if you say that this new generation is

literate in terms of technology and they are technology natives”

Sheikha, as Ali, was satisfied that she dealt with ‘generation of technology’ since

they were willing to work on Wiki:

“Oh no. The students were really, I mean, we know that the students of this

generation are aware of technology.”

191

Helped students in starting the Wiki

Before starting their classes, I observed that students had difficulties to start the

Wiki. Acting as technicians in the Wiki class, the Wiki teachers had to help the

students in starting their classes. In his first class, for example, Ali spent more than

one hour to set up accounts on Wiki for students. In another class, I noticed that

some students had ambiguous usernames. Ali helped his students to change their

usernames. Some had the SQU user name which consisted of numbers (e.g.:

11323). Therefore, the teacher asked students to change it into their first name and

the student SQU number (e.g.: Ahmed11323). Knowing students’ real identity

would help the Wiki teacher, as Ali stated, be assessed according to the work he

did with his peers. It would help him also to know who worked online and who did

not as well as giving proper feedback on his students work on Wiki. He said:

“Yeah, they need some time at the beginning of the next session where I'll

tell them just what to do and how I will comment on their work. I did tell

them about the assessment thing, that it will show them who works and

who doesn't but they still need to see this in reality, in front of them. When

things bit next time.”

Sheikha, similarly, would start her Wiki class by ensuring that all students were

working on the Wiki page without any problem. In my observation, I noticed that

she would go around the class for five minutes and help students to log in the Wiki.

“Sheikha went around, checking students work on Wiki. She gave advice

and guide students on their work on Wiki. She also would encourage

students who worked well on their performance (Observation, Sheikha)

She, sometimes, found some students forgot their passwords or usernames,

although the teacher told them to make it simple and keep it in a safe place. She

helped them to restore their usernames and passwords.

192

Guide and advice for Students how to work on Wiki

In their non-computer labs classes, the students were used to work in face-to-face

groups. However, when they worked in online groups, students needed more

guidance. Therefore, the Wiki teachers helped their students to work in Wiki

groups.

Sheikha, as seen in the observed Wiki classes, created a project, using the ‘create

project’ (Figure 5.4) function found in the Wikispaces. She divided students into

teams, so each one should work with her or his team.

I observed that in some Wiki classes, some students preferred to work with their

close friends or with a particular group member. To enhance collaborative online

work in a group, Sheikha insisted that her students work on different computers.

Consequently, she knew who was working and who wasn’t. She also moved

students to different groups, so they would work more productively with new group

members. She commented:

“I teamed them in different groups because I don't want two friends to

stay in the same group…

Next time I might set it as a rule that they must not sit beside their close friends who are not in your team.”

In her Wiki classes, I observed that Sheikha’s students wanted to discuss some

issues regarding their paragraphs. However, the team members were scattered

around the computer lab. To make his or her point clear, each team member had

to go around to discuss what he or she wanted to discuss with their peers. It left

the class in a complete chaos. Sheikha asked the scattered team to ‘use the ‘Add

Discussion’ chat forum. She told them clearly, “Do not go around and waste your

time!”

193

During each Wiki class, it was observed that Sheikha would give her students

some tips of how to use some functions in the Wiki. She helped students who had

difficulties saving their work on Wiki, organizing their work on Wiki, editing their

partners work on Wiki and other similar works. In one of the observed classes, she

told a student to ensure that he was working on the right team page. She told him

“make sure that you are working in the right place….Top: 2nd Draft?”

5.3.3.2 Teacher Trained students how to use Wiki “Training had a great

impact on their performance”

Before starting the program, the teachers had to train their students how to use the

Wiki since they found it necessary (See Appendix 13). They did the training for

several purposes. Ali, as stated in his first classes, found training necessary to let

students become familiar with the Wiki and some functions of it. Training, as Ali

said would encourage more interaction between students in the Wiki activities, as

he noted:

“Yeah, actually online I have not noticed any interaction, not yet. Maybe,

they are not familiar enough with the Wiki. This is one. They need more

training. I expect after one more session, it might be a bit more different.

He also added

“….I just tried to give them some options and I gave them a brief description

of the coming task, telling them their groups and what they should do.”

Sheikha agreed with Ali that training had an impact on developing students’

performance in the Wiki program. She confirmed:

“Training, I think, had a great impact on their performance yesterday.”

194

However, Sheikha suggested that teachers should provide students a project set

which would train them to use the Wiki properly and effectively. She said:

“Yeah, I think it would be useful, if we had like a project set, as a practice,

if we had as a project set before starting the program. So, they can try it

out and if we had them in teams also in the first sessions as a practice.”

In conclusion, the importance of training to use Wiki in a collaborative writing was

emphasized. However, it was noticed that no much training was needed since the

program was ‘user-friendly. If more training was needed, a project outline should

be provided for students to become familiar with the program.

5.3.3.3 Assisting Materials “Technology assists technology.”

The Wiki teachers used assisting materials to assist their teaching on Wiki. They

used online materials, electronic devices to help students find the Wiki more

acceptable and enjoyable. Sheikha, for instance, found assisting materials were

useful for her and her students when teaching collaborative writing using Wiki. She

commented:

“It might make my work much easier and it will make it easier for the

students. You know to get the idea.”

Ali believed that assisting materials were used to complete Wiki’s work, “Yes, may

this is....they complete each other.” As a result, teacher’s wok on Wiki would be

easier. He also believed that assisting materials would facilitate online learning, as

he commented:

“Yeah, to me you don’t want to stick to one tool and say this is the only or

the last. I mean you use technology to facilitate online learning. But, if

one feature is not up to what you expect, so you can shift to another

which is better in that particular area, which is better.”

195

In order to facilitate their work on Wiki, the Wiki teachers used many types of online

materials and technological devices to assist their teaching. In her observed Wiki

classes, Sheikha asked her students use their phones to take photos of what they

did on screen. She also asked students to work on Google and Internet to get facts

about their topics in the Wiki project. She helped students on how to work these

examples out and how to get them online. In some Wiki classes, Sheikha allowed

students to use their phones to work on them if anything went wrong. Sheikha also

used online stop watch. She commented:

“For example, yesterday, I used the online timer there. Last time I had to

keep yelling and shouting. You have 20 minutes left. You have 10 minutes

left. This time it was timer (I used) and they had there in front of them.

It was obvious and they had it there. They could see it how much time

left.”

Figure 5-9: Wiki Calendar

Ali, besides Sheikha, used other online materials which helped him in teaching

collaborative writing to Wiki groups. The Wiki Calendar was one of the online

196

materials that Ali used to assist students learning, Figure (5.9). It would show them

important timings and date for submissions.

He used also the YouTube videos (Figure 5.7) to teach them some grammatical

structures. He commented:

“I noticed that in all groups, almost in all groups is that they had this

problem of fragments. Fragment sentences...incomplete sentences. And it

was difficult, actually to explain what is fragment. I found a YouTube

video. I said to students if you want to know what is fragment, please;

check this video, because it has a solution for the problem that students

suffered from.”

He was very careful when YouTube videos were presented to the students. He

chose the easiest, the shortest to make them more understandable to students, he

said:

“I chose a very easy one, very short and very easy. They can watch it

together and try to correct together and trying to correct the mistakes.”

He was also very careful when choosing a tutorial video to the Wiki classes. It

would be short and not boring.

“Yeah, I tried my best to choose a very easy language. And also very short.

I avoided choosing video for 12 or 15 minutes. Students might get bored

by the end of the video. So, 2 or 3 minutes, maximum 5 minutes. This

is what I was looking for.”

He also chose the one which were consistent with his students’ English level. He

said:

“Yeah, try to pick something that doesn't exceed five minutes. Something

very short and something that's accessible to the students. I mean at

their own level.”

197

Figure 5-10: Online Dictionary

When students used wrong words, Ali let his students use online dictionary to

correct them, (Figure 5-10). He said:

“Even I had some links for when students choose the wrong word. What I

did there was highlighting that word and directed them into online

dictionary. What they had to do was just to click on that link. I remember

one student instead of writing 'goes' he wrote 'goose'.”

Ali used, besides that, some online programs to give students feedback on their

Wiki writings. He used SNAGIT program to give students feedback on their Wiki

writing.

“Please, try to finish it on time because I am trying to give your comments

using SNAGIT, screen capturing.”

Google drive was one of the online tools that Ali used to assist his work with

students on Wiki. Before starting the project, his students created Gmail accounts,

so he could share with them some educational materials like videos. He

commented:

“From Google drive, I will share it with them, because they all have Gmail,

so they can, as a group, watch the video. This will give me, more spaces to

give more comprehensive comments.”

To encourage more collaboration between students out of the Wiki class, the

teacher asked his students to discuss their writing in the What’sApp group.

198

What’sApp, as shown in Figure (5.11) is a phone application which keeps different

participants in a closed group and enables them to discuss whatever they want and

upload pictures, documents and GIFs.

“There are others sophisticated tools that make work much easier and they

are something which the students are familiar with like What'sApp.

Because, I know the boys, they have a group in the What'sApp and they

can discuss within that group what they want to do.”

Figure 5-11:What’sApp

Last but not least, Ali and Sheikha used emails as online materials to help them

assist their work on Wiki. Ali commented:

“Only that one, sending them emails reminding them...I did actually one

thing which is I asked Sheikha, I think I cc you in that email to tell me how to

set a project instead of having pages. And, she sent me detail steps. I did

what she wrote there…”

5.3.3.4 Technical Cooperation between Wiki Teachers

Technical cooperation between teachers which is called (T-T) interaction occurred

mostly after the Wiki classes. It happened through emails and when Wiki teachers

observed each other’s activities on Wiki. It aimed to strengthen collaboration

between Wiki teachers and exchange experience between them, as Sheikha

confirmed:

199

“I think Ali’s Wiki helped me a lot. It was useful in teaching writing

Wikispaces with my students. I told him some tips in Wiki too.”

To start with, the Wiki teachers used emails to interact and communicate with each

other. Throughout the Wiki classes, they used emails to ask for advice. Ali, for

example, asked Sheikha how to set a project having students in teams instead of

having them in pages as he did. He said:

“…Only that one, sending them emails reminding them. I did actually one

thing which is I asked Sheikha, I think I cc you in that email to tell me how to

set a project instead of having pages.”

Emails were also used to exchange experience of how to use some functions in

Wiki, details of how to use it were sent for this purpose. Ali said:

“…She sent me detail steps. I did what she wrote there, but one of the

students sent me telling me that they could not see the project.”

In the first Wiki classes, each teacher added the other teacher on his Wiki class. It

helped them to become familiar with what they did so far. Therefore, the first

classes did not show much cooperation, because each teacher was still new to

using Wiki for collaborative writing. Sheikha added her colleague, Ali, to her Wiki

as he did. She wanted to know what he did in his Wiki classes. She commented:

“…..It is just I added him to my Wiki and he added me this Wiki. I went

through what he did with his class and he went through what I did in my

class.

This was the first link to on-going collaboration between teachers in the coming

Wiki classes. Since each teacher was added to the Wiki of the other teacher, they

were observing what the other teacher was doing with his or her students in Wiki

classes. They wanted to get some experience and knowledge of how to use the

Wiki in a collaborative writing class. Ali, for example, browsed his colleague Wiki to

200

learn how she introduced the Wiki writing activities to her students. He discovered

that Sheikha was using ‘project’ feature. She was also using the Wiki ‘calendar’

which he did not use at that time.

“I saw that one which is project and also because Sheikha who is using this,

using Wikispaces. She is also using this feature which is 'project'. I

actually visited her page yesterday. I actually saw she is also using another

thing which I might talk about later which is the calendar or the timeline.

It will be for the coming task which will be comparison and contrast.”

Thus, each Wiki teacher was updated by her or his colleague’s work on Wiki. They

browsed each other’s Wiki regularly since they were both organizers. Being an

organizer enabled each teacher to see the work of the other Wiki teacher and the

work of his or her students on Wiki, Figure (5.12).

Figure 5-12: Group Organizer

Being added in Sheikha’s Wiki, Ali found adding deadlines for Wiki activities was

practical.

“Yeah, so I just had an idea what task she is doing, what ideas she is doing

and what things can be used more effectively. So, i saw that as an addition

to my own Wikispaces. So, I added that 'deadline' when they should start

writing their comparison and contrast and when they should submit their

final drafts.”

201

Moreover, Ali found Sheikha’s idea to have students in a team, rather than in a

group, very interesting, as he noted in (Figure 5.4):

“So the second part again coming back to the main topic. The second part

was trying to create teams.”

However, Ali was not convinced of the practicality of having students in ‘teams’ as

Sheikha suggested and did, with his students. Therefore, he decided to use his old

method of introducing a new Wiki task, which was ‘group’ feature.

“Then, I felt that I should go back to the old work. I felt then that they

should get their work done. I returned to the old work I used to do

(decision maker). I returned to using pages. So, they have now group

one.2. So, they have the paragraph.”

Observing each other’s work on Wiki, the Wiki teachers could make use of how to

organize a Wiki page and how to manage a group work of collaborative writing. For

instance, Ali found that Sheikha’s style in teaching collaborative writing was

different than his own style. He commented:

“Yeah, I noticed actually that she is not...her collaborative writing is actually

focuses more on basic elements of writing not the whole idea of writing a

paragraph...but writing sentences, using linking words.

Maybe she is preparing for writing the whole paragraph or the whole essay.

What I also liked about her page is the project part...that she asked

students to work on that section not instead of having pages.”

He also found the themes that Sheikha created in her Wiki page was different than

his. So, he did not follow her example, as he commented:

“What I did also was changing the themes of my Wikispaces to look a

bit different. I just looked at the colours and I didn't like them, so I said

why I don’t change them. I said wasn't there a little bit a bit more attracting

to students. It shows light green.”

202

5.3.3.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, this section sums up the observed and discussed technical role of a

Wiki teacher in a collaborative wiring environment using a Wiki technology. What is

common between these skills that they require a Wiki teacher to assure a

comfortable online environment, so students can contact online easily and

effectively. This objective has been achieved through some evidence, as I believe.

First of all, the Wiki teachers knew the main core of their technical role. It was to

assure a comfortable and effective environment for students, so they could work

effectively and comfortably on Wiki environment. Secondly, the Wiki teachers

found the Wikispaces website a user-friendly device to use in their Wiki classes.

They found also very limited challenges that hinder them from using online device

for collaborative writing. Consequently, the Wiki teachers and their students did not

show much of ‘phobia of technology’ which could prevent them from using the

program on their writing classes.

5.3.4 Social Roles

The teacher’s role in a social online environment aims to create a friendly social

environment which encourages learning among students; or students and their

teacher. It also aims to gain more experience how to use Wiki or other online tools

among teachers, and to gain more interaction and collaboration between teachers

and students (Berge, 1995; Berge, 2008; Abdullah, 2004; Gómez-Rey et al., 2017).

In the current study, the findings showed the social role of a Wiki teacher was

deducted through teacher to students’ interaction (T-S), which was observed

throughout the Wiki project. Being an encouraging Wiki teacher, it caused student

to student interaction, (S-S), to take place through students’ interaction on Wiki.

203

Teacher’s presence encouraged (S-S) interaction which led also to enhance

interaction between students too (S-S), Figure (5.13).

Figure 5-13: Social Role

5.3.4.1 Teacher’s Role in Teacher-Student (T-S) Interaction

The (T-S) interaction was carried out to boost the interaction between students and

their teachers in the Wiki classes. Wiki teachers encouraged students to work in

groups. In the first classes, I noticed that the Wiki teachers assured the students

that their experience with Wiki would be useful and beneficial. (T-S) interaction

was observed through different aspects.

Teachers encouraged Students’ collaborative writing on Wiki “It is a

good try”

The Wiki teachers encouraged students’ collaborative writing on Wiki. They also

encouraged students to work effectively with different Wiki groups. Sheikha, acting

Main roles Social

teacher-student (T-S) interaction

student-student (S-S) interaction

teacher's presence

204

as an encouraging teacher, made threating in the Wiki class work as the last option

to assure students desirable behaviour. Instead she would see the bright side of

students Wiki work, even if it was not the expected from her or him. She

commented:

“For me threating is the last option. First, I try to encourage the

student. You should help your friends. You are in a team, work with

him. Why don't you join your group? Just as a suggestions. But at the end I

got frustrated. He was helping members of the other groups. So, at least he

was doing something good. Something is better than nothing.”

Ali was caring about students’ feelings, when he was teaching a difficult point in a

lesson, as he explained:

“Luckily, I was able to make the class go smoothly, hopefully. Without

letting the students frustrated or annoyed that they tried to access to

this thing, the Wikispaces and feel disappointed about it.”

As observed, Sheikha, as Ali, encouraged students to try new thoughts: “Who

wants to solve the problems? Who wants to give it a try?” She also encouraged

students who came up with exceptional answers, “Excellent, I have not thought of

such an answer.” “It is a good try, but it isn’t right.” Besides that, she made

students feel that Wikispaces is not difficult to master. She said “the more you

practice it, the master you will be.” Sheikha, furthermore, encouraged her students

to be smart and use the program wisely. She showed the students that they could

make things better than their teacher. She also encouraged students to think and

come up with excellent sentences, “Open your mind, and get whatever available

there…!” Besides that, when her students introduced a new idea, she would

approve it, if it worked. In one of the observed Wiki classes, some students knew

how to change their user names and passwords easily. Finally, Sheikha was

205

pleased of these students. She asked them to help their colleagues who were not

done with changing their usernames and passwords. Sheikha was encouraging to

her students’ efforts to do the Wiki tasks either in a group or as individuals.

Wiki teacher as an Advisor

Ali acted as an advisor when teaching on Wiki. He assured his students that the

experience would be ‘valuable’ and worth to try it. He repeated the word ‘valuable’

when talking about experiencing working on Wiki so many times.

When observing his first Wiki class, Ali told his students that the program would not

hinder their learning. He would make sure that what they were learning, related

with what they would find in the final exam. Ali also encouraged students to use the

program effectively since it, as he said, “… something valuable and it added a lot to

me”.

In the first Wiki class, Ali could lead the class to get a positive impression about

using Wiki. He assured his students that the experience would be worth doing by

not letting the students get ‘frustrated or annoyed.’

“Luckily, I was able to make the class go smoothly, hopefully. Without

letting the students frustrated or annoyed that they tried to access to this

thing, the Wikispaces and feel disappointed about it.”

5.3.4.2 Wiki Teacher encouraged (S-S) Interaction

Besides interacting with students on Wiki (T-S), the Wiki teachers encouraged

interaction between students (S-S) for several reasons. First of all, the teachers

encouraged interaction between students to divide work between group members.

Ali believed that group work in a Wiki helped to divide the work between them. He

said:

206

“...working in groups, I think if they work in group with a leader. It would

be...if they divide the work between them.”

Walker & White (2013) argue that technology can make assessment more efficient.

In the Wiki essays, the teachers could save time and efforts of marking so many

essays which leads to the second reason that Wiki would make teacher and

students’ work on Wiki easier and shorter. They would not work on so many writing

tasks. They would deal with a collaborative work done by a group of students, not

by an individual student, as he commented:

“If you have a group of students writing an essay. Each one takes one

paragraph. So instead of marking 16 essays for each student, you will

end up marking only 4 essays for four groups.

It would make students work on Wiki, as Ali believed, easier and brighter.”

He also added that students would not feel bored of writing a 250 to 300 words

essay alone. Instead, they would collaborate with their peers to write it:

“And also for the students, they don't feel burden of typing 250 words or

300 words. So, let's say, this program or this online service. It is a new

thing to them. If you ask them to write 250 words. Let’s say, it might

be shunning from the beginning.”

Sheikha added that interaction and collaboration between students on a Wiki

program would make students have a good rapport and be willing to work together,

as she showed:

“I think, if the students have a good rapport between each other's with each

other’s or with the teacher, they would be able to work more if it comes to

working together.”

She also believed that good interaction on a Wiki class would make work for

students in the same collaborative group easier, as she believed:

207

“…having such an interaction would help them work together. It would make

the work easier for them.”

Encouraging interaction in the Wiki classes was observed in both teachers’ Wiki

classes. Ali, to begin with, encouraged collaboration between students in the same

group in the Wiki program. While working on collaborative writing paragraphs on

Wiki, Ali emphasized on his students to work ‘collaboratively’, "Please, work as a

group!” and he also insisted “Please, discuss it with your partners, which one do

you prefer to choose?” Through the Wiki class observation, Ali encouraged his

students to discuss their assignment online. Some students could post some

comments on the Wiki page, but others could not.

In order to maintain collaboration between group leaders (GLs) and group

members, Sheikha emphasized those GLs to be ‘active’ and work with his or her

partners. She said to them: ‘Please, do collaborate with your partners. Please,

show them what you are doing?’ She also told them to be responsible for the

collaboration what would happen between the group members, as she noted:

“A leader has a role to tell what each member he or she has to do. So, the

group leader will be in charge to make sure that all members are working

and collaborating in the in the group with their friends.”

To encourage interaction between students when working on Wiki, the Wiki

teachers asked them to use different programs. Ali, for instance, told his students

to use the Wiki chat forum ‘Add Discussion’ on Wiki to prepare for the next Wiki

class. When his students could not work on the ‘Add Discussion’ chat forum, Ali

advised his students to use ‘What’sApp’ or emails to collaborate within a group. Ali

used also some online materials to encourage interaction and collaboration

between students on the Wiki program. At the end of one of the Wiki classes, he

208

would ask his students to look at the Wiki calendar. It would show them important

timings and date of submissions of their work on Wiki. He told me later that he

found the idea of calendar through browsing Sheikha’s Wiki.

The data also showed that Wiki teachers had other reasons for encouraging (S-S)

interaction. Sheikha, for instance, believed strongly in interaction between

students in the Wiki class. It would, as she noted, create a positive atmosphere

between students, have a good rapport, make work easier and students would

work more productively.

“I think, if the students have a good rapport between each other's with

each other’s or with the teacher, they would be able to work more if it

comes to working together. They would have the initiative to take more,

but, like a bigger part. And that they do in the group. So, if the relationship

was not good in the first place, no one would do the work and they would

give the work to each other’s. But, having such an interaction would

help them work together. It would make the work easier for them.”

Before every Wiki class started, I observed Sheikha would first take absence of the

students. I was curious to know what was the aim of her action and how would this

action affect (S-S) interaction in the Wiki classes. She answered that it was crucial

to have as many students in the Wiki group as possible. If there were fewer

students, it would affect the whole group interaction. Therefore, she was concerned

about the students’ number in a Wiki group, the more students in a group, the more

active work between its members. She commented:

“If more than 50% of the students were absent, so it is yeah. But, if one or

two students are absent, I don’t think so. Because, we have four members

in each group. So, if one person is absent. It means we have three. So, we

still have people in there. And so, if the person is absent, he or she can be

able to track what other students did. They can check it from wherever they

are. Like later on the day or the next day. Because they will have a week to

do all the work. And because we have a leader.”

209

She meant that the more students were in a Wiki group, the more collaboration

would happen between the Wiki group members. To encourage collaboration in the

same group, the Wiki teacher insisted that each member of the Wiki group should

work with other members. To do so, the Wiki teacher would offer them problems to

discuss. Collaboration between students was vividly noticed through discussing the

solutions to the problems in hand and negotiating right solutions to these problems.

In the observed Wiki classes, Sheikha asked her students to work collaboratively

and divide the Wiki work among the group members, so everyone would take a

chance. To show (S-S) interaction, Sheikha printed students’ writing texts, done on

Wiki, in papers and gave them to students. When asked why she acted as she did,

she replied that she aimed to focus on student-student (S-S) interaction by giving

each other’s appropriate feedback. It would improve their writing on Wiki, as she

explained:

“Yeah. I wanted to see how that went. And I actually printed their essays

this morning for group peer feedback. Most of the groups had the five

paragraphs essay structures. There was an issue with one group who

actually exceeded the number of the words. About 500 something words.

But, having student-student interaction helped them, you know, like come to

an agreement like we have to have this number of words. This person will

do this and this person will do this, so yeah.”

Ali, similarly, asked the group leaders to collaborate with the group peers. Writing

in a group would motivate them to work cooperatively. It would result in a better

writing on Wiki, as he said:

“Yes, today, I did. Actually, I think today they took really seriously. Leaders,

I told them, you are responsible you are fully responsible for whatever

happens there. So, I won't go to any member, I will ask you. And what

happened today they were really motivated and they motivated other

210

members in the group. They used their mobile phones to make sure,

though, actually everybody was working. Though, some members tried

other members to write their parts of the paragraph. They wrote it on

paper and the group leader was opening the Wiki and asking the

students to type. Because, feeling this sense of responsibility, and

feeling that they must do this part. They might feel anxious feeling that

they might be panelised. I felt that responsibility was much higher among

the ladies than boys. Boys were really working as a team, but for the girls, I

was noticed that they was this sense of being 'bossy' a little bit. Among the

two groups, I noticed that. Asking, ordering.”

5.3.4.3 Teacher’s Presence encouraged (S-S) Interaction

Having said that interaction between Wiki teachers and students in the Wiki

environment was crucial, it should be noted also that teacher’s presence in the

Wiki environment was a medium to maintain this interaction. The data showed that

the Wiki teachers’ presence encouraged (S-S) interaction. The Wiki teacher acted

as ‘incentive’ to generate more collaboration between students in the Wiki

environment.

“…but you need to create this 'incentive' for the students. The incentive of

try to explore or unless you do this yourself. You help students to figure

out the features of the program or the online application.”

The teacher presence in a Wiki environment helped students to initiate some

discussions between them and to make students ask questions to the Wiki teacher.

During the Wiki class observations, Ali kept asking questions to encourage

‘participation’ and active ‘engagement’ of students, “what is the text about?” He

also encouraged students to ask questions. At the end of each Wiki class, Ali

asked students, if they had questions wishing to be answered at the end of it, “Do

you have any questions? “I hope that everything is clear?” “If you have any

211

question, please you can come to my office, you know the office hours.” Ali

strongly believed that a teacher should be present in Wiki environment to ‘initiate

discussions,’ as he explained. Yet, if the teacher was not present online effectively,

it would lead to less interaction between students on Wiki. He stated:

“You can even initiate some discussions. What do you think about this?

Students start discussing. But, if you leave it to them the discussion will be

really minimal.”

He was convinced that students would not work on Wiki activities more than

required to do so. Therefore, they needed to be pushed by the teacher or given

‘initiatives’ from him or her, as he noted:

“Because they won't go the extra miles. Because they go only the needed

miles not the extra miles to write their own assignment. They won’t go the

extra miles to do the discussions without you there adding so little

initiatives.”

The Wiki teachers worked to encourage in-class collaboration between groups too.

When working with all the Wiki groups on their collaborative writing texts, Ali

provoked students to disagree with other groups. He asked them: “Which group

agrees and which one disagrees with their sentence? Why?” Even when the

students gave an answer to the teacher, approved or disapproved the students’

trails, “A very good try, Mohammed, but this is not the right answer. Thank You.”

The teacher’s presence in a Wiki environment would also keep students focused

on the Wiki collaborative writing lesson. Therefore, Sheikha believed that teacher’s

online presence was important to encourage students be focused on the given

objectives and not distracted by other activities around them. She said:

“If I was observing everything, yeah. If the teacher, like Mr. Ali said,

interfere on everything, yeah. To keep the discussion on track. Because

212

one of them was like, why were you absent yesterday? What does it

have to do with the essay?”

Ali also believed that teacher’s presence on a Wiki activity would prevent students

from using ‘Arabic’ on their online discussions. He said: “They might even write in

Arabic, sometimes.”

5.3.4.4 Conclusion

To conclude, Wiki teacher’s role in an (S-S) interaction was mainly to encourage

collaboration between students. This collaboration resulted in more interaction

between students in the same group or in different groups. In this role, it seems

that teacher’s presence was a factor which a Wiki teacher should be aware of

when teaching a collaborative writing using Wiki. It would enhance interaction,

collaboration and participation in online environment. Besides that, the (T-S)

interaction is considered a crucial interaction in the Wiki environment. It

encouraged collaboration between teacher and students. It prevented some wrong

behaviours might have occurred, if Wiki teachers were not present in the

environment.

5.3.5 Pedagogical Roles

Online teacher pedagogical roles are considered the most important roles among

other roles. They are also considered the core of online environment. (Bawane &

Spector, 2009, Lee, 2011; Gomez et al., 2017). In the pedagogical role, as

depicted in Figure (5.14), Wiki teachers were first and foremost teachers who

would enable students to grasp pedagogical goals of learning on Wiki. Besides

that, the Wiki teachers facilitated learning on Wiki for their students through pre

and during Wiki classes. In pre-Wiki classes, the teachers made some pedagogical

213

preparations which were used to prepare to the next Wiki classes and design

course materials. Through during-Wiki classes’ preparations, the Wiki teachers

prepared pedagogical activities which differentiated between types of teaching and

learning.

Figure 5-14: Pedagogical Role

5.3.5.1 Teachers first and foremost are Teachers, “Pedagogical goal”

Although the Wiki teachers were IT teachers more than English teachers in their

first Wiki classes (5.2.1.1). However, their pedagogical roles were observed and

practiced in the following classes. Pedagogical goal was the first and foremost for a

teacher in any form of teaching environments. Likewise, Wiki teacher’s aim of

teaching collaborative writing using a Wiki technology was ‘pedagogical.’ Ali stated

Main roles pedagogical

teachers first and foremost teachers

teachers facilitated learning on Wiki for

their students

pre Wiki classes

during-Wiki classes pedagogical activities

pedagogical outcomes of using

Wiki

214

that most of the help he gave to his students on Wiki activities was ‘pedagogical’,

he said:

“Younis: What kind of help did you most show to your students?

Ali: It was pedagogical”

Ali also assured that the first goal of using Wiki in a Wiki class was ‘pedagogical’

since it was what he aimed of conducting his online classes in general and Wiki

classes in specific. He emphasized:

“As I have told you before, you have two things to weigh here. You have the

pedagogical goal and you have the context. The pedagogical goal is I

want to give my students in terms of writing. I want to give them clear, rich

feedback. Okay.”

He also assured that before a teacher started using any tool in teaching, he should

first think about its ‘pedagogical’ goal for online teaching. He said:

“Every teaching method, every teaching tool that you want to apply. If you

consider practicality, everything should go through this piloting stage where

you should start to think about different things. You start to think about your

pedagogical goal. There you start about your context, your students, you

as a teacher, resources available.”

In a word, a Wiki teacher has to give priority to the pedagogical goal of teaching on

Wiki. The pedagogical goal of using any technological tool ensures its success and

acceptance among participants (6.2.1; 6.3.4).

5.3.5.2 Facilitating Learning on Wiki (Pre- & During-Wiki Class)

The data revealed that the Wiki teachers did some pre-Wiki class pedagogical

preparations, to facilitate students’ collaborative writing on Wiki. Then, they had to

focus on during-Wiki class pedagogical activities. This section will show how the

Wiki teachers facilitated learning on Wiki for their students.

215

Pre-Wiki class Pedagogical Preparations

Before the teachers started the Wiki classes, they would do some pedagogical

preparations. First of all, the findings showed that the teachers prepared students

to the next Wiki class. Besides that, the Wiki teachers designed or modified course

materials which would be used later in Wiki classes.

5.3.5.3 Preparing the Next Wiki Class

The data revealed that the Wiki teachers prepared students for the next Wiki

classes through different techniques. In the observed Wiki classes, Ali sent his

students hand-outs through emails before Wiki classes. The hand-outs aimed that

students could write outlines about two companies. It aimed to compare and

contrast between these companies. The work should be written by hand in the Wiki

class. This activity aimed to make students be ready to write an essay on Wiki later

on. Ali also reminded his students about the homework so many times before he

started the Wiki class “Please, don’t forget to do the homework on your Wikis!”

To link what students did in the last class with the next class, Sheikha would

always remind her students the objective of the Wiki class. In one of her Wiki

classes, she gave clear objectives that the class would be a work on students’

essays, as she noted:

“Today, we will work on your essays. They were checked by your friends.

Have a look and write the second draft of your essay.”

