ArticlePDF Available

Collaborative knowledge building in an Omani teacher-training class: Lessons learned


Abstract and Figures

The call for constructivist-based education as a tool for building knowledge societies has been sounded in classrooms around the world. However the ways in which students teachers and institutions of various learning cultures react to constructivist pedagogies are varied and complex and are worth further investigation. In an attempt to prepare students for work within an Omani knowledge society we introduced a collaborative knowledge-building environment based on the principles of Brown and Campione’s Fostering Communities of Learners in a
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lessons Learned from Adopting Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning in Oman
Log in to Recommend
by David S. Porcaro and Ali Sharaf Al Musawi
Published on Thursday, December 15, 20110 Comments
Key Takeaways
Traditional teaching methods in the Middle East have not prepared graduates for work in the
21st century.
Computer-supported collaborative learning can increase students' opportunities to develop
the skills and habits of mind needed to build knowledge societies.
Outcomes include enhanced knowledge of course content, increased confidence in applying that
knowledge and skills gained, stronger collaboration skills, greater ability to create rather than
simply consume knowledge, and improved leadership and public presentation skills.
"Before I started taking this course I hated to work in groups because I thought that everybody will depend
on the other to work and complete the project and there will be always disagreement between the members.
However, working in different groups in this course all my ideas about collaborative learning have changed. I
like it."
Omani Undergraduate Student
Despite recent investments in and rapid modernization of university campuses in places like Kuwait
Saudi Arabia,
higher education in the Middle East still faces many obstacles. One of the greatest has been
a fundamental disconnect between education and employment, a possible factor contributing to many of the
recent riots in the Arab World.
In 2008 the World Bank published a report
that highlighted the massive
unemployment among college graduates across the Middle East and suggested that the traditional
instructivist teaching methods long dominant there which emphasize lecture, rote memorization, and
high-stakes testing have done little to prepare graduates for work in the 21st century. They suggested
that in conjunction with other possible solutions, greater emphasis should be placed onconstructivist
methods, including student-centered learning and collaborative problem solving, coupled with a greater use
of information and communications technology (ICT).
Others agree that to build knowledge societies, we need to improve students' abilities to think for
themselves, weigh competing claims, argue their position with others, and work together to solve
One powerful way of increasing the opportunities for students to develop these skills and habits
of mind in formal courses is computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Well-constructed CSCL
environments provide opportunities for students to develop the critical thinking skills they need after
graduation, and to learn to create, rather than simply consume, knowledge.
This article examines the
effects of introducing CSCL into a Middle Eastern undergraduate course and the cultural, institutional, and
societal factors to consider for sustainable design.
What Is Knowledge-Building CSCL?
"Computer-supported collaborative learning" can best be understood by analyzing the constituent elements
of the term. "Computer-supported" means that computers are at the center of the learning environment,
though this does not necessarily mean a traditional PC; mobile phones, GPS-enabled handheld devices, or
computers have all been used to support CSCL.
This support can either be through students working
together in front of a computer with the computer acting as a tool to support face-to-face collaboration, or the
students can work from a distance and use computers or other devices as mediation tools for
communication, as places to organize their learning, or as authoring tools for building knowledge
representations together (such as concept maps or essays). "Collaborative learning" means more than just
dividing up an assignment and piecing it together at a later time, or what students often call "divide and
conquer." Better termed "cooperative learning," it does have a place in higher education.
For learning to be
collaborative, however, students need to work with each other to solve problems. This means they need to
recognize conflicting claims, weigh evidence, and argue their position with each other to negotiate meaning.
In doing so, they co-labor, or work together, to solve problems, build products, or create knowledge.
A central point of CSCL is that students do more than simply acquire knowledge. Facts are not transmitted
via a computer from one student to another, or from the teacher to the students. Rather students build
knowledge, both within their own minds and as part of the collective human knowledge base, perhaps by
sharing their newly created knowledge with others on the Internet.
While this seems like a grand goal for an
educational setting, it is expected of members of knowledge societies. Thus, to compete after graduation,
students need to learn how to create solutions to local and global problems, discover and invent new
products and processes, and contribute to the global conversation. While a lot for a student to handle
individually, collaboration with others makes this knowledge building possible.
Additionally, when
collaboration via computers is "scripted,"
or designed in creative and thoughtful ways that support
collaboration, knowledge building becomes a natural part of learning. For instance, procedures that students
should follow in negotiating meaning could be built into the computer-mediated communication tool the
students use, thus prompting them on how best to formulate their responses in online discussions.
Many online tools can support collaboration. In many higher education courses today, for example,
educators use Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, and social networking to support collaborative learning.
Additionally, many popular learning management systems (LMSs) contain discussion forums and chat
rooms that provide collaboration opportunities. As many educators have witnessed, however, simply placing
two students together or creating an asynchronous discussion thread does not automatically lead to
collaborative knowledge building. The learning environment activities, tools, resources, and assessments
must be structured or scripted to provide the best possible support, especially for those not familiar with
collaborative knowledge building, either by the teacher, through course activities, or via CSCL tools.
Several unique CSCL tools facilitate student knowledge building, including Knowledge
Forum and Fle4 (Future learning environment 4). Fle4, which is a free plugin for WordPress blogs, guides
students in their responses to blog posts. When students respond to other posts, they must select a
knowledge type for their response (problem, my explanation, scientific explanation, evaluation of the
process, summary, etc.). When they select a knowledge type, they receive suggestions for how to begin
forming their response. The students' responses are labeled and colored according to the response types,
as in Figure 1. The figure shows an example of Fle4 use in an Omani undergraduate course, with Edward
de Bono's Six Thinking Hats method used to script the discussion. This scaffolding and tagging help the
students reflect before simply responding "I agree" to another student's post. Because Fle4 utilizes a popular
blog format, students learn how to use a tool they can continue to use outside their course activities.
