DEVELOPMENT A RTICLE

The design and development of a CollaborativemLearning prototype for Malaysian secondary schoolscience

Dorothy DeWitt • Norlidah Alias • Saedah Siraj

� Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2014

Abstract Collaborative problem-solving in science instruction allows learners to build

their knowledge and understanding through interaction, using the language of science.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools facilitate collaboration and may provide

the opportunity for interaction when using the language of science in learning. There seems

to be little interaction among students in the science classrooms as teachers only seem to be

concerned with teaching the facts of science. An exploratory implementation study for a

collaborative mobile learning (CmL) prototype design using CMC tools provides the

opportunity for interactions using the language of science. The purpose of this study is to

investigate whether the CmL prototype can be used for interaction and learning in sec-

ondary school science. The prototype, designed based on Merrill’s First Principles of

Instruction, was evaluated by five experts before implementation among 14 students. Data

collected from interviews with the experts and from students who used the prototype, as

well as from online communications, was analyzed. The findings show that interactions

when the CmL prototype was used enabled the language of science to be modeled for

knowledge-building. This study is explorative in nature and the preliminary results seem to

indicate that the CmL prototype has the potential to increase interactions in learning.

However, further investigation is required to determine whether the CmL prototype could

be used for collaborative problem-solving in science as well as in other subjects, especially

in the current educational environment in Malaysia.

Keywords Collaborative learning �Mobile learning � Science education � First Principles

of Instruction

D. DeWitt � N. Alias (&) � S. SirajFaculty of Education, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysiae-mail: drnorlidah@um.edu.my

D. DeWitte-mail: dorothy@um.edu.my

S. Siraje-mail: saedah@um.edu.my

123

Education Tech Research DevDOI 10.1007/s11423-014-9340-y

Introduction

A collaborative approach for learning science enables learners in secondary schools to use

the language of science. Collaborative problem-solving activities provide the opportunity

for communication using the language of science (Champagne and Kouba 2005; Greeno

1992; Karpov and Haywood 1998). The language of science is the appropriate vocabulary

and syntax that support communication among the target learners and contains scientific

elements (Linn et al. 1999). Learners can then acquire the vocabulary or scientific verbal

knowledge, which will allow them to comprehend and build their understanding of sci-

entific concepts (Ellerton 2003). As learners share ideas and develop their understanding,

they increase their knowledge (Ellerton 2003; Freebody 2005).

Collaborative problem-solving allow learners to model the language of science in an

authentic environment. As learners communicate for collaborative problem-solving, they

mimic the process of building scientific knowledge in a community of scientists (Hogan

and Fisherkeller 2005; Sharma and Anderson 2009). In addition, during the peer-interac-

tion, the scientific language is patterned and modeled among their peers and instructors,

and with other artifacts (Karpov and Haywood 1998). The modeling strengthens the

acquisition of the language of science and enables knowledge construction (Nielsen 2012).

Technology provides a collaborative platform when using the language of science for

collaborative problem-solving. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools such as

wikis, forums and text messaging facilitate learning. Wikis have been shown to be ben-

eficial for collaborative writing and complex problem-solving and can be used as an

authentic form of assessment as well as a repository of knowledge (Bonk et al. 2009; Greiff

et al. 2013; Su and Beaumont 2010; Woo et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2007). The interactions

on wikis seem to allow the transformation of knowledge (Bonk et al. 2009; Zhang et al.

2007). Discussion forums, on the other hand, have been shown to encourage higher level

interactions for construction of knowledge and acquisition of critical thinking skills, thus

improving student achievement (ChanLin 2012; Jacob 2012; Schrire 2006). Similarly, text

messages have been shown to promote collaboration through the synchronous interactions

enabled through the tool (Sampson and Zervas 2013). When the text messages are sent

using mobile devices, learning can be anywhere and at any time (Kadyte 2003).

Mobile learning, or mLearning, is personalized to the learner and the learner can be

scaffolded into using the language of science with confidence (Sampson and Zervas 2013).