In another class, she told her students the objective of the class:

“This class will be about comparison and contrast essays. You have to

start writing Draft.2. Each one knows his or her team. Please make sure

that you are located in the right team. You have 40 minutes to finish”

216

In her Wiki classes, Sheikha presented on PowerPoint a presentation about

paraphrasing and summarizing (See Appendix 11). She started the Wiki class by

asking her students to tell her the difference between ‘paraphrasing and

summarizing’. She brought a PowerPoint slide to remind them. The stage took her

10 minutes. Before Wiki class started, she would send some comments and

feedbacks to the Wiki teams, so they were ready to discuss them in the warming

up stage before the Wiki class started. The Wiki team members had to work with

the teacher and improve the paragraphs that the students wrote on Wiki.

It seems that pre-Wiki class pedagogical preparation was crucial since it would

help students to be more aware of the class pedagogical objectives, as Sheikha

noticed:

“Yeah, I used it to give, at the beginning, instructions and the objectives

and Wiki rules.”

I asked Sheikha why she was concerned about the preparation stage before the

Wiki session. She emphasized that preparation stage was crucial to students. It

gave them an idea what would the Wiki lesson look like, as follows:

“For me, it was really useful to prepare it beforehand. So, students have

clear idea of what they have to do it in the class and what we are going

to discuss in the class. So, instead of writing the objectives on the board,

they already have it online (Wiki).”

The pre-class pedagogical preparations would also clarify some points in lessons

which students had difficulties to understand. She commented:

“They will see what we will do and what we did yesterday. We did the

thesis statements and the purposes statement, and the introduction in

general.”

217

5.3.5.4 Designing Course Materials

The Wiki teachers designed or modified the course materials, since the course was

transformed from a face to face to online course. On the one hand, Ali designed

teacher-made activities for his students in Wiki groups to work on them during Wiki

classes. They were asked to make a full essay with their peers. Ali made these

activities himself to be convenient with the Wiki program and the course objectives.

Then, he uploaded them on Wiki. One of the topics he asked his students to write

on was to compare and contrast between two companies, as he commented:

“Younis: It means that, let me clarify myself. Ali, in your case, you gave the

students the outlines? They have to follow the outlines?

Ali: Yeah I designed the outlines. They had to follow them”

He also added that they were designed in a way to suit the course objectives, as

he noted:

“I actually do two things. The first thing is scaffolding. The second thing is

you make it really related to what they are doing.”

On the other side, Sheikha preferred to use ready-made activities, found in the text

book and uploaded them on Wiki. She asked her students to write on specific

topics, like popular football players. She commented:

“Yeah, I gave them topics from the book. The activities in the book are

structured this way: first write the thesis statement about these topics, and

then write topic sentences for the body paragraphs. I followed that

structure.”

Sheikha, nonetheless, modified the Wiki lessons to be convenient with the Wiki

class objectives. Before she started the Wiki classes, she discussed different parts

218

of her semester plan from the beginning to the end with the researcher. She

adopted her plan in accordance with the Wiki classes’ objectives.

However, the Wiki teacher-designed activities seemed to be more practical than

giving ready-made topics by the Wiki teachers. In my Wiki class observations, I

noticed that Ali’s students did not copy and paste the essays that the teacher

asked them to write on Wiki, as they did in Sheikha’s Wiki class (5.4.1.3). Ali had a

clear vision of what he wanted to use teacher-made activities for. By uploading

them on Wiki, he aimed his students could not copy ready-made topics from the

internet. He wanted his students to work on the given tasks and write an essay, as

he noted

“No, because what I actually did was I gave them the outline ready and I

want you to use the outline to write an essay. So, they had no other choice

to go and copy from anywhere. Because even the companies some of them

companies I created the companies from my mind, all the things. There was

no chance, actually, to get it from outside.”

He also aimed from teacher-designed activities that his students could write an

essay. He commented:

“My purpose was how to make use of the outline use linking words

comparison and contrast markers in order to write an essay.”

Besides that, Ali wanted to link between students’ assessment and designing these

activities on Wiki.

“So, they don't feel that what they are doing online is not something

necessary. But, I want them to feel that what they are doing is really

related to their report.”

219

Moreover, Ali wanted his students to feel that they were doing useful activities. He

wanted them to feel that they were not wasting their time when working on Wiki

activities.

“Yes, they are not wasting their time. Because usually with Moodle, it is

usually...students felt it was a waste of time... not something they have to

do, but a 'stage' preparing them for something bigger coming.”

In a word, pre-Wiki class pedagogical preparation aimed to state the objectives of

the Wiki class. It also aimed to clarify any ambiguity of the Wiki classes and give

feedback and comments on students work on Wiki. It was also necessary since it

prepared students for the planned activities of the Wiki classes. The results of the

study showed that Wiki teachers should be careful when designing or modifying a

course material on a Wiki. The teachers had to design materials that were suitable

to their students and course objectives. The Wiki teachers, nonetheless, should be

careful when choosing ready-made materials as what happened to Sheikha. In one

of her Wiki classes, she could not reach the Wiki class objective since some of the

students copied and pasted the paragraphs. Ali, on the other side, could reach the

objectives of his Wiki class since the students produced collaborative writing

essays. Thus, the data of this study suggests that designing course material in a

Wiki class is necessary to reach desired learning outcomes for students and

teachers.

During-Wiki Class Pedagogical Activities

Online teacher’s pedagogical roles were considered the most important roles in a

Wiki environment. How an online teacher adopted oneself in the new environment

was considered challenging (Bawane & Spector, 2009, Lee, 2011; Gomez et al.,

2017). To the Wiki teacher, adopting oneself required to verify between traditional

220

teaching which was used to do and online teaching, using Wiki, which was a new

experience for them. The Wiki teachers had also to verify between autonomous

learning and scaffolding learning in a Wiki environment. Since using Wiki to teach

collaborative writing was a new experience for their students, the Wiki teachers

had to teach writing on Wiki gradually, from simple to more challenging. This

section will show these points in details.

5.3.5.5 Verifying between Traditional Teaching and online Teaching (Wiki)

The interviews and observations showed how teachers could verify between

traditional teaching and online teaching when students write collaboratively using a

Wiki technology. In the observed classes for both teachers, I noticed that the class

was divided into traditional teaching session (lecturing, face-to-face), and then

online teaching session (Wiki). The teachers were used to face-to-face interaction

with their students. However, they found interacting with students on Wiki as a new

experience added a lot for them. Ali, as a Wiki teacher, argued that he applied his

skills and abilities to teach in a traditional class into a Wiki class. He also varied his

style of teaching between traditional and online teaching. He commented:

“I usually do when I work with students on paper. I mean, in terms of

instructions, the only thing that I actually showed them on screen. Then, I

follow up what I do with every class. I follow up with every group what they

are doing. That was really not different from what I usually do in the

classroom. This might be traditional or not traditional I don't know.

But, I didn't do anything really radically different from what I used to do in

the traditional or face-to-face classrooms usually.”

Besides that, he found there was no difference between the feedbacks he used to

give in traditional teaching classes to that of online teaching classes. Both of them

led to the same result which was giving appropriate feedback to students.

221

However, feedback on both classes, traditional and online, were delivered in

different ways, as he commented:

“Yeah, I think this comes later on when it comes to feedback. Here it might

notice a change in the way give feedback to students on their writing.

Because, what I give to students when I give them a feedback to students

to a writing task, I underline their mistakes sometimes. I give them

symbols so that they know their mistakes. And sometimes, I don’t give them

symbols purposefully, so they can know their mistakes. So, they can see

the phrase or the words, so they can figure out their mistakes

themselves.”

In his Wiki classes, I observed Ali adopting traditional teaching in Wiki classes. For

example, the teacher was moving around and helping his students of what to do in

some parts of their essays. Some groups had problems with the essay

introduction, so he helped them. Other groups had troubles with the essay

conclusion. He gave his students some advice and guidance of how to write them

properly.

Sheikha, as Ali, found the experience of interacting with students online required

no special skills, but worth to try. Sheikha experienced how she interacted with her

students ‘virtually’ and how students ‘form’ their ideas online. It was a worth

experience to undergo as she learnt how she interacted and thought on online

environment by using Wiki. She commented:

“What I liked about the program was that it allowed me to see how

students interact ‘virtually’ as I got used to see them interact face to face.

It helped me also see how students form their ideas online and see the

students’ thinking process along the assignment.”

When I asked Sheikha about it, she felt that verifying between traditional and

online learning was useful for her students too. They were used to use traditional

learning, face-to-face, some of Sheikha’s students did not contact with their peers

222

on ‘Add Discussion’ online. Instead, they preferred to contact face-to-face as they

did in group work activities, she said: “They preferred to contact face-to-face.” It

gave them, as she noticed, a chance to use Arabic to discuss their essay. She

commented:

“It's not an easy thing. Students prefer standing up moving around and

asking the questions they want to ask. Maybe, I think, they want to use

Arabic while they discuss the answers, instead of using English. And

though, the discussion can be in Arabic.”

5.3.5.6 Autonomous learning Vs. Scaffolding learning (collaborative)

The outcomes of the study showed that the Wiki teachers verified between

autonomous learning strategy and scaffolding learning strategy that the Wiki

teachers had to adopt. Scaffolding learning, on the one hand, was one of the

learning strategies that the Wiki teachers tried in the Wiki classes. The Wiki

teachers applied scaffolding learning because they believed in it. Ali, as an

example, believed in scaffolding learning since it enabled him to help his students

in their work step by step.

“I believe in that...I believe that....I think students should be scaffold. I

believe in ‘scaffolding’. Actually, students should be scaffold. I believe

that students should be scaffold one step to another.”

To scaffold students’ work, the Wiki teachers would ask questions during Wiki

classes to encourage participation and active engagement between the students.

Sheikha would ask her students questions like ‘what is the text about?’ in most of

her Wiki classes, as shown from the Wiki class observations.

To facilitate Wiki learning, Ali would always ask questions like ‘Is the idea clear?’ ‘Is

it clear?’ ‘Do you have any question?’ It seems that he did not want his students to

223

miss anything during the Wiki classes. These questions, I believe, would make

students question any ambiguity found in using the Wiki technology and scaffold

their work online. They would also encourage students to initiate more questions

when working on Wiki (5.3.4.3). To scaffold students’ work, besides that, Ali

prepared the outlines for students. He would also let them ‘discuss’ their work with

their peers, as he notified:

“That's way, I left it to comparison and contrast, and preparing the outline

for them makes it a bit...it is one stage for scaffolding. Because we

discuss first the outline then, they have outline.”

Moreover, Ali found the teacher initiated questions on Wiki was helpful in

scaffolding students’ learning on it. It helped students to feel secure that the

teacher was working with them and following their work online. Initiating questions,

as asking for any questions from students, would encourage students to interact

and ask more questions. He commented:

“When you interfere, the students feel okay that the teacher is observing.

He is with us. So, they can ask more questions.”

It helped them also discuss their work on Wiki with their peers. However, if online

discussion was left without being scaffold by teacher, it might not be useful to

students, as Ali believed. The students would not do anything on Wiki that their

teacher did not tell them to do without being pushed by the teacher online. He

commented:

“You can even initiate some discussions. What do you think about this?

Students start discussing. But, if you leave it to them the discussion will be

really minimal. Because they won't go the extra miles. Because they go only

the needed miles not the extra miles to write their own assignment. They

won’t go the extra miles to do the discussions without you there adding so

little initiatives.”

224

Sheikha agreed that, if a teacher did not scaffold students’ work on Wiki, it might

not be worthy. She complained that being not involved in students’ ‘Add

Discussion’ chat forum session, it was not fruitful. Her students were shouting and

not communicating on Wiki properly, as she explained:

“And also I'd like to add one more thing. When it came to discussion

function, I gave them like five minutes. I say you can discuss your

writing. They were shouting, but not discussing properly on Wiki. Like

one was here. He shouted: "I posted a comment there, go and check it out.

Did you receive it?" They just kept talking through it. So, it was not real

online discussion.”

Autonomous learning, on the other hand, was used widely by the Wiki teachers

because of many reasons, most of them focused on students working on Wiki.

Believing in students’ abilities and skills to work autonomously on Wiki, both Wiki

teachers felt that the students had to be given a chance to work on their own.

Sheikha, for instance, used autonomous learning because she wanted her

students to become more ‘autonomous’ in their learning on Wiki. She commented:

“Because I think my goal from using Wikispaces in the classroom was to

encourage students to be more autonomous. Because, I think it was a

good opportunity for me to stand back and have them have their own

things and discuss their writings, or the problems that they have.

It was almost the same as peer editing or peer discussion, but it was online.

Instead of having it on a paper and a pen.”

Ali, besides Sheikha, felt that his students had to work ‘themselves’ on Wiki without

being guided or led by the teacher. He commented:

“I really wanted them…really think about it and think themselves and try

to correct it themselves instead of giving them a lot of comments and they

were asking about what does this mean...is what we are doing correct. So,

this was the kind of help.”

225

Similar to Sheikha’s motivation, Ali used autonomous learning because he

‘believed’ in students’ abilities to work with their peers in a collaborative writing

group without being guided or supervised by the Wiki teacher. He commented:

“So, I think, with the availability with so many sources, it is much easier for

students to work together, and to teach each other’s instead of being

the teacher being a facilitator or a guide.”

He also confirmed that students could do the tasks themselves and find their own

way:

“But, I also believe that students can find their way and if you saw in the

last class when I asked them, despite the fact that. I told them, you have

your computers and you can go and search what the different instructions,

they got it (clicking) like this (fast, he meant). And they tried to explain it

to each other’s.”

To let students work on Wiki environment autonomously, the Wiki teachers showed

evidence of that. First of all, they let students discuss their essays without their

interference, as it was observed in the Wiki classes. In Ali’s Wiki class, he would

give his students outlines to discuss them together in their groups. Then, they were

asked to work their own essay ‘alone’ to include it in their reports. He commented:

“After that, they will use the outline that they have in order to write. Later on,

when their reports come, they will write from their own outlines. This is

linking things together.”

In another example, Ali underlined the mistakes on students’ writing on Wiki. Then,

he linked it to a video or a dictionary. He wanted his students to discover by

themselves the mistakes that they committed. He said:

“The first thing is that you can underline a mistake. You can give your

comments on that mistake. You can link it to something outside. A video

or a link to web site. So here comes the independent part of learning

students need to search and find out more about this.”

226

He also showed how he corrected his students’ mistakes on Wiki. He said:

“Other things were related to writing. I noticed that students write capital

letters or using capital letters in the middle of a sentence. Just one question

then I moved. For group number 4 specifically, I gave them...I

underlined words.”

All in all, scaffolding students learning or leaving them learn autonomously are two

learning strategies which need more investigation in online learning in general and

in Web 2.0 in specific. In this study, the Wiki teacher used both learning strategies

since they believed in them to develop students’ learning in a Wiki environment.

However, it is noticed that there are some skills which a Wiki teacher should adopt

in order to show both learning strategies. Whereas, the Wiki teachers encouraged

students to work on Wiki by themselves, they, nonetheless, guided them in some

events to interact on Wiki effectively.

5.3.5.7 Pedagogical Outcomes of Using Wiki “if a student can write a

paragraph then, he can write a book”

To encourage students to write on Wiki, the teacher got students accustomed with

writing on Wiki program first. As Ali said: “Moving from simple to more difficult or

more complicated.” They first trained students how to write on the program

gradually, as observed in the Wiki classes, Figure (5.15). The Wiki teachers asked

students to write short sentences, and then they commented on them.

227

Figure 5-15: Add Discussion

Ali also believed in teaching online gradually. He commented: “Because to me if a

student can write a paragraph then, he can write a book.” Therefore, he followed

this strategy from the beginning of his experience to result in desirable learning

outcomes at the end of the semester.

The students were asked to write short sentences and then to comment on their

peers sentences. Then, they were trained to write short paragraphs in Wiki groups

to build 100 word essays. At the end, the students could write essays, consisted of

250 to 300 words on a Wiki group collaboratively. Ali commented:

“Yeah, I started with a little paragraph for the whole group. So, each

member in words maximum for each person. So, this makes it easy to

move to the next step which is writing paragraph, then writing an essay.

Because, I really believe in scaffolding. Learning for students.”

Using Wiki in teaching students to write collaboratively in a group was a useful

experience for the Wiki teachers and their students. For the students, they enjoyed

working collaboratively with their peers. They would have no fear of writing 300

words essay online with a group. Before Wiki classes, the students did not approve

using online methods to write on, as Moodle. After using Wiki collaboratively, they

seemed to accept the idea of using it to write online. Ali commented:

228

“And also for the students, they don't feel burden of typing 250 words or

300 words. So, let's say, this program or this online service. It is a new

thing to them. If you ask them to write 250 words. Let’s say, it might

be shunning from the beginning”

For teachers, they had less work to mark on students’ essays. Instead of marking

so many essays, they would have less numbers since the students would work in

groups. Ali commented:

“This will make, actually, the burden on the teacher, let's say... Having each

student writing an essay. If you have a group of students writing an essay.

Each one takes one paragraph. So instead of marking 16 essays for

each student, you will end up marking only 4 essays for four groups.”

To sum up, one of the pedagogical learning outcomes to a Wiki technology was

that it encouraged students to write collaboratively with their peers. The results

showed that the collaborative writing using Wiki became a desirable experience for

the teachers as well as the students (5.2.3). More importantly, it also helped EFL

teachers to spend fewer efforts and time in online collaborative writing sessions.

5.3.5.8 Conclusion

In conclusion, in their pedagogical roles, the Wiki teachers had first to focus on the

pedagogical objectives of using Wiki for collaborative writing activities. Then, they

had to be aware of facilitating Wiki activities and designing course materials. The

Wiki teachers did not receive much training on using Wiki in computer lab classes.

They, nonetheless, could adopt their everyday teaching skills in these classes.

Adapting their traditional class teaching in online teaching required them to adopt

some teaching strategies as scaffolding and autonomous learning. Pedagogical

roles of a Wiki teacher required her or him to believe in their students Wiki work

since it would have no difference from traditional class work. As one of the Wiki

229

teachers put it: “If a student can write a paragraph then, he can write a book”. To

ease students’ work on Wiki, it should be noted that a Wiki teacher is advised to be

well equipped. In this study, both Wiki teachers were ideas generators and

innovative teachers when teaching using Wiki. Finally, the Wiki teachers could help

themselves save time and spent fewer efforts by using these technological devices

in their teaching situations and helped them got their students focused on the

pedagogical objectives of the Wiki classes.

5.3.6 Psychological Roles

As a Wiki teacher, she or he should be equipped with some psychological roles

which would help in conducting the Wiki classes more smoothly and effectively.

The psychological roles of a Wiki teacher showed the main four motives. They

were personal motives, leading motives, intellectual motives, and emotional

motives (Figure 5.16).

Figure 5-16: Psychological Role

Main roles Psychological

personal motives

leading motives

intellectual motives

emotional motives

230

5.3.6.1 Personal Motives

To start with, both teachers showed personal motives which were observed during

the Wiki classes or mentioned during the interviews. First of all, the Wiki teachers

were willing to learn new things. Ali said that he was lucky to be in a course which

its materials were online. Ali found the experience interesting and worth trying it.

“I was one of the teachers. But I liked it because it was online, everything was in front of me, I was able to access things easily, get the files instead of moving from my office down to her office or sending her an email "Can you please, I forgot, I don't have this copy..."

He also attended e-learning workshops to widen his knowledge of using

technology in teaching a language.

“To me, when I attended the workshop in last summer. We had a workshop in e-learning and then, the professor said at the end of the workshop: "I'm not saying that, technology will replace teachers, but teachers who know technology will replace those who don't."

Although Sheikha was described by her colleagues in the centre to be ‘fond of

technology’, she found integrating technology in language learning is a little bit

challenging.

“I was really interested in your project because I'd like to learn more about integrating technology in the classroom. Especially when it comes to writing.”

She, nonetheless, would try the experience since it would add to her experience as

a teacher. She tried the Wikispaces program as a student, but now as a teacher.

She commented:

“And also because I was a student here and we had it in a course. I really enjoyed it. So, it was a good thing to see it form the teacher's perspective.”

231

Besides willing to learn new things, the Wiki teachers were interested in

technology. Sheikha, as she described herself, was ‘fond’ and ‘open’ to try new

online tools for her students in her different classes. She said:

“Because, I'm open to use other tools. I tried other tools that might help me and my students to; you now, make the classes goes smoothly.”

She also added:

“Yes I am. I'm fond of technology.”

5.3.6.2 Leading motives

In the leading motives, the Wiki teachers were observed to act as leaders in the

Wiki classes. In their Wiki classes, the teachers were determined to solve new

problems, acted as a decision maker, attend classes early, solve problems when

existed and had Plan B, if anything went wrong.

As a leader in Wiki classes, Ali had to solve technical problems himself and did not

wait for the technician. He was also determined to solve encountered problems as

he could and discussed it to those who may concern. He commented:

“Actually, I went to the technician and explained and insisted that the problems should get solved. He assured me that the problem is not from here. We have already contacted CIS (Computer & Internet Support) and they replied that they are solving the problem. But still. This is what I could only do. Apart...”

Observed through their Wiki classes, the Wiki teachers understood their students’

needs in the Wiki classes. Ali, for example, assured that he should be ‘different’ in

the sense that he should provide the Wiki learning materials to his students based

on their level of writing. He commented:

232

“As you know, that for every class it should be different depending on what student section you have. For some students you find yourself that you are, let's say, a little bit pushed to teach more grammar. For others you feel that they need more vocabulary. So the focus depends on what group you have. You cannot say and generalize that this might apply to everyone.”

He also added:

“If I reach this level where students can recognize and identify fragment sentences and they can correct their own sentences and write complete sentences, this is the time for me to start writing paragraphs, to focus on the paragraph level, with the supporting details and examples and explanations and content. Because if they're not at that level of writing correct sentence structure then it's really a bit hard to move to the paragraph level. After the paragraph level we move to the essay.”

5.3.6.3 Mental Motives

As Wiki teachers, they showed some mental motives. In their Wiki classes, they

were critical, creative, and reflective.

Ali was critical of using some online programs when comparing them with

Wikispaces. Wikispaces was better than these programs in terms of that it had no

commercial ads, he commented:

“I have, some of them. But for some of them there was too much advertising about it, but when it comes to reality, they didn't work.”

Ali was critical of free online programs, therefore when he tried the Wiki program

for the first time; he could critically see what should exist in the Wiki program. He

criticized the Wikispaces that it had no App for the program. He said:

“Wiki Spaces, I think because it's onscreen, on a desktop, there is no app for it, and this might be a limitation maybe because not all students will have this initiative of going and logging in and trying to use Wiki Spaces unless they get...”

233

Ali, to add more, could compare between the Wiki programs with another program

he was using at that time, Turnitin and Moodle by showing the advantages of each

one, as he stated:

“Yeah, Turnitin is the online machine that detects plagiarism but it has some features for giving direct comments which on the tool were accurate, grammatical comments, related to the grammar area of students mistakes. But you need to go through the direct because it's a machine at the end. And you see the comments given to them, for example sometimes it says 'A Verb is missing in this sentence' while there is actually nothing missing.”

He also added…..

“Another thing that is missing is also changing role. Because in Moodle, for example, you can switch the role to a student for example to see what a student can see. But here I asked my students to see the project thing myself. I told them go to the project thing and find your team and click on the team. Because this is what I saw as a teacher, as an organizer.”

Critically, he could detect the weaknesses and strengths of each program, the

Turnitin and the Wiki program. He commented:

“Yeah, and you need to add your own comments. But what's special about Turnitin is that there are some symbols there for marking the writing of a student, so they are already there. For example SP for 'spelling', if you drag it, you put it where you want to pinpoint a mistake in for a student, You drag it and you paste it there, and when the student clicks on it, it gives what is...”

Besides being critical, the Wiki teachers were creative in their Wiki classes. Ali, for

example, found that there was “a possibility of linking Wiki Spaces with Moodle.” It

was important since it saved time and efforts.

Ali also thought there should be a list of instructions of how to use the Wikispaces

program. It would be helpful for students in the future Wiki classes. It would also

give them guidance of how to use the Wikispaces effectively. He commented:

234

“I think it would have been much easier if I had a list of instructions very simplified for students. I give it to them one or two classes before and I ask them "Okay, try to do this from home, this is what you should do, this is what, one, two, three, four...". Because they are literate in terms of technology.”

Ali said: “Having Plan. B is the trick which most teachers don’t know.” Being a

creative teacher when teaching on Wiki forced teachers to have Plan B in some

classes. In one of the observed classes, Sheikha faced a net connection problem.

To solve the problem, the teacher showed students a PP presentation which I

discovered later that it was on Wikispaces site. It was about ‘Your Report Outlines’.

The same problem happened to Ali in one of his classes; he solved it by asking the

students to see the activities on Wiki on screen. Ali used his laptop and connected

it to the white screen to display it to all the students in the class. In another class,

Ali was using ‘Add Discussion’ function on Wiki. Suddenly, it did not work. As an

alternative, Ali told his students to use ‘What’sApp’ or emails to chat with each

other’s about the Wiki writing texts. He could carry out the class, as if nothing

happened.

Both Wiki teachers made students reflect upon their work on Wiki by the end of the

five Wiki classes to improve the Wiki work in the future. First of all, Ali was

concerned about his students’ work on Wiki and what was good and what should

be done to improve it in the future. Therefore, he asked his students to reflect upon

their peers work as he commented:

“I told them that you'd have a Wiki reflection. Or reflect upon Wiki and

how what worked and what didn't work. What they liked and what they

didn't. I didn't really link it to assessment since it was not already planned.”

235

It shows the reason behind not taking the Wiki activities seriously by some of the

students. Unfortunately, group work on Wiki was not distributed fairly among

students, as Ali noted:

“Some of them, I mean not all of them. For some tasks you see some

students are working, but for other tasks the others are working. I don't

know if they manage to distribute work among themselves?”

Reflection was useful to the Wiki teacher. Through reflection, Ali could detect some

weaknesses in the Wiki classes. He said:

“The person who will work this time won't work next time. But, I found it

actually. When they didn't do in the class. When they did it outside the class

when they come to the lab. I had them work together even in one

computer. So, just to make sure that there were a collaborative writing was

going on among them.”

Sheikha, as Ali, asked her students to reflect upon her students work at the end of

the five Wiki classes. She told them to write an essay online. She found some

weaknesses that she should be aware of in the future classes as some students

needed more help than others in online work.

“Sheikha asked the students to write reflections on their experience on

using Wiki to write an essay online. She could get so many issues. One

of them was that students got confused in groups. The teacher could

not know who need more help than others in a group (Observation,

Sheikha)”.

5.3.6.4 Emotional Motives

One of the most important motives of being emotional was to be an encouraging

teacher. Sheikha, as an encouraging teacher, she encouraged collaboration

between students. She commented:

“For me threating is the last option. First, I try to encourage the student. You should help you r friends. You are in a team, work with him. why don't you join your group. Just as a suggestions. But at the

236

end I got frustrated. He was helping members of the other groups. So, at least he was doing something good. Something is better than nothing.”

Besides that, she encouraged students to try new thoughts: “Who wants to solve

the problems? Who wants to give it a try?” She also encouraged students who

came up with exceptional answers, “Excellent, I have not thought of such an

answer.” “It is a good try, but it isn’t right.” Besides that, she made students feel

that Wikispaces is not difficult to master. She said “the more you practice it, the

master you will be.”

Ali was caring about students’ feelings, when he explained a complicated lesson

which resulted in that students did not get frustrated or annoyed of the Wiki

classes, as he confirmed:

“What I did was just try to focus on the previous stages. Stages what I told you about, preparing for using Wikispaces for collaborative writing. The stage of how to write compare and contrast sentences and how to write an introduction. I am looking to do the idea of how to analyse an outline and look at differences and similarities and look how to make use of what is there in order to write a good comparison and contrast essay. Luckily, I was able to make the class go smoothly, hopefully. Without letting the students frustrated or annoyed that they tried to access to this thing, the Wikispaces and feel disappointed about it.”

5.3.6.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, in their psychological roles, the Wiki teachers focused on four

motives to show their contribution in Wiki environments. They were personal,

leading, mental and emotional motives. I believed what distinguishes the

psychological roles from the other roles is it requires a Wiki teacher to be close to

his or her students when working on Wiki. It also requires her or him to be more

careful when dealing with students’ emotions and feelings in the virtual

environment.

237

5.4 Q.III: What are the Challenges that the Wiki teachers face in a Wiki

environment?

This section aims to answer the third research question: “What are the challenges

that the Wiki teachers face in a Wiki environment?”

When users experience a new technological tool, they will mostly face challenges

from adopting the tool itself as well as from the users of this tool themselves.

Likewise, the Wiki teachers faced some challenges when they used the Wiki

program for collaborative writing. These challenges were with students’ readiness

to work on Wiki as well as some technical problems. There were other challenges,

caused by different factors, Figure (5. 17). In the coming lines, these challenges

will be further discussed in details.

Figure 5-16: Challenges

5.4.1 Students’ Readiness to Work on Wiki

Throughout using Wiki to teach collaborative writing in a Wiki environment, I

noticed that there were some challenges to students. These challenges were

related to students faced troubles in logging in the program. Students, furthermore,

Challenges

Students' readiness to work on Wiki

Technical problems

Challenges by different factors

238

had troubles in students’ online collaboration and the students did not take

collaborative writing seriously.

5.4.1.1 Troubles in Logging in

At the beginning of using the Wiki program, students had troubles of using it. As

observed in Sheikha’s Wiki classes, some students were struggling to log in the

Wiki pages. They forgot their passwords although the teacher asked them to make

it simple and write it in a safe place.

“Some students forgot their passwords. Sheikha spent too much time to

find ways to restore their passwords. Sheikha seemed not satisfied with

students who forgot their passwords (Observation, Sheikha).”

Ali, likewise, said the main trouble with students work on Wiki at the beginning of

using the program was that “students forgetting their user names and

passwords,” which led to students and teachers did not start Wiki classes on time,

as he noted:

“I faced mostly technical problems. As I said earlier, it was internet

connection problems. Students forgetting their user names and

passwords. It was mainly about their passwords.”

5.4.1.2 Troubles in Students’ Online Collaboration

Then, the results showed that students were encountered with troubles when using

the Wiki program with their groups during using the Wiki program. Most of the

troubles were concerned about students’ collaboration when writing a collaborative

writing text. Sometimes, students lacked collaboration among the teammates.

Sheikha was a bit bothered that there was a limited collaboration between ‘some of

the Wiki groups, not all of them’ as she stated it. She was also annoyed that her

239

students were not willing to write collaboratively with their teammates, especially

group leaders. She or he might not distribute Wiki work fairly, as she noted:

“The only thing I faced was some of the students were really discouraged

to write collaboratively. It was during using the Wiki. Because some of

them thought that it might the group’s leader would put the entire burden on

my shoulders.”

The limited collaboration in the online classes in general and Wiki classes in

specific might be due to the fact that, as Ali said, students were ‘hesitant’ to

participate in online activities or using technology for educational purposes:

“Yeah they are, but the problem is - this is based on my own experience -

when it comes to using technology for educational purposes, for learning,

you find this kind of hesitation among students. Because I'm the guy

responsible for Moodle for our program and I don't know whether you

considered Moodle 2.0...)”

It could be also because of the weak assessment, so students were not willing to

participate in online activities (5.2.2.1.2). Sheikha, besides being bothered by

limited collaboration, did not approve that students were working on ‘one or two

computers’, instead of working on different ones. Working on one computer would

not show collaboration on Wiki when writing a collaborative writing text, as she

said:

“Yeah, I'm still disappointed that my students still refuse to divide the

work and each student sits on his or her computer and does the work.

They prefer sitting beside each other doing the same thing together in one

keyboard instead of doing the work one by one.”

Sheikha was also annoyed from students who were not willing to collaborate with

their group peers on collaborative writing tasks, as she noted:

“Some of them were really resistant. They just said we do not want to

work with this group or this person.”

240

Some of them, besides that, were not willing to work with some of the teammates,

as Sheikha noticed.

“Another challenge someone didn't like their teammates. So, most of

them were assigned with the students.”