Figure 1. Example of Fle4 Use in an Omani Undergraduate Course
Fostering Communities of Learners
Designing a collaborative course is difficult and time consuming. Teachers and instructional designers can
apply well-researched methods and learning frameworks as templates for designing their own collaborative
learning environments. One design template, called "Fostering Communities of Learners" (FCL) and
developed by Ann Brown and J. C. Campione
for use in science classrooms, it has been applied in a
variety of class types, including math, science, social studies, and English language arts.
While its
implementation varies from one classroom to the next, the basic principles are the same.
The principles of activity, reflection, collaboration, and community
were developed when students
worked together on something they called a "consequential task." This could be a project that required
students to solve problems and create solutions through product or idea.
In order for every student to do their part, and to prevent one student from doing all the work while the rest
hung on as "freeloaders," students were given "jigsaw" responsibilities, or pieces of the larger project that
could be broken off and analyzed in more detail before returning to their place in the complete project.
These jigsaws were roles or chunks of content the students had to research more deeply to become the
expert on for their group.Jigsaw groups could be formed wherein students who shared the same role or
subject could discuss their specialty and share their research.
Then students returned to their original group to work on their consequential task, each jigsaw piece
adding its expertise to the combined whole.
Often, groups shared their learning with other groups in sessions Brown and Campione called "cross-talk."
This gave students a chance to spread their ideas outside their group and learn more fully from each other.
Cross-talk sessions were usually with students in other groups so that ideas could spread across the class.
Although this design is primarily used in K12 education, it can also serve for higher education. For
example, enabling students to work with experts or clients outside the classroom to accomplish authentic
activities fits the FCL approach.
Why CSCL in Oman?
Oman, along with many of its neighbors, has done much lately to improve education and build its own
knowledge society. Facing dwindling oil resources, Oman's leaders look to build human capacity to diversify
the country's economy. Oman has come far, considering its limited education foundation. Before the
ascension of Sultan Qaboos in 1970, there were only three male-only primary schools in the country. Since
then, Oman's educational structure has flourished. The first national university, Sultan Qaboos
University (SQU), opened its doors in 1986 (see Figure 2). Since then, Oman has continued to invest in
education, most recently beginning to shift teaching practices toward constructivist methods, such as child-
centered and problem-based learning. Figure 3 shows the Omani Education System.
Figure 2. Sultan Qaboos University
Figure 3. Overview of the Omani Education System
While many teachers have attempted to introduce cooperative projects or social technologies (such as
discussion boards on LMSs), documented cases of CSCL applications in Oman are rare. Most higher
education courses use traditional instructivist methods with relatively limited use of collaboration and
discussion. Students are most often expected to acquire, rather than construct, knowledge and demonstrate
acquired knowledge through high-stakes exams. Although courses at SQU have mixed-gender classrooms,
social barriers between male and female students prevent them from talking or working with each other, or
even sitting near one another. Thus discussion and idea sharing between genders in the classroom is often
very limited. Many female students only feel comfortable discussing course topics in a computer-mediated
environment with male students and vice versa, and if it were not for CSCL tools in the classroom, they
would not talk with the opposite gender at all. It seems, then, that using CSCL tools and FCL methods would
present a great opportunity for expanding the learning experiences of Omani university students.
Educational Design Research as a Tool for Design and Theory-Building
To develop a CSCL-based course and investigate the students' reaction to this innovation, we conducted an
educational design research study at SQU in Muscat, Oman. Educational design research,
also known as
design-based research, has two goals:
1. Build theory that informs our understanding about the nature of learning and teaching
2. Create a learning environment (such as a course, a learning object, a game, etc.) that will remain
sustainable within a local context
Often traditional academic research aims only for the first goal, while education design in practice aims for
the second. To meet both goals, design research requires close collaboration between researchers and
practitioners to understand the nature of the educational problem at the local level. Additionally,
collaborators co-develop a prototype course to address the problem, followed by refinement of the course
over multiple iterations.
In this case, the course was an introduction to educational technology for English-as-a-Foreign-Language
(EFL) pre-service teachers (see Table 1 for the demographics). We worked together over three semesters
(fall 2009, spring 2010, and fall 2010) to implement the course, collect data, and make refinements. The first
two courses were taught by American David Porcaro, and the third by Omani Ali Al-Musawi, providing an
opportunity for refinement of the course based on different teachers from different cultures. During the
course, we used multiple methods to collect data about its implementation, as well as to understand how
students in Oman adapt to educational innovation. The methods included:
Conducting interviews of students and faculty
Recording teachers' observations
Collecting online data and assignments
Having students complete questionnaires
Table 1. Background Demographics on Participating Students
2nd5th year undergraduates (mostly 4th or 5th year);
nearly all SQU students take foundational courses the first
year, including intensive English-language instruction
All Omanis
All Arab/Moslem
Nearly equal numbers of male and female
Course Purpose
Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in
Only required educational technology course in the
Several English-language sections reserved for EFL pre-
service teachers
Introduction to Instructional Objectives
Not required, but concurrent enrollment for many students
in practicum teaching in Omani public schools
Level of
Introduction to Computers course taken by all students;
many International Computer Driver's License holders
Some students have little to no exposure to computers
before entering university
A Course Designed: Iteration 1
The course followed the customary twice-per-week format of similar SQU courses, with the first day devoted
to lecture and discussion on educational technology theory and the second day devoted to practical
application. During the first half of the semester, students worked in small groups of their own choosing (four
to five in a group) to develop various educational technology media, such as videos, presentations, and
posters. During the second half of the semester, students formed separate self-selected groups, with four to
five of the same or different students to build a multimedia kit consisting of digital and non-digital multimedia
items that could be used in a unit of instruction in the schools. Since the curriculum in Oman is standardized
nationally, the students only needed to choose a unit of lessons from the textbook for any grade, and then
build or collect videos, websites, real objects, posters, transparencies, etc. for that unit. They had to choose
a school in Oman where they would teach the unit and limit their media to things accessible in that type of
classroom. For instance, if their classroom did not have a computer, projector, or Internet connectivity, then
streaming videos could not be incorporated in class unless the school had a computer lab or learning
resource center to which the teacher could take the students.