Messages sent can be adapted to the learner as feedback and support for scaffolding is

based on the learners’ individual context (Gorsky and Caspi 2010; Sampson and Zervas

2013). Learners are therefore motivated and engaged in building knowledge (Sampson and

Zervas 2013). When mobile learning is used for collaboration, it becomes collaborative

mobile learning (CmL).

However, there seems to be a lack of emphasis on the use of the language of science in

science instruction. Students are not given the opportunity to interact and collaborate as

teachers undervalue classroom discussions and reduce time for such activities (Emdin

2011). Teachers perceive scientific knowledge as being factual in nature, and seem to

concentrate on communicating universally acceptable statements as the facts of science

(Oliveira et al. 2011; Sharma and Anderson 2009). Hence, there is little opportunity for

students to interact the way the scientific community does because of limited time and the

focus on acquisition of knowledge (Sharma and Anderson 2009). Teachers seem to pas-

sively deliver content, and interactions are limited to students work on computers and

textbooks (Anderson 2010).

D. DeWitt et al.

123

In the Malaysian context, there is also a lack of emphasis on the use of the language of

science. Science teachers in secondary schools perceive that there is insufficient time to

complete the syllabus and seem to focus on the memorization of scientific facts (Ling

2002). This is also reflected in the technology tools used for science instruction as mainly

interactive multimedia courseware are used for teaching scientific facts and concepts

(Kumar et al. 2008; Ministry of Education (MOE) 2012).

There is a need for more exploratory implementation studies to investigate the potential

of different instructional models which encourage the use of the language of science for

interaction and collaboration. There does not seem to be many studies focusing on

instructional designs for collaborative problem-solving environments, and even fewer on

using CMC tools in science. The studies in using CMC tools for science in the Malaysian

context focus mainly on higher education (Jacob 2012) with only a few studies using

collaborative mLearning (CmL) for science in secondary schools. Hence, this study seeks

to bridge the gap by contributing to the existing body of research on instructional design

for CmL in science using CMC tools. Studies have been done on the use of one or two

CMC tools, but this study differs as three different tools are employed for the instructional

design of a CmL prototype for science instruction in secondary schools

This study is pertinent as Malaysia is advancing into a new wave of transformation in

education. Communications technology using broadband internet access is being provided

to all government schools (MOE 2012). The Malaysian government’s emphasis on

transforming the education system stresses on providing students with rich experiences for

collaborative work in order to develop higher order thinking skills, and self-paced learning

(MOE 2012). Quality learning by leveraging on ICT to encourage distance and self-paced

learning is one of the eleven shifts to transform the education system (MOE 2012). In order

to do this, teachers would require new pedagogies for designing instruction. The findings of

this study have the potential to initiate future studies in design and explore the use of the

CmL prototype as a model for collaborative problem-solving in school science, and in

other subjects.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a collaborative mLearning (CmL)

prototype designed for collaborative problem-solving can be used for interaction in the

language of science and the learning of science in secondary schools.

The following research questions are aimed at evaluating the design of the CmL pro-

totype with suggestions for further improvements.

• What do experts believe are the issues which need to be addressed in the design of the

CmL prototype?

• How do learners react to a CmL prototype developed for enhancing interaction and

learning science?

Instructional design for collaborative learning in science

Language enables thinking while scientific verbal knowledge, the knowledge for com-

municating in the vocabulary of science, is required for understanding science (Karpov and

Haywood 1998). However, the structure of the language of science is not taught formally

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

in science classrooms. Instead, as suggested by Vygotsky, language is modeled informally

during discussions and social interactions (Karpov and Haywood 1998).

The acquisition of the language of science has been shown to enable students to build

their knowledge in science. As learners share their ideas based on their current under-

standing of concepts, they are able to view different perspectives and link the new

knowledge obtained to their existing knowledge structures (Greeno 1992). They may need

to negotiate, defend their ideas and reach mutual understanding during their discussions as

they resolve differences of opinions using scientific reasoning and critical thinking (Greeno

1992). These student-centered discussions build knowledge and develop thinking skills

(Freebody 2005; Karpov and Haywood 1998).

Collaborative learning occurs during unplanned responses and interaction with other

learners and the instructor (Johnson and Johnson 2004; Jonassen et al. 2005). In these

social interactions, the language of science is used and learners share information, col-

laborate to achieve the learning goals, and assimilate the knowledge into their own per-

sonal knowledge structures (Kaye 1992; Palloff and Pratt 1999).