In her Wiki classes, one of Sheikha’s students wrote the whole introduction the

teacher asked them for his teammates. As a result, he refused to do any extra

work in the following Wiki class. Sheikha commented:

“There is also one issue regarding a leader of one of the teams. He did

the entire introduction. And yesterday he said that I won't do anything to

the rest of his group on the rest of the essays. Because he said that he

did all the work and his friends did not do anything last week.”

In another incident, a student wrote the whole essay for his teammates. Since work

among the teammates was not divided properly, he refused to do any extra work

for the group in the following class, as she explained:

“And actually, one of them wrote the whole essay at one point. And when

we came to the following class, he said that he would not do anything in

the class because he had done all the work last class. That was one of

the challenges.”

Lack of collaboration also resulted in clash between teammates to divide work

among them. Sheikha did not approve the fact that her students had ‘a clash’

between them ‘regarding distributing work among them’. Last but not least, lack of

collaboration resulted in the teacher became confused who worked and who did

not which made the Wiki teacher ‘annoyed’, as she explained:

“What annoyed me mostly my students sat in one computer and this did

not show me who worked and who did not? Who wrote this sentence or

that sentence? So, that was the most annoying for me.”

241

Ali, as Sheikha, was facing the same trouble. His students would gather on a

computer and pasted the separate paragraphs. It made him confused who did what

since it was uploaded from ‘one’ computer, as he illustrated:

“The same with me actually, the same problem I had because most of the

work was done in class. Though some of them they did, actually, this

collaborative writing. One student pasting the first paragraph or the

introduction, the other students pasting the other paragraphs. But, it

seemed that they had not done it all separately, individually. Then coming

collaboratively in online form. No, they had some parts of it then came to

class and then they sat in one computer and they started working on it

together.”

Figure 5-17: Engagement Page

Students made another trick to work from ‘one’ computer and made the teacher

confused who did what. They wrote their essay on a word file, and then they

copied and pasted it on Wiki. It became hard for the teacher to track their work on

Wiki through engagement page (Figure 5-17). As observed in the engagement

page (Figure 5-17), the three group members did not do any activity throughout the

Wiki class because their activity line was flat. Ali commented:

242

“Some of them what they did also that they wrote first on a word file,

organized everything, everything was done, copied and pasted there,

and saved! It wasn't actually; to me...It was collaborative in a sense. But, it

was not really different from some cases not all cases, in paper and pen

collaborative writing, apart from using keyboards.”

Besides that, Ali confirmed the challenges that Sheikha faced. He faced mostly the

same challenges during using Wiki for collaborative writing text. Ali stated that

“students didn't really work collaboratively.” Since there was a lack of collaboration

between teammates in the Wiki groups, it resulted in that students did not divide

work among them properly.

5.4.1.3 Not Taking Working Online Seriously

Another trouble appeared in students’ work during using Wiki for collaborative

writing was that some groups copied ready-made texts from internet websites and

pasted them on their Wiki pages, copy and paste. Sheikha, for example, faced the

problem with her students. She gave them general outlines to write about, for

example: cars in the world, famous football players, flowers and so on.

Consequently, her students could copy ready-made texts and pasted them on their

Wiki pages. She commented:

They completed the essay at home. It was for both of them, but for the boys

most of the information was copied and pasted and after the first task I

printed and copied the first essays and took them to the class to have them

peer edit each group's work. And for one of the males groups, they had a 5

pages essay, comparing and contrasting Beckham and Zidane. They

didn’t have the structure of an essay.

Sheikha believed that ‘copy and paste’ was really ‘a disadvantage of using online

programs’. At the end of the semester, teachers were annoyed from the students’

243

behaviour in the Wiki classes. Ali criticized his students that they still did not think

high of online programs. They had negative beliefs about them. He commented:

“I’m really disappointed that students do not take the online programs

seriously.”

The students did not take the online programs seriously, because they considered

them as ‘supplementary tools’ not essential ones to learn the language, as he

explained:

It is due to the fact that teachers and students think of them as

supplementary tools not necessary ones. It is dealt with as attachment

to the course. You might do it or not. But, if we think of it as a core of the

course, students will think about it differently. They will take it seriously. By

time students will learn and it will be a part of them."

As a result of that, students skipped the last lab classes or Wiki classes in this

case. If they had mid-term or final exams, they preferred to study for these exams

than attending Wiki classes, as Ali noted:

“Yes, because of exams. They had math exams. Some of them last week.

Some of them this week. So, they are studying for other tests. They have

IT, Arabic, they have electives. So, it is not pure foundation, English thing

as it used to be.”

Besides that, students skipped the last Wiki classes because they got ‘fed up’ as

Ali said:

“It could be also because another thing. Students might get fed up with

everything. It is the mostly the end of the semester.”

244

5.4.2 Technical Problems

According the revealed data, it resulted that Wiki teachers suffered from two main

problems in collaborative classes using Wiki. They suffered from internet poor

connection as well as technical problem in the Wiki technology itself.

5.4.2.1 Internet Poor Connection

One of the most occurring technical problems happened in the conducted Wiki

classes was poor or no internet connection. Most of Ali’s Wiki classes started at 8

in the morning and lasted for two hours. Since they started early, Ali was observed

to come to class ‘too’ early, sometimes ‘two’ hours before the Wiki class time. He

had to set up the proxy and connect other devices before his students arrived, as

he added:

“In spite of actually coming too early, trying to prepare for the lesson. I

came two hours earlier the lecture. My class starts at 8 in the morning, I

came two hours before that. I did all just to get things prepared.”

Troubles sometimes faced with technological devices in the computer lab such as

proxy, he further added:

Okay, though I tried to get things running smoothly, as you saw I actually

had many technical problems starting with the proxy and trying to get it

connected to the desktop and with the screen that I wanted to show the

students.

Besides that, he still faced some problems with the internet poor connection, as he

said:

“Unfortunately, I was faced with the regular problem which is proxy problem

and Internet connection problem.”

245

Because of the internet poor connection, he lost lots of time trying to log in the Wiki

page to prepare for his lessons before students arrived to Wiki classes.

Furthermore, the Wiki program worked on some computers, but not on others. He

commented:

“Actually, it's happened for the fourth time. I was just able to access

Wikispaces at 7.45 a.m. All of that time was wasted....I wouldn't say wasted,

because I tried to do other things, but I couldn't actually do what I

planned to do. What I came early for. Though, in these fifteen minutes

(before the class started) I tried to set up the teams and prepare things.

But, I went to the classroom; Wiki worked with some students but

didn't work with others. Even in that lab, my own laptop didn't work in that

specific lab.”

At the end of his experience using Wiki in teaching collaborative writing, Ali

considered ‘internet poor connection’ was the most serious technical problem when

experiencing Wiki for teaching collaborative writing texts. He commented:

“My experience was a bit different. Though I did my best to get organized

before, but because of the internet connection problems as you saw in

my classes. I do not know whether it was the case with morning classes

only, but I had troubles with internet connections all the time, with

server errors. So, despite being here early, it has been a really a

problem esp. for morning classes. That was my experience if you ask

me about my experience.”

Sheikha, unlike Ali, suffered less from the internet poor connections. Her Wiki

classes were mostly in the evening from 2 p.m. onwards. In the evening classes,

the internet connection was much better than the morning classes. However, she

suffered once from the intent poor connection in one of her Wiki classes. In one of

her Wiki classes, it was observed also that some computers had no internet

connections whereas others did. So the teacher allowed some students to work on

246

her computer. It took the students too much time to log in their Wiki pages. She

commented:

“Well, first of all, it was because of the internet connectivity. Students took

too much time, you know, to log into the course itself.”

Another serious technical problem, the Wiki teachers encountered was that Sultan

Qaboos University domain did not accept ‘link invitations’ from outside emails

because of ‘security reasons’. The Wiki teachers sent these invitations from their

own account on the Wiki program to their students’ emails in order to be members

in the same Wiki group. Ali commented:

“I had to write the link of the website to get the students; I couldn't even

send them the invitations to enrol in this Wikispaces thing because of

security reasons. I could have actually done it one by one but I didn't know

about that before.”

Unfortunately, the web page did not open and took students to a page saying

‘Forbidden’ or ‘Server Down.’ He commented:

“Yeah, this is what I didn't expect at all. I know that it sometimes refuses to

open links. If you send an email with a link to a student and if a student

clicks on it, it takes him or her to a page saying "Server down" or

"Forbidden" something.”

As a result, the Wiki teachers had to find another way to enrol their students on the

Wiki to enable them to send their contributions to other students or the teachers

themselves, as shown in (5.4.2.2)

5.4.2.2 Technical Problems in the Wiki Program

The Wiki program itself, used for collaborative writing, had some shortcomings. To

start with, Ali had a problem when he sent the invitations to students. Since the

Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) server considered them as spams, therefore, Ali

247

had to resend the invitations one by one, instead of sending them all at once. It

was ‘time-consuming’ as he explained it:

“It was in the class. Because I tried to copy and paste all the emails at

once and invite all the students, but it was sent only to one, that's why

to me it could have been a solution to this, one by one. And this is time-

consuming, considering that you want to finish the setting up of the class

and getting all the students enrolled in a very short time.”

Before using the Wiki program, Ali noticed that it had no ‘App’, so he expected that

this might affect students’ willingness to use the program, he said:

“Wikispaces, I think because it's onscreen, on a desktop, there is no app

for it, and this might be a limitation maybe because not all students will

have this initiative of going and logging in and trying to use Wikispaces.”

By the end of the program, he was assured of his fear regarding that the program

since it had no App. It was less ‘user-friendly’ as it was supposed to be, as he

confirmed:

“Actually, I was thinking if this program has an App., this would, you know,

be more user-friendly to students.”

He further confirmed that an App is a shortcoming in the Wiki program, he stated:

“The thing that Wiki misses is having an App. So, this problem of having

them come to one computer. if it had this option, thing might, well, actually

they have went into another direction.”

When the Wiki teachers started using the program, they faced a problem with ‘Add

Discussion’ chat forum. Sheikha was disturbed that her students did not keep the

topic they were discussing on ‘Add Discussion’. She had to interfere and ‘keep

students on track.’ For example, students sometimes might discuss issues not

related to the essay topic, so the teacher had to make them focus their ‘Add

Discussion’ chat on collaborating to write the essay only, as she commented:

248

“To keep the discussion on track. Because one of them was like, why

were you absent yesterday? What does it have to do with the

essay? (laughing) So yeah.”

Ali had troubles with some functions of the program. The ‘Add Discussion’ chat

forum did not work when his students used it. Some students posted some

discussions online, but did not appear to their group members. He commented:

“Actually, at the beginning of the class, students tried to use the

discussion option. So, I told them not to move from their place. We

wanted to check and use this feature in the program. They posted their

discussion, but it didn't appear for the other students. That's what

made me...made them work all in one computer.”

Another problem Ali faced with the program functions was that he could not change

some of his students’ usernames. Some students used ‘fake-names’ and Ali

wanted to change it to their real names, so he could know who was who. He

commented:

“The only difficulty I faced is that only I could not change their fake

user names to the actual names. So, I had Sniper (nickname) and those

difficult names. It was actually difficult for me to figure out these names. It

was difficult to assign, but after I did it one time, it was easy.”

5.4.3 Challenges by Different Factors: Colleagues, Students, and SQU

Administration

There were other challenges that the Wiki teachers faced throughout their

experience of using Wiki for collaborative writing. They were concerned with the

CPS teachers, students and the SQU administration. To start with, Ali was willing

to train the CPS teachers to use Wiki in their classrooms by giving training

sessions as part of professional development sessions. However, he was

249

cautioned that teachers would not accept such new ideas since they had ‘Phobia of

Technology’ as he commented:

“For example, some teachers have this phobia of technology, they have

really phobia. Some teachers, if you tell them that they can use an Excel

sheet to calculate the marks, they say "Oh no no no no, not this

complicated please!"

He also added:

“Yes, of course. The teacher is one to decide to use it or not. Some of them

might feel, let's say, the phobia of technology, even with Excel sheet.”

Then, Ali faced another challenge with his students. They believed that their

teacher was an ‘expert.’ He knew all the ins and outs of the program and who

could solve all technical problems, as he stated:

“Since, when you want to try it with me, you are an expert. And they think

that you know everything about it every bit and piece about it, so

whenever any technical problem they face, they expect this guy (he means

the teacher) will come here and with two clicks everything will be solved”

It irritated him because he could not solve all problems since he was not an

efficient ‘technical supporter’ as he commented:

“Yes, it wasn't in my case, unfortunately. Though, I wasn't efficient

technical supporter because I couldn't help with it.”

Last but not least, the Wiki teachers were annoyed by SQU administrational

procedures routine. When net poor connection happened, the teacher had to report

it to a department in the SQU. Unfortunately, it took the department very long time

to fix the problem because of the administrational procedures it had to undergo, as

Ali angrily stated:

250

“Actually, I went to the technician and explained and insisted that the

problems (poor internet connection) should get solved. He assured me that

the problem is not from here (computer lab). We have already contacted

CIS (Computer & Internet Support) and they replied that they are

solving the problem. But still. This is what I could only do.”

5.4.4 Conclusion

When using Wiki for collaborative writing activities, the Wiki teachers faced some

challenges. These challenges, first of all, related to students who participated in the

program. The second challenges were technical challenges that either related to

the internet or technical problems in the Wiki program itself. Finally, the Wiki

teachers had some concerns about some issues that might hinder using Wiki

technology in education institutions, as teachers, students, and the institution

administration.

It seems that these challenges could be dealt with by the Wiki teachers. For

example, Wiki teachers could find solutions to challenges which students faced

when they used Wiki technology in collaborative writing. They could solve logging

in problems. They could train students who did not know how to use Wiki

effectively. They could help students collaborate more effectively in a Wiki

environment. They could link their Wiki classes to assessment, so students would

take Wiki classes more seriously.

However, some of these challenges were beyond her or his ability to handle. The

most serious challenge which affected the Wiki classes was the internet poor

connection. The internet had weak signals in which students and teachers had

difficulties to log in. The Wiki program itself had some shortcomings which the

teachers did not approve them. Therefore, the Wiki teachers tried to find supporting

251

programs which bridge the gaps in the Wiki program to make it more acceptable by

students.

To sum up, the Wiki technology had a bright side which resulted in positive

learning outcomes. It, on the other hand, needed some improvements to make

learning outcomes more feasible to students when learning online.

252

Chapter Six: Discussion of the Research Findings

6.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the key findings of the data collected for the current thesis.

This chapter is divided into three sections in relation to the research questions. As

Figure 6-1 shows, the first section discusses the main findings on teacher’s

perceptions on using Wiki in a collaborative writing environment. The second

section discusses the teacher’s roles in a Wiki class. The third section deals with

the challenges that the Wiki teachers face in a Wiki environment.

Figure 6-1: Research Findings

Research Findings

Teacher's perceptions on

using WikiTeacher's Roles Challenges

253

6.2 Teacher’s Perceptions on Using Wiki in a Collaborative Writing

Environment

The Wiki teachers found three main positive points about using Wiki in

collaborative writing classes. The Wiki teachers found themselves act as technical

and pedagogical supporters to students’ learning on Wiki. They had to organize

their work in order to result in desirable learning outcomes. Since they found

working on the program useful, they decided to work using the program in the

future. They, nonetheless, were concerned about some issues after using the

program. The Wiki teachers were concerned about assessing students’ work on

Wiki, the difficulties that the program users faced when used under the SQU

domain. The Wiki teachers’ had their own perceptions about their roles in a Wiki

environment. This section will discuss the perceived Wiki teachers’ roles in a Wiki

environment, teachers’ perceptions about Wiki program environment, and

perceptions about the Wiki program.

6.2.1 Technical or Pedagogical Role?

To start with, teachers in general approved using technology in education. Web 2.0

is a part of this technology and it is viewed positively. Wiki, as a Web 2.0

technology, was viewed positively by teachers too. However, the Wiki teachers had

some concerns of using the tool in English language classes. Web 2.0 tools, in

previous studies, have been perceived positively in teaching. Boulton (2017), for

example, approved the affordances of Web 2.0 technologies. Sadaf et al. (2012)

found that pre-service teachers believed that the integration of Web 2.0

technologies into teaching and learning environment was useful and had the

potential to improve students’ learning. This perceived usefulness of Web 2.0

254

technologies was driven by the value of Web 2.0 technology for improving student

engagement, interaction, communication, and enhancing the overall learning

experience by using innovative learning tools to which students can relate. Boulton

(2017) has also approved that Web 2.0 supported more flexible, collaborative and

creative learning opportunities, improved literacy and engagement with learning.

In this study, likewise, the findings have shown that teacher were eager to use

Web 2.0 technology since it was interesting and would result in desirable learning

outcomes. Although this study was a case study of two EFL teachers, they,

however, showed positive perception of using Wiki in their collaborative writing

classes. Being perceived positively, Wiki teachers were also planning to use it in

the future. Previous studies are in align with the findings. As instance, Li (2015)

showed pre-service teachers’ attitude for integrating Wiki in collaborative learning.

The results showed that a large proportion of the participants possessed a positive

perception of the usefulness of a Wiki for implementing collaborative learning.

Most of the participants, 68.3%, had a positive attitude towards using a Wiki that

facilitated various learning activities. Boulton (2017) likewise found valid evidence

that Web 2.0 technologies, introduced into classrooms, with clear learning

outcomes for students, was successful. Teachers involved in the project continued

using these technologies, with 75% reporting increasing support of colleagues

across their school in the use of new technologies. The recruited teachers,

moreover, reported ownership of the project and their professional development

rather than something imposed on them.

On the other side, the teachers were generally satisfied with integrating Wiki to

teach collaborative writing. They, nonetheless, had some concerns of how to use

255

the Wiki technology in their classrooms. Similarly, Li (2015) found that the most

concern of the Wiki teachers was the lack of experience in using a Wiki for pre-

service teachers. They were, then, concerned that teachers needed more extra

efforts on designing lesson plans on Wiki. It seems that the Wiki teachers had

difficulties to define their roles when integrating Wiki in a collaborative writing

environment. Most of the two roles caused this complexity were technical and

pedagogical roles. On the one hand, they were supposed to teach English

language using Wiki. On the other hand, they had to deal with technical issues

during Wiki classes (See more 5.4.2 & 6.3). To reach their goals, it seems that they

were oscillated between these two roles.

To conclude, it seems that a Wiki teacher has to compromise between these two

roles, technical and pedagogical, as they are important in the online environment.

The Wiki teachers were satisfied pedagogically to use Wiki in their English classes

and they found it interesting and useful. However, they, had some concerns about

the technical issues that they had to deal with in the Wiki classes. It seems that

they had to put more efforts to compromise between these two roles in the future. It

is to provide a healthy atmosphere so students can use the tool more effectively.

To reach IT and teaching English roles in online learning environment, Parker

(2014: 152) concludes that “Online instructors must learn to embrace these roles to

create a balanced learner experience.”

6.2.2 Assessment

One of the findings in this study that students showed no much concern to online

collaborative work on Wiki since it was not highly assessed (See 5.2.2.1.2a &

5.4.1.3). The Wiki teachers were concerned about this result since it affected and

256

would affect students’ online work in future. Assessment plays a crucial role in

students’ learning in general and in online collaborative learning in specific. In

collaborative environments, Knight (1995) recommends that assessment plays a

vital role in assuring students’ learning effectively and appropriately. Therefore,

assessment should be present in collaborative work when designing a course,

integrated with a particular teaching or learning strategy. Macdonald (2003)

recommends that “If course designers wish to give all students an opportunity to

experience online collaborative learning, then it is recommended that such

activities are tied to the course assessment (p.389).”

To assure good quality students’ online collaborative work, online teachers should

assess students’ online collaborative online work. Swan et al. (2005: 45) argue that

“assessment can be seen as the engine that drives student course activity, online

or offline. It is particularly important in encouraging and shaping collaborative

activity online.” It is critical to success of online collaborative activities. Macdonald

(2003) concludes that assessing online collaborative learning should play a crucial

role in helping students to develop effective online collaborators. To take

collaborative work more seriously, Al Rawahi & Al Mekhlafi (2015) conclude that

teachers should link online collaboration to formal assessment by designating

some grades for online group collaboration. They also add that rubrics should be

designed and used to specify the collaboration behaviours that students should

practice in order to get the most of online collaboration. As the Wiki teachers

confirmed in the study that if online collaborative activities were linked to

assessment, students would participate in them more seriously.

257

6.2.2.1 Assessing Online Work

However, how to asses our work in online collaborative environment is considered

a challenging issue. Swan et al. (2005: 46) acknowledge that assessing

collaborative learning is difficult because it requires radically ‘rethinking traditional

techniques. It refers to the fact that most of online assessments are derived from

traditional-centred assessment which is the primary source of assessing students’

online collaborative activities and performance. As a result, students’ online

performance and collaborative learning is ‘undervalued’ and so ‘marginalized’ (p.

45). This fact goes with the finding in the study that students did not take care of

using Moodle since the assessment was not appropriate and had no much harm

on students’ overall grade. Therefore, some students chose not to post on Moodle

or collaborate with their classmates. In brief, students’ online collaborative work

should be given more attention by online teachers, so more effective results can be

viewed in students’ online collaborative learning.

In this study, the Wiki teacher treated assessment as a process where students

had to design portfolios showed their process of learning in a Wiki and Moodle. At

the end of each collaborative writing activity on Wiki, the students had to present

an essay of 250 words. The written essays represented the product of their online

collaborative work. In a word, the students’ Wiki work was divided between being

a process and being a product.

6.2.2.2 Online Work: a process or a product

Having students’ collaborative online work as a process and as a product leads to

present another challenge which is separating the process and product of online

collaboration. Macdonald (2003) confirms that assessing online collaborative work

258

is considered a complex issue since it focuses on the processes of collaboration

and the product of this collaboration. It is also complex since it differs from face-to-

face collaboration which requires physical appearance. Online collaborative

assessment, which requires virtual appearance, focuses on the transcripts which

students produce online collaboratively. In Wiki environment, likewise, Wiki

teachers should pay attention to the transcripts each student produces to maintain

active participation of the student by the end of the lesson. The Wiki program,

likewise, was criticized by the Wiki teachers since it was not supportive to

assessing students’ online work. Therefore, students might not be interested to

integrate it in their study since it has no much importance and has little value, as

the Wiki teachers noted earlier. The Wiki teachers were concerned about

assessment when using Wiki. If there was no assessment, it would lead to less

active participation from students.

Working on online collaborative environment is considered difficult since it is hard

to differentiate between the individuals work as process that results in the final

groups work as a product. On the one hand, collaborative work is traditionally

assessed by means of a collaborative product, and online collaborative

assessment can also include a final product, although it need not necessarily do

so. The written work consists of an individually produced report, attracting

individual marks, together with a summary and conclusion for which everybody in

the group receives the same mark. The question which arises in this point: Do all

students deserve the same mark? In the finding of this study, a student did all the

work on the collaborative writing for the whole group in one of the Wiki classes.

What happened next was unexpected. The student said to the teacher: “I won't do

259

anything to the rest of his group on the rest of the essays. Because he said that he

did all the work and his friends did not do anything last week.” It can be argued that

work was not distributed fairly between students in the group, but it happened and

it will happen in the future classes. The question is: How can individuals work be

assessed in a collaborative online group work? It seems that a grade given to all

students in the same collaborative group work would be debatable. There are

students who show more efforts to do a task whereas others might show less effort

to do the same task. In a word, one way to assess a student collaborative online

work is to focus on the product of the whole group. All students in the group are to

be assessed the same no matter who work and who do not work and who do more

than others or who do less than others in the same group.

To tackle this problem, on the other hand, some scholars affirm the importance of

assessing online collaborative work as a process of students’ online activities.

Tharp (2010) emphasizes that assessment of students’ collaborative online writing

should be dealt with as a process not as a product which is difficult to online

teachers. They get used to treat writing as teacher-centred not as students-centred

process. Focusing on traditional teacher-centred assessments undervalues the

process of collaborative learning between students which represents process.

(Tharp, 2010). To maintain students’ online active participation, transcripts of

students’ online collaborative activities can be used as evidence for the

participation. It means that it is no longer essential to assess a collaborative

product. It can be side-stepped in favour of rewarding the process of arriving at,

and reflection on the success of collaboration, as well as the extent of the

260

individual’s contribution. Consequently, the process and product of collaborative

assessment can effectively be uncoupled (Macdonald, 2003, 389).

However, one might argue that if collaboration is an essential feature of successful

online learning, then assessments as well as activities should be collaboratively

designed. Simply put, if a Wiki teacher does not encourage collaborative work

among groups, then she or he might not assess students’ collaborative online work

effectively and appropriately.

To sum up, it does not seem assessing students’ online collaborative work as a

process, nor as a product might work alone. Assessing students’ online

collaborative work as a product alone or as process alone might not lead to

appropriate assessment. Burnett and Roberts (2005) recommend that online

collaborative assessment, across higher education, requires educators to be

thinking quite differently about both the processes and products of assessment.

Swan et al. (2005), likewise, conclude that it is important to assess the process and

the product of students’ online collaboration (Swan et al., 2005). Assessing online

collaborative work in general and Wiki, as Web 2.0, in specific should be treated as

a product of a group work and as a process of individual work which shows a vital

role of a Wiki teacher. Online collaborative work consists of individual as well as

group work, on or offline. To assure effective assessment, Wiki teachers should

focus on efforts shown by students individually as well as efforts shown in their

collaborative group work.

Assessment as a process, a Wiki teacher can use transcripts found in Wiki

program as evidence to show individual process of his students when writing a text

collaboratively with colleagues. These transcripts can show asynchronous and

261

synchronous actives of students on Wiki. It can also show collaboration between

students in collaborative online groups. Wiki teachers can also use individual

assessment which will assume online active participation and collaboration

between small groups, formed by Wiki teachers. Ali and Sheikha made portfolios to

assess students work on Moodle. It was used by Ali to assess students’ work on

Wiki too.

Assessment as a product, on the other side, a Wiki teacher can assess the final

product of students’ collaborative work on Wiki. The final product could be resulted

from students’ online collaborative work on Wiki. If students’ work is assessed in a

group, it will assure more students’ satisfaction, students will participate more since

they know that their work is not undervalued.

All in all, it seems that a Wiki teacher should have a vital role which is to assess

students’ collaborative work as a product and as a process at the same time. This

role is different to a teacher gets used to traditional-centred assessment which

focuses on students online collaborative as a product. Treating assessment as a

process shifts focus on assessment to become student-centred. As a student-

centred assessment, more value is given to students’ online collaborative work

throughout students’ collaborative work within the same collaborative groups.

6.3 Teacher’s Roles

The findings showed that there were six main roles of the Wiki teacher when

teaching collaborative writing using Wiki technology. These roles were managerial,

pedagogical, teacher as assessor, social, psychological and technical roles. In the

262

following lines, I will shed light on these most important roles of a Wiki teacher in

the five conducted Wiki classes.

6.3.1 Managerial Role

As already mentioned (5.3.1), the Wiki managerial role was to prepare a Wiki

environment before the Wiki classes and organize the Wiki class work. A part of

these preparations was to assign a group leader and how Wiki teachers led the

collaborative writing activity using a Wiki.

6.3.1.1 Group Leaders “Teacher Assistants”

It seems that group leaders were so important for Wiki teachers. They were treated

as ‘teacher assistants’ as they played a crucial role in maintaining group

collaborative writing on Wiki. However, group leaders sometimes had difficulties

maintaining group work which affected students work on Wiki and in their groups

(5.4.1). The group leader, as it seems, needed to know to maintain more

knowledge of how to display her or his roles in a Wiki group (6.3.1).

In her or his managerial role, the Wiki teacher was to prepare a Wiki environment

before and during the Wiki classes. The findings showed that the Wiki teachers

had to make some preparations before their Wiki classes. These preparations

helped to make the Wiki classes smoother and helped their students collaborate

with their peers in the same group or team. During the class work, the Wiki

teachers had to divide the work among students. More importantly, the Wiki

teachers had to watch group leaders’ work as they were treated as ‘teacher

assistants.’ They were in charge of some of the teachers’ responsibilities. These

findings are in accordance with previous studies which approve that the managerial

role of an online teacher was to maintain an environment for students in online

263

environment. The online teacher also had to track students’ work online, whether

they do it individually or in small groups (Berge, 1995; Liu et al., 2005; Aydin, 2005;

Gómez-Rey, et al., 2017).

However, some studies found that teacher had difficulties in managerial role in

online environments. Liu et al., (2005), for instance, found some ambiguity and

misunderstanding resulted in online communication between the instructors and

their students in online environment. As a result, it reduced the efficacy of online

learning process (Liu et al., (2005). These new challenges drive scholars to call for

changes in managerial roles for online teachers. Berge (2008) argues that there

should be some changes in a teacher’s managerial roles in online environment.

The online teacher should be careful with the amount of participation among group

members. S/he should not let peers contribute more than others in the group. In

the current study, similarly, the Wiki teachers found it hard to manage the Wiki

classes since they had to plan, distribute course materials, and distribute students

in groups and other managerial roles. To cope with the changes of online teacher’s

managerial role, they found it interesting to have ‘group leaders’ for each group.

They were treated as ‘teacher assistants’ in Wiki environment. It seems that having

a teacher assistant, group leader, is considered more crucial since very little light

shed on teacher’s role to maintain a successful group leader in a collaborative

writing environment when using Wiki.

In this study the Wiki teachers assigned group leaders (GLs) to lead group works in

a collaborative writing environment using Wiki technology. Unlike this study, some

previous studies assigned no group leaders for Wiki groups (Elabdali, 2016; Li &

Zhu, 2013; Storch, 2002, 2004). In these studies, students with a higher language

264

proficiency level guided the group work in some way, which remained relatively

stable during collaborative writing tasks.

Language proficiency, as it appears from previous studies, is considered one of the

criteria to choose a GL in a collaborative group consists of two or more members

(Storch, 2002, 2004; Khatoon & Akhtar2010; Li & Zhu, 2013; Elabdali, 2016) Many

studies focus on the importance of language proficiency of one of group members,

so she or he can lead a collaborative group work, (Storch 2002; Khatoon & Akhtar,

2010; Li & Zhu, 2013; Elabdali, 2016). In other studies, besides that, a GL has

been assigned by group members in a collaborative group not by Wiki teachers as

the case in this study (Khatoon & Akhtar, 2010; Li & Zhu, 2016).

It has been approved that language proficiency is a highly trusted criterion to select

a group leader for a collaborative writing group when working on online

collaborative tools. Some scholars, on the other side, argue that interaction

between group members in general and between group members and group

leaders in specific seems to be as important as the language proficiency to

demonstrate successful or unsuccessful collaborative work (Watanabe, 2008; Li &

Kim, 2016; Li & Zhu, 2016).

A group leader interaction with group members in a collaborative writing

environment seems to play a vital role. Success or failure of a collaborative work

on online environment depends on its leader. In this study Wiki teachers called

them ‘teacher assistants’ since they had to take over some the Wiki teacher’s

roles. Being ‘teachers’ assistants’ required to adopt special skills and roles, as Wiki

teachers did. Kukulska-Hulme (2004) confirms that the success or failure of online

collaboration depends on the role and skills of a teacher or a group leader.

265

Learners in a collaborative group, as Kukulska-Hulme (2004: 263) states, “may

prefer to collaborate without input from a teacher, but questions of who leads the

group, and how, remain important.” As teacher assistants, GLs should, as

Kukulska-Hulme (2004) confirms, acquire new skills in order to function well in

online collaborative environments. Their new duties are to help group members

extend their learning without relying on the teacher, but also to recognize when the

group has gone as far as it can on its own, and needs input from the tutor.