Within their consequential task groups, students chose one of five jigsaw roles to play in their project, each
representing a member of a multimedia development team:
Project manager
Instructional designer
Audio-video specialist
Graphic designer
Web specialist
As a way to build expertise in their role, each student researched some aspect of their role that they could
apply in their project, and then wrote a small research paper on that subject. They were encouraged to
discuss their developing expertise with others who shared the same role in other jigsaw groups. They then
recombined with their project groups to design their multimedia kits. One day in the semester was set aside
for "cross-talk"; due to limitations on male-female interaction in class, students rotated in either all-male or
all-female groups to share their progress and ideas with students in the other groups. This allowed the
students to share their progress and expertise with the students who did not share their role in their jigsaw
groups or did not work with them in their project groups.
To facilitate knowledge building, the course used a wiki for all course-wide communication during the first
semester (see Figure 4). Wiki pages as well as Fle4 discussion pages were created for each project group
and jigsaw group. During the semester students participated in online discussions on course topics using
Fle4 to familiarize them with the tools, and then were given discussion pages for their own group use.
Students presented their projects in person to the entire class at the end of the semester.
Figure 4. Screenshot of Wiki, with Student Comments on Front Page (First Semester)
As the semester concluded, many students found the collaborative interactions worthwhile, both in terms of
enjoyment and in knowledge and skill development. While instances of collaborative knowledge building
occurred among the most motivated students in the class, technical problems limited many students from
participating fully. For instance, seven students (26 percent) did not leave a post on the blog during the
course of semester, and 10 students (37 percent) responded less than once per post (see Figure 5). Most
students reported collaborating either face-to-face or via SMS text messaging, and since many students
were not accustomed to using the Internet, they found online discussions cumbersome. Very few students
collaborated online in their jigsaw roles. Students reported limited off-campus access to the course websites,
slow Internet connection speeds, and feeling uncomfortable doing class work on the Internet as reasons for
low participation. This was partially due to limited bandwidth at the university and the fact that, due to the
project's limit to on-campus access from the SQU servers, the server used for hosting Fle4 was located in
Georgia, USA, thus slowing the blog's response time considerably.
Figure 5. Average Number of Student Posts per Topic Thread
Due to the extremely limited computer skills of some of the students, many had difficulty keeping track of
separate logins for the wiki and the Fle4 blogs, and they found the wiki too difficult to use. Students
complained that they could not edit the wikis or create new pages, or they posted their responses on the
wrong pages, accidentally deleted other students' entries, or used the wiki comments section rather than co-
writing wiki pages. When students did use the course's Fle4 blog, most of them did not use the correct
knowledge type for their discussion posts.
Often, the students and their American teacher did not have the same expectations for the course projects,
especially the written paper about their jigsaw subject. Many students submitted verbatim copies of
Wikipedia entries without proper citation, or segments of other websites that simply defined their jigsaw
roles. Because Oman, like other Arab nations, is mainly an oral culture, students were unfamiliar with many
aspects of information literacy, especially the concept of writing original reports. Additionally, although all
formal face-to-face and online discussions in the course were in English as per university policy, students
often discussed amongst themselves in Arabic; language proficiency limited the students' confidence in
writing in English. Porcaro took all these factors into consideration in refining the course for the next
A Course Refined: Iteration 2
During the second semester (see Table 2), the course followed much of the first iteration's design, including
forming consequential task groups to design a multimedia kit for a unit of instruction in their textbook. Jigsaw
groups were formed, and students selected a jigsaw role for increased study. Students worked for the first
half of the semester designing and developing instructional media, as before, and then formed their
consequential task group in the second half of the semester. One session was devoted to cross-talk, as in
the first semester.
Table 2. Number of Students per Semester
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
13 females
9 females
14 males
13 males
After reviewing the barriers to collaboration from the first semester, Porcaro made many technical
refinements to the course and the CSCL tools. Because of the problems students had working with the
course wiki during the first iteration, all course content and general discussion were enabled via the Moodle
learning management system (see Figure 6). Students were more familiar with this tool, having used it in
other classes. Also, because of students' difficulties in writing a research paper, during the second semester
the students were asked to contribute to a wiki page for their jigsaw role. A less formal medium than
submitting a research paper, this would allow students more opportunities to properly use wikis.
Figure 6. Screenshot from Moodle Course (Second Semester)
Because many students neglected to use the discussion forums or contribute to discussions during the first
semester, during the second semester use of online discussions, wiki pages, and chat rooms was
encouraged but not required. Although still asked to contribute to discussions on course topics throughout
the semester, students were allowed more flexibility in how they used CSCL tools in their jigsaw and project
The instructor also provided greater in-class support during the second semester:
Giving more examples of successful past projects
Talking with students individually to clarify their roles and help them determine appropriate topics of
Working with groups to make sure they understood expectations and were working well together
In the end, many more students participated in the course discussions during the second semester, and
more collaborative knowledge building episodes occurred online. For instance, all 22 students participated in
online discussions, many responding more often per thread (see Figure 5) and in a timelier manner than in
the first semester (for instance, two to three weeks after a post for the second semester compared with as
much as nine weeks after a post for the first semester). This frequently led to greater depth of discussion
and better use of the CSCL tools by the students, since they returned frequently to the online discussions
and responded to other students' posts. However, this online collaborative knowledge building occurred
among only a few of the most motivated students; many of the other students seemed overwhelmed by the
difficulty of using the course tools.