Hence collaborative problem-solving promotes the individual’s cognitive skills by

facilitating critical thinking and information sharing (Hadjerrouit 2013; Hung 2013). These

problem-solving skills are needed to survive in constantly changing environments (Greiff

et al. 2013). In fact problem-solving and communication skills need to be acquired before

content knowledge (Greiff et al. 2013; Hung 2013). This makes collaborative problem-

solving suitable for instruction which requires scientific thinking and use of language,

namely in science.

Merrill’s first principles

The First Principles of Instruction focus on problem-solving, making it a suitable frame-

work for the CmL prototype (Merrill 2002). These principles are applicable for the

instruction of generalizable skills for the acquisition of concepts and procedures such as the

language of science and scientific process skills (Merrill 2009).

In addition, the principle of collaboration is ingrained in the First Principles. Learners

are required to share their experiences for the activation of prior knowledge, as well as

engage in peer-discussion, peer-demonstration, and peer collaboration to describe, defend

and reflect on their work (Merrill 2009). This means that learners would have the

opportunity to use the language of science for knowledge-building. The core of these

principles is on a whole-task problem which is broken into smaller problem tasks, making

it adaptable to the learner. Learners can choose to complete all the smaller problem tasks,

which eventually aids in solving the larger problem (Merrill 2009).

The CmL prototype was designed with the possibility of providing a learning envi-

ronment with opportunity for interaction and knowledge-building, centered on a problem

task. An authentic problem task was designed with a progression of simple problems

related to the main problem. There are four phases of learning: activation of prior expe-

rience, demonstration of skills, application of skills, and integration of skills into real world

activities (Fig. 1).

The first phase, activation of prior knowledge, provides learners the opportunity to link

their knowledge in science with their personal experiences (Ellerton 2003; Merrill 2002).

Next, the demonstration phase allows for the modeling of language, scientific processes,

and reasoning procedures (Ellerton 2003; Merrill 2002). Different media, such as text on a

webpage, videos and interactive media, are used to demonstrate these patterns in the

D. DeWitt et al.

123

prototype. In addition, the online written responses of other learners on the wikis and

discussion forums also provide the demonstration of model responses.

In the application phase, the activities provide the opportunity to build personal

understanding of the scientific concepts and principles (Merrill 2002). The learners model

their answers using what they have learnt while individualized support and scaffolding are

continuously provided (Ellerton 2003; Merrill 2002). The integration of new knowledge

occurs when learning is transferred to new situations and the learner can present the new

knowledge in a creative manner. In this context, the posts published on discussion forums

and wikis will engage learners in building meaningful science knowledge (Brown 2006).

The CmL prototype utilizes three CMC tools accessed from a webpage. We have used a

webpage for the demonstration of knowledge and this is linked to instructional content in

text, graphic and video form. Wikis, discussion forums and text messaging quiz allow

learners to apply and transfer the knowledge learnt to new situations. The details of each

phase are outlined in Appendix Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8.

The need for a learner-centered design for personalized learning arises when CMC tools

are used (Hannafin et al. 1999). The First Principles lends the prototype a learner-centered

design for discussion and collaboration suitable for this study. In addition, the learner has

the opportunity to publically demonstrate the knowledge learnt on the tools employed

(Merrill 2009).

Collaborative mLearning

CMC tools could enable mobile learning, for learning anytime and anywhere (Anastopolou

et al. 2011; Arrigo et al. 2004; Saeed et al. 2009). In this study, the concept of mobile refers

to the learner who is mobile, and accesses the prototype from devices in different locations

(Naismith et al. 2004). Collaborative learning which makes use of CMC tools is CmL.

Collaborative and interactive applications for knowledge sharing, such as wikis, dis-

cussion forums and text messaging, are employed in this study (Clough et al. 2009). These

applications are accessed from laptops at home or at school, while mobile phones are used

after school hours for text messaging.

CmL, using wikis and discussion forums, has been used for an inquiry-based teaching

approach in science (Turcotte 2012; Zhang et al. 2007). Authentic problem-solving could

also be used for interaction by encouraging reflective and critical thinking (Jonassen et al.