In the current study, the Wiki teachers insisted that the group leaders should have

a role. In brief, the group leaders were found to make students work

collaboratively, organized work on Wiki between students and assisted their peers

work in the same group (5.3.1.2, b). As mentioned earlier a Wiki teacher should

play a vital role to maintain a collaborative stance when group members work

together. To start with, a Wiki teacher should consider relationship in a

collaborative writing group. In Sheikha’s class, the GL did not collaborate with his

peers, because of the tensed relationship between him and his peers. Ali, on the

other hand, assigned the GL depending on the group leader’s personality. He said:

“I think it was because of the leader. I know what kind of person she is. She is a

kind of person who likes things to get done. Maybe she has pushed others to do

get work done on time.” In a word, it seems that assigning group leaders requires a

Wiki teacher to be careful at the social relationship between group members, as it

was shown in this study. Similarly, Yu & Lee (2015) recommend that while

grouping students to work collaboratively, teachers also need to consider the

power of relationship, English proficiency, and social relationship between group

members.

266

GL, in Sheikha’s class, withdrew from interacting with his peers and decided to

keep silent. He also defended his action when the teacher asked him why he did

not work by replying that he did all the work for the group. On the contrary, in Li &

Zhu (2016) study, the selected GL was dominant in the group work, so he

participated less in the group work. He was also authoritative to his group

members. As a result, there was no learning outcome in the group collaborative

work.

6.3.1.2 A Group Leader in a Wiki Environment

As a GL, being too much active or passive in a group collaborative work resulted in

undesirable learning outcomes. Therefore Li & Zhu (2016) emphasize on the

strength of relationship between group members, especially GL and group peers.

Their study illustrates the concept of ‘relational agency’, which makes a person in a

group, group leaders mainly, aware of the responsibility for one’s own action vis-à-

vis the environment.

Moreover, a Wiki teacher should be a facilitator of a collaborative group work

between group leaders and peers, and that what the Wiki teachers did in this

study. They were acting as facilitators who facilitated learning in the collaborative

writing activities using Wiki. Likewise, Khatoon & Akhtar (2010) described a

strategy they called it Peer Assisted Learning Strategy (PALS). In this strategy,

teachers were like facilitators whose role was to facilitate learning between group

leaders (coaches) and their peers (players). PALS combined peer tutoring with

instructional principles and practices. Teachers identified and paired children who

required help with specific skills (‘players’) with children who were the most

appropriate to help other children learn those skills (‘coaches’). In my study, the

267

teacher’s managerial role was to facilitate and organize group works. Thus, GLs

and peers could work collaboratively to achieve the situ goals of forming their

writing groups on Wiki. Sheikha, for instance, set some rules for the GLs and the

group members to make students aware of what they would do in their Wiki

classes. She, as a Wiki teacher, did not interfere on her students Wiki work so

often. Likewise, Khatoon & Akhtar (2010) suggest that the instructor’s role, in PALS

strategy, is not to transmit information, but to serve as a facilitator for learning. It

involves teachers who create and manage meaningful thinking through real world

problems, learn experiences and stimulate students. As a result, this strategy

approves to improve the learning achievement of slow learners (players) by their

group leaders (coaches) under the supervision of their teachers.

On the other side, no role was observed for the Wiki teacher in Elbeladi (2016) to

organize the groups’ collaborative work as well as selecting a GL to work in the

four groups. As a result, no learning outcomes were observed. The students had a

negative perception of using Wiki to write a short story collaboratively.

What’s more, Wiki teachers should be careful when choosing a GL (Li & Kim,

2016). One of the factors which the Wiki teachers in this study focus on was

choosing a group leader for the collaborative writing tasks on Wiki. Whereas, Ali

focused on personality of the group leader, Sheikha, on the other hand, had her

own criteria which were not clear throughout the five sessions, but worked to

maintain a collaborative stance. Therefore, teachers should be careful when

selecting a group leader and when designing collaborative writing tasks. As to the

selection of group leaders, students’ language proficiency levels and learning

abilities need to be considered (Li & Kim, 2016).

268

6.3.1.3 Conclusion: Group Leaders in Small Groups

In conclusion, more studies are required to show pattern of interaction (group

dynamics) between GLs and peers in small collaborative groups. They are to show

Wiki teachers how to maintain a collaborative stance. These studies should focus

on GL duties and roles in a collaborative environment for small groups. As

‘teachers’ assistants’, GLs and Wiki teachers need to be aware of skills and new

roles to show in collaborative writing environments. Researchers should shed more

lights on quality and mutuality in dividing work among students in small groups

when working in a collaborative writing work. Last but not least, roles are to be

created to organize group leaders’ work in collaborative writing environment.

6.3.2 Technical Role

Technical role of a Wiki teacher is to assure a comfortable environment where

students can interact on Wiki. However, having technology native students and

friendly user tool causes the Wiki teacher’s task to be easy. It is crucial to know

how the technical role of a Wiki teacher could be in the future.

6.3.2.1 Technical Wiki Teacher’s Role in a Wiki Environment

The main technical role of an online teacher is to make students comfortable with

the online course management system, so they may concentrate on the academic

tasks. The teacher helps students deal with the technical problems they encounter

(Berge, 1995). In the current study the Wiki teachers, similarly, were in charge of

facilitating work on Wiki. They had to give instructions to students, so they could

work collaboratively. They had also to act as ‘problem solver’, as they gave

students advice how to work on the program and solve encountered technical

problems. It is similar to what Hung & Lee (2012) found that teacher should help

269

with major technical problems and help with course design when working online

with students. To facilitate class work on Wiki, the Wiki teachers, moreover, helped

students start Wiki, gave advice how to work in Wiki. The Wiki teacher also helped

students to work collaboratively in Wiki groups. The Wiki teachers had also to train

students how to use Wiki and use some YouTube videos to clarify ambiguous

points in the writing lessons (e.g: grammar). The Wiki teachers used ‘Add

Discussion’ chat forum to advice their students of some emergent issues.

Likewise, Lee (2010) found some of the most significant factors which showed the

technical role of an online teacher, almost similar to the ones mentioned in this

study. The online teacher should develop web pages to make work online easy

and comfortable to students. The online teacher would use chat program to

communicate with students effectively. The online teacher would further use video

and audio conferencing tools, and use discussion forums so students became

updated of the online classes’ issues. In a word, using all of these tools is directed

to ease teacher’s work in a Wiki environment. It also makes students be more

attentive and eases their work online collaboratively.

Besides that, the Wiki teachers integrated other technological tools to assist

students’ work on Wiki. It made collaborative writing on Wiki more interesting and

enjoyable by students’ collaborative writing groups, as Sheikha said: “it made it

easier.” Ali also believed that integrating other tools to Wiki work was useful since

‘they complete each other.’ As Hung & Lee (2012) described one of the technical

role of online teacher was to work as ‘technology integrator’. It refers to the fact the

technical role of a teacher was not limited to using one technological tool. Rather,

the Wiki teacher could integrate more than one technological tool to ease students’

270

work on collaborative writing groups, as this study showed. In the current study,

the Wiki teachers used Google, phones, YouTube, SNAGIT program, Google

Drive, What’sApp program, and emails to ease students work on Wiki. In Hung &

Lee (2012) study, similarly, the online pre-service teachers presented their project

in asynchronous course using different tools like, PowerPoint, Video Clips, e-

conference software, Adobe Breeze and Wiki. Integrating these tools into the

asynchronous course made students better understand the projects and give

feedback as in traditional classrooms. They also liked having new technologies

added into the original asynchronous courses. To sum up, it seems that teacher’s

technical role in Wiki extends from using the tool only, Wiki, to integrating it with

other tools. Integrating assisting feedback tools to the original used tool could

make teacher’s work more feasible to course objectives. They could also be

enjoyable by teachers and students when working online on collaborative activities.

6.3.2.2 Wiki is User-friendly, no Need for Much Technical Role

It has been already shown that the main technical role of an online teacher in

general and a Wiki teacher in specific was to facilitate students’ work on online

environment. The Wiki teacher helped students work comfortably with their peers

in assigned collaborative tasks and tackled any technical issue could hinder their

collaborative work. The Wiki teacher might integrate other technological tools to the

main used tool to make work easier and acceptable by students.

The importance of the technical role, however, has become not as important as it

used to be in the last decade. Up to the early 2000s, it seems that technical role for

a teacher when working in online environment was very crucial. Most studies

emphasized on the importance of technical role of a teacher when working in

271

online environments (Thach, 1994; Berge, 1995; Goodyear, et al.; Abdullah, 2004;

Aydin, 2005). Abdullah (2004), for example, found that technical role for online

teacher was the second important role among other roles. It means that online

teacher should have previous experience before using technology online, so

students would feel at ease when facing any technical problem with used online

platforms. Similarly, Thach (1994), Berge (1995), Aydin (2005) and more other

scholars emphasize also on the technical role of a teacher when working in online

environment. Online teacher should have adequate knowledge to use it when

working online and integrate educational software. In addition to that, technical role

of an online teacher requires her or him to be able to solve small technical

problems and provide some level of technical support to students.

On the other side, most used online programs in the late 2000s onwards, like Wiki,

are ‘user-friendly and not ‘complicated’ as Wiki teachers confirmed. It means that

online students and teachers should not have much trouble when dealing with

them. In the current study, the Wiki teacher had no problems to deal with the

program since it was similar to other programs. The students, likewise, had no

much trouble when using the program. They could come with ideas to use it

effectively too.

Consequently, the technical role of the online teacher in the late 2000s onwards

was not as highly emphasized as it used to be in the early 2000s. Lee (2000) found

that students’ perception of the teacher’s technical role was one of the least

significant roles among other roles. It is hard to find one specific reason for that.

However, it could be because of the fact that most of online students were

immersed in the digital native community. Therefore, they are familiar with the new

272

technological tools, unlike previous generations who encountered problems with

new issues (Gómez-Rey et al. 2017; Barbera et al., 2016; Gómez-Rey et al.,

2016). In the current study, similarly, both teachers were satisfied with the fact the

students were ‘generation of technology’ or ‘technology native’ which helped them

use the Wiki successfully and effectively. In brief, the technical role was not as

important as it was found in previous studies (Thach, 1994; Berge, 1995; Aydin,

2005, Abdullah, 2004). Thus, having user-friendly online tools as well as

technology native students could help EFL teachers in Omani higher education

institutions end their ‘phobia of technology’ when they use technological devices in

teaching. It could also save these institutions money when they embrace less

costing online tools in their classes.

6.3.2.3 Context of Teacher’s Technical Role

It is hard to judge the importance of the technical role of an online teacher in

general and the Wiki teacher in specific, so the debate is still going on. The

importance of a role, as Le Boterf (1994) claims, depends largely on the context

and culture of teachers and students. In the current study, the students and

teachers are Omanis from the Middle East, whereas most of the studies have been

conducted in East Asia, Europe or the USA. The students were considered the

best students academically and the teachers were considered the best qualified

professionally in the country. The Sultan Qaboos University, where the study was

conducted, is a good ranked university and highly equipped with technology. I

believe that if the study was conducted in a less privileged institution, different

results might have resulted according to Le Boterf’s (1994) claim. In a Middle

Eastern country, Kuwait, for example, Al Ghasab (2014) study aimed to explore

273

EFL teachers and students’ online interaction during Wiki based collaborative

writing activities. She had two EFL teachers as case studies. Teacher B’s work on

Wiki with her students was undesirable. First of all, she stepped back and left her

students without giving any training or instructions how to use Wiki, as the teachers

did in this study. Besides that, she showed an ‘authoritative role’ which was limited

to answering the students’ questions, posting instructions and editing texts (Al

Ghasab, 2014: 3). More interestingly, she encouraged individual work rather than

group work on Wiki. As a result, students were not interested in the project since

the interaction between them and their Wiki teacher was limited. They also limited

the (S-S) collaboration and interaction since the Wiki teacher did not encourage

students’ group work on Wiki.

In a word, Wiki teacher technical role has been fading because of so many

technical factors. They are user-friendly online tools, technology native students

and online tools which could make teachers’ work on Wiki result in desirable

learning outcomes. On the other side, using technological tool in a context might

not result with the same outcomes in another context. In another word, if a Wiki is

used in a context, its result might not be the same if it is used in another context.

Berge (2008: 412) argues, moreover, that the online teacher’s role might change in

today’s virtual world, so the online teacher’s roles need to be reconsidered. In case

of technical roles, Berge (2008: 416) believes that online teacher should think of

“efficient and effective methods of indicating feedback to students in virtual worlds.

Instructors need to develop standards for feedback to students’ work.”

274

6.3.3 Social Roles

6.3.3.1 Teacher’s Presence in a Wiki Environment

In this study, it was found that the social role of a Wiki teacher aimed to create a

friendly social environment which encouraged learning among students. Wiki

teacher’s social role aimed also to gain more interaction and collaboration between

teachers and students. Similarly, Abdullah (2004) emphasized that an online

teacher’s social role was to be able to create a friendly and a social environment in

which learning was promoted. The promotion of this environment helped to achieve

a successful online instruction. As a result of having a friendly environment, the

Wiki teachers encouraged learning among their students through building a rapport

between students. It enabled then to work collaboratively in Wiki groups. Likewise,

having a friendly online environment helped students to build a sense of

community. Moreover, students could change their poor behaviour during online

discussion which helped also to make communication between them more

consistent (Abdullah, 2004).

(T-S) interaction in online environment also helped the online teacher to achieve

the status of a ‘social rapport builder’ in which the online teacher had to build a

social rapport between students since it was a challenging role. The results also

suggested that the level of social presence in this program was relatively low. As a

result, students were not engaged in a fully socially supportive online learning

environment. In her study, Al Ghasab (2014) aimed to explore EFL teachers and

students’ interaction during Wiki based collaborative writing activates. In the first

case, she showed an ‘authoritative role’ in which she posted instructions to

students and edited their text individually rather than promoting collaborative work

275

among students. As a result, students’ Wiki work was ‘limited’. The students also

did not show any sign to engage in social talk or give feedback to their peers in

Wiki. The finding of the previous study assures what Liu et al. (2005) concluded

that one of the greatest challenges for online learning was the ability to build a

personal touch between the instructor and students. Besides that, the ‘impersonal’

nature of online environment made it hard for online instructor to build a ‘social

rapport’ with their students. Unlike these findings, the Wiki teachers were caring

and acted as psychology advisors to students’ concerns about their work on Wiki.

They could also assure their students that learning through Wiki was worth to do it,

so the experience was acceptable by the teachers and their students. The

teacher’s presence, besides that, encouraged students to interact with the teacher

and with their peers on Wiki.

In a word, creating a friendly environment for a Wiki work is crucial. However, it

might be affected, if the Wiki teacher is not capable to achieve the objective. Thus,

these findings show two aspects should be considered highly on Wiki’s social role.

They are watching successful interaction between students for successful social

role and teacher’s presence in a Wiki environment.

6.3.3.2 Interaction for Successful Social Role

To start with, the Wiki teachers acted as a medium to generate more collaboration

in their online interaction with their students. They also encourage learning

activities with the students. The Wiki teacher acted as a psychological advisor who

assured students that their learning on Wiki would be successful. It seems that

Wiki teacher’s presence in online environment made it successful. It had also

reduced the problems of not being on Wiki assisting students’ work and giving

276

them clear instructions (5.2.2.1.1.a; 5.3.3.1). These findings validate with Bewane

& Spector (2009) findings. They found that the teacher who worked in in a social

environment was described as a ‘social facilitator.’ The main role of the social

facilitator in an online environment was to interact with groups, communicate with

them and give support when needed. They are also validated by González-

Sanmamed et al. (2014) findings. They affirmed that the main competency of

teachers who worked in a collaborative environment was to encourage students to

work together ‘collaboratively’ and to build a friendly learning environment.

In the current study, the Wiki teachers encouraged (S-S) interaction when they

worked in a collaborative group. As one of the Wiki teachers emphasized that

good interaction between students on Wiki would create a ‘positive atmosphere’

and a ‘good rapport’ between students which enabled them to work more

productively. Abdullah (2004), similarly, found that teacher encouraged students to

build a community which would help them collaborate successfully. The online

teacher had also to change the bad behaviour among interacting students, so they

would focus on collaborating successfully. Abdullah (2004: 84) concludes that

“developing group cohesiveness and promoting human relationships is highly

regarded and critical to the success of online learning.” McKenzie et al. (1998)

identified five roles for a teacher in online environment. One of them was

‘classroom management behaviour,’ in which teachers organized and maintained

good rapport between students who worked online. They warned them from using

vulgar and slang expressions.

In a word, it seems that the main aim of a Wiki teacher in online environment was

to maintain social rapport between students and the teacher. Thus, a positive

277

atmosphere would be created which would make collaborative learning much

acceptable by students and teachers.

6.3.3.3 Teacher’s Presence for Effective (S-S) Collaboration on Wiki

Al Ghasab (2014: 4) concludes that “mere presence of the teacher could indeed

promote participation; it does not necessarily enhance collaboration.” In other

words, a Wiki teacher needs an effective presence to result in a desirable

collaboration between students (S-S) on Wiki since her or his presence alone

might not guarantee collaboration. Therefore, Al Ghasab (2014) study resulted in

no or limited (S-S) collaboration, since the Wiki teacher adopted an ‘authoritative

role’ when interacting with her students on Wiki. Annamalai & Abdullah (2016)

emphasized that grouping students without appropriate instructions would not

guarantee collaboration. In their study, the students were not encouraged to

negotiate and construct meaning with their friends. The teacher was more inclined

to be in the commenting mode rather than encouraging critical thinking in the

collaborative learning environment. Hence, her role was rather authoritative and

distancing the students interactions in constructing ideas and knowledge. It was

obvious that the teacher played a dominant role. This behaviour was an extension

of teacher-centred behaviour in the traditional learning environment to the online

learning environment. Therefore, the presence of the teacher is essential in online

teaching and learning activities which lead online teacher to success in the social

role (Annamalai & Abdullah, 2016). Bolldén (2016) emphasizes that the presence

of other students and the teacher is considered essential to avoid feelings of

isolation and to create a fruitful online learning environment. On the contrary, the

Wiki teacher’s presence was affective. The Wiki teachers encouraged participation

278

and students’ active engagement on Wiki work with their peers. Besides that, the

Wiki teacher acted as ‘incentive’ to generate more collaboration between students

in the Wiki environment. Finally, the teacher’s presence in a Wiki environment kept

students focused on the given objectives of the lesson. As a result of the desirable

teacher’s presence students were active; there were collaboration and interaction

between students. Besides that, the Wiki teachers believed that their students felt

positive about using Wiki (5.3.2).

To sum up, the presence of a teacher in a Wiki environment is an essential factor

to success in (T-S) and (S-S) interactions. The presence of a teacher should be

embodied through giving advice to students when working on Wiki, encouraging

their collaborative work, directing them to use Wiki effectively and creating a

positive attitude between students who work on Wiki collaboratively. In Wiki

environment, the presence of a teacher should be treated more carefully since it is

an essential factor for interaction between teachers and students. It should not be

teacher-centred as it is in the traditional learning environment. The Wiki teacher, as

it was shown in the study, should consider very highly the interaction between her

or him and students as well as between students themselves. Thus, it would result

in desirable interactions between students (S-S) or between students and their

teachers (T-S). In conclusion, it is not a matter of presenting a teacher online, yet,

it is a matter of presenting her or him positively and effectively online.

279

6.3.4 Pedagogical Roles

6.3.4.1 Pedagogical Role of Wiki Teacher “Teacher’s first and foremost are

Teachers”

Bawane & Spector (2009: 392) stated that “online instructors are still teachers,

pedagogues, first and foremost.” The online teacher’s pedagogical role is

considered the most important role among other roles in a Wiki environment. It is

the core of learning collaborative writing on Wiki. Therefore, online teachers and

students consider it the most important role among the other online roles for a

teacher in an online environment. It is important because the teacher’s role, first

and foremost, in traditional classes or online is pedagogues (Bawane & Spector,

2009; Gomez et al., 2017). In other words, the teacher’s teaching main aim

whether online or offline is pedagogical. In the current study, the Wiki teachers

confirmed that they had to be clear and had clear objectives when teaching

students online or in classes. Consequently, their students could get useful and

fruitful learning. It is also aligned with what Umar & Rathakrishnan (2012) who

found that students who were instructed with focus on pedagogical role (PROT) of

e-mediators performed better in essay performance than the students who were

instructed with focus on the social roles (SROT) of e-mediators in online

environment. Gomez-Rey et al. (2017) confirmed that the pedagogical role of

online teacher was the most important and had the priority from the perspective of

students in asynchronous learning environment.

Most literature agreed on the term ‘pedagogical role’ to show the teacher’s as

educational facilitators, course designers, interaction facilitator, effective lecturer,

and other more pedagogical capabilities which an online teacher can do. Up to

280

date, most studies follow two main classifications to identify the pedagogical role of

an online teacher. The first classification is Berge (1995) classification. In his

classification, Berge (1995) identifies the pedagogical role with its competencies.

The second main classification is for Goodyear et al. (2001) who represent the

online teacher’s pedagogical role through its competencies, the designer, the

content facilitator, the advisor counsellor, and the process facilitator. The revealed

pedagogical roles found in this study showed that Wiki teachers acted as designer

for course materials and facilitators to students’ learning on Wiki.

Abdullah (2004) called the pedagogical role as ‘intellectual role’. He thought online

instructors as ‘educational facilitators’ use knowledge and expertise to pose

questions and probes for student responses that focus discussion critical concepts,

principles and skills. Likewise, the Wiki teachers showed some intellectual activities

almost similar to what Abdullah (2004) found in his study. They were critical, ideas

generators, innovative, and reflective.

6.3.4.2 Intellectual or Pedagogical Role?

Literature provides two terms which show pedagogical activities of an online

teacher. They are intellectual or pedagogical role. Whereas Abdullah (2004: 41)

chose the term ‘intellectual’ role in which ‘the instructor uses his/her knowledge

and expertise to pose questions and probes for students responses that focus

discussions on critical concepts, principles and skills.” Berge (1995: 23), on the

other hand, describes the ‘pedagogical’ role (intellectual) in which “the moderator

uses questions and probes for student responses that focus discussions on critical

concepts, principles and skills.”

281

When comparing between the two definitions, the two definitions are almost the

same. Abdullah (2004) adopted Berge (1995) definition to pedagogical role of

online instructor and called it ‘intellectual role.’ They both focus on intellectual side

of teaching. Besides that, it seems that the two definitions focus on ‘teacher’ as a

medium of online instruction. In a word, these two definitions are ‘teacher-centred’.

To show online teacher’s pedagogical roles, most of the studies are designed

quantitatively (Berge, 1995; Goodyear et al. 2001; Abdullah, 2004; Liu et al. 2005;

Bawane & Spector, 2009; Aydin, 2010; Lee, 2011; Muñoz-Carril, et al. (2013);

Gomez et al., 2017), whereas this study was designed ‘qualitatively’. Besides that,

most previous studies depend on other previous studies to design a questionnaire.

This study, on the other hand, depended on two cases to study and made the

interviews and observations to teachers’ work on field.

Consequently, Berge (2008) suggests some changes on his definition of online

instructor to make it student-centred. In the suggested changes, Berge (2008)

believes that students should mainly be building or exploring in virtual worlds. He

also insists that learning in virtual worlds maybe better at meeting the expectations

of the ‘digital natives’ generation (Berge, 2008). In the suggested changes, it is

obvious that Berge (2008) has shed light on students in online classes. Thus, the

online teaching becomes student-centred more than teacher-centred as it is used

to be in traditional classes. In the current study, the Wiki classes were students-

centred more than teachers-centred. Firstly, the Wiki teachers encouraged

‘autonomous learning’ between students in Wiki classes (5.2.3.1, d). They stepped

back from interfering on students work on Wiki. They also acted as ‘organizers

behind the scenes’ who allowed more interaction and collaboration on Wiki

282

between students (5.2.3.1. c). Finally, the Wiki teachers adopted some intellectual

activities generating critical ideas, being innovative, and reflective in their Wiki

sessions (5.3.5.7). Therefore, I believe that pedagogical role is more

comprehensive than intellectual of a Wiki teacher.

6.3.4.3 Wiki teachers as Course Designers

As course material designers, the Wiki teachers did it in two different ways. They

designed course materials themselves or used ready-made materials that were

modified to be suitable for Wiki classes. Similarly, Liu et al. (2005) explored the

online instructors’ perception, based on Berge’s (1995) classification on instructor’s

roles in online environment. They carried out an MBA program successfully, on the

four roles (pedagogical, social, managerial and technical). In regard to the

pedagogical role, their findings strongly revealed that the online instructors acted

as course designers. Many of the instructors agreed on their designing role of

repurposing learning materials from traditional classrooms to online courses. This

finding is also aligned with Bawane & Spector (2009) who affirmed that

pedagogical role of an online instructor was to design instructional strategies. The

online instructor was also to develop appropriate learning resources for students

when communicating synchronously or asynchronously. Based on Goodyear et al.

(2001) and Bawane & Spector (20009) studies, Muñoz-Carril, et al. (2013)

identified the roles and competencies of faculty performing in virtual environments.

In terms of the pedagogical roles, they found that an online teacher was to draft

and develop course content, so they were suitable to present them online for

students.

283

The Wiki teacher’s role was as an IT technician in the first Wiki class. In the next

Wiki classes, the ‘pedagogical’ aspect of teaching collaborative writing using a Wiki

technology started to be dominant and outstanding. To be aligned with previous

studies, Gomez-Rey et al. (2017) asked 925 students to investigate the significant

pedagogical role of an online teacher. The findings showed that the pedagogical

role of online teacher should be professional in which they should be good

instructors. They should be also content expert in which they should be content

facilitators with an excellent mastery of their subject matter and with a continuous

interest in updating their knowledge of their subject, lifelong learners. The students

viewed the pedagogical role of online teachers as resource material creators and

study guide producers. They should provide an adequate, useful, and

comprehensible set of materials such as syllabus, educational resources, and

content materials (Gomez-Rey et al. (2017).

6.3.4.4 Wiki teachers as facilitators to students’ learning on Wiki.

As facilitators of Wiki learning for students’ collaborative writing work on Wiki, the

Wiki teachers set Wiki classes objectives and used mediums as in traditional

classes. In an instructor’s online roles, pedagogical role required, as Liu et al.

(2005) strongly emphasized, to be a professional inspirer. As professional

inspirers, the online instructors agreed that using ‘online discussion’ was the key to

online interaction between students. In online discussion, they acted as ‘facilitators’

or ‘consultants’ to scaffold discussion between students. Likewise, Bawane and

Spector (2009) found that an online instructor was to facilitate participation among

students as well as implement instructional strategies. Muñoz-Carril, et al. (2013),

similarly, identified the roles and competencies of faculty performing in virtual

284

environments. In terms of the pedagogical roles, they found that a virtual teacher

organized and promoted different tutorial methods.

6.3.4.5 Wiki Teacher Mostly Course Designer and Content Facilitator

It seems that most studies have a consensus that an online teacher should be a

course designer and content facilitator. Based on Muñoz-Carril, et al. (2013), they

tracked role of an online teachers for 15 studies from 1995 to 2015. In regard to the

pedagogical role of online teacher, it was observed in these studies that most of

them agreed that a pedagogical teacher should be a designer of content and

instructor-facilitator (p. 466). It is aligned with the current study finding that the Wiki

teacher should be a course designer and a content facilitator when teaching

collaborative writing in Wiki environment. There are other competencies underpin

the pedagogical role as counsellor and content expert. However, they are not as

agreed upon as the previous two, designer of content and instructor-facilitator.

On the other hand, other studies have different trend to classify the pedagogical

role of an online teacher. Unlike Berge (1995) study, Goodyear et al. (2001) study

divided the pedagogical role into other roles. They were the process facilitator, the

content facilitator, the advisor-counsellor, and the designer. Adopted by

Goodyear’s et al (2001) classification, Aydin (2005) reflected the pedagogical role

of an online teacher through the following roles, content expert, process facilitator,

instructional designer, and advisor-counsellor. Unfortunately, the current study

could not identify the other competences. I believe that each Web 2.0 tool has its

own specific features which might not be shared with other tools. In the broad

sense, this can be applied on online tools in general. They share common features;

however, they have their own features which an online user should be aware of.

285

Thus, I think more studies are needed to show the teacher’s role in using other

Web 2.0 tools. They might show the difference between these tools and identify the

teacher’s roles in using these tools.

6.3.4.6 Traditional and Online Teaching on Wiki

As facilitators of Wiki learning for students’ collaborative writing work on Wiki, they

verified between traditional and online teaching. The Wiki teachers, in the study,

confirmed that a teacher whether working online or working in class would be a

teacher. The main aim of Wiki and in-class teaching was to facilitate students’

learning since there was no much difference between the two ways of teaching,

traditional or online teaching (Goodyear et al., 2001; Berge, 2008; Bawane &

Spector, 2009; Lee, 2011). Berge (2008: 408) concludes that

“Virtual worlds often replicate real life, with its uncertainty, irrationality, and

chaos of time. The characteristics of virtual worlds, as a medium, promote

learning that is informal and collaborative, with content and context that is

user-created.”

In other words, although a teacher has to switch from real world, in classrooms, to

a virtual world, online, the new resulted teacher is still the same. His main goal or

role is pedagogues whether in traditional classes or online classes. Consequently,

the competencies and roles required to teach in online environments were not

fundamentally different from those for teaching in a face-to-face situations. The

teacher in face-to-face classes is the expert who is responsible to provide

knowledge. However, the new role of the teacher in online classes is changed. He

is no more the sole of knowledge. He, however, becomes the educational facilitator

who guides students learning online (Goodyear et al., 2001; Berge, 2008; Bawane

& Spector, 2009; Lee, 2011). Wiki teachers, likewise, were aware of the new role

286

they were supposed to play in the Wiki environment. They became ‘facilitators or

guides’ to students’ learning on the Wiki environment. They had to guide the

students so they could write collaboratively with their group members and group

leaders in the same group.

6.3.5 Assessor

Assessor, evaluator, evaluation specialist, feedback giver and other terminologies

which focus on online teacher’s role to assess her or his students’ work in online

environment. The main task of an assessor is to give feedback and modify

students’ work when teaching in online environment. Varvel (2007) study is

considered one of the most inclusive papers in online evaluation for online

teachers. His paper is a road map for online assessment since it covers most of

the skills which an online teacher needs to act as an effective assessor in online

environment. He lists the most important sides of online evaluation, if an online

teacher seeks to conduct an effective assessment to her or his students’ work

online. I chose the following points since I feel that they should be in Wiki teacher’s

role as an assessor. They are assessment purpose, online assessment,

assessment design, assessment delivery, feedback (peer or teacher), technology

use for assessment, self-assessment. These skills are the most covered aspects of

effective online assessment in so many studies. Therefore, online assessment to

students’ work is becoming crucial ever since it has started. It has undergone

through stages to recognize the work of an assessor in online environment.

Unlike the findings of this study, assessing role was not much given priority in

teacher’s roles in online environment. Although Berge (1995) study is still

considered one of the core papers that have discussed teacher’s role in online

287

environment. It, nonetheless, mentions only four roles for an online instructor, the

pedagogical, managerial, technical and social. Yet, it is criticized for not showing

an online teacher as an assessor. It does not also mention feedback skills that

online instructor should maintain. Moreover, when (Berge, 2008) published his

second paper on teacher’s role in online environment, as a modification for his

(Berge, 1995) paper, he did not include the assessing skills under any of the four

mentioned main roles. Thach (1994) thesis was the one of the first PhD studies

which aimed to identify the roles, outputs, and competencies of distance learning

professionals within the United States and Canada. To accomplish her study

objectives, she made a survey to 103 distance education experts. It resulted in that

a distance teacher should have 11 roles. One of these roles was ‘evaluation

specialist’ who would be in charge of providing tools and evaluation instruments.

Although her study did not show much priority to distance teachers to be assessors

since it was ranked very low, yet, she felt that a distance teacher should be

competent to have some feedback skills (Thach, 1994). In a word, the previous

studies attempt to show the assessing role for online teachers which were scarce.

They did not show much importance of the teacher as an assessor in online

environment. It seems that online teaching first and foremost is pedagogical at the

beginning of using online tools in online environment. (5.3.5.1). Most of the studies

that discuss the teacher’s roles in online environment started in the 1990s. Yet, in

most of these studies, the pedagogical role was the dominant and the most

prioritized among other online teacher’s roles (6.3.4). Consequently, the assessing

role was not clearly shown as the other teacher’s online roles in these studies.