As Porcaro prepared to transfer the course to Al-Musawi, it was clear that most of the details of the course
were too difficult to maintain. The least sustainable of the tools was the Fle4 blog. Additionally, both of us
realized the course load was excessive for undergraduate students at SQU. As we prepared for the third
iteration, we focused on which aspects of the course were essential to the theory of FCL and collaborative
knowledge building, deciding that the scripting provided by Fle4 was too advanced for students with such
limited technical experience.
A Course Transferred: Iteration 3
During the third semester, the course was taught entirely by Omani instructor Al-Musawi, who was not
present during the first two semesters. This allowed us to see how the course would change when taught by
an instructor from the local culture. Much of the maintenance and use of the site became too difficult to learn
and adopt, especially given its limited use by students in previous courses. Thus the wikis and Fle4 blogs
were dropped from the course, and all online collaborative discussion was conducted using Moodle
discussion boards. The refinements of the third semester mainly focused on making the course as easy for
another teacher to implement as possible, to provide for future scalability.
Overall, the course structure followed the same instructional design principles as the first two iterations.
Student groups formed to design and produce three collaborative projects using units from Ministry of
Education school textbooks. Members in each group researched their assigned roles and used their
expertise to work with their group and solve learning problems. They also shared ideas with others in their
role using the Moodle online forums. At the end of each project, each group had to present their projects to
other groups. During this semester, students wrote reflections on their experiences and roles. The iteration
placed greater emphasis on collaborative and student-centered methods, often focusing course instruction
on these themes.
Design Considerations
Build on the theoretical foundation of FCL: activity reflection, collaboration, and community
Apply to practical courses or subjects; coordinate with practicum or internship courses as much as possible
Use with senior students, or students proficient enough in the language of instruction to argue their position
through online discussion
Explain purposes and processes of collaboration thoroughly before beginning projects
Allow ample early practice with CSCL tools before undertaking consequential task
Provide in-class time to collaborate and limit expectations for out-of-class meeting and collaborating
Place emphasis on performance or production assessment rather than traditional assessment
Provide ample opportunities for students to share ideas in class as well as across genders online (cross-
talks, jigsaw groups)
Form groups early and provide preliminary small-scale projects to facilitate relationship building
Students reported their satisfaction and anticipation for applying CSCL in their teaching, noting "creative
thinking, time management, and social interaction are the main skills we have developed throughout the
projects." Additionally, the Al-Musawi felt that collaboration among students made them enthusiastic about
their learning, especially when combined with online interaction and web-based resources. The simplification
of online tools appeared to benefit the students, and many of the student project groups engaged in
increased online discussions. However, a few students still did not engage in online discussions of
collaborative knowledge building. At the end of the third iteration, the principles from the course, including
FCL methodology and online collaborative knowledge building, appeared scalable to other classes.
However, a greater emphasis on teacher-facilitated discussion (both online and face-to-face) was needed,
as Fle4 was not a viable option for SQU courses in the short term.
The following timeline illustrates the major elements of the three iterations.
Impact of CSCL on Omani Higher Education
To understand the impact this course had in the Omani educational context, including students' growth in
knowledge building and the scalability of the course, we analyzed the data to determine:
1. How well the course was designed, or its legitimacy
2. How well the course helped students build knowledge, or its efficiency
3. How well the course would continue in the future, or its viability
We focused on those themes that are most applicable in other higher education institutions in Oman or
similar nations.
As noted, building the course on sound theoretical principles strongly contributes to CSCL success. Through
this course we tried to maintain the key principles of FCL (activity, reflection, collaboration, and community).
The external panel of experts chosen to review the course all rated it high in its adherence to current
scientific research and learning theory, and its coherence in design. Students reported that many of the key
elements of FCL worked very well in the class, such as jigsaw, cross-talk, and online discussions. For
instance, at the end of a cross-talk session many students expressed excitement and new ideas for their
projects. One student who did not normally contribute to his group discussions came up to the instructor
afterward and said, "This was good; let's do it again."
Design contributed only partly to the implementation's success, and much of how these principles were
applied depended on the instructor. Instructor scaffolding, which played an important role in the course,
would be hard to replicate in other courses taught by other instructors. For example, students commented
that one instructor related to them as a peer and motivated them through enthusiastic encouragement,
noting that this was not common in many of their courses at SQU. They felt free to express themselves in
the class, and the instructor helped lessen their fears. As one student noted, the teacher was "very helpful
with the students, and [he dealt] with them in a nice way, so I don't have any fears." Additionally, the way the
teacher monitored group work, frequently talking with groups and discussing concerns with them, helped the
students in their collaboration. This also included the instructor responding frequently to online discussions
by asking questions and providing feedback throughout the learning process. One student summed up this
idea by stating:
"The teacher most of the time, work as a facilitator of learning or a guide, maybe, of learning. And the way
we used to, for example, get knowledge in the past, and the way we were learning in the past at schools
was…different from how we learn today, because in the past we were…taking the information from the
teacher himself and we were depending on the books but now we are…able to search for the information we
need, and as a teacher, you...give us specific task to do, and we search for the information by ourselves."
It is important in implementing a course like this that the instructor spend a significant amount of time
explaining the process of collaboration and the purpose of CSCL scripts, and helping the students practice
the collaborative and technological skills that will be new for most of them. The first two implementations
lacked this support and might have contributed to low use of the CSCL tools in the class. For most of the
students, tools like blogs and wikis were new, and they needed to understand more clearly how to use them,
or even why. Some students used Fle4 scripts correctly, but many would select the wrong knowledge type
for their response or would continue to make inconsequential posts, such as "I agree with all of you." More
time spent early in the class explaining the ideas and processes central to CSCL and more student practice
with the tools would have helped.
Furthermore, designing group relationship building into the course was hard. For instance, while jigsaw
groups were meant to limit the "freeloader" effect, several students in this course still did not contribute to
their groups at all. Even with this unequal participation, the groups that fared the best had a strong leader
who helped the group complete tasks on time and motivated others. In some groups this was the project
manager, while in other groups this person had a different jigsaw role. For the instructor, this meant doing
anything possible to support the group's leader or help a leader come to the front of the group to contribute
to greater collaboration.