2005). In addition, the advantage of mLearning is the personalized interaction, which could

be the feedback for scaffolding the learner (Gorsky and Caspi 2010; Sampson and Zervas

2013). A combination of two tools, either wiki, text messages or forums have been shown

to be effective for learning (Arrigo et al. 2004; Rau et al. 2008; Turcotte 2012; Zhang et al.

2007). Hence there is a possibility that the combination of three tools: wiki, forum and text

messaging, for CmL can improve learning.

Fig. 1 First Principles ofInstruction

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

CmL has been employed when communication and collaboration tools were used with a

repository (Gourova et al. 2013). Resources can be pushed for English learning in context-

aware systems, for example in mCALs and PCULS (Sampson and Zervas 2013). Others,

for example TANGO and CAMCLL, are adaptable and provide feedback to scaffold

language learning (Sampson and Zervas 2013). In a location-aware system, the Mobile

Virtual Campus, collaborative learning groups were created on an interactive platform for

CmL (Tan et al. 2013). Other systems provide collaboration tools, such as wikis and

forums, and deliver media such as videos. Examples are ‘‘Professional Learning MOVE-

ON’’ and MLS (Gourova et al. 2013). In the MLS, science video lectures are selected

according to learning styles before being delivered to the learner. Collaborative learning

projects for CmL include HIV and AIDS programs for teenagers, MobilED, and the

teaching of engineering have used blogs, wikis, forums and chats for collaboration (Ford

and Leinonen 2009; Rico et al. 2013). In addition, social media such as Elgg and Facebook,

have also been used for encouraging interactions in science (Anderson 2010).

Hence, a variety of CMC tools from text messaging tools to collaborative workspaces

have been used to encourage interactions in science. Interactions are important for

encouraging the use of the language of science in a critical manner in order to solve

problems (Gorsky and Caspi 2010). In science instruction, a collaborative problem-solving

approach can be used for building-knowledge. In the CmL prototype, the CmL webpage is

a repository with links to activities, resources and learning tools. Three CMC tools are used

in the CmL prototype. A wiki is used for the problem-solving task and a discussion forum

for online questions, accessed from laptops. Text messages in the form of Quiz are pushed

to the learners’ mobile device using Short Messaging System (SMS).

Method

The study is an exploratory implementation study on the use of the CmL prototype

designed for collaborative problem-solving in science.

The design phase

In this section, the design of the CmL prototype for the topic of Nutrition is discussed. The

objective and expected learning outcome of the prototype determine the activities which

would be used. The prototype makes use of three CMC tools accessed from a webpage.

Objectives

The objective of the prototype is similar to the learning outcome in the Malaysian science

curriculum specifications, which is to estimate the amount of calories in a given meal using

the information given. Hence, the expected outcome of using the prototype is that the

student will be able to estimate the amount of calories in a given meal using the energy

table given.

CmL webpage

The CmL homepage provides the learner with opportunities to gather information. The

webpage was developed using an online web development tool, Freewebs. All the

D. DeWitt et al.

123

activities, tools, information and relevant media in the prototype are accessed from the

webpage through links (Appendix Table 5).

Discussion forum

The discussion forum, which is linked in the Freewebs webpage, allows learners to post

their responses to related questions. The forum is a feature of this web development tool,

and consists of a topic, with specific questions that could be posted on the topic. The

responses would be threaded to show the link to the topic. The questions were intended to

activate the learner’s prior knowledge. There was also opportunity to demonstrate, apply

and integrate knowledge acquired (Merrill 2009) (Appendix Table 6).

Wiki

The wiki is also a feature of the website. The learners could post text, graphics and links on

the wiki. A problem task for the group members was posted on the wiki, and could be

viewed by the public. The problem given was a part of a larger problem related to nutrition

(Appendix Table 7).

Quiz

A SMS was used to push questions, in the form of a text message quiz, to the learners’

mobile phones. The learner would reply to the text-message in answer to the question.

Immediate feedback reinforces and scaffolds the learner (Appendix Table 8).

The design of the CmL prototype for