288

However, the Wiki teachers showed a great concern of assessing role of a Wiki

teacher. They emphasized that assessment had many benefits in teaching

collaborative writing activities using Wiki technology. Therefore, they would pay

more attention to assessing students’ Wiki work in the future. Similar to the findings

of the current study, in the 2000s, the attempts to show the roles of online teacher

as an assessor began to be shaped so clearly. These studies show that being an

assessor assures effective online teaching and results in desirable outcomes

(Aydin, 2005). As an evaluator, the teacher’s role gets more priority than in the

previous studies. Besides, more studies emphasize that the online teacher is no

more to bring tools to assess students (Thach & Murphy, 1995). She or he himself

has to be the tool which assesses students’ work online. Thus, online teacher, as

an evaluator, should monitor individual and group progress, assess individual and

group performance, and evaluate the source program. As an evaluator or

assessor, some studies prioritize the online teacher role (Goodyear et al., 2001;

Aydin, 2005; Bawane, & Spector, 2009). Goodyear et al. (2001) state skills for an

online assessor as to provide grades, feedback, and validation of learners’ work in

online environment. Aydin (2005) adopts the same skills for online mentors as in

an assessor. In Goodyear et al. (2001), the online assessor provides grades,

feedback, and validation of learners’ work in online environment. Denis et al.,

(2004: 153) provide other skills for an online assessor, “s/he gives feedback on

task achievement and performance, assignment development, sometimes s/he is

also examiner.” Bawane & Spector (2009) introduce new skills to the online

teacher when teaching in online environment. They state the most important skills

of online teachers: monitor individual and group progress, assess individual and

group performance, and evaluate the course/program.

289

These skills, as it can be deducted, focus on the online teacher as being the tool to

assess students’ work in online environment. Likewise, in the current study, it

seems that the Wiki teachers put great efforts to assess the students work on Wiki.

One of the skills that the scholars agreed upon is to give feedback. Similarly, the

Wiki teachers focused on giving their students feedback when they work on Wiki.

The Wiki teachers gave positive enforcement by praising students’ work on Wiki.

6.3.5.1 Assessor Skills: Feedback Skills

To be an online assessor requires having online assessing skills. In the current

study, the Wiki teachers acted as assessors. Being an assessor could be deducted

through the Wiki teacher’s ability to let students comment and give feedback on

each other’s work. It also focused on the Wiki teacher’s feedbacks, comments and

rewards for students work in a Wiki environment. These are the observed skills

which Wiki teachers showed. Similar to this study, studies prioritize teachers’ role

in online environment is to give proper feedback. In align with my study, Thach &

Murphy (1995) study investigated teacher’s role as assessor in online

environments, they focused only on one skill which was ‘feedback skill.’ They

considered feedback skill as a crucial skill in online teaching skills. My finding was

also supported by Denis et al. (2004). In their study, they concluded that the

assessing role of e-tutor was to give feedback to students on task achievement

and performance in online environment. Shank (2004) study also resulted in that

an online assessor provided feedback for her or his students and contacted

learners to complete their assignment. In the student self-centred assessment, the

Wiki teachers could detect the weaknesses in the Wiki classes which they should

be aware of in the future classes. This is consistent with González-Sanmamed, et

290

al., (2014: 179) study. In their study, they found it important that students ascertain

the level of learning they have achieved, student-centred assessment. In a word,

the previously stated studies give more priority to teacher’s assessing role in online

environment to give feedback for students whether individually or in groups. The

previous studies show evidence that feedback is crucial in online learning.

On the other hand, the current study is not consistent with other studies which

elaborate in the online teacher role as an assessor. In the current study, there were

other skills in online teacher which the Wiki teachers did not show. One of the

assessing role of online teacher, that found profoundly in literature, is to ensure

that students meet course objectives or not (González-Sanmamedm et al., 2014;

Varvel, 2007; Shank, 2004). Although both teachers emphasized the importance of

assessment, yet, it was found that students did not care about the assessment

system provided by the CPS assessment system. Therefore, they demanded more

amendments in it, so students would be more serious (5.4). This limitation in the

finding, I believe, was one of the weaknesses in the current study. It would be

stronger, if students’ Wiki work was linked to the course overall assessment, as the

Wiki teachers confirmed (5.3.1.1 & 5.3.2.1).

6.3.5.2 Conclusion: Online Assessing is Progressing

In conclusion, Bawane & Spector (2009: 383) emphasize that “preparing teachers

for online education involves preparing them for a wide variety of roles and

developing related competencies”. Likewise, being an assessor in a Wiki

environment requires a Wiki teacher to cover as many assessing skills as possible.

Assessment is believed to be a guarantee for effective and successful online

teaching. It also helps one to be a proficient online educator. Assessment is

291

considered a driving force for students’ online participation (Aydin, 2005; Varvel,

2007; Tang, 2014). Therefore, the assessing role of an online teacher in general

and a Wiki teacher in specific is going to be more and more complicated. Although

very scarce was found about the assessing role of a Wiki teacher. However, it will

continue to change and new skills will be added. It is because the Wiki and other

technology-mediated environments are getting updated. Besides that, they are

being used in lots of academic institutions. Therefore, more investigations are

needed to explore the assessing role of a Wiki teacher in the future.

6.4 Challenges

The third research question in this study is “What are they challenges that the Wiki

teachers face in a Wiki environment?” In regard to the Wiki teachers, the findings

showed very few challenges faced them, as I believe that some factors made the

teachers felt comfortable to adopt the Wiki program in their English language

teaching. It might be because they were willing to use it and they had experience in

using technology in language learning. Besides that, they believed that this

technology (Wiki) was designed to facilitate their work in their classes. Thus, it

encouraged them to adopt the new technology in the class. As a result, they found

it ‘interesting’ and would ‘integrate Wiki with writing’ in the future classes (5.2.3.1).

However, the challenges the Wiki teachers faced were with the students when

using the Wiki program, the Wiki program, and other technical problems. In the

coming lines, I will shed light on each challenge.

292

6.4.1 Teacher’s Challenge in a Wiki Program

The findings of this study found that Wiki teachers had almost no serious challenge

in using Wiki in a collaborative online environment. They had positive views about

using Wiki in online environment (5.2). Unlike this finding, some studies found that

teachers teaching in online environment have faced some challenges. For

example, Al-Awidi & Aldhafeeri (2017) found challenges which prevented Kuwaiti

teachers to use technology in Kuwaiti schools as lack of knowledge and skills. In

their study, most of the interviewed teachers felt they did not have the knowledge

and skills to integrate technology in the curriculum. In this study, on the contrary,

the teachers could easily integrate the Wiki technology in their computer lab

classes and they faced little challenge. There are other challenges, might face

online teachers in general and Wiki teachers in specific, were not found in this

study as teachers’ characteristics, teachers’ confidence, technological skills,

pedagogical teacher training (Player-Koro, 2012; Buabeng-Andoh, 2012).

In a word, it is hard to generalize the findings of this study in regard to the teachers’

challenge on using Wiki to teach collaborative writing. The sample was so small,

consisting of two teachers and were chosen purposefully. They were interested

and had some experience in using technology in teaching English as a second

language, as it was already shown (5.3.5). Therefore, a large sample should be

further studied to see the effects of using Wiki in teacher’s attitude and perception.

6.4.2 Students Face Challenge Using Wiki: Group Work

On the other side, a lot of challenges found in this study related to students who

used the Wiki program for the first time. One of the challenges some students were

not ready or were not willing to collaborate and work with their group mates in Wiki

293

environments. This is aligned with Tan & Lam (2014) study in which they evaluated

the online learning communities based on a Web 2.0 tool, blog. They found that

some pre-service teachers were not willing to share and participate in a blog-based

platform with their colleagues. They were concerned about the security and privacy

of their contributions. Some were concerned that their contributions might be read

by other peers since they were not willing them to read on blogs. Similarly,

Sardegna & Dugartsyrenova (2014) perceived two main challenges to pre-service

teachers employing technology-enhanced activities (blogs, twitter, videotape

recordings, e-portfolios, discussion forums) in online course. The pre-service

teachers were satisfied to undergo the experience. They were, nonetheless, faced

with some challenges. First of all, they experienced ‘feelings of vulnerability’ (Ibid:

159). They had some hesitation about sharing their opinions online at some point

during online exchange. Besides that, they found working online a ‘source of

frustration’ (Ibid: 159). Their colleagues’ participations online made them feel

frustrated or demotivated. They felt these participations were completed just for a

course grade not for working with their colleagues collaboratively. Soon &

Sarrafzadeh (2010), similarly, explored students experience and feedbacks in

using e-learning technologies (chat rooms & Wiki) for online collaborative group

assignment in real life. The findings showed that many felt that the Wiki

assignment was a great challenge. They, nonetheless, disagreed to use

technologies (chat rooms & Wiki) for group work. They were not willing to work

collaboratively in a group work because some group members were dependent on

others to do their contributions. There was also inequality in work contribution

among members which caused some conflicts between group members. Besides,

some students lacked the required skills in using technologies in group work which

294

was not observed so much in this study. Similar to the previous studies, Hu &

Johnston (2012) found that students who worked on a Wiki program expressed

their frustration with group work. Some students did not contribute although there

was a transparent participation process with Wiki history tracking of contributions

from each student. More significantly, some students felt overwhelmed by the

multiple platforms for communication.

In the current study, the Wiki technology was introduced as a ‘supplementary’ tool

for learning English as a foreign language not ‘essential’ as one of the Wiki

teachers believed. Therefore, some students did not take the Wiki classes

seriously. They had other English language classes which they believed that they

were more important than the Wiki classes. Thus, the students considered learning

by using Wiki with so many technology devices in a classroom could be a burden

to students. This finding is supported by Johnson (2012) and Sardegna &

Dugartsyrenova (2014) studies. The Wiki technology was introduced with other

technological devices (blogs, twitter, videotape recordings, e-portfolios, discussion

forums). As a result, students disagreed to collaborate with their peers in groups.

They found it exhausting and time consuming. Therefore, I think Wiki should be

introduced alone to result in fruitful outcomes from students. Students should feel

satisfied when using the device and not being distracted by so many devices.

6.4.3 Technical Challenges

Technical challenges were caused by the Wiki program and the technical

readiness in the Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) labs. As for the Wiki program, it

had some shortcomings. For example, the Wiki teacher sent invitations from the

295

Wiki program to his students in the Wiki class. Unfortunately, students could not

access to the invitations through the SQU domain server.

Similar to one of the teacher’s comment that working on Wiki could be time

consuming, Tang & Lam (2014) found working on Wiki was time consuming. In

their study, mentors did not have time to read all the posts, posted by pre-service

teachers (mentees) before giving their lessons. They expressed their concern of

not having enough time to read or make comments on these posts. Similarly, in

Sardegna & Dugartsyrenova (2014: 160), some students found that a considerable

amount of time they had to spend on online activities to be a challenge. They spent

too much time reading their peers posts and comments which found to be ‘time-

consuming and stressful.’ Similarly, Wang et al. (2013) found that the main

challenge of using Wikis from the students’ point of view was technical difficulty

and the great amount of work involved when using the Wiki. Some students had

difficulties uploading the assignments on Wiki. Some of their works, moreover,

were accidently deleted by their group peers which made them become frustrated.

As for technical readiness in the SQU labs, unfortunately, most occurring technical

problems happened in the conducted Wiki classes were poor or no internet

connection. However, the poor internet connection did not hinder Wiki teachers to

use Wiki in their Wiki classes. Al-Awadi & Aldhafeeri (2017), on the contrary, found

that ‘technical problems’ as one of the major factors that hinder teachers from

using technology in teaching. In their study, about 75% of the interviewed teachers

reported that technological devices (Internet, computer) were not working properly;

consequently, they felt depressed when they faced these problems.

296

6.4.4 Conclusion

To sum up, there is little evidence of the challenges that the Wiki teachers faced

when using Wiki in collaborative writing activities. Thus, more investigation is

required to explore these challenges. When using Wiki, students found it time

consuming and tiring. I believe a Wiki teacher should have more active role to

enhance students accept the Wiki technology. A Wiki teacher could facilitate

learning environment for students, so interaction and communication on Wiki would

result in desirable learning outcomes. Finally, technical challenges which Wiki

teachers faced could not hinder them from using the Wiki in the five Wiki classes.

On the contrary, the Wiki teachers were planning to use Wiki technology in the

future in their lab classes. It seems that, more focus should be shown to the

technological device used in lab classes. The Wiki was acceptable by teachers

because it was easy to use and interesting.

297

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

7.1 Introduction

The final chapter of my thesis will shed light on the main findings of the research as

well as the research contributions. It will also reflect on the implications of the study

as well as its limitations. The thesis recommends for further studies which I believe

will bridge the gaps in the current study.

7.2 Research Findings

This study aimed to investigate the Wiki teacher’s role in a collaborative writing

environment using a Web 2.0 tool, Wiki. Besides that, the Wiki teachers’ perception

on using Wiki technology in their collaborative writing classes was sought after as

well as the challenges that they faced through the five Wiki classes.

The study took place in the CPS in the SQU. It was conducted by two EFL

teachers who were a male and a female. Being an observer and an interviewer in a

qualitative case study research, I utilised two main research instruments including

observations, pre and post semi-structured interviews. Before I conducted the

actual study, I conducted a pilot study. It helped me make some methodological

changes in my study.

The study has answered the three main research questions. The first one is: “What

are the Teacher’s Perceptions on Using Wiki in a Collaborative Writing

Environment?” The findings revealed that teachers had a positive attitude of

using Wiki in a collaborative writing class. The Wiki teachers found themselves act

as technical and pedagogical supporter to students’ learning on Wiki. They had to

organize their work in order to result in desirable learning outcomes. Since they

298

found working on the program useful, they decided to work using the program in

the future. They, nonetheless, were concerned about some issues after using the

program. The Wiki teachers were concerned about assessing students’ work on

Wiki, the difficulty that the program faced when used under the SQU domain. The

Wiki teachers had their own perceptions about their roles in a Wiki environment.

Then the study have answered the second research question: The findings also

revealed that the Wiki teachers showed six main roles which were managerial

roles, Wiki teacher as assessor, social roles, pedagogical roles, psychological roles

and technical roles. In their managerial roles, the Wiki teachers carried some

preparations before the Wiki class. They included assigning students in groups and

assigning group leaders for each group. The roles included also organizing the

Wiki class work which included dividing the work among students’ and watching

group leaders’ work. In their technical role, the Wiki teachers were to facilitate

students work on Wiki, train students how to use Wiki, and use online materials to

assist students’ work on Wiki. More interestingly, the study findings showed a

technical cooperation between Wiki teachers in which they exchanged their

experience when teaching on Wiki. In their social role, the Wiki teachers were

deducted through teacher to students’ interaction (T-S), which was observed

throughout the Wiki five projects. Being an encouraging Wiki teacher, it led to

student to student interaction, (S-S), to take place through students’ interaction on

Wiki. Teacher’s presence encouraged (S-S) interaction which enhanced interaction

between students (S-S) too. The Wiki teachers as assessors can be seen as the

Wiki teacher’s ability to let students comment and give feedback on each other’s

work. It also focuses on the Wiki teacher’s feedbacks, comments and rewards for

299

students work in a Wiki environment. In their pedagogical role the Wiki teachers

were first and foremost teachers who would enable students to grasp pedagogical

goals of learning on Wiki. Besides that, the Wiki teachers facilitated learning on

Wiki for their students through pre and during Wiki classes. In pre-Wiki classes, the

teachers made some pedagogical preparations which were used to prepare to the

next Wiki classes and design course materials. Through during-Wiki classes, the

Wiki teachers prepared pedagogical activates which differentiate between types of

teaching and learning. In their psychological role, finally, the Wiki teachers were

driven to work on Wiki because of four motives. They were personal motives,

leading motives, intellectual motives, and emotional motives.

At the end of the study findings, it investigated the challenges that a Wiki teacher

faced in a Wiki environment, to answer the third question: What are the Challenges

that the Wiki teachers face in a Wiki environment?” These challenges were as

follows: students’ readiness to work on Wiki, technical problems and other

challenges, caused by different factors.

At the end of the study, my thesis recommends some further studies. They are to

open new doors for new studies, based on the study findings. They are also to

reflect on the limitations of the current study.

7.3 Research Contribution

The study has contributed in the field of online learning in general and in the field of

using Web 2.0 technologies in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) in

specific. To start with, the study was to investigate teacher’s role in a Wiki

environment. Most of these roles are similar to teacher’s role in a face-to-face

300

teaching environment. However, some of them are different from it as technical

role.

The technical role of a teacher in an online environment is so crucial, since the

teacher facilitates students’ work when using technological tools (Thach, 1994;

Berge, 1995; Aydin, 2005, Abdullah, 2004). However, this role has been lessened

since some emerging tools are user-friendly and not complicated as Web 2.0 tools.

In the current study, the teachers faced very little troubles when using Wiki in

collaborative writing classes. As a result, they had positive attitude and were willing

to work with the tool. Similarly, studies have approved that working with friendly

user technologies result in positive outcomes (Gómez-Rey et al. 2017; Barbera et

al., 2016; Gómez-Rey et al., 2016). Therefore, I believe that using user-friendly

tools ease the teacher task when using a technological tool in online environments.

It requires teacher either little experience or no much experience to use them in

online environments. It also lessens the importance of the technical role of a Wiki

teacher in an online environment (Gómez-Rey et al. 2017; Barbera et al., 2016;

Gómez-Rey et al., 2016).

The study also used different methodology than found in most previous studies

(Aydin, 2005; Egan and Akdere, 2005; Richey et al., 2005; Varvel, 2007, Bawane &

Spector, 2009; Lee, 2010; Berge, 1995 and Goodyear et al., 2001). It used the

case study methodology in which the roles were investigated in more depth. As a

result, a new role has emerged in the current study which is psychological role.

Moreover, the teacher’s roles have shown new sub roles which should be

investigated in more depth. In the managerial role, for example, the Wiki teachers

301

used the group leaders in Wiki groups as ‘teacher’s assistants’. It means that the

group leaders will have new duties which need more investigation.

Although the study has shed light on the psychological role of Wiki teachers, it,

nonetheless, has not been studied much in the previous literature. In this study, the

psychological role has played a crucial role to encourage and assess students’

online learning for students. Therefore, I believe that more studies are needed to

show its importance in online learning.

Besides that, the current study has been conducted in a new context than most of

the previous studies. This study was conducted in Oman, a Middle Eastern

country. In the other hand, most of the previous studies conducted in North

American or East Asian countries. Thus, the scope of the new context will provide

more in depth data of new cultures which can be used in future studies.

Finally, this study has added to the literature of the Omani context. Studies have

called to investigate the effectiveness of technologies in language teaching and

learning in the Omani context (Al Aufi and Al Azri, 2013; Al Huneini, 2006; Al Adi,

2009; Al Khatri, 2018). This study has added to the literature of the Omani context.

7.4 Pedagogical Implications of the Study

The findings provide implication of the current study. The first implication relates to

in-service teachers who can use the Wiki technology in their classes to enhance

their teaching. The second one relates to using technology to teach English as EFL

in Omani education institutions.

302

7.4.1 In-Service Teaching in Omani HE Institutions

So much of what is found in this study indicates that in-service teachers need

training on using technology in their in-service teaching. As Sheikha told me that

she did not have so much training on using these tools on their academic teaching.

Through reviewing the Omani higher education institution teaching courses, EFL

teachers are introduced to use technology in English language courses. However,

they mostly have no experience or not being trained to use these technologies in

teaching. They mostly transfer their traditional teaching experience to online

teaching experience. Unfortunately, higher education institutions do not pay more

attention to use technology in education. They pay more attention to using

traditional educational methods in teaching than the modern one.

Therefore, training EFL teachers to use online technologies, Web 2.0 as an

example, would result in better learning objective outcomes for students. It could

encourage EFL teachers to approve using technology in English language

learning. It could also break the ‘Phobia of Technology’ which some EFL teachers

suffer from, since Web 2.0 tools are mostly easy to use. Last but not least, it would

make teaching experience using technology to EFL teachers more feasible.

7.4.2 Using Technology to Teach English in Omani HE Institutions

English language is taught in Omani HE institutions in General Foundation

Programs (GFP) which lasts for a year. In GFP, students are introduced to

computer assisted language learning programs as Moodle, Turnitin, Web CT, and

more others. These programs aim to enhance Foundation Program English

Language (FPEL) students’ English language skills. They also aim to improve

students’ skills for further studies and develop their linguistic competency and

303

cognitive skills. Unfortunately, these programs cost the higher education

institutions fortunes. They also require training teachers on them and updating

them regularly (Centre for Preparatory Studies (CPS), 2012; Al Mamari, 2012,

MoHE, 2018). Unfortunately, Web 2.0 programs and similar free programs are not

widely used in the Omani HE institutions. They do not cost much and they are

user-friendly. Thus, if these programs are used in these institutions, they will save

a lot of costs. The teachers would find the experience interesting, as the Wiki

teachers experienced in the current study. They will open the door for other user-

friendly programs to be applied in the higher education institutions in Oman.

7.4.3 Wiki Teacher Roles

Throughout the previous stated studies, it has been noticed that no much attention

is paid to teachers roles in online environment in general and in Wiki environment

in specific. Therefore, I believe these roles should be included in pre-service and

in-service training centres and HE institutions. They are to give a clear guideline for

online teachers how to conduct an online class. They are also to ease students’

task when learning online and collaborating with peers in collaborative online

activities.

7.5 Limitations of the Study

Although the study gained rich data, however, it has some limitations. First of all,

the sample of the study consisted of two EFL teachers. Due to the small sample

size of the study, the findings of the study are not to be generalized beyond the

scope of this study.

304

Secondly, the actual study schedule was compressed to start on time, because of

different reasons which the researcher could not handle. As a result, the recruited

Wiki teachers had to modify their teaching plans and learning objectives, so they

matched the research objectives and the planned schedule for the five Wiki

sessions. The Wiki teachers worked very hard to cover as the second term had

already started. Their plans had to meet the learning activities deadlines that the

CPS issued before each term. They had to rush to cover their already set term

plans. After that they modified the new plans and included collaborative writing by

using Wiki on them. I think these preparations could have been done earlier, so

teachers would start the experience with more ease.

Thirdly, the students in the study were studying in a non-credit course, FPEL. In

these courses, students did not take the lab classes seriously since they were not

highly assessed. Therefore, it was noticed that some students skipped some

classes or did not take the lab classes seriously. I believe that, if the study was

conducted in a credit course, more data would appear especially in the teachers’

roles as assessors and in social roles.

Besides that, the Wiki groups consisted of male or female students alone, one-

gender group. Consequently, there was no interaction or collaboration between the

two genders. In Oman, the community segregates males from females in general

and in education in specific. In the current study, likewise, males did not interact

with females which led to Wiki teachers dealt with each gender separately. The

study was carried out in Oman, in a different culture with the previous studies

cultures’. Thus, if a teacher was exposed to mixed gender groups, I believe there

would be new roles or competencies that she or he would show.

305

Finally, the administrational bureaucracy caused the study lose time and efforts. In

the pilot study, for example, I lost a lot of time in fulfilling the administrative

documents which were required pre to a research project. Besides that, there were

some administrational bureaucracy whether in the CPS or in the SQU

administration which caused the project to be carried out later than it was planned

for. As a result, it caused the students and the teachers to adjust according to the

new change in their course.

7.6 Recommendations for Further Research

The findings of the study should be interpreted carefully due to the small sample

size of the study. Therefore, they are not to be generalized beyond the scope of

this study. In this sense additional questions are to be asked to encourage further

studies regarding Wiki teachers’ role in a collaborative writing environment using

Wiki:

1. The present study did not examine the teacher’s social role in depth. The social

role of a Wiki teacher was divided online and offline (face-to-face). I mostly

focused on aspects of offline (face-to-face) Wiki teacher’s social role. More

investigation is required to explore the social role of a teacher in a Wiki

environment.

2. The present study showed six roles for a teacher in a Wiki environment. They

were pedagogical, assessor, social, technical, psychological and managerial. I

believe there are other roles would be shown vividly in the study, if more Wiki

sessions were conducted. Therefore, more investigation is required to show

more roles of a teacher in a Wiki environment.

306

3. Whereas Wiki teacher’s emphasized on some roles, they did not focus on

others. In online environment, it has been shown that some roles are gaining

more importance than others, because of the ease of use of technological tools

(Abdulla, 2004; Liu, et al., 2005; Aydin, 2005; Lee, 2010; Gómez-Rey, et al.,

2017). In light of the Wiki use, an investigation should be conducted to show

which roles are more important than others in a Wiki environment.

4. Most of the conducted studies report the teacher’s role from the perspective of

teachers or from the perspective of researchers. The present study showed the

teacher’s role in a Wiki environment from a researcher’s perspective. It did not

show the teacher’s role in the eye of their students. It seems that more studies

are required to investigate teacher’s role in a Wiki environment from students’

point of view.

5. Scaffolding students’ learning or leaving them learn autonomously are two

learning strategies that the teachers showed when teachers teach collaborative

writing using a Wiki technology. However, it was noticed that there are some

skills which a Wiki teacher should adopt in order to show both learning

strategies which need more investigation of how to use them in a Wiki

environment.

6. Web 2.0 technologies (Blogs, Moodle, Wiki…etc.) have their own uniqueness

although they have in common characteristics with other Web 2.0 tools. I think

more investigation should be conducted in the future to uncover more about the

teacher’s roles in Web 2.0 technologies.

7. If students’ work in Wiki groups was assessed individually, it would make a

conflict between the group members. On the other side, if it was assessed in a

group, it would affect the student’s enthusiasm who worked more than the other

307

members. A controversial issue appeared in the study that how students’ work

should be assessed in Wiki groups, individually or in a group. The question is:

How should students’ work be assessed on Wiki? As an individual work or as a

group work?

8. Group leaders were found to be ‘teachers assistants’ in which they took over

some teacher’s roles in Wiki classes. However, the relation between them was

found to be positive or negative. More investigation is required to explore how

teacher’s interaction with GLs affects collaborative group work in a Wiki

environment.

9. Berge (2008) argues that the online teacher’s role might change in today’s

virtual world, so the online teacher’s roles need to be reconsidered. In case of

technical role, what are the teacher’s perceptions of their technical role when

using other Web 2.0 tools (Blogs, Moodle, Turnitin …etc.)?

10. The study did not show challenges that the EFL teachers face when using Wiki,

because it was user-friendly. It is, nonetheless, hard to generalize the findings

of this study in regard of the teachers’ challenges on using Wiki to teach

collaborative writing. The sample was so small, consisting of two teachers and

were chosen purposefully. Therefore, there should be a study to investigate

challenges which face EFL teachers in a Wiki environment.

308

References

Abdulla, A. G. (2004). Distance learning students' perceptions of the online

instructor roles and competencies (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State

University).

Adkins, L. (2002). Reflexivity and the Politics of Qualitative Research. In May, T

(ed.). Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage.

Al Ajmi, A. A. S., & Ali, H. I. H. (2014). Collaborative writing in group assignments

in an EFL/ESL classroom. English Linguistics Research, 3(2), 1.

Al Ghasab, M. (2014). Wiki-based collaborative writing activities in EFL

classrooms: Exploring teachers’ intervention in the collaborative process. In

S. Jager, L. Bradley, E. J. Meima, & S. Thouësny (Eds), CALL Design:

Principles and Practice; Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL Conference,

Groningen, The Netherlands (pp. 1-5).

Al Huneini, H. (2006). Training teachers to teach using computers in Ibra Basic

Education Schools. Unpublished MA ICT & Education Dissertation. School

of Education, University of Leeds.

Al Khatri, A. (2018). How Omani teachers perceive the integration of the 21st

century competencies and skills in the EFL Curriculum. Education Research

Conference 2018, University of Exeter.

Al Mamari, A. (2012). General Foundation Program in Higher Education Institutions

in Oman National Standards: Implementation & Challenges. Oman Quality

Network Regional Conference, 20-21 February 2012, 1-6.

Al Manthri, Y. (2001). Education Reform in Oman 1970-2001: The Changing Roles

of Teachers and Principals in Secondary Schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis,

The University of Edinburgh.

Al Musawi, A. (2002). The existing formats and functions of media units in the

Omani higher education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences

3(2), 33–51.

Al Musawi, A., Al Hashmi, A., Kazem, A. M., Al Busaidi, F., & Al Khaifi, S. (2016).

Perceptions of Arabic language teachers toward their use of technology at

309

the Omani basic education schools. Education and Information

Technologies, 21(1), 5-18.

Al Othman, B. (2013). AL Talim Fi Sultanate Oman 1970-1995. Journal of Basic

Education College, 13, 75-88.

Al Rawahi, L. S., & Al Mekhlafi, A. (2015). The effect of online collaborative

project-based learning on EFL learners' language performance and

attitudes. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf

Perspectives, 12(2), 1-18.

Al Seyabi, F., & Tuzlukova, V. (2014). Writing problems and strategies: An

investigative study in the Omani school and university context. Asian Journal

of Social Sciences & Humanities, 3(4), 37-48.

Al Zahrani, Ibraheem. (2013). The Impact of Using Wiki Technology in Learning

Biology among Al-Baha Universi ty Students: Perceptions, Knowledge, E-

Learning Skills and Attitudes. Unpublished Thesis for the Degree of Doctor

of Philosophy, University of Southampton.

Al-Abri, B. (2009). Effect of using process writing Moodle based activities for

teaching writing on the writing performance and attitudes of Omani students.

(Unpublished master thesis). Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman.

Al-Adi, F. (2009). The Internet in English language teaching in Oman. Research

perspectives on education in Oman, 187-199.

Al-Aufi, A., & Al-Azri, H. (2013). Information literacy in Oman’s higher education: A

descriptive-inferential approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information

Science, 45(4), 335-346.

Al-Awidi, H., & Al Dhafeeri, F. (2017). TEACHERS'READINESS TO IMPLEMENT

DIGITAL CURRICULUM IN KUWAITI SCHOOLS. Journal of Information

Technology Education, 16(1), 105-126.

Alder, P. A., & Alder, P. (1998). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 79-109).

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

310

Al-Issa, A. S., & Al-Bulushi, A. H. (2012). English language teaching reform in

Sultanate of Oman: The case of theory and practice disparity. Educational

research for policy and practice, 11(2), 141-176.

Al-Jadidi, H. S. S. (2009). Teaching English as a foreign language in Oman: An

exploration of English language teaching pedagogy in tertiary

education (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University).

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online

education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238,

Newburyport, MA 01950.

Allen, J. M., Wright, S., & Innes, M. (2014). Pre-service visual art teachers’

perceptions of assessment in online learning. Australian Journal of Teacher

Education, 39(9), 1.

Al-Mamari, A. S. (2012). General foundation programme in higher education

institutions in Oman. National standards: Implementations & Challenges.

In Oman Quality Network Regional Conference Management &

Enhancement in Higher Education dated 20-21 February 2012, Muscat,

Oman.

Al-Mukhaini, E. M., Al-Qayoudhi, W. S., & Al-Badi, A. H. (2014). Adoption of social

networking in education: A study of the use of social networks by higher

education students in Oman. Journal of International Education

Research, 10(2), 143-153.

Al-Musawi, A. (2007). Current status of educational technologies at Omani higher

education institutions and their future prospective. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 55(4), 395-410.

Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., & Poirot, J. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for

teaching and learning in Oman. Computers & Education, 53(3), 575-590.

Alshumaimeri, Y. (2011). The effects of Wikis on foreign language students writing

performance. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 28, 755-763.

Alvarez, I; Guasch, T & Espasa, A. (2009). ‘University Teacher Roles and

Competencies in Online Learning Environments: A Theoratical Analysis of

311

Teaching and Learning Practices. European Journal of Teacher Education,

32 (3), 321-336.

Annamalai, N., Tan, K. E., & Abdullah, A. (2016). Teaching Presence in an Online

Collaborative Learning Environment via Facebook: Pertanika. Journal of

Social Sciences & Humanities, 24(1). 197-212.

Arain, M., Campbell, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2010). What is a pilot

or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC

medical research methodology, 10(1), 10-67.

Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing

group dynamics and revision processes in Wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3),

431.

Arnold, N., Ducate, L., Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2009). Assessing online

collaboration among language teachers: A cross-institutional case

study. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, (8)2, 121-139.

Avci, U., & Askar, P. (2012). The comparison of the opinions of the university

students on the usage of blog and Wiki for their courses. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 194.

Aydin, C. (2005). Turkish Mentors’ Perception of Roles, Competencies and

Resources for Online Teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Distance

Education-TOJDE, 6 (3), 1-23.

Baltaci-Goktalay, S., & Ozdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about

Web 2.0 technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4737-

4741.

Baporikar, N. & Shah, A. (2011). Quality of higher education in 21st century-A

Case of Oman. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the

World, 9.

Barnard, R., & Campbell, L. (2005) Sociocultural theory and the teaching of

process writing: The scaffolding of learning in a university context. The

TESOLANZ Journal, 13, 76-88.

312

Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles:

implications for competency‐based teacher education programs. Distance

Education, 30(3), 383-397.

Bayer, A. (1990). Collaborative-apprenticeship learning: Language and thinking

across the curriculum, K-12. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Berge, Z. L. & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated Scholary Discussion

Groups. Computers & Education, 24(3), 183-189.

Berge, Z. L. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Educational

Technology, 35(1), 22-30.

Berge, Z. L. (2008). Changing instructor's roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review

of Distance Education, 9(4), 407.

Bohley, K. (2010). Web 2.0: What is it and is it for me? American Journal of

Business Education, 3(7), 7-9.

Bolldén, K. (2016). Teachers' embodied presence in online teaching

practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(1), 1-15.

Bonk, C. J., Wisher, R. A., & Lee, J. Y. (2004). Moderating learner-centered e-

learning: Problems and solutions, benefits and implications. Online

collaborative learning: Theory and practice, 54-85.

Borthick, A. F., Jones, D. R., & Wakai, S. (2003). Designing learning experiences

within learners' zones of proximal development (ZPDs): Enabling

collaborative learning on-site and online. Journal of Information

Systems, 17(1), 107-134.

Boulton, H. (2017). Exploring the effectiveness of new technologies: Improving

literacy and engaging learners at risk of social exclusion in the UK. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 63, 73-81.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2011) Ethical Guidelines for

Educational Research. Available from: http://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-

313

content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf [Retrieved: 05

August 2014].

Brodahl, C; Hadjerrouit, S & and Kristian, N. H. (2011). Collaborative Writing with

Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students’ Perceptions. Journal of

Information Technology Education, 10, 47-74.

Brown, E. (2017). What Is Online Collaboration. Retrieved, 19.04.2018, from:

https://www.eztalks.com/unified-communications/what-is-online-collaboration.html

Bruffee, K. A. (1974). Collaborative Learning by Edwin Mason. National Council of

Teachers of English, 63 (4), 94-95.

Burnett, B. M. & Roberts, A. G. (2005). Online collaborative Assessment:

Unpacking both process and product, in Comeaux, Patricia, Eds. Assessing

Online teaching and learning, 55-71. Anker Publishing Company Inc

Capo, B. H., & Orellana, A. (2011). Web 2.0 technologies for classroom instruction:

high school teachers' perceptions and adoption factors. Quarterly Review of

Distance Education, 12(4), 235.

Carpenter, J. P., Tur, G., & Marín, V. I. (2016). What do US and Spanish pre-

service teachers think about educational and professional use of Twitter? A

Comparative Study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 131-143.

Carril, P. C. M., Sanmamed, M. G., & Sellés, N. H. (2013). Pedagogical roles and

competencies of university teachers practicing in the e-learning

environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed

Learning, 14(3), 462-487.

Centre for preparatory studies (CPS) (2012). Foundation Programme English

Language Curriculum Document 2012 – 2013. Sultan Qaboos University.

Chiasson, K., Terras, K., & Smart, K. (2015). Faculty perceptions of moving a face-

to-face course to online instruction. Journal of College Teaching & Learning

(Online), 12(3), 321.

Cho, M. H., & Cho, Y. (2016). Online Instructors’ Use of Scaffolding Strategies to

Promote Interactions: A Scale Development Study. The International Review

of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6), 108-120.

https://www.eztalks.com/unified-communications/what-is-online-collaboration.html

314

Cifuents, Lauren (1996). From Stages to Guides: A Professional Development

Study. Paper presented at the Annual Association (New Work, NY, April 8-

12, 1996).

Cohen, L.; Manion, L. & Morrsion, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. 6th

Edition. Routledge: New York.

Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki Technology to Support Student Engagement: Lessons

from the Trenches. Computers & Education, 52, 141–146.

Coppola, N. W., & Starr Roxanne Hiltz, N. G. R. (2002). Becoming a virtual

professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal

of management information systems, 18(4), 169-189.

Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Method Approaches. 3rd Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Method Approaches. 2nd Edition. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,

California, USA.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among

Five Approaches. 2nd Edition, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oak:

California.

Crook, C., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., Lewin, C., Cummings, J., Logan, K.,

& Sharples, M. (2008). Implementing Web 2.0 in secondary schools:

Impacts, barriers and issues. Retrieved from:

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1478/1/becta_2008_web2_useinschools_report.pdf, 15,

January, 2017.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective

in the Research Process. London, Sage.

Crotty, M. (2003). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective

in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dashtestani, R. (2014). Computer literacy of Iranian teachers of English as a

foreign language: Challenges and obstacles. International Journal of

Pedagogies and Learning, 9(1), 87-100.

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1478/1/becta_2008_web2_useinschools_report.pdf

315

De Laat, Maarten; Lally, Vic; Lipponen, Lasse & Simons, Robert. (2007) Online

Teaching in Networked Learning Communities: A Multi-Method Approach to

Studying the Role of the Teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257-286.

De Pedro et al. (2006). Writing Documents Collaboratively in Higher Education

Using Traditional vs. Wiki Methodology (II): Quantitative Results from a 2-

year Project Study”. Derived from: http://uniWiki.ourproject.org/tiki-

download_Wiki_attachment.php?attId=98, Retrieved: 12 June 2015.

DeCiccio, Albert C. (1988) Social Constructionism and Collaborative Learning:

Recommendations for Teaching Writing. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication

(39th, St. Louis, MO, March 17-19, 1988).

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds). (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative

Research. 3rd Edition. London: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds). (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative

Research. 4th edition. London: Sage.

Di Pietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Presto, M. (2010). Best practices in

teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School

teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(3), 10-35.

DiPasquale, J. (2017). WIKI’D TRANSGRESSIONS: SCAFFOLDING STILL

NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING. The

Canadian Journal of Action Research, 18(3), 47-61.

Donnelly, D. F., & Boniface, S. (2013). Consuming and creating: Early-adopting

science teachers' perceptions and use of a Wiki to support professional

development. Computers & Education, 68, 9-20.

Dooly, M. (2008). Understanding the many Steps for Effective Collaborative

Language Projects. Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 65-78.

Doult, W., & Walker, S. A. (2014). ‘He's gone and wrote over it’: the use of Wikis for

collaborative report writing in a primary school classroom. Education 3-

13, 42(6), 601-620.

http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/tiki-download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=98

http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/tiki-download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=98

316

Du, H. S., Chu, S. K., Chan, R. C., & He, W. (2016). Collaborative writing with

Wikis: an empirical investigation. Online Information Review, 40(3), 380-399.

Duke, Mary. (1991) Collaborative Writing: A Peer Tutoring Perspective.

Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Exeter.

Dunlap, J., & Lowenthal, P. (2018). Online educators\u2019 recommendations for

teaching online: Crowdsourcing in action. Open Praxis, 10(1), 79-89.

Educational Council (2018). Education System in Oman. Retrieved from:

https://www.educouncil.gov.om/ 20, March 2018.

El Miniawi, H., & Brenjekjy, A. (2015). Educational Technology, potentials,

expectations and challenges. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,

1474-1480.

Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is Wiki an effective platform for group

course work?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195-

200.

Ellis, R., (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language

Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Yu, J. H., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Lee, Y. M., ... &

Sendurur, P. (2011). Facilitating students' global perspectives: Collaborating

with international partners using Web 2.0 technologies. The Internet and

Higher Education, 14(4), 251-261.

Esichaikul, V., Myint Aung, W., Bechter, C., & Rehman, M. (2013). Development

and evaluation of Wiki collaboration space for e-learning. Journal of

Enterprise Information Management, 26(5), 536-552.

Fisher, M. (2003). Online collaborative learning: Relating theory to practice. Journal

of Educational Technology Systems, 31(3), 227-249.

Flick, U (2004). Triangulation in Qualitative Research. A Companion to Qualitative

Research. Flick, U.; Kardorff, E. & Steinke, I. (Eds). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

https://www.educouncil.gov.om/

317

Flick, U. (2006) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. LONDON:

SAGE Publications.

Flick, U. (2007). Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Flick, U. (2011). Ethnographic and Visual Data In: Designing Qualitative Research.

SAGE

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.

Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods.

Sage Publications.

Gómez-Rey, P; Elena Barbera, E; Navarro, F. (2017). Student Voices on the

Roles of Instructors in Asynchronous Learning Environments in the 21st

Century. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning

(18)2, 234-251.

González-Sanmamed, M., Muñoz-Carril, P. C., & Sangrà, A. (2014). Level of

proficiency and professional development needs in peripheral online

teaching roles. The International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 15(6).

Goodliffe, T. (2010). Developing National Standards for Foundation Programs in

Oman. In: R. Al-Mahrooqi & V. Tuzlukova (Eds.) The Omani ELT Symphony:

Maintaining Linguistic and Socio-Cultural Equilibrium. (pp.379-390). Muscat:

Sultan Qaboos University Printing Press.

Goodyear, P; Salmon, G; Spector, J. M.; Steeples, Ch. & Tickner, S. (2001).

Competence for Online Teaching: A special Report. Educational

Technology, Research and Development, 49, 65-72.

Grant .(2009). I DON’T CARE DO UR OWN PAGE!’ A Case Study of Uisng Wikis

for Collaborative Work in a UK Secondary School. Learning, Media and

Technology, 34(2), 105-117.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

318

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative

Research, In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guo, Z. & Stevens, K. J. (2011). Factors Influencing perceived Usefulness of Wiki

for Group Collaborative Learning by First Year Student. Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology, 27(2), 221-242

Hadjerrouit, S. (2014). Wiki as a collaborative writing tool in teacher education:

Evaluation and suggestions for effective use. Computers in Human Behavior

32, 301–312.

Hamalainen, R. & Vahasantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and Pedagogical

Perspectives on Orchestrating Creativity and Collaborative Learning.

Educational Research Review, 6, 169-184.

Hammersley, M. (2003). Social Research Today: Some Dilemmas and

Distinctions. Qualitative Social Work. 2 (1), 25-44.

Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2015). Ethics in qualitative research:

Controversies and contexts. SAGE

Harasim, L. (1996). Online education. Computer networking and scholarly

communication in the twenty-first-century university. SUNY Press

Harland, T. (2014). Learning about Case Study Methodology to Research Higher

Education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(6), 1113-1122.

Hartwell, L. M., & Zou, B. (2013, September). A Chinese-French Case Study of

English Language Learning via Wikispaces, Animoto and Skype. In 2013

EUROCALL Conference (p. 106).

Harwood, D. (1995).The Pedagogy of the World Studies 8-13 Project: The

Influence of the Presence/Absence of the Teacher upon Primary Children's

Collaborative Group Work. British Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 587-

611.

Hazari et al. (2009). Investigating Pedagogical Value of Wiki Technology. Journal

of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187-198.

319

Hilberg, R. S., Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Purposes and perspectives

on classroom observation research. In Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G.,

Hilberg, R. S. (Eds), Observational research in US classrooms: New

approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity, (pp. 1-20),

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Hilbert, M. (2011). The end justifies the definition: The manifold outlooks on the

digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making.

Telecommunications Policy, 35(8), 715-736.

Hillebrand, R. (1994) Control and Cohesion: Collaborative Learning and Writing.

The English Journal, 83(1), 71-74.

Honegger, D. (2005). Wikis – a Rapidly Growing Phenomenon in the German-

Speaking School Community Beat. WikiSym ’05 Proceedings of the 2005

International Symposium in Wikis, 113-116.

Hsu, P. S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about

technology integration: A case study. Tech Trends, 60(1), 30-40.

Hung, Yu-ju & Lee, Mun Woo. (2012). Instructors’ roles in asynchronous online

courses for ESL/EFL teachers. English Teaching, 67(1), 187-210.

Hutchison, A., & Colwell, J. (2012). Using a Wiki to facilitate an online professional

learning community for induction and mentoring teachers. Education and

Information Technologies, 17(3), 273-289.

Ismail, S. A. A., Almekhlafi, A. G., & Al-Mekhlafy, M. H. (2010). Teachers’

perceptions of the use of technology in teaching languages in United Arab

Emirates’ schools. International Journal for Research in Education, 27(1),

37-56.

Jose, J., Abidin, Z., & Jafre, M. (2015). Application of Information and

Communication Technology Tools for English Language Teaching in an

Omani Context. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), (2)51 -67

Kang, J.J. (2014). Learning to teach a blended course in a teacher preparation

program. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,

14(1), 54-71.

320

Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Wiki Uses in Higher Education: Exploring Barriers to

Successful Implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, (18) 3, 219–

231.

Kear, K., Jones, A., Holden, G., & Curcher, M. (2016). Social technologies for

online learning: theoretical and contextual issues. Open Learning: The

Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 31(1), 42-53.

Kessels, J. & Korthagen, F. (1996). The Relationship Between Theory and

Practice: Back to the Classics. Educational Researcher, (25)17–22.

Kessler G. & Dawn Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous

learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: attention to

meaning among students in Wiki space. Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1),

41-58.

Khalid, M. N., & Quick, D. (2016). Teaching Presence Influencing Online Students'

Course Satisfaction at an Institution of Higher Education. International

Education Studies, 9(3), 62-70.

Khatoon, S., & Akhter, M. (2010). An Innovative Collaborative Group Learning

Strategy for Improving Learning Achievement of Slow Learners. Journal of

Research & Reflections in Education (JRRE), 4(2), 142 -160.

Kim, H. J., Miller, H. R., Herbert, B., Pedersen, S., & Loving, C. (2012). Using a

Wiki in a scientist-teacher professional learning community: Impact on

teacher perception changes. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 21(4), 440-452.

Klien, H. & Myers, M. (1999) Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies. MIS Quarterly.

23 (1). p. 67–94.

Kollias, V; Mamalougos, N; Vamvakoussi, X; Lakkala, M & Vosniadou, S. (2005).

Teachers’ attitude to and Beliefs about web-bases Collaborative Learning

Environments in the Context of an International Implementation. Computer &

Education, 45, 259-315.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2004). Do online collaborative groups need leaders. Online

collaborative learning: Theory and practice, 215-241.

321

Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews: The Sage Qualitative Research Kit. London:

Sage.

Laal M. & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of Collaborative Learning. Procedia-

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-490.

Laflen, A. (2013). Putting Wikis to Work in the Literature Classroom. Modern

Language Studies, 54-73.

Lancaster, G. A., Dodd, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2004). Design and analysis of pilot

studies: recommendations for good practice. Journal of evaluation in clinical

practice, 10(2), 307-312.

Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning:

Introduction to the Special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 418-

420.

Lee, D. Y. (2010). The Teacher’s Role in Multicultural Online Learning

Environments in Korea. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom

2(2), 91-101.

Lee, D. Y. (2010). University Students’ Perception of the Teachers’ Role in a

Multicultural Online Learning Environment in Korea. Unpublished PhD

Thesis, Columbia University.

Lee, D. Y. (2011). Korean and foreign students’ perceptions of the teacher’s role in

a multicultural online learning environment in Korea. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 59(6), 913-935.

Leung, K., & Chu, S. K. W. (2009). Using Wikis for collaborative learning: A case

study of an undergraduate students’ group project in Hong Kong.

In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Knowledge

Management.

Li, K. M. (2015). Learning styles and perceptions of student teachers of computer-

supported collaborative learning strategy using Wikis. Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology, 31(1), 32-50.

Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One Wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL

collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25-42.

322

Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in EFL

collaborative writing groups using Wikis. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 26(1), 61–82.

Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2016). Explaining dynamic interactions in Wiki-based

collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21 (2), 1-26.

Li, X.; Chu, S. & Ki, W. (2014). The Effects of a Wiki-based Collaborative Process

Writing Pedagogy on Writing Ability and Attitudes among Upper Primary

School Students in Mainland China. Computers & Education, 77, 151–169.

Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative Research in Education: A User's Guide. 3rd

edition. London: Sage.

Lin, B. & Hsieh, Ch. (2001). Web-based Teaching and Learner Control: a Research

Review. Computers & Education, 37, 377–386

Lin, Y-T., Lin, Y.-C., Huang, Y.-M., & Cheng, S.-C. (2013). A Wiki-based Teaching

Material Development Environment with Enhanced Particle Swarm

Optimization. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 103–118.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging Criteria for Quality in Qualitative and Interpretive

Research. Qualitative Inquiry. 1(3). p. 275-289.

Liu, X., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Lee, S. H., & Su, B. (2005). Exploring four

dimensions of online instructor roles: A program level case study. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 29-48.

Lund, A. & Smørdal, O. (2006). Is There a Space for the Teacher in a Wiki?

WikiSym ’06 Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium in Wikis, 37-

46.

Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: process and

product. Computers & Education, 40(4), 377-391.

Magee, Bronagh E. (1993). Chain Stories A Collaborative Writing Activity.

Unpublished Master Thesis, The School For International Training.

323

Mayas, N. & Pope, C. (1995). Rigour and Qualitative Research. Qualitative

Research, 311, 109-112.

McKenzie, B. K. S. Newbill E. Kirby and T. J. Davidson (1998). "What Are the Most

Important Teaching Behaviors for Distance Instructors? Perceptions of

Facilitators, Instructors, and Coordinators. "Technology and Teacher

Education Annual 9th International Conference, Society of Information

Technology & Teacher Education Washington, D. C.: 1998.

Miles, W. L. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Military Technological College (2018). Overview of the College. Military

Technological College: Retrieved: 01. March. 2018.

Ministry of Education (2018). A Glance at the Development of Education in

Sultanate of Oman, Retrieved: 01. March. 2018.

Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), (2018). Vision & Mission. Retrieved: 01.

March. 2018.

Ministry of Information (2015). The Royal Speeches of His Majesty SULTAN

QABOOS BIN SAID. Ministry of Information.

Morgan, B & Smith, R. (2008). Technology in Literacy Education: A Wiki for

Classroom Writing. The Reading Teacher, 62 (1), 80-82.

Muñoz-Carril, P.C., González-Sanmamed, M. & Hernández-Sellés, N. (2013).

Pedagogical roles and competencies of university teachers practicing in the

elearning environment. The International Review Of Research In Open And

Distance Learning, 14(3), 462-487. Retrieved December 20, 2016, from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1477/2586

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic

Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal

of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13.

O’Bannon, B. W., Lubke, J. K., & Britt, V. G. (2013). ‘You still need that face-to-

face communication’: drawing implications from preservice teachers’

324

perceptions of Wikis as a collaborative tool. Technology, Pedagogy and

Education, 22(2), 135-152.

Ocak, M. A., Gökçearslan, S., & Solmaz, E. (2014). Investigating Turkish Pre-

Service Teachers' Perceptions of Blogs: Implications for the FATIH

Project. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(1), 22-38.

Oddone, F. (2016). Cloud Computing Applications and Services fostering

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge

Society, 12(2), 85-99.

Oldstein, O., & Peled, Y. (2016). Pedagogical aspects of integrating Wikis in pre-

service teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(4),

469-486.

Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1999). Using Online Technologies to Support Problem

Based Learning: Learners Responses and Perceptions. Australian Journal of

Educational Technology, 15(1), 58–79.

Oman Academic Accreditation Authority (OAAA), (2018). Establishment and

Responsibilities. Retrieved: 01. March. 2018.

Onrubia, J. & Engel, A. (2012). The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a

macro-script in collaborative writing tasks. Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, 7, 161–186.

Ormston, R.; Spencer, L. & Snape, D. (2014). The Foundation of Qualitative

Research. In J. Ritchie; J. Lewis; & R. Ormston, R. (2014). Qualitative

Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students & Researchers. 2nd

Edition, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks: California.

Parker, K. R. & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a Teaching Tool. Interdisciplinary

Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57-72.

Pifarré Turmo, M., & Li, L. (2012). Teaching how to learn with a wiki in Primary

Education: what classroom interaction can tell us. Learning, Culture and

Social Interaction. (1)2, 102–113.

325

Poyas, Yael. (2013). ‘Private Path, Public Route’: a Multicultural Group of Teachers

Experiences Wiki-assisted Learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,

22 (2), 153-172.

Pring, P. (2000). Philosophy of educational research. London: Continum.

Quek, C. L., & Wang, Q. (2014). Exploring Teachers' Perceptions of Wikis for

Learning Classroom Cases. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2),

101-122.

Randor, H. (2001). Researching your professional practice. Buckingham: Open

University.

Relan, A., & Gillani, B. B. (1997). Web-based instruction and the traditional

classroom: Similarities and differences. Web-based instruction, 62, 41-46.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in

relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, (7)1, 68-88.

Rivera, H. H., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). A study of a classroom observation

system. In Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G., Hilberg, R. S. (Eds),

Observational research in US classrooms: New approaches for

understanding cultural and linguistic diversity, (pp. 205-224), CAMBRIDGE

UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Roberts, J. & Eady S. (2012). Enhancing the Quality of Learning: What are the

Benefits of a Mixed Age, Collaborative Approach to Creative Narrative

Writing? International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years

Education, 40(2), 205-216.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research. (2nd. Edition), Oxford: Blackwell.

Ruane, J. (2005). Watch and Learn: Field Research Essentials of Research

Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.

Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers'

beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers &

Education, 59(3), 937-945.

326

Saglam, A. L. G., & Sert, S. (2012). Perceptions of in-service teachers regarding

technology integrated English language teaching. Turkish Online Journal of

Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 1-14.

Salmon, G. (1997). Techniques for CMC. Knowledge Network Internal Document

KN1244. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Available online at:

http://www.atimod.com/presentations/ and also available at: http://

www.atimod.com/presentations/download/cmctech.doc. Salmon, G. (2000).

E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan

Page.

Sardegna, V. G., & Dugartsyrenova, V. A. (2014). Pre‐Service Foreign Language

Teachers' Perspectives on Learning With Technology. Foreign Language

Annals, 47(1), 147-167.

Schwandt, T. (2007). Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Seale, C. (2002). Quality Issues in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Social Work. 1

(1). p. 97-110.

Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’

professional development. Cogent education, 3(1), 1252177.

Shank, P., (2004). Competencies for online instructors. Denver, CO: Learning

Peaks, LLC. Retrieved February 1, 2018, from:

https://www.cset.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingwithtechnology/tech_resources_pdf/

Competencies%20for%20Online%20Instructors.pdf.

Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and Student Perceptions of Collaborative Writing in

L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.

Shenton, Andrew K. (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative

Research Projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), pp.63–75.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing a Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition, SAGE

Publications: London.

Skeggs, B. (2002) Techniques for Telling the Reflexive Self. In May, T

(ed.).Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage.

https://www.cset.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingwithtechnology/tech_resources_pdf/Competencies%20for%20Online%20Instructors.pdf

https://www.cset.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingwithtechnology/tech_resources_pdf/Competencies%20for%20Online%20Instructors.pdf

327

Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2017). Elements of satisfactory online asynchronous

teacher behaviour in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 33(2).

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435-453). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Stiller-Reeve, M. A., Ball, W. T., White, R. H., Eckes, A. H., Newland, M. J., &

Williams, S. R. (2016). Improving together: better science writing through

peer learning. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(7), 2965.

Storch, N & AL Dosari A. (2012). Pairing Learners in Pair Work Activity. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 20, 286-305.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning,

(52)1, 119-158.

Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic

interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review,

60(4), 457–480.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’

reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14, 153–173.

Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative Writing in L2 Context: Processes, Outcome, and

Future Directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288.

Sultan Qaboos University, SQU (2018). About SQU. Retrieved from:

http://www.squ.edu.om, 21 March, 2018.

Sumara, D. & Walker, L. (1991). The Teacher’s Role in Whole Language. National

Council of Teachers of English, 68(4), 276-285.

Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online

learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.

Tang, E., & Lam, C. (2014). Building an effective online learning community (OLC)

in blog‐based teaching portfolios. The Internet and Higher Education, 20,

79–85.

http://www.squ.edu.om/

328

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to Case Study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2), 1-11.

Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for distance education

professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1),

57-79.

Thach, E.C. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles,

outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, Department of

Educational Human Resource Development, College Station.

Tharp, T. (2010). “Wiki, Wiki, Wiki----What?” Assessing Online Collaborative

Writing. The English Journal, 99, (5), 40-46.

Thompson, I. (2012). Stimulating Reluctant Writers: a Vygotskian Approach to

Teaching Writing in Secondary Schools. English in Education, 46(1), 85-100.

Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The

Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 393-409.

Tielman, K; den Brok, P; Bolhious, S. & Vallejo, B. (2012). Collaborative Learning

in Multicultural Classrooms: a Case Study of Dutch Senior Secondary

Vocational Education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 46(1),

103-118.

Tsang, E. (2014). Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case

Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 369-383.

Tsiotakis, P., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2016). Critical factors towards analysing teachers'

presence in on-line learning communities. The Internet and Higher

Education, 28, 45-58.

Tu, Ch. (2003). Building Active Online Interaction via a Collaborative Learning

Community.

Turuk, M. C. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural

theory in the second language classroom. Arecls, 5(1), 244-262.

Umar & Rathakrishnan .(2012). The Effects of Online Teacher’s Social Role and

Learning Style on Students’ Essay Writing Performance and Critical Thinking

329

in a Wiki Environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5730

– 5735.

Van Teijlingen, E. R., & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social

Research Update, 35, (1-4).

Varvel, V. E. (2007). Master online teacher competencies. Online journal of

distance learning administration, 10(1), 1-41.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press.

Walker, A. & White, G. (2013). Technology Enhanced Language Learning:

Connecting Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A

conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 9, 159–180.

Wang, Yu-Mei (2002). When Technology Meets Beliefs. Journal of Research

Technology in Education, 35(1), 150-161.

Warren, G. (2018). A Basic Guide To Online Collaboration. Retrieved, 19.04.2018,

from: https://www.lifewire.com/faqs-about-online-collaboration-2377250

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and

Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481

Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–peer interaction between L2 learners of different

proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian modern

Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.

Waxman, H. C., Hilberg, R. S., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Future directions for

classroom observation research. In Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G., Hilberg,

R. S. (Eds), Observational research in US classrooms: New approaches for

understanding cultural and linguistic diversity, (pp. 266-277), CAMBRIDGE

UNIVERSITY PRESS

https://www.lifewire.com/faqs-about-online-collaboration-2377250

330

Wellington, J. (2000) Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical

Approach. London: Continuum.

Wheeler, S.; Yeomans, P. & Wheeler D. (2008). The Good, The Bad and the Wiki:

Evaluating Student-Generated Content for Collaborative Learning. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (6), 987–995.

Wiener, H. S. (1986). Collaborative learning in the classroom: A guide to

evaluation. College English, 48(1), 52-61.

Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2012). What Role for Collaboration in writing and

writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.

Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A., & Li, X. (2011). Using a Wiki to Scaffold Primary-School

Students' Collaborative Writing. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (1),

43–54.

Yang, Y. F. (2014). Preparing language teachers for blended teaching of summary

writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(3), 185-206.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th Edition, SAGE,

Thousands Oak Publications: California.

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer

feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory

perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572-593.

Yuen, A. H., & Ma, W. W. (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e‐learning

technology. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 229-243.

Yuen, S. C. Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Yuen, P. K. (2011). Perceptions, interest, and

use: Teachers and Web 2.0 tools in education. International Journal of

Technology in Teaching & Learning, 7(2).

Yusop, F. D. (2015). A dataset of factors that influence preservice teachers'

intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies in future teaching practices. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), 1075-1080.

Zainal, Zaidah. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan

(9), 1-6.

331

Appendices

Appendix (1): Observation Sheet

Observation Topic: Writing Essay (Introduction) Observation Objective(s): 1. To observe students writing a collaborative writing essay.

Location: CPS, Lab.7 Observer: Younis Observed: Ali

Date: 28.02.2016 Time: 08.00 a.m

Section.1: Pre-Class Preparation (Before Wiki Class):

• T helped ‘personally’ some students to enrol in the Wikispaces.

• T assigned some group leaders to work as ‘teacher assistants’ when the class goes on.

• T made sure that students were seated in their assigned groups.

• Ask about the absence in the class. Made sure all ‘leaders are present’ since they will be

in charge of running their groups.

• T came early to class to make sure that everything is working ‘properly’.

Section.2: Descriptions (During Wiki class):

Course: FPEL 0560

Site:

Data Collector: Younis AL Shabibi

Observed: Ali

Date:

Start: 8.00 a.m

End: 10.00 a.m. Q: How did you prepare for your class? (Pre-class Preparations) The aims of this observation were:

1. To observe how the teacher behaves in the classroom while he teaches CW through

using Wikispaces.

Observation

• T gave students chances to try as many functions as possible in the Wikispaces.

• T gave some guidance and personal tutoring to some students who need help in using

program on their study.

• T gave students some guidance to students before they started writing (instruction and

guidance). He insisted that group leaders do divide work among their partners.

• T answered students’ questions before they started using Wikispaces.

• T gave a lot of instructions before starting his class to make matters clear before

students started their writing.

• T was a ‘time watcher’ since he kept deadlines for students work.

• Class was time consuming because it needed more time than already planned.

• Ss were having troubles with logging in. They could not go to the right sites. They

needed some guidance and support from the teacher.

• T made sure that all students logged in.

• Since there was a problem in internet connection. T made two students in a group to

share the same computer. I liked the idea

• T asked leaders to ‘collaborate’ with their partners in the group.

• T focused on ‘collaboration’ between group members.

• T made sure that ‘absent students’ were responsible for their own learning.

332

• It was the responsibility of the group leader to let them know about what happened in

the class (dividing work among students).

• Ss were given chance to work on their groups.

• T gave feedback whenever students needed.

• T made sure that students were working not being distracted by the internet sites. Some

of them were browsing different sites.

• T went around to make sure no troubles facing students (being not far from students).

• Teacher would always ask ‘is the idea clear? Is it clear? Do you have any question?’ it

seems that he did not want students to miss anything.

• Before students type their work on Wikispaces, T checked their work quickly. He told

them that he would give more ‘feedback’ through ‘Add Discussion’ function after the

class.

• T assured on class leaders’ duties in organizing group’s work and get along with his/her

partners.

• When students started typing their paragraphs, they had some troubles. T interfered to

solve some of these troubles. Some troubles were related to internet connections which

the teacher could not do anything to solve it except moving students from a computer to

another.

• T approved the idea of a student who suggested that he wrote on a word document, and

then pasted it on Wikispaces. This student was with the pilot study teacher. He still

remembered this trick. He brought it with him.

• Some students had another class in a very far place. They had to finish their work

earlier. It affected group work, but no action done by the teacher. They had to rush to

catch the new class.

• T reminded students about their roles in the essay before they left the class.

• Although class was over, T was still helping some students who were in the class and

had no other classes. (Sincere and willing to work).

What I learnt about the teacher’s role in this session: ✓ T is precise and does not miss the details.

✓ T distributes work among students, giving more ‘authorities’ to his assistants. T is not

centred to himself, but he shares some responsibilities with students.

✓ T gives feedback and clear instructions to make sure students are in the right track.

Section.3: To be discussed in the Pre-Class Interviews (After Class): T approved the idea of students being ‘teacher assistants’ but he has some concerns

about it.

Was the training the teacher gave to his students enough to start working on the

Wikispaces?

Does lack of enough training hinder students from participating online effectively?

There is an ‘integrity’ between teacher’s roles when works in a collaborative writing

environment and teacher’s roles when works on Wikispaces environment. How would

the researcher distinguish between them?