Additionally, encouraging students to form groups from preexisting relationships or building groups early in
the course and developing them over the entire semester might have contributed to better collaboration. The
groups with the best discussions and project outcomes consisted of students who had worked together
before and were comfortable with each other. While often in postgraduate collaboration experiences people
must work with others they don't know or with whom they have poor relationships, in a course where so
much is new and unfamiliar, it may be worthwhile to support effective group relationships as much as
possible, to allow students to succeed as they learn to collaborate.
Instructor Considerations
Commit to collaborative knowledge-building principles
Create peer-based relationships with students
Motivate and generate enthusiasm for students
Help students feel comfortable in expressing themselves freely
Monitor group work in class; frequently cycle through groups and discuss group progress
Provide students with individual advisement on their project roles
Give feedback and support in online discussions
To judge the efficiency of the course, we looked at whether it yielded the results we targeted in our
For us, that meant examining how the course appealed to students, what knowledge and skills
they gained, and how they collaboratively built knowledge in the course.
Regarding appeal, most students enjoyed the course, and many noted that it was one of the best they had
taken at SQU and a change from their other courses. Of the students surveyed, 84 percent of fall 2009, 79
percent of spring 2010, and 92 percent of fall 2010 students agreed or strongly agreed that they enjoyed the
course assignments (see Figure 7). They especially enjoyed the practical rather than theoretical nature of
the course. This was a common theme: Students felt the course was not only practical but also very
relevant to their future careers. Some suggested that the collaborative work made the course enjoyable,
while others mentioned they felt comfortable in the class and with the instructor. Not all students felt this
way, however. Some considered the course workload excessive, especially compared with other courses at
the university, and a few preferred working individually rather than collaboratively. However, even though
this course entailed more work than others, many students found it useful and prepared them for their
Figure 7. Percentage of Students Who Enjoyed Course Assignments (by Semester)
As for knowledge gained from the course, many students recalled specific technologies, ideas, or
processes they learned in the course that they felt would be useful in their careers, such as specific graphic
design principles or the ability to use movie editing software, among other skills. For many of the students,
their confidence in using and applying technology grew throughout the semester. Several students also
pointed to skills gained from group collaboration and their jigsaw roles, including leadership skills,
instructional design concepts, time management, and publicly presenting opinions and ideas. For instance,
when asked what she learned, one student said:
"I think I've learned how to present your personality. I mean, how to give others solution, how to solve the
problems…and come up with the new ideas or… to be active in your group, not just to be passive and doing
nothing. It helps you to improve your personality and your self-confidence."
With these many positive results, we were left wondering if the course met its main goal: Did the students
build knowledge? While disappointed at many students' inability to use the online tools correctly, or even at
all, upon further analysis we realized that many students did reach a point in their online discussions that
demonstrated an ability to negotiate meaning through argument, present evidence from a variety of sources,
make decisions, and offer innovative solutions to problems. A very few of the students did this online with
the CSCL tools, such as the wiki and Fle4. Most of the students, however, did this in face-to-face
collaboration, often as they learned or designed classroom projects together in front of a computer. Other
times, students reported collaborating "under the radar," that is, by using e-mails, SMS texts, instant
messaging, or other means not seen by the teacher. Quite often, collaboration was informal and initiated by
the students, using means not intended by the instructor, such as questions posed by students on personal
wiki pages or in the wiki's comments section.
Whatever the means, many students felt they benefited from their collaborative knowledge building. Several
students suggested that having others in their group who could add input allowed them to successfully
collaborate in designing their multimedia kits. One student explained how her group helped her fulfill her role
as instructional designer to create an instructional game:
"Firstly I was stuck how to begin…to create these games and which way should I put these games in papers
or on online. But because of useful friends, they help me to start. They said for me, now…you can write it,
do it in online and [another group member] will scan for me pictures."
Others pointed to the online tools as a welcome way to share ideas across gender, especially because the
male and female students rarely (if ever) interacted in the classroom. In this way, the best ideas and projects
could benefit all students in the classroom, regardless of gender. In interviews at the end of the course,
several students displayed an accurate understanding of what knowledge building meant and looked
forward to applying it in their own classes. Some students even appeared to alter their understanding of
teaching and learning, from instructivist to constructivist pedagogies. As one student noted:
"Before this course for me, I thought that teaching was only talking or writing on the board. Just like this. But
when we came to this course, we have noticed that it's more beneficial for us. And teaching is not talking or
not writing. But is group working and using technology, makes this teaching or education more interactive
and interesting."
Lastly, over the semester some students began to display a shifting epistemology, from objectivist
knowledge acquisition to constructivist knowledge creation, as observed in classroom behavior and revealed
by their evolving perspectives in ongoing interviews. This epistemological shift is an important step for
students adopting constructivist methods in their own teaching and learning, though this course could only
prompt a small change in their epistemological development.
In judging the viability of the course, we wanted to know if it was practical, relevant, and sustainable for use
in other courses at SQU. In terms of practicality, several obstacles stood in the way of collaborative
discussion. For instance, the institutional preference for course assessment based mainly on midterm and
final exams limited the acceptance of performance or project assessment. Though the university does
provide for flexibility in assessment, if other courses were to adopt this structure, the teachers, students, and
administrators would need to clearly understand and be comfortable with the alternative assessments
required for this type of course.
Additionally, the separation of male and female students greatly limited the kinds of in-class discussions
possible. Online tools lessened this problem to some extent. However, since many students chose not to
participate in online discussions, their ideas were rarely, if ever, heard by students of the opposite gender.
Additionally, students found it difficult to arrange proper meeting times and places for out-of-class
collaboration. Because many of the female students lived on campus, they were able to meet together in the
evenings. However, some male and female students lived at home (as far as an hour by school bus, which
left the campus only one time daily), and most male students lived four to six kilometers away in off-campus
housing. Additionally, students were not used to meeting at other students' houses to study or work on
projects, and many students complained of not being able to find an appropriate place or time to collaborate
on their projects.
While online collaboration might provide an answer to some of these problems, there were several further
technical constraints. Problems often arose with Internet speeds or connections. Usually, as mentioned
above, the bandwidth was much too low to provide a user-friendly online experience for students, so many
did not participate in the online collaboration. The few students who did have off-campus access to the
Internet often could not access the course site for various reasons. For those who relied on the campus
computers, the few labs on campus were often being used for other classes. Additional problems included
labs with malfunctioning or virus-laden computers, limited software, restricted hours of operation (often only
until 6:30 or 7 p.m.), and inadequate numbers of support staff (who left around 4 p.m.). Some students had
extremely limited technical ability, since many had never really used a computer before entering college.
Tasks like logging in to a website and making comments on a blog were extremely difficult for them. If these
technical considerations had been understood before the course design, perhaps the course would have
focused more on face-to-face collaboration and relied on one CSCL tool for online collaboration, such as
Moodle discussion threads. In this way students could become proficient in its operation, and then other
tools, such as wikis or Fle4 blogs could be added afterward.
Technical Considerations
Provide online space for mixed-gender idea sharing
o Allow students to maintain anonymity or choose a pseudonym
o Provide spaces for groups to discuss their work privately
Use easy-to-use or widely-used CSCL tools where possible (LMS discussion boards, for example, and to a
lesser extent blogs and wikis)
Plan for low bandwidth or limited online access; be flexible in when or how students use the tools
Ensure computer labs are available after hours for out-of-class collaboration; ensure labs are staffed during
operating hours with knowledgeable support personnel
Provide technical support for CSCL design and maintenance (knowledgeable staff who can create and
maintain a blog on the university's server)
Although practical constraints posed many problems, several students expressed the desire to work through
these difficulties due to the relevancy the course held in their own careers and lives. Because the project
involved creating media for current Ministry of Education textbooks, students concurrently engaged in their
teaching practice found many opportunities to try out their ideas in the classroom. Several students
immediately applied ideas from the course to their student teaching. Others brought ideas from their
practicum classrooms to their group projects. Many of the students who enjoyed the course the most and did
the best were those who directly applied new knowledge in their practice teaching, suggesting that courses
like this should be aligned with other internship or practical experience courses. However, even though all
the students were education majors, many did not plan on working in education but rather hoped to find jobs
in the private sector or the military. Finding relevancy for these students was less apparent, since much of
the course revolved around designing and implementing instructional media. Nevertheless, many of these
students recognized the applicability of skills learned in the course such as working with others,
managing projects, and using technology to their own careers.
The real test of this course is its sustainability over time. Much of the course's success depends upon the
teacher, as noted. For other teachers to apply CSCL tools such as Fle4 and collaborative knowledge-
building methods such as FCL, they must have sufficient buy-in, available preparation time, technical skill,
and knowledge about collaborative knowledge building. If this type of course were to be adopted in other
classrooms, however, many teachers would not have the time to adequately prepare and maintain the tools,
or the incentive to change their well-established teaching methods which are much easier to implement,
much less time-intensive, and provide the same rewards to the teacher. Additionally, to scale a course like
this to multiple classes would put serious pressure on the limited hardware and network resources of the
department computer labs and their staff. Finally, in a university where the language of instruction for most
courses is English but many students have limited proficiency, relying heavily on online discussion and
writing may decrease the students' success in the classroom, especially for those not studying to be English
All these problems aside, we see hope for the viability of these CSCL ideas in Omani higher education.
Several students succeeded in the course despite technical or pedagogical limitations, and several applied
or planned to apply knowledge building in their own classes, where these ideas will continue to spread.
Several teachers at SQU are committed to collaborative knowledge building and already have used
elements of CSCL and FCL in their classes. The course continued to be viable when transferred to a new
instructor, showing that the course design holds potential for scalability. Thus it appears that the principles of
collaborative knowledge building and CSCL can be applied and adapted in similar universities in the region.
Lessons Learned
While this case study focused on a single course at a single university in Oman, several lessons can be
shared across the region. Based on our attempt to link higher education to workforce skills through CSCL,
we can begin to understand what steps should be taken in similar projects at other universities in the Middle
East. The main points are summarized at different spots throughout this article (Design Considerations,
Teacher Considerations, and Technical Considerations).
As these types of courses find a place at other institutions in the Middle East, these design principles will
continue to be refined. But an important element of this or other designs is self-reflection and strong
collaboration with local practitioners to uncover any hidden assumptions in the design or implementation.
Although the cross-cultural elements of this study are the topic of another manuscript, the main lesson from
this part of the design research study, demonstrated through this case study, was that the outcomes of
applying CSCL environments in the university context outweigh the barriers to adoption. These
outcomes include:
Enhanced course content knowledge
Increased confidence in applying course knowledge and skills
Stronger collaboration skills (arguing ideas, making decisions, providing solutions)
Greater ability to create instead of simply consume knowledge
Added benefits of leadership and presentation skills
In this way, students in the Middle East can better prepare for the careers of the future and for
collaboratively creating solutions to many of the region's most pressing problems.
1. Sean Dollman, "A Model of American Higher Education in the Middle East," EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 30,
no. 3 (2007).
2. Eltayeb Salih Abuelyaman, "Making a Smart Campus in Saudi Arabia," EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2
3. Mohammad Al-Momani, "The Arab Youth Quake: Implications on Democratization and Stability," Middle
East Law and Governance, vol. 3, no. 12 (2011), pp. 159170.
4. The World Bank, Mena Development Report, The Road Not Traveled: Education Reform in the Middle East
and Africa (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2008).
5. UNESCO, Towards Knowledge Societies (Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation Publishing, 2005).
6. Carl Bereiter, Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
7. For instance, see some of the mobile CSCL projects of the Computer-Supported Collaboration and Learning
Lab at Pennsylvania State University.
8. Robert E. Slavin, "Cooperative Learning," Review of Educational Research, vol. 50, no. 2 (Summer 1980),
pp. 315-342.
9. Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter, "Computer Support for Knowledge-building Communities," Journal
of the Learning Sciences, vol. 3, no. 3 (July 1993), p. 265.
10. Tammy Schellens and Martin Valcke, "Fostering Knowledge Construction in University Students through
Asynchronous Discussion Groups," Computers & Education, vol. 46, no. 4 (May 2006), pp. 349370.
11. Pierre Dillenbourg and Fabrice Hong, "The Mechanics of CSCL Macro Scripts," International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 3, no. 1 (March 10, 2008), pp. 523.
12. Ann L. Brown and J. C. Campione, "Psychological Theory and the Design of Innovative Learning
Environments: On Procedures, Principles, and Systems," in Innovations in Learning: New Environments for
Education, ed. Leona Schauble and Glaser (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates., 1996), 289-325.
13. An entire issue (March 2004, Vol 36, no 2) of the Journal of Curriculum Studies was dedicated to Fostering a
Community of Learners. It featured reports on its application in 4 different classrooms, as well as
commentary and responses to these studies.
14. Miriam Gamoran Sherin, Edith Prentice Mendez, and David A. Louis, "A Discipline Apart: The Challenges of
'Fostering a Community of Learners' in a Mathematics Classroom," Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 36,
no. 2 (March 2004), pp. 207232.
15. Younghee Woo, Jan Herrington, Shirley Agostinho, and Thomas C. Reeves, "Implementing Authentic Tasks
in Web-Based Learning Environments," EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 3 (2007).
16. Jan van den Akker, Koeno Gravemeijer, Susan McKenney, and Nienke Nieveen, Eds., Educational Design
Research (New York and London: Routledge, 2006).
17. These criteria are based on Susan McKenney, Nienke Nieveen, and Jan van den Akker, "Design Research
from a Curriculum Perspective," in Educational Design Research, Jan van den Akker, Koeno Gravemeijer,
Susan McKenney, and Nienke Nieveen, Eds. (New York and London: Routledge, 2006).
18. Ibid., p. 80.
© 2011 David S. Porcaro and Ali S. Al-Musawi. The text of this EQ article is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 license.
David S. Porcaro
David recently completed a PhD from the University of Georgia in Learning, Design and
Technology where he completed a Fulbright Fellowship at Sultan Qaboos University in
Oman. He currently works at Seward Incorporated, a Minneapolis-based instructional
design and development company. His most recent work with Seward include USAID-
funded teacher-development projects in Jordan and Malawi. David has extensive
international experience, focusing on the Middle East. He earned an MPhil in Oriental
Studies from Cambridge University, and a BA in Near Eastern Studies from Brigham
Young University.
Ali Sharaf Al Musawi
Dr Ali Sharaf Al Musawi has obtained his PhD on learning resources and technology
centers in 1995 from Southampton University, UK. He works for the Sultan Qaboos
University since 1985. At present, he is an associate professor, and HOD of the
Instructional and Learning Technologies Department at the College of Education. He has
published several journal research articles and papers; and contributed in many
conferences, symposia, and workshops. He conducted and compiled several national,
regional, and Arab studies and reports. He wrote a book on cooperative learning in 1992,
contributed in writing another in 2003; and published a book on learning resources and
technology centers in 2004. He also translated, with others, two books on e-learning
strategies and instructional multimedia to Arabic in 2005 and 2010. Dr Ali has several
activities in fields of instructional skills development, study skills, instructional design,
and web-based design; his interests include Arabic poetry; he issued his first anthology
"ponderings" in 1998.
College of Education (COE), Sultan Qaboos University (SQU)
POB 32, PC 123 Al Khodh, Sultanate of Oman
O. (+968) 24415636; F. (+968) 24413817
Personal Website:
Full-text available
This chapter offers a brief overview of the current status of formal governmental support for technology integration in the higher education sectors in different countries in the Arab World, in addition to presenting some major initiatives started and implemented in some of the Arab states. Several distinguished initiatives in the Arab countries are reviewed to reflect on the strategies in higher education institutions. The policies and strategies that regulate technology implementation in these countries are described. Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges is conducted. Implications are drawn from the different experiences. The chapter suggests solutions that are required to overcome the weaknesses by presenting thoughts for creative improvements in the future with emphasis on training and infrastructure aspects. Moreover, solutions and recommendations as suggested by the research are summarized in fields of implementation in education.
Constructivist teaching methods, such as Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, have been championed by many educators and international organizations as a way to improve education in developing countries and to prepare students for working within knowledge societies. However, few studies have examined how personal, cultural, institutional, and national factors contribute to the acceptance or rejection of these innovative methodologies, especially in instructivist learning cultures. This chapter outlines one education design research study which was conducted as a doctoral dissertation project that examined how to apply collaborative learning methods to an undergraduate course for pre-service teachers in Oman. This study takes a linguistic cognitive anthropology design research approach, focusing on the role of culture in adopting research methods designed in one context and adapted to another. In addition to describing design principles for preparing collaborative learning environments in a setting like Oman, it outlines the challenges and opportunities of conducting long-term international education design research as a graduate student.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In one classic simulation named Barnga (1990), which focuses on cultural clashes that develop quickly amongst peoples of all cultures, participants are asked to experience the shock of realizing that despite their good intentions and despite the many similarities among them, people interpret things differently from one another in profound ways, especially people from differing cultures. Participants have observed and learnt through simulations, such as Barnga, that they both can-and-must understand as well as reconcile--these differences if they want to function effectively in a cross-cultural groups. (Pittenger & Heimann 1998; Suematsu, Takadama, Shimohara, Katai & Arai 2003/2004, Thiagarajan & Thiagarajan 2006). Recently, a variety of modeling agents, including agent based models (Axelrod, 1997; Fortino, Garro, Russo, 2005; Hughes, Clegg, Robinson, & Crowder, 2012) have been combined with classic game-simulations in order to studying a variety of topics, such as in studying the impact of publication venues by researchers in the computer science domain or how behaviors can be taught and learned among newcomers in any new global work community, i.e. as performed regularly in the BARNGA simulation. The purpose of this theoretical and educational-change-oriented paper is (a) to encourage the wider usage of simulations, such as Barnga, in our schools and in educational & administrative training environments, (b) understand the cross-curricular nature of such simulations and the requisite learning made possible through debriefing and repeated participation in such activities, and (c) to provide a framework for evaluating which sorts of simulation and group-work activities & learning projects work best in the Middle Eastern context. Finally, this paper also provides an overview (and checklists) of simulation employment and utilization intended for interested educators. This focus on procedure is very pertinant in the Omani context because new procedures for course delivery and for certificates and diplomas are strongly advised by the Omani Academic Accreditation Authority (OAAA, 2009a,b).
Full-text available
This is the fifth in a series that examines the challenges that teachers in different domains face as they attempt to implement the pedagogical reform 'Fostering a Community of Learners' (FCL). Here we focus on the relationship between FCL and the teaching of mathematics. We argue that it is possible to teach mathematics through the FCL pedagogy, but that doing so requires some rethinking of both mathematics instruction and FCL. In particular, we describe three shifts that aided a teacher's implementation of FCL pedagogy with mathematics: the teacher developed a new perspective on mathematics that emphasized the importance of having students learn both mathematical concepts and processes; the teacher developed a new understanding of the role of the teacher in mathematics-education reform; and the teacher modified his understanding of FCL, coming to believe that a discourse community could be the basis for FCL pedagogy in a mathematics classroom.
Full-text available
Macro scripts structure collaborative learning and foster the emergence of knowledge-productive interactions such as argumentation, explanations and mutual regulation. We propose a pedagogical model for the designing of scripts and illustrate this model using three scripts. In brief, a script disturbs the natural convergence of a team and in doing so increases the intensity of interaction required between team members for the completion of their collaborative task. The nature of the perturbation determines the types of interactions that are necessary for overcoming it: for instance, if a script provides students with conflicting evidence, more argumentation is required before students can reach an agreement. Tools for authoring scripts manipulate abstract representations of the script components and the mechanisms that relate components to one another. These mechanisms are encompassed in the transformation of data structures (social structure, resources structure and products structure) between script phases. We describe how this pedagogical design model is translated into computational structures in three illustrated scripts.
In cooperative learning, students work in small groups to help one another learn academic objectives. This article describes the theoretical basis for cooperative learning, and the evidence base for common pragmatic approaches. It concludes that cooperative learning works best for increasing achievement when student teams have group goals they can only achieve if all group members are gaining in learning, so that they focus on teaching and learning from each other rather than merely completing a group task.
The Arab Spring has advanced the prospects for democracy in the region. After years during which any democratic transition seemed implausible in the Arab World, masses across the region have risen to challenge the political status quo, inspired by the successful revolution in Tunisia. A major cause to the political unrest can be identified in the large number of unemployed youth in Arab nations, whose political frustrations were aggravated by their inability to express themselves in a tightly controlled police state, political corruption, and the incapability of the state to deal with social and economic problems. In addition, social media was a vital vehicle in both sustaining reform movements within single countries, and spreading the wave of demonstrations across the region. Yet, the events of the Arab Spring have challenged the stability of countries undergoing these transitions. The possibility for the creation of failed states or international interventions, and the necessity of governments to deal with large numbers of refugees, sectarian tensions, and deeply rooted economic problems threaten to derail the recent political transformations. In spite of these challenges, however, the recent political changes do provide encouraging opportunities for creating peace in the region and moderating Islamic parties.
describe the theoretical bases of an instructional program, Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL) / set in the inner city elementary schools, FCL is designed to promote the critical thinking and reflection skills underlying multiple forms of higher literacy: reading, writing, argumentation, technological sophistication / although billed as a thinking curriculum . . . the FCL program is embedded in deep disciplinary content / a major part of [the authors'] research agenda has been to contribute to a theory of learning that can capture and convey the essential features of the learning environments that [they] design / aspects of the design, implementation, and evaluation of the FCL program, from its inception to the present day, have been guided by the development of a situated learning theory, one grounded in the day-to-day milieu of regular schools / this theory, or more precisely, set of learning principles . . . has evolved over the course of the project the components of FCL: the simple system / FCL: activity structures that support the system [research activities, children teaching children, sharing information, the consequential task] / principles of learning [systems and cycles, a metacognitive environment, the centrality of discourse, deep content knowledge, distributed expertise, instruction and assessment, community of practice] (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Does collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups result in enhancing academic discourse and knowledge construction? This general research question has been researched in a study involving 300 students, working during six months in 38 electronic discussion groups. The transcripts of the discussions were coded and analysed to test hypotheses related to the impact on knowledge construction. Coding of the units of analysis was based on the models of Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., Ally, M., Cookson, P., Keller, V., & Prosser, F. (2000). The development and testing of a tool for analysis of computer mediated conferencing transcripts. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 85–88 and Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on CSCL. Maastricht: McLuhan Institute, University of Maastricht. The results confirm that students in the discussion groups are very task-oriented and that higher proportions of high phases of knowledge construction are observed. Significant increases in the cognitive interaction, task-orientation and higher phases of knowledge construction are detected. Group size is a significant interaction variable. Discussion in smaller groups reflects larger proportions of higher levels of knowledge construction. The results point at the critical impact of structure in the task environment. In the discussion section, methodological issues are presented. The article concludes with directions for future research and some implications for instructional practice.