Notes: ✓ Guidance and tip giving.

334

Appendix (2): Pre Wiki Class Semi-structured Interview

Wiki Class no. : ( 5 ) Location: Ali’s office Interviewer: Younis Interviewee: Ali Date: 27.03.2016 Time: 8:00

Wiki Teacher’s Preparations:

A. Younis: How did you prepare for you lesson?

Ali: Actually, there was no preparation for this lesson. It was a completion of the

previous lesson. Students have exams next week. So, they are preparing for the

exam. They didn't have time to compete it. So, I let them do it in the class.

Younis: Yeah...

Ali: I expect that because they are first year students and they don't have the time

management skills to do it. They feel that if they have a test so they only focus on

that test.

Maybe that they have brought such an idea or from school background. Besides,

they feel that when it is a project, it's less important than a test and when it's online

it's less than on paper. They have degrees...I mean through my years of

experience as a teacher. I think that they prioritize things according to this. Is it a

test a project, is it online, virtual not virtual, this is how they prioritize things. This is

only my opinion. This my observation. It might be right or it might be wrong.

B. Any Question (s)?

Younis: That's all. Do you have anything to add?

Ali: Only that one, sending them emails reminding them...I did actually one thing

which is I asked Sheikha, I think I cc you in that email to tell me how to set a

project instead of having pages. And, she sent me detail steps. I did what she

wrote there, but one of the students sent me telling me that they could not see the

project. They couldn't paste their essays. our parts. Then, I felt that I should go

back to the old work. I felt then that they should get their work done. I returned to

the old work I used to do. I returned to using pages. So, they have now group

one.2. So, they have the paragraph. Then, they have now they essay. I felt it is ok

if we have now pages because they will working only on two things in this

335

semester. My maximum three. It won’t cause all of confusion of scrolling down

trying to find his or her group.

C. what should be done?

Younis: So, you mean that you are going to exclude the project and you are

going to focus on the page way of writing on a Wikispaces?

Ali: Yeah, Sheikha told me that on the right side of the Wikispaces home page,

the project appears only for the group members. so, if you are a member of

group.1, so you will find only the participations of your group members work and

you can't access to other groups work and see what they have done. it appears on

the right side. That's why they weren't able to see it.

But, I think the page feature worked, it worked well actually with the students.

Younis: Thank you Ali, See you in the next class.

Ali: See you, thanks.

336

Appendix (3):Post Wiki Class Semi-structured Interview

Wiki Class no. : ( 3 ) Location: Interviewer: Younis Interviewee: Sheikha Date: 07.03.2016 Time: 12: 00

Younis: There are so many issues can be discussed in your class.

However, I will stop on three of them for the time being. First of all, you gave your students a warming up. Why was that?

Sheikha: It was an activity in paraphrasing and summarizing technique.

Younis: Yeah...Yeah...Yeah. It was summarizing technique. And then you moved to the writing. To the actual writing. It means you did first face-to-face stage then online stage.

Do you think it is important to discussion, learning...you name it with students?

Sheikha: Yes, I think it is a classroom not a test. Students need instructions first?

Since it is a classroom, not a test, students need instructions first. They need to know what they supposed to do or what are the tools or technique they will use on their writing while they are using their computers.

Younis: You mean that there should be some instructions. Some space for direct teaching?

Sheikha: Yeah, it would give students a clear idea of what they should do.

Younis: You mean they won't lose their way or deviate from the right direction when they do online activities?

Sheikha: Yes.

Younis: The second issue, there is some levels of online collaboration. They are teacher-teacher collaboration, teacher-student collaboration, and student-student collaboration. The last two are mostly done in the classroom.

To be quite honest, you are more than excellent in teacher-student and student-student collaboration. But, I have noticed that although Ali was one member in the Wiki, but there is no much collaboration between you. Is there any collaboration between you as teachers teaching the same course?

Sheikha: At this point, No! It is just I added him to my Wiki and he added me this Wiki. I went through what he did with his class and he went through what I did in my class.

337

So, for the time being there is only discovering or finding out what is going on in the other class.

Younis: But is there any online interaction or any collation between you.

Sheikha: Not so far

Younis: Okay. The third issue which I would like to discuss it with you represented through the saying: "Technology assists Technology". Do you like to use technology in your technology in your teaching?

Sheikha: A lot, yeah. I enjoy using technology in my teaching. It makes it make more fun or easier for students or easier for students to learn. It makes it easier for students to use it. Since they are born in era where technology surrounds them. They use it a lot.

None of them come to the classroom without their mobile phones in their hands. So, why not use it in the classroom, I means get use of it.

Younis: Do you think it will make you work smoother or make it easier?

Sheikha: Yeah, it might make my work much easier and it will make it easier for the students. You know to get the idea.

For example, yesterday, I used the online timer there. Last time I had to keep yelling and shouting. You have 20 minutes left. you have 10 minutes left. This time it was timer and they had there in front of them. It was obvious and they had it there. They could see it how much time left.

Younis: Do you have any comment anything to add regarding yesterday's class?

Interviewee: Yeah, I'm still disappointed that my students still refuse to divide the work and each student sits on his or her computer and do the work. They prefer sitting beside each other doing the same thing together in one keyboard instead of doing the work one by one.

Younis: what should be done to overcome such troubles in the online classrooms?

Interviewee: Maybe if the group has five members, I should give them 5 questions, separate the work. Then, at the end they put the work together as a team.

338

Younis: So, do you mean that there was a limited collaboration between students, student-student I mean.

Sheikha: Yeah, some of them not all of them I mean.

Younis: Thank you. You don't want to generalize.

Sheikha: Yeah, some of the students like in one or two computers. One group was from the female and one was from the male students.

There is also one issue regarding a leader of one of the teams. He did all the introduction. And yesterday he said that I won't do anything to the rest of his group on the rest of the essays. Because he said that he did all the work and his friends did not do anything last week.

Younis: It is really a new issue. We need to look at it in the coming classes to see how it develops further in the coming classes.

Sheikha: Yeah. There is a clash between students regarding distributing work among them.

Younis: There is another issue I would like to discuss it with you. You were silent between 10 to 15 minutes. Why did you that? Let's say there was a non-verbal stage. Why did you that?

Sheikha: I think, it was important for me to give students time to think on their own. To divide the work as they wish. Because at the end they will work together. So, they have to find their own way. Each time will find its own way to work more comfortable or the comfortable with when working on the Wiki (working gradually with the students). Because it was the 'first time' to write the whole essay in class on Wiki online.

Younis: were you trying to focus on student-student collaboration, you mean?

Sheikha: Yeah. I wanted to see how that went. And I actually printed their essays this morning. Most of the groups had the five paragraphs essay structures. There was an issue with one group who actually exceeded the number of the words. About 500 something words.

But, having student-student interaction helped them, you know, like come to an agreement like we have to have this number of words. This person will do this and this person will do this, so yeah.

Younis: I do not have any question unless, you have something to add?

339

Sheikha: I think next class they will do much better. Now, that they know what they should they supposed to do.

Younis: I've noticed that you divided the work. Last week was...what was that?

Sheikha: Last week was the introduction. This week was the body paragraph and the conclusion.

Younis: So, are you going to follow the same strategy for the coming classes. I think next classes.

Interviewee: No, next week will be an editing activity (the essay). They will have the same essay. I printed the essays this morning. They will have peer editing. So, each team will edit other team essays (each team will have an essay of another team to be edited).

Younis: will it be done online or in the classroom?

Interviewee: No, it will be done in the next classroom.

Younis: You mean that you are verifying your classes, face-to-face level and then online level. And then, you are integrating them or...

Interviewee: Next class, you mean?

Younis: No, I mean in general.

Interviewee: Yeah. Once they edit their others' teams work. I'll get them back and next week each team will get their work to see where they made mistakes. So, they would be able to edit

Younis: That's all. Thanks

Sheikha: Yeah..Thanks

340

Appendix (4): Final Semi-structured Interview

Location: Ali’s office Interviewer: Younis Interviewee: Sheikha & Ali Date: 17.04.2016 Time: 10: 00

Part.1

Last Interview done by the researcher Younis A'Shabibi. It took place in the PCS. The

participants were Ali and Sheikha.

(Y): I would like to thank you for your collaboration in participating in my project.

First of all, in general, I would like to know your experience in general about

using Wikispaces in collaborative writing using Wiki?

Ali (A): Ladies first!

Sheikha (Sh): It was a very interesting experience for me. I used it before as a student.

It was different when using it from teacher's perspective. I think it made the process of

collaborative writing much easier than the paper and pencil kind of writing.

A: It was actually my first time using Wiki. I knew nothing, but Wikipedia. Actually, I did

know nothing about the Wikispaces and the potential it has, especially in the

collaborative writing. And as Sheikha said it was something different to me and to my

students as well. I found it really interesting...I am planning, I am actually continuing

with it. Just today I asked them to do something with it. Because I found it easier to

have them work their for certain reasons that I might mention later.

Y: Is it the same with you Sheikha. Are you still continuing working with it?

Sh: Yes, actually we have a class tomorrow. They have to write one more collaborative

essay.

Y: Were would your position would be in the program? Did you think about it?

Sh: I though it that students would do most of the work. Actually, this what happened in

the classroom. Students did all of the work during the class time and I did all of the

work outside of the classroom before the class time.

So, I think I was an organizer from behind the scene.

A: So you mean it was like it was like a flipped classroom you mean?

Sh: Yeah

341

Y: Ali? What about you?

A: My experience was a bit different. Though I did my best to get organized before, but

because of the internet connection problems as you saw in my classes. I do not know

whether it was the case with morning classes only, but I had troubles with internet

connections all the time, with server errors. So, despite being here early, it has been a

really a problem esp. for morning classes. That was my experience if you ask me

about my experience. I tried to be the organizer, trying to do things outside of the

classroom. But because of this we spent time trying to fix things, trying to do things

ready in class. And what students did inside the classroom and outside of the

classroom maybe of 'minimal parts' of what I had planned to do. That was only

because of the internet connection. And it was expected. I mean in using online

platforms.

Y: Now, after you used the program. What were the roles that you did during the

program?

Sh: I was basically a time keeper. The person who would give the rules like would be

the leader for the lesson of what they should have and what were the steps that they

would have in the class.

A: For me, this experience was like piloting. I discovered so many things. If you next

year, you would see something different. Because, I've learned so many things about

how to assign a leader who can be a leader in a group. And rules about a project, I

mean how to create a project. Is it only to create a page or to assign members for

projects. So, all of these things come to discover later. But, if I were to do it again, I

would do things differently.

Y: What were the repeated actions, activities that you had to repeat during the

research project?

Sh: Because it was the last session in the semester, I had to remind my students that

we would have a lab session via email. Another thing, you know, adding tasks and

adding students to specific teams. So, they would go in each team. They will be the

same students in each team every week. So, that was repetitive.

A: For me, actually, I don't like to remind my students because it was part of their

study skills and they have Google Calendar and I told them how to use Google

Calendar and how to use the reminding function there for them and if they fail to use

342

the Google Calendar. This goes to their final grade of the academic planner. The

second thing about setting up activities, I try to make sure that the activity very clear.

Though the group, as Sheikha said, are the same with me. The same members. I tried

only to change leaders. The same members for the same groups. The only difficulty I

face is only I could not change their user name (faked) to the actual names. So, I had

Snipers (nickname) and those difficult names. It was actually difficult for me to figure

out these names. It was difficult to assign, but after I did it one time, it was easy.

Y: Moving from the actions that you had before to the actions that you had

during the class or the Wiki classes. What were they?

Sh: Well, we had four Wiki classes. I only repeated the same things for the first two

classes. for the other two classes I wanted them to act on their own. For the first two

classes, the repetitive thing was me reminding them of their teams and reminding them

there will be a leader. And the activities were timed and each student has to take part

in the activity. These were the activities that I created every day.

Y: What about you Ali?

A: Trying to fix the problems with the internet connections and trying to get it work and

get it started. Then, even expanding the task if I had time left after trying to fix the

internet connection problems. But mainly was telling them, as Sheikha said, telling

them their groups. They knew their groups, but leaders and what is the task for each

person for the first task it was only one paragraph, so each person maybe wrote a

sentence or two for the second each person wrote a paragraph. So, that was actually

what I did in the classroom. I also one of the things in most classes was going around

helping students who forgot their password and maybe

Y: It seems to me that you have done in your class that most of them related to

the technical issues. After the students got out of the class. What were the

actions you had to do after the class?

Sh: Checking their work if they whether did the activity or not I sometimes looked at

the activities and gave them feedback on what they did in the class, before the next

class.

A: The first i was actually to me satisfactory, I gave them comments and tried to give

them links to websites and links to some videos to have extra information about some

of the mistakes taht they had there. But for the second task because of the report

writing, maybe they did not feel that they want to go back for the comparison and

343

contrast essays. It was different from 560. I am teaching 604 students, they won’t have

a comparison and contrast essays. They only have comparison and contrast report. By

the time, I have different comments for the different groups no body went back to

check because they'd already written their reports. And they feel their no need to go

back and check unless you insist on them. But They want to satisfy me as a teacher.

not for anything else. They don’t want to do this because it will help me in the final or

help, let's say, something, the test is coming. It is done with their report. That’s way….

I'm planning to use this time SNAGIT for given feedback. This is actually because that

this thing 2.0. It allows for discussions and interactions. So, if I add a video of

comments two students and they can discuss later if they have any questions or any

further clarifications they want about this one.

Y: Let's move to the challenges that you had while applying the program. Have

you faced any challenge at all when using the program in general?

Sh: The only thing I faced was some of the students were really discouraged to write

collaboratively. It was during using the Wiki. Because some of them thought the it

might the group’s leader would put the entire burden on my shoulders. And actually,

one of them wrote the whole essay at one point. And when we came to the following

class, he said that he would not do anything in the class because he had done all the

work last class. That was one of the challenges. Another challenge someone didn't like

their teammates. So, most of them were assigned with the students.

Y: How did you assign the teammates? Because in your case students were working

as teams. Whereas, Ali was using groups or pages?

Sh: (she did as...) the one who were not friends were placed together in the same

groups.

Y: It might be a positive point since you want to put students closer to each other’s.

Sh: Yeah, what is the point of having them working together while they don't know the

person they were writing with or the person they attending the class with each and

every day. So, I think that was to create some rapport between the students

themselves. For me, as a teacher I think. Because, I think if they have a good

relationship, it will help them to be creative, when it comes to writing especially.

Y: Did you have any challenges after the class?

Sh: No, not really.

344

Y: Did you have any challenge or before the class?

Sh: No, not really. Just for the program to warm up and work in my computer to

prepare for the task...but yeah?

Y: Did you have any technical problem?

A: yeah at the beginning of the class as usually. You mean the computer lab?

Y: Yeah, this is what I meant.

Y: Ok Ali...What about you? Did you face any troubles in the program?

A: I faced mostly technical problems. As I said earlier, it was internet connection

problems. Students forgetting their user names and passwords. It was mainly about

their passwords.

Y: It is hard to tackle all the problems. But, you said you had mostly technical

problems. But, you had mostly internet poor connection. What did you do to solve the

problem?

Have you done anything in order to solve them problem?

A: Actually, I went to the technician and explained and insisted that the problems

shoud get solved. He assured me that the problem is not from here. We have already

contacted CIS (Computer & Internet Support) and they replied that they are solving the

problem. But still. This is what I could only do. Apart...

Y: What were their challenges that you faced?

A: Students were forgetting their passwords, some of them. Other challenges, some

students didn't really work collaboratively. Some of them forgot what was about after

the class.

Y: This is really a very good challenge. I think both of you have the same challenge.

Which is sometimes you are faced with students who don’t want to work with others in

the same team or group.

Sh: Some of them were really resistant. They just said we do not want to work with this

group or this person. Although they use technology all the time. I don’t know if they are

using it for educational purposes that, maybe, was discouraging for them. I don't know

or they had another issue that....

Y: What have you done for such a problem?

345

Sh: First of all, I told them that we 'will have a reflection for the portfolios and it would

be graded. so, you have to do the work. Another thing was that, it shows me when you

work. If it is a green line or a red line. It shows me the kind of work that you did and

which point. So, I can grade our work based on what you do here. Some of them

believed it others would say you are lying to us.

A: You linked it to assessment.

Sh: Yeah, I did.

A: I did not do that.

Y: What was your strategy then?

A: I told them that you'd have a Wiki reflection. Or reflect upon Wiki and how what

worked and what didn't work. What they liked and what they didn't. I didn't really link it

to assessment. That's way some of them didn't take it seriously. Some of them, I mean

not all of them. For some tasks you see some students are working, but for other tasks

the others are working. I don't know if they manage to distribute work among

themselves?

The person who will work this time won't work next time. But, I found it actually. When

they didn't do in the class. When they did it outside the class when they come to the

lab. I had them work together even in one computer. So, just to make sure that

there were a collaborative writing was going on among

Y: Was there any collaborative work outside of the class?

A: Some groups, yes, especially ladies. The others they had...(But not as the ladies

group).

Sh: Yes, o course (she laughed and assured the phrase). It happened the same in my

class. They completed the essay at home. It was for both of them, but for the boys

most of the information was copied and pasted and after the first task I printed and

copied the first essays and took them to the class to have them peer edit each group's

work. And for one of the males groups, they had a 5 pages essay, comparing and

contrasting Beckham and Zidane. They didn’t have the structure of an essay.

Y: 5 pages! How could they manage to do it?

Sh: Actually, they didn't have the structure of an essay. Everything was copied. So,

yeah.

A: Copying and pasting it is really a serious issue.

346

Sh: This is really a disadvantage of using online programs. They can access other

tabs and copy information from another website...so, yeah.

Y: This is really an interesting point. Did you face it Ali?

A: No, because what I actually did was I gave them the outline ready and I want you to

use the outline to write an essay. So, they had no other choice to go and copy from

anywhere. Because even the companies some of them companies. Is it from the

Wikispaces? I created the companies from my mind, all the things. There was no

chance, actually, to get it from outside.

Y: But your case was different. You gave them topics from the book?

Sh: Yeah, I gave them topics from the book. The activities in the book are structured

this way: first write the thesis statement about these topics, then write topic sentences

for the body paragraphs. I followed that structure.

Part.2

Y: It means that, let me clarify myself. Ali, in your case, you gave the students the

outlines? They have to follow the outlines?

1:13

A: Yeah

Y: But, in your case Sheikha, it is different. You gave them what is found or what is

there in the book.

Sh: Yeah, (I gave them what's there in the book).

A: It's maybe because her students are 560 whereas my students are 604. They are

required, actually, they have already finished comparing and contrast essays. Not

teaching them the book. I'm not using the chapter about comparison and contrast.

They only need, they have already created their outlines. My purpose was how to

make use of the outline use linking words comparison and contrast markers in order to

write an essay.

Y: This would lead me to another point which is the topic that teacher his

teacher uses in his or her class. Do you think that one of the challenging points

is what material or topics that you are going to include in your online classes?

Sh: I did not face that difficulty because I had most of the materials from the book. I

told this you before, I just computerized the activities that were there, copied them and

put them into Wikis. And it was just me choosing which groups is going to do what.

347

Then, I had to exclude some of the topics, topics that are related to schools and

universities are boring because they are already written a lot on those topics (Good

Point of the online Teacher?)

A: For me, the one about the one which I used for the essay was also from the book

itself Carl Ford and Wilmer. There was an outline ready there from the book. I just took

that outline and have that chance of writing of Micro experience of writing a report

because the report is 500 words, so what they wrote was 250. So, that was only.... (not

completed sentence).

Y: So, can we say that a teacher has to have a touch on what he or she is

offering his students in online classes?

Sh: Yeah, definitely. We have to alter something and have to suit the level of the

students. Because some students are it is way difficult for them some topics I mean.

And yeah, when it comes to text-based writing, they face a lot of difficulties there. Just

to get the idea or to grab what's the idea or what the point behind having the

information and the outline which was note-taking. They just thought we will have the

outline meaning. We will not have to think about, you know, what we are going to write

about. Then, it come the issue of the linking words that we need here. Is this a

difference or a similarity. So, yeah.

Y: We have talked about the challenge that we have faced in collaborative

writing when using Wiki. How did you find the experience of using collaborative

writing using Wiki, in general, for your students and you?

Sh: I think it was interesting for both me and my students. It was the first time we used

it in writing. Because usually, collaborative writing is sitting together in five chairs or six

chairs and one piece of paper. And there will be writing, which could be difficult

sometimes. So, using the computer made things easier.

Y: For you as a teacher, how was the experience different?

Sh: It was that much different from what I usually do. Because when it comes to the

report the second or the third drafts are submitted to the Turnitin, so I have the soft

copy there and I am used to editing their work there or giving them feedback on a

computer document. So, and I actually enjoyed marking papers on the computer much

more than a paper using a paper and pen.

348

Y: So, you mean that marking online is one of things that you found interesting (in

using Wiki)?

Sh: Yeah, I found interesting and I found it easier for me to mark thing on the computer

than using a paper and a pen.

Y: Anything else? Apart from the marking?

Sh: Yeah, having students, you know, actually, realize that we can use technology in

education. Technology is not something that we use for fun. Technology is there to

serve us in our education as well not just for our ordinary life. So yeah.

Y: Do you see any difference between Turnitin and Wiki?

Sh: Of course, because Turnitin shows you how much you copied and pasted

basically. While in Wiki I did not realize that my students copied and pasted the essay

on Zidane and Beckham until I saw it was a five page essay.

A: But, Turnitin, actually, does not allow for different students to work together. So, you

have a soft copy and you upload it. This is different from collaborative learning.

Y: Ali, what interests you in using Wiki?

A: To me the whole experience was interesting because it was something new. I

usually like discovering new technical devices, technical tools that might facilitate

learning.

To me, it's something promising and I'm planning to continue working on it, develop my

skills and it isn’t something difficult. Maybe in one setting, you can discover new things.

Not new things, but all the things that the Wikispaces offer to a teacher or to a

student.

I think it was interesting to some students. Maybe because of the internet connection

problem, it wasn't interesting to others. You can say in general, it added this new taste

of doing things online instead of doing them on paper. To me, it was really helpful,

because I had the soft copies there for me to add comments and to me it was more

efficient than Turnitin in terms of adding comments.

Now, what Turnitin has is inbuilt symbols. For example, T is for tense, Sp for spelling,

and you need to drag them quickly. This is in terms of speed. This is very quickly, you

just pull it. If internet connection helps. Okay. You drag it to places.

349

But, when it comes to Wikispaces, actually, it offers two things. Three things not two

things.

The first thing is that you can underline a mistake. You can give your comments on

that mistake. You can link it to something outside. A video or a link to web site. So

here comes the independent part of learning students need to search and find out

more about this.

And the (third thing that I discovered is, not the third) the second. It offers discussion

between you and the students, though I did not use it much. I am planning to use it

more in the future. But, you can make discussions with the students why this and why

that? Why you used this for example this one? Or if students need more clarifications

on something, they can ask.

The third things is that you can insert a file and this is a new area where, actually,

because I am trying now with screen casting feedback, screen casted feedback.

Where you have a program that a video record the whole screen and you give your

comments on students writing and from that, you can use that video or insert that

video in the same assignment that the students wrote in the Wikisapce. They click on it

and they can see the video and after the discussion starts, if they aren't clear about

something. So, it has a lot of potentials. I mean in terms of giving feedback, especially

to students.

If you consider practicality, I am planning to say this in the conference (ELT 2016

Conference). One of things, when it comes to feedback, it is not 2.0, all the things that

we use. The traditional things are 1.0. It's one person. You give the student the

feedback, and the student will figure out the codes and symbols. If he or she succeeds

to do so. But, when it comes to Wikispaces, I think it has the potential that, yes you

give feedback but there is a say to students to reply to ask look for more clarifications

and to you to add more comments and more interaction.

Y: Excellent, regarding the interaction. I think we should elaborate on this point.

Do you think that collaboration between you and your students has changed or

has improved? How?

Sh: I used the discussion option, but it was students to students. But not students to

teacher. I did not interfere on their discussions.

Because I think my goal from using Wikispaces in the classroom was to encourage

students to be more autonomous. Because, I think it was a good opportunity for me to

350

stand back and have them have their own things and discuss their writings, or the

problems that they have.

It was almost the same as peer editing or peer discussion, but it was online. Instead of

having it on a paper and a pen.

A: I did not use the discussion option much. I used it only student to students

To me, I regret not using this option much, because it...I could have evoked more

discussion among students by adding my own discussions. When you interfere, the

students feel okay that the teacher is observing. He is with us. So, they can ask more

questions. You can even initiate some discussions. What do you think about this?

Students start discussing. But, if you leave it to them the discussion will be really

minimal. Because they won't go the extra miles. Because they go only the needed

miles not the extra miles to write their own assignment. They won’t go the extra miles

to do the discussions without you there adding so little initiatives.

Sh: And also I'd like to add one more thing. When it came to discussion function, I

gave them like five minutes. I say you can discuss your writing. They were shouting.

Like one was here. He shouted: "I posted a comment there, go and check it out. Did

you receive it?" They just kept talking through it. So, it was not real online discussion.

A: But, they did it in the lab. They did not d it outside. That's why (it was loud, noisy

and not real online discussion!)

Y: Do you encourage Wiki teachers to use discussion function?

Sh: If I was observing everything, yeah. If the teacher, like Mr. Ali said, interfere on

everything, yeah. To keep the discussion on track. Because one of them was like, why

were you absent yesterday? What does it have to do with the essay?

(laughing)

So yeah.

A: That might even write in Arabic, sometimes.

Y: During your classes, have you found anything annoying while using Wiki in

the collaborative writing classes?

Sh: What annoyed me mostly my students sat in one computer and this did not show

me how worked and who did not. Who wrote this sentence or that sentence. So, that

was the most annoying for me.

351

A: The same with me actually, the same problem I had because most of the work was

done in class. Though some of them they did, actually, this collaborative writing. One

student pasting the first paragraph or the introduction, the other students pasting the

other paragraphs. But, it seemed that they had not done it all separately, individually.

Then coming collaboratively in online form. No, they had some parts of it then came to

class and then they sat in one computer and they started working on it together.

Some of them what they did also that they wrote first on a word file, organized

everything, everything was done, copied and pasted there, and saved!

It wasn't actually; to me...It was collaborative in a sense. But, it was not really different

from some cases not all cases, in paper and pen collaborative writing, apart from using

keyboards.

To me, it was piloting. Everything goes through piloting. Every teaching method, every

teaching tool that you want to apply. If you consider practicality, everything should go

through this piloting stage where you should start to think about different things. You

start to think about your pedagogical goal. There you start about your context, your

students, you as a teacher, resources available.

This time I think, I myself, I think I was betrayed I mean, internet betrayed me. This is

when it comes to resources. Me, as a teacher, I've discovered many things. I think I'm

more ready to work on Wikispaces than before. My students, I think I need more roles

in the future in setting thing up in discussions, linking it to assessment. So that they

are, if not intrinsically motivated, instrumentally motivated, they had to do it.

I think, I don't regret using Wikispaces. I should thank you. I should have brought you a

gift. Really. Because, you have introduced me to this very valuable tool that I can use,

God Wills, in my future course. And, I'll keep you updated about the new things that I

will do in the future.

Y: As an English teacher. How do you see yourself when using Wiki in

collaborative writing? As an English Teacher or Facilitator?

Sh: We are both. In the first class, it was more IT than English. Setting up their

accounts and having the students showing them how to use the program and what to

do here and there.

But, during the following classes, it was more English. Because they were writing and

they had to use English in writing. And we had to discuss the function, you know,

352

comparison and contrast or problem solution or so yeah. I think it was more English in

the following classes. I don't think it was the same in your case Ali?

A: Yes, it wasn't in my case, unfortunately. Though, I wasn't efficient technical

supporter because I couldn't help with it.

To me, I can add this to this point which is 'disappointment'. Students, when you try a

new tool with students, if you want to try it for the first time. They don't know that this is

something new. Since, when you want to try it with me, you are an expert. And they

think that you know everything about it every bit and piece about it, so whenever any

technical problem they face, they expect this guy (he means the teacher) will come

here and with two clicks everything will be solved.

This is the problem, I think using technology in the classroom, which is students think

that if you are going to use this with us then you are an expert, you are responsible.

They are right in a part, but they are right in a part, because this their learning, this is

their time. they are there to learn. If you want to use this tool with them, at least, you

should have to know something about it. You know how to deal with it. You know what

is your purpose (Teacher knowledge of technology when teaching online is

necessary to gain a positive impact on your students).

Y: Ali, you are going to spoil my next question. Do you think it is necessary for

online teacher to know that a tool he will use with his or her students friendly-

use or not?

Sh: In what way?

A: To me, it was an acceptable tool. I got your question. I think, I am advertising for

my session in the conference (ELT 2016). I developed a tool, Aziz and I for filtering for

a new teaching method or a new teaching tool. This tool should go through a

practicality evaluation tool we called it. It passes or it doesn't pass.

When it goes through this filter every context with us has its own, let's say, parametric

of practicality. 22:55 So, what's practical to me might not be practical for a school

teacher. What's practical for a person in Oman might not be practical for a person who

is living in Africa. Practicality for us is something relative. It's, let's say, bound by

the parameters or the parametric conditions that you have in that specific

context. So, to me after looking at a Wikispaces, it has passed the filter of the e-

practicality tool. (Is it e-practicality or a practicality tool)

353

As I have told you before, you have two things to weigh here. You have the

pedagogical tool and you have the context. The pedagogical goal is I want to give my

students in terms of writing. I want to give them clear, rich feedback. Okay.

When it comes to the context. What about students? Are they illiterate or not illiterate?

How much they know about technology? How skillful are they about technology? All of

these things, motivation.24:07

To me I didn't face that much of a problem.

Y: It means that you have criteria?

A: A number of criteria. So, you have this the student then the teacher, and after that

the resources. So, it has passed all of them. Apart from the internet connection that

might be fixed soon.

Y: Ok...What about you Sheikha? Don't be affected by his answer.

Sh: I can follow that. It was, yeah, a very good tool for the students. Because they

quickly picked it up. They understood how it works. Yeah, I mean when I told them that

the following classes that you need to do this assignment or do this project. They

remembered it how to do it. You just go here, you edit, Then you add your comments

there or write your essay write your paragraph.

Y: So, do you want to say that you didn't have that many difficulties in applying the tool

in the classroom?

Sh: Oh no. The students were really, I mean, we know that the students of this

generation are aware of technology. Yeah, and they can pick it up. Because there are

far more complicated technology programs that they use. So, I think this was easy for

them.

Part.3

Y: Can you think of any possible factors that might hinder you from using Wiki

in the future?

A: I do not know, if a new tool come, has more options, unless, I don't know. I

think Wikispaces has more spaces and open source. so, people can edit it and

354

add to it and so, they can improve it and add to it. If they can other options to it.

Like for example, having for test....

Y: Please, stop giving me more examples...Because this will be the last

question. Ok Sheikha, do you have or do think that something might stop you

(from using Wikis in the future)?

Sh: Yeah I think the time factor is really important here. If I didn’t have the time to use

Wiki here, of course, I won't use them. There are things; I mean, have priority there.

But, this semester we have a lot of time. so, I think it was...yeah.

Sometimes, you don't have enough time for collaborative writing.

Y: Do you think that timing what keeps teachers away from using Wikis in their

classes?

Sh: Technology in general, I think.

Y: Ali, has told me once about it, about this factor (teachers are afraid of technology).

A: It's about time, I think. I remember, this might be off topic, but I remember trying to

use an Excel sheet with a teacher. We were co-marking together, writing test. I

showed her an Excel sheet that will get the differences, the agreed marks.

Immediately, without her even calculating her marks, you can get the break down for

each part. It will be uploaded and will do the whole thing. She said nothing...She said:

"I am doing nothing online, on screen, I'll do it on my own way." On a paper.

Sh: This is something which we are discouraged to use technology. They don't trust it.

They think that's something that might happen that the electricity might go off and I'll

lose everything.

You can save it before, once you enter every number, go

1 save,....

2 save,....

3 save,....

4. save,....

A: And you can have backup of everything that you do. You can have now, online

backup for things you do.

Y: Ok, what about you as teachers? This might be off topic; I am asking you why

did you participate in the program?

355

Sh: Because, I'm open to use other tools. I tried other tools that might help me and my

students to, you now, make the classes goes smoothly.

I think also, because students are easily distracted these days. So, using technology

might give them some kind of focus or things that the teacher is 'cool' or something, so

yeah. The teacher knows something about technology. He is not an idiot. So, yeah, I

think that's why I went for it.

And also because I was a student here and we had it in a course. I really enjoyed it.

So, it was a good thing to see it form the teacher's perspective.

Y: So, apart from participation is the teacher himself or herself? What about you Ali?

A: See, to me technology facilitates things. That's why we have washing machines, we

have refrigerators. So, for those who are reluctant to use technology, I think let them

get rid of washing machines and refrigerators, and ACs during summers.

To me, technology is there to facilitate things. We don't use it because it's there, but

we use it for a purpose. Okay.

I don't climb the mountain because it's there. I climb the mountain for something.

Okay.

It's a tool. At the end of the day, I can say something.

To me, when I attended the workshop in last summer. We had a workshop in e-

learning and then, the professor said at the end of the workshop: "I'm not saying that,

technology will replace teachers, but teachers who know technology will replace those

who don't."

Sh: Yes, I like that!

Y: Do you believe in that? Sheikha.

A: "It isn't....technology will replace teachers, but teachers who know technology will

replace those who don't."

Y: Last but not least, I would like you to give me any further experience in

general. Do you have any further comments?

Sh: Yeah, I think what Mr. Ali said earlier that this is a learning experience for me.

Thank you so much. I think if I had more time to prepare learn more about Wikispaces

in the future. It will be a more efficient tool for me in the classroom.

356

Yeah. If the assessment part was attached to this program. Or you know, they

said6:11 Using the program for assessment, students will be more serious, and they

will be more willing to learn more about it. So, yeah.

Y: Do you want to say that the main concern for you about the program

is assessment?

Sh: Yes, if it was related to assessment, students will be more serious and they would

use the functions there, you know more often. They would learn much more.

Y: Do you want to say that your students were not much serious about using the

program?

Sh: Yeah, because they weren't even to try (to) write in a separate computer and then

having everything comes together in one screen. So, yeah, if they though the teacher

would assess me as an individual and then as a group. Each one will think about

something to write.

Y: Ali? Do you have new points other than what Sheikha's just said?

A: Actually, I was think if this program has an App., this would, you know, have

be more user-friendly to students. Because, when it comes to technology our

students don’t open their Facebook accounts and Instagram accounts and their Twitter

accounts in a desktop, try to and start applying to things and they aren't active in their

laptops and their desktops. They are active in their tablets, they are active in their (cell)

phones.

The thing that Wiki misses is having an App. So, this problem of having them come to

one computer. if it had this option, thing might, well, actually they have went into

another direction.

Collaborative work, I mean. Where they have it like Facebook where they have like

chatting or something and they have a page. Because they are used to Facebook.

They are used to What'sApp.

So, this App option might be, let's say, something to be considered in the future.

Y: Do you have other things or comments?

A: If we add other tools to Wikispaces like ability to create a vocabulary test

where they get the results. This if you want to have all things in one place. But

since we have Moodle, things all wright.

357

Y: what about you as a teacher in the program. What are the things that you are

missing pr the things they you need to know in the future? About the program, of

course?

Sh: I had four sessions and I had learn enough. There was nothing more to learn, I

think. Of course, there are things to learn, but at this stage, for me, I mostly done with

learning about Wikispaces.

Y: So, do you want to say that the classes that you conducted so far are enough?

Sh: They gave me enough preparation. Preparation for me to use it in the next

following semesters for other courses. So yeah.

A: It is the same with me. It's user-friendly and it isn't complicated and has no many

options. So, you can even discover it, if you are really serious about it in one day. You

can get things clear from the first day. If you navigate and start trying different options.

Another thing that is missing is also changing role. Because in Moodle, for

example, you can switch the role to a student for example to see what a student can

see. But here I asked my students to see the project thing myself. I told them go to the

project thing and find your team and click on the team. Because this is what I saw as a

teacher, as an organizer.

But, students sent me emails we couldn't find this. We couldn't find this. I didn't know

that the project will appear on the page on the right side. On the right side of the page.

So immediately after receiving emails, I said Okay. I'll create pages after creating

teams and projects. So, I created pages and I said Okay, forget about teams now, go

to pages. Go edit things and add things to the pages.

Then, Sheikha told me it appeared on the right side it appears to very student. Now

this time, I'm using it. I told them it will be on your right side, you will see it on your right

side. Every student or every team will see that part with their names or the title of the

project.

Y: Okay, what about the collaboration between you as teachers throughout the

program? Because I've heard that you always said that I contacted Sheikha or

asked Sheikha? Did you have any feature of collaboration between you?

Sh: Yeah, I actually came to Mr. Ali to ask him about the last class. I was running out

of ideas. What kind of lessons I could have in Wikispaces? And he gave me an idea.

358

A: So, also taught me about the project. I did not know how to create a project. She

taught me about how to create a project and assign members for each team. So, this

is what I learnt, I also saw the things I kept seeing there the kind of activities that she

uses.

Y: So, you mean that the collaboration or what happened between you helped you in a

way or another to teach online class?

Sh: Yeah

A:

Y: Thank indeed...

Sh: Thanks for you

A: Thanks. We had really very interesting moments together.

359

Appendix (5): Consent Form

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION CONSENT FORM (Lecturers)

Teacher’s Role in Collaborative Writing (CW) Using Wiki Technology

I have been fully informed about the aims and purposes of the project. I understand that:

There is no compulsion for me to participate in this research project and, if I do choose to

participate, I may at any stage withdraw my participation. I have the right to refuse

permission for the publication of any information about me. Any information which I give

will be used solely for the purposes of this research project, which may include

publications. The information which I give may be shared between any of the other

researcher(s) participating in this project in an anonymised form. The information which I

give will be shared with the University of Exeter. All information I give will be treated as

confidential. The researcher will make every effort to preserve my anonymity

………………………………………………………….

(Printed name of participant)

………………………………………………………….

(Signature of participant)

………………………………………………………….

(Date)

………………………………………………………….

One copy of this form will be kept by the participant; a second copy will be kept by the researcher

Contact phone number of the researcher: 07831431886 (email: [email protected])

If you have any concerns about the project that you would like to discuss, please contact:

Dr Li Li (supervisor): [email protected]

Dr Philip Durrant (co-supervisor): [email protected]

Data Protection Act: The University of Exeter is a data collector and is registered with the Office of the Data Protection

Commissioner as required to do under the Data Protection Act 1998. The information you provide will be used for research

purposes and will be processed in accordance with the University’s registration and current data protection legislation. Data

will be confidential to the researcher(s) and will not be disclosed to any unauthorised third parties without further agreement

by the participant. Reports based on the data will be in anonymised form.

360

Appendix (6): Information Sheet (Lecturer)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

INFORMATION SHEET

(Lecturers)


Objective: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to explore

Teacher’s Role in Collaborative Writing (CW) Using Wiki Technology.

Please take a moment to read through the following information, which will give you a

better understanding of the research questions and objectives of this project. The research

aims to answer the following research questions:

1. What are teachers’ perceptions of their roles in a Wiki environment?

2. What are the prominent roles the EFL teacher shows in a Wiki environment?

3. What are the roles that the EFL teacher has difficulties to master in a Wiki

environment?

4. What are the roles which the EFL teacher feels more or less comfortable with in a

Wiki environment?

Important Information:

1. Collaborative Writing (CW): Collaborative Writing (CW) in L2 context, as Storch (2011)

defines is “the joint production of a text by two or more writers” (Strorch, 2011, p.278).

Collaborative writing has been used to encourage writing. Writing activity is considered a

boring activity since students’ writings are usually done solitary. Therefore, collaborative

writing is used to motivate students to write collaboratively in a group or groups (Magee,

1993).

361

Collaborative writing has been the subject of academic research and business for over two

decades. A number of authors have written on the subject, and each have slightly different

views on the strategies for collaborative writing.

According to Lowry et al. (2004) there are five collaborative writing strategies:

• Single-author writing occurs when one team member writes as a representative for the

entire team. Single-author writing usually occurs when the writing task is simple.

• Sequential single writing. In sequential single-author writing, one group member writes

at a time. Each group member is assigned a portion of the document, writes his or her

portion and then passes the document onto the next group member.

• Parallel writing is the type of collaborative writing that occurs when a group divides the

assignment or document into separate parts and all members work on their assigned

part at the same time. There are two types of parallel writing: horizontal division

parallel writing occurs when group members divide the task into sections, each

member being responsible for the development of his or her assigned

section; stratified division parallel writing occurs when group members divide

responsibility of the creation of the product by assigning different members different

roles. Some examples of roles that a member could be assigned are: author, editor,

facilitator, or team leader.

• Reactive writing occurs when team members collaborate synchronously to develop

their product. Team members react to and adjust each other's contributions as they

are made.

• Mixed mode. This term describes a form of writing that mixes two or more of the

collaborative writing strategies described above.

Onrubia and Engelhttps://en.Wikipedia.org/Wiki/Collaborative_writing - cite_note-CE_2009-6

(2009) also proposed five main strategies for collaborative elaboration of written products:

• Parallel construction—‘cut and paste’. Each group member contributes with a different

part of the completed task and the final document is constructed through a

juxtapositioning of these different parts without the contribution of other co-authors.

"Divide and conquer"

• Parallel construction—‘puzzle’. Each group member contributes with an initial

document with the entirely or partially completed task, and the final document is

constructed through the juxtapositioning of small extracted parts of the initial

contributions of other co-authors.

• Sequential summative construction. One group member presents a document that

constitutes an initial, partial or complete, proposal for the task resolution, and the rest

of the participants successively add their contributions to this initial document, without

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_writing#cite_note-CE_2009-6

362

modifying what has been previously written, hence, systematically accepting what is

added by other co-authors.

• Sequential integrating construction. One group member presents a document that

constitutes an initial, partial or complete task proposal, and the other group members

successively contribute to this initial document, proposing justified modifications or

discussing whether they agree with what has been previously written or not.

• Integrating construction. The writing of the document is based on synchronic

discussion through the chat, with repeated revisions, where all group members react to

the comments, the changes and the additions made by other participants.

Ritchie and Rigano (2007) described three types of co-authoring used in the academic

setting:

• Turn writing. In this form of writing, which is more cooperative than collaborative,

authors contribute different sections of a text which are then merged and harmonized

by a lead author.

• Lead writing. One person drafts the text, which is amended by the others.

• Writing together side-by-side. A text is composed by two or more persons who think

aloud together, negotiating and refining the content. One of the authors serves as

scribe and possibly also as “gatekeeper of text composition.”

It seems hard to follow a single strategy since they have different approaches. However,

each participant in the group has to have a role in the collaborative writing procedures. No

matter how small or big the role is. The most vivid element of collaborative writing is that it

requires a sense of collaboration between its members from brainstorming till paper

submitting.

2. Wiki Technology: A Wiki is ‘‘a freely expandable collection of interlinked Web ‘pages,’

a hypertext system for storing and modifying information – a database, where each page is

easily editable by any user with a forms-capable Web browser client’’ (Leuf &

Cunningham, 2001, p. 14).

Wikis have been widely accepted in educational contexts for two reasons: ease of use and

support of social learning. First, a Wiki is easy to create and use. With little technical skill

or knowledge, students and teachers can easily access Wikis, create Wiki pages, use

media elements (e.g. video, audio, images, or hyperlinks), and publish their collaboration

over the Web. Second, Wikis foster the creation of socially supported learning. Using

Wikis, students can create, transform, and revise content. Students co-construct

knowledge by negotiating, arguing, and revising knowledge. The entire process models

363

knowledge construction. The history function in the Wiki allows students and teachers to

identify who made the changes, how often, and when (Thorne & Payne, 2005) and to

compare earlier versions of a document. In addition, notifications of revisions and

discussion space allow users to produce content and structure in the Wiki accompanied by

comments, discussions, and annotations (Lund, 2008).

3. Teacher’s Role in a collaborative writing environment using technology devices:

Berge (1995) identifies four dimensions of a moderator in online learning: pedagogical,

technical, social, and managerial roles. Goodyear et al. (2001) conducted a workshop for

online teachers from the UK and the USA for 48 hours. The participants aimed to list

competences and roles of teachers in online environment. The findings showed the

possible roles for online teacher as follows:

1. The process facilitator: is concerned with facilitating the range of online activities

that are supportive of student learning.

2. The Advisor-Counsellor: works with learners on an individual or private basis,

offering advice or counselling to help them get the most engagement of the course.

3. The Assessor: provides grades, feedback, and validation of learners’ work.

4. The Researcher: is concerned with engagement in production of new knowledge of

relevance to the content areas being taught.

5. The Content Facilitator: is concerned directly with facilitating the learners’ growing

understanding.

6. The Technologist: is concerned with making or helping make technological choices

that improve the environment available to leaners.

7. The Designer: is concerned with designing worthwhile online learning tasks.

8. The Manger Administrator: is concerned with issues of learner registration,

security, record keeping, and so on.

Teachers’ Role in the Project: If you agree to take part in this research:

First, you will attend a presentation about how to use collaborative writing in EFL classes.

Then, you will be trained how to use the Wikispaces site. You will be trained how can a

student discuss, comment, and give feedback on writings on the website.

After that, you will be asked to teach your writing classes using collaborative writing and

Wiki technology.

364

The project will last for eight weeks and you will teach the writing themes found in FPEL text books. The researcher will observe four classes of your writing classes. There will be no extra materials designed by the researcher. You will use only the materials that you have in FPEL text books.

During the project period, you will be observed by the researcher for the research purpose ONLY. You will be interviewed two times, one in the beginning of the research and one at the end of it. You will be asked to write a reflection paper on your experience in the project too.

Methods: the participants will be observed as well as interviewed at the beginning and the

end of the project.

Participants: the participants will be instructors and students in the CPS at the Sultan

Qaboos University (SQU).

DATA Obtained: will be kept secured so they are used only for the research purposes.

Thank you very much for your consideration and participation. If you have further questions regarding any component of this research project, please don’t hesitate to contact me at either my personal email address.

Contact phone number of the researcher: +44 7490093922 (UK) or +968 99262171

(Email: [email protected])




YOUNIS AL SHABIBI

(Printed name of researcher)

(Date)

(Signature of researcher)

mailto:[email protected]

366

Appendix (7):Consent Form (Students, Arabic)

)الطالب( استمارة الموافقة بالمشاركة

(Wikiية باستخدام تقنية الويكيبيديا )دور المعلم في بيئة الكتابة التشارك

لقد تم اطالعي على كافة االهداف والغايات اللتي من أجلها وضع هذا المشروع البحثي -

لم يتم أجباري على المشاركة القسرية في هذا المشروع البحثي، وانما تم ذلك طواعية مني، ولي الحق باالنسحاب من -

المشروع البحثي متى ما اردت.

لي الحق كمشارك في المشروع برفض نشر اي معلومات عني وردت في بيانات هذا المشروع البحثي. -

سخدم فقط لالغراض البحثية، واللتي من الممكن ان تستخدم للبحث العلمي. اي معلومة ادلي بها في هذا المشروع ست -

اي معلومة ادلي بها في هذا المشروع يمكن استخدامها لالغراض البحثية مع باحثين اخريين، مع ضمان سرية -

المعلومات الواردة في البحث.

(University of Exeter)المعلومات اللتي سأدلي بها من حق جامعة اكستر -

المعلومات اللتي ادلي بها ستعامل بمنتهى السرية. -

سيعمل الباحث كل مافي جهده لضمان السرية وعدم افشاء اسماء المشاركين. -

التاريخ

اسم المشارك

توقيع المشارك

……………………………….............……………………. .……...........…………................................

مالحظة: سيحتفظ المشارك بالمشروع البحثي بنسخة، وسيحتفظ الباحث بنسخة اخرى.

:[email protected]للتواصل مع الباحث: يونس الشبيبي

)عمان( 0096899262171)بريطانيا( او 00447831431886النقال:

[email protected]الول: د. لي لي المشرف ا

[email protected]المشرف المساعد: د. فيليب دورانت

Data Protection Act: The University of Exeter is a data collector and is registered with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner as

required to do under the Data Protection Act 1998. The information you provide will be used for research purposes and will be

processed in accordance with the University’s registration and current data protection legislation. Data will be confidential to the

researcher(s) and will not be disclosed to any unauthorised third parties without further agreement by the participant. Reports based

on the data will be in anonymised form.




367

CONSENT FORM (Students, English)


I have been fully informed about the aims and purposes of the project.

I understand that:

There is no compulsion for me to participate in this research project and, if I do choose to participate, I may at any stage withdraw my participation

I have the right to refuse permission for the publication of any information about me

Any information which I give will be used solely for the purposes of this research project, which may include publications

The information which I give may be shared between any of the other researcher(s) participating in this project in an anonymised form

The information which I give will be shared with the University of Exeter.

All information I give will be treated as confidential

The researcher will make every effort to preserve my anonymity

……………………............................……… ………..................................................

(Printed name of participant) (Signature of participant)

(Date)

One copy of this form will be kept by the participant; a second copy will be kept by the

researcher

Contact phone number of the researcher: 07831431886 (email: [email protected])




Data Protection Act: The University of Exeter is a data collector and is registered with the Office of the Data Protection

Commissioner as required to do under the Data Protection Act 1998. The information you provide will be used for research

purposes and will be processed in accordance with the University’s registration and current data protection legislation. Data

will be confidential to the researcher(s) and will not be disclosed to any unauthorised third parties without further agreement

by the participant. Reports based on the data will be in anonymised form.

368

Appendix (8): Information Sheet (Students, Arabic)

Information Sheet (Student)


معلومات تهمك )الطالب(

(Wikiباستخدام تقنية الويكيبيديا )(Collaborative Writing)دور المعلم في بيئة الكتابة التشاركية

بيئة الكتابة التشاركيةالهدف من المشروع: انت مدعو للمشاركة في مشروع بحثي يهدف للتعرف على دور المعلم في -

(Collaborative Writing) .بين الطالب باستخدام تقنية الويكيبيديا

قبل التوقيع بالموافقة بالمشاركة على االستمارة المرفقة، برجاء قراءة المعلومات التالية بتمعن النها ستعطيك فرصة لفهم -

الى االجابة على التساؤالت التالية: اهداف واسئلة البحث الحالي بشكل افضل. البحث التالي يهدف

ماهو مفهوم المعلم لدوره في بيئة التعلم باستخدام الويكي؟ .1

ماهي االدوار البارزة اللتي يظهرها المعلم في بيئة التعلم باستخدام الويكي؟ .2

ماهي االدوار اللتي يعاني منها المعلم في بيئة التعلم باستخدام الويكي؟ .3

س فيها المعلم انه مرتاح جدا او غير مرتاح في بيئة التعلم باستخدام الويكي؟ماهي االدوار اللتي يح .4

مكان الدراسة: جامعة السلطان قابوس بسلطنة عمان. -

اسابيع. خمسمدة الدراسة: سيستمر المشروع البحثي لمدة -

جامعة السلطان قابوس المشاركين: ستكون عينة الدراسة مكونة من مجموعة من الطالب والمعلمين من مركز اللغات ب -

بسلطنة عمان.

دور الطالب: في حالة موافقتك بالمشاركة في البحث الحالي، سيتعين عليك التدرب على الكتابة التشاركية مع زمالئك -

. سيتم تدريبك كيف تناقش، تعلق، وتعطي التغذية الراجعة في كتاباتكم على الموقع. بعد Wikispacesباستخدام موقع

كلمة، بناء 250اشخاص بالمجموعة على كتابة مقاالت مكونة من 4او 3ليك ومجموعة مكونة من ذلك سيتعين ع

8مواضيع الكتابة المدرجة في كتاب المستوى الخامس لطلبة القسم التحضيري بمركز اللغات. هذه العملية ستستمر لمدة

الفقرة اللتي كتبها الطالب بشكل تشاركي الى معلم اسابيع. احد افراد المجموعة سيتعين عليه تسليم النسخة النهائية من

الصف . سيقوم المعلم بمالحظة الطالب خالل تفاعلهم من المحاضر لالغراض البحثية فقط، لن يتعين على الطالب تعبئة

اي استبيان او القيام باي مالحظة، ولكن سيتعين عليك كتابة انطباعك عن تجربتك في البحث لالغراض البحثية.

. فقطالبيانات: سيتم التعامل مع البيانات المتحصلة من المشروع بكل سرية، وستسخدم لالغراض البحثية -

369

التاريخ

اسم الباحث

توقيع الباحث

……………………………….............……………………. .………………................................

مالحظة: سيحتفظ المشارك بالمشروع البحثي بنسخة، وسيحتفظ الباحث بنسخة اخرى.

email: [email protected]للتواصل مع الباحث: يونس الشبيبي

)عمان( 0096899262171)بريطانيا( او 00447490093922النقال:

[email protected]المشرف االول: د. لي لي

[email protected]المشرف المساعد: د. فيليب دورانت




370


INFORMATION SHEET (English)

(Students)


Objective: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to explore Teacher’s Role in

Collaborative Writing (CW) Using Wiki Technology.

Before signing the accompanying consent form, please take a moment to read through the following

information, which will give you a better understanding of the research questions and objectives of this

project. The research aims to answer the following research questions:

1. What are teachers’ perceptions of their roles in a Wiki environment?

2. What are the prominent roles the EFL teacher shows in a Wiki environment?

3. What are the roles that the EFL teacher has difficulties to master in a Wiki environment?

4. What are the roles which the EFL teacher feels more or less comfortable with in a Wiki

environment?

Duration: the project will last for eight weeks (one term).

Participants: the participants will be FPEL students and instructors who teach in the CPS in the Sultan

Qaboos University (SQU).

Course: FPEL (Foundation Programme English Language) Level 5 (0560)

Students’ Role: If you agree to take part in this research, you will be first trained how to write collaboratively

on the Wikispaces site. You will be trained how to discuss, comment, and give feedback on your writings on

the website. Then, you will be asked to write from five to six 100-word assignments, based on the writing

themes found in PEFL Level 5 text book. You will work jointly with two/three other group members on the

Wiki spaces. This procedure will last for eight weeks. One of your team members will be in charge of

submitting the last draft of your work in paper to the class instructor. You will be observed by the researcher

for the research purpose ONLY. You will be videotaped when you interact with the instructor for the research

purpose ONLY. By the end of the project, you won’t be asked to do any interviews or questionnaires.

However, you will be asked to write a reflection paper on your experience in the project.

DATA Obtained: will be kept secured so they are used only for the research purposes.

371

Thank you very much for your consideration and participation. If you have further questions regarding any

component of this research project, please don’t hesitate to contact me at either my personal email address.

Contact phone number of the researcher: +44 7831431886 (UK) or +968 99262171 (Email:

[email protected])




………………………………............ .……...........…………................................

(Printed name of researcher) (Date)

(Signature of researcher )

372

Appendix (9): Certificate of Ethical Approval

373

Appendix (10): Example of Daily Journal Notes

Day: from 03/01/2016 to 07/01/2016

• The feedback Li (my supervisor) sent me was really useful on the pilot study

were very useful. I made a pre and post class discussions. These discussions will

help me a lot in the coming classes and when I finish the research.

• However, conducting these discussions as well as transcribing them is time

consuming. It takes me more than 2 to 3 hours to discuss and transcribe a class.

Yet, I am enjoying the experience.

• I spent more than 3 months to start the actual project. I had to fill up so many

documents and see so many people to get me the approvals for my study. I think

the procedures should be more flexible and lenient by the SQU administration. I

think research issues should be organized more professionally. Unfortunately,

the procedures of starting a research in the SQU administration was different

from of that to CPS’s procedures, although it belongs to the SQU.

• What I liked about this experience was that I knew so many people in different

departments. It helped me a lot. It might help me also in the future if I apply for

a job in the future, who knows?

• I have some missing details about the course EFPL 056 and the LC. I need to

write more about both of them since the study is taking place in the CPS.

Besides, I have to show why I choose to conduct the study in the CPS. Since the

students in this course EFPL 056 are considered to be the best, I need to justify

why I choose them for the course purpose. I think it is crucial to know that.

• Students who participated in the pilot study, are with one of the recruited

teachers, what should I do? • I could only recruit 2 teachers, as already mentioned. According to their responses to my email

in which I asked their kind participation in my project, the teachers in the CPS found no interest

in my project. They were busy, had so many duties to do for the LC and their students, others

are doing their higher studies (PhDs), busy with their classes, administrative works they have to

do, coordinating programs, and preparing for the annual ELT (English Language Teaching)

conference 2016.

374

Appendix (11): Example of PowerPoint Lessons in Wiki Classes

376

Appendix (12.A): Wiki Rules

377

Appendix (12.B):Group Leaders in Teams (in blue)

378

Appendix (13): Examples of Students’ Training on Wiki

379

Appendix (14): Analysis

Table: Coding

Code (No.)

Views on Students Using Technology (6) Views on Using Technology in language teaching (9) Teacher views’ on teachers’ using technology (25) Teacher’s views on students using online devices (32) Views on Using Wiki (72) Reflection upon teachers’ role in online environment or Wiki (76). How to improve Wikis (program pitfalls) (78) Managerial roles (15) Duties distributed well (29) Teacher as an organizer or observer (50) Checking Absence (51) Managing time (53) Seating in the online class (56) Team leaders (58) Silence (57) Time watcher (27) Teacher encourage students to ask questions (36) Collaboration (33) Teacher encourage collaboration (28) Students working together (67) Students working collaboratively (42) Interaction (T-S) or (T-T) (49) Views on Assessment (8) Feedback and Comments (30) Praise and Rewards (35) Levels of Writing (2) Views of Students’ writing (3) Pedagogical Role (13) Teacher in a Wiki environment (16) How teacher teaches online (70) How teacher chooses online materials (69) Teacher checked online work (60) Homework (55) Face-to-face or online (31) Autonomous learning (74) Students working in the class (46) Technical roles (18) Training students how to use the program (24) Using online materials (38) Careful when using devices for Wikis (39)

380

Using mobiles in the class (35) Teacher’s presence in online discussion (75) Teacher’s characteristics (12) Teacher encourages students to work on the program (19) Personal interest and motivations (11) Experience (1) Get help from students (20) New ideas and solutions (21) Wikis Vs. other tools (73) Guidance and help (26) Alternative plans or Plan B (37) Negative Impression before using Wikis (5) Technical problems (23) Copy and paste (68) General Challenges (66) Not attending online classes (44) Troubles with students’ work (59) Before using the Program: expectations (10) After using the program: Future plans for the Wiki (47) Wiki in the next semester classes ( 48) What might stop the teacher from using Wiki in the future (77)? Teacher still using the program, the Wiki (63) L1 (40) Asking about students’ work on Wiki (41) Views on preparation (34) Students’ production (51) Students’ marks after using Wikispaces (62) Repetitive roles (64) Action repeated in Wiki classes (65) Students’’ work (43) Reflection (61) Collaborative writing using Wiki... (71)

381

Themes

No. Theme Codes

1 Perceptions • Views on Students Using

Technology (6)

• Views on Using Technology in

language teaching (9)

• Teacher views’ on teachers’ using

technology (25)

• Teacher’s views on students using

online devices (32)

• Views on Using Wiki (72)

• Reflection upon teachers’ role in

online environment or Wiki (76).

• How to improve Wikis (program

pitfalls) (78)

2 Managerial Role ❖ Managerial roles (15)

❖ Duties distributed well (29)

❖ Teacher as an organizer or

observer (50)

❖ Checking Absence (51)

❖ Managing time (53)

❖ Seating in the online class (56)

❖ Team leaders (58)

❖ Silence (57)

❖ Time watcher (27)

3 Social Roles o Teacher encourage students to ask

questions (36)

o Collaboration (33)

o Teacher encourage collaboration

(28)

o Students working together (67)

o Students working collaboratively

(42)

o Interaction (T-S) or (T-T) (49)

4 Assessor ✓ Views on Assessment (8)

✓ Feedback and Comments (30)

✓ Praise and Rewards (35)

5 Pedagogical Roles

Levels of Writing (2)

Views of Students’ writing (3)

Pedagogical Role (13)

Teacher in a Wiki environment

(16)

How teacher teaches online (70)

How teacher chooses online

382

materials (69)

Teacher checked online work

(60)

Homework (55)

Face-to-face or online (31)

Autonomous learning (74)

Students working in the class (46)

6 Technical Role Technical roles (18)

Training students how to use the

program (24)

Using online materials (38)

Careful when using devices for

Wikis (39)

Using mobiles in the class (35)

Teacher’s presence in online

discussion (75)

7 Affective Role Teacher’s characteristics (12)

Teacher encourages students to

work on the program (19)

Personal interest and motivations

(11)

Experience (1)

8 Leader Get help from students (20)

New ideas and solutions (21)

Wikis Vs. other tools (73)

Guidance and help (26)

Alternative plans or Plan B (37)

9 Challenges Negative Impression before

using Wikis (5)

Technical problems (23)

Copy and paste (68)

General Challenges (66)

Not attending online classes (44)

Troubles with students’ work (59)

10 Why Wiki? Impression before using Wiki, the

program (4)

Views on the program, why Wiki?

(7)

11 Future of Wiki (2.0) ✓ Before using the Program:

o expectations (10)

✓ After using the program:

o Future plans for the Wiki (47)

o Wiki in the next semester

classes ( 48)

o What might stop the teacher

from using Wiki in the future

(77)?

o Teacher still using the

program, the Wiki (63)

12 Others

383

➢ L1 (40)

➢ Asking about students’ work on

Wiki (41)

➢ Views on preparation (34)

➢ Students’ production (51)

➢ Students’ marks after using

Wikispaces (62)

➢ Repetitive roles (64)

➢ Action repeated in Wiki classes

(65)

➢ Students’ work (43)

➢ Reflection (61)

➢ Collaborative writing using

Wiki... (71)

384

Appendix (15): The Terminology

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

A Role is a major area of functioning which encompasses any number of

competencies and outputs (McLagan, 1989). One person can and often does

assume various roles in a work position. (Abdullah 2004)

Collaborative Writing (CW) in L2 context, as Storch (2011) defines is “the joint

production of a text by two or more writers” (Strorch, 2011: 278).

Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; “Web 2.0

applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that

platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the

more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including

individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows

remixing by others, creating Network effects through an “architecture of

participation,” and going beyond the stage metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user

experiences (O’Reilly, 2005 in Bohely, 2010: 7).

Wiki is one of the Web 2.0 technologies. A Wiki technology, as Parker & Chao

(2007, p.1) define, is “a web communication and collaboration tool that can be

used to engage students in learning with others in a collaborative environment.”

Higher education Institutions in Oman are those institutions which enrol students

after they graduate from post basic education (G12 class or General Education

Diploma) successfully. The study lasts from two to seven years, depend on the

college which a student enrols in. There are over (50) public and private higher

education institutions in Oman. They are supervised by different ministries, the

ministry of Higher education, Manpower, Health, and Central Omani Bank. (Al

Musawi, 2018).

Online Collaboration: Warren (2018: 1) defines online interaction as: “online

collaboration lets a group of people work together in real-time over the Internet.

Those engaged in online collaboration can work together on word processor

documents, PowerPoint presentations and even for brainstorming, all without

needing to be in the same room at the same time.”

Brown (2017:1) defines online collaboration as “Online collaboration can be

defined as a technology that uses a collaboration software to allow a group of

people to work together to achieve the same goal. The members of collaborating

group can use the collaboration software to coordinate, communicate, cooperate,

share, negotiate and even compete with each other to solve problems.”

385

Field notes: as Ruane (2005: 170) defines, are “the words, or images used to

record one’s field observation”. Field notes were first written roughly in the

classroom, then were organized and rewritten after the Wiki classes.

Teacher's Role in A Collaborative Writing Environment Using ...

Documents

Transcript of Teacher's Role in A Collaborative Writing Environment Using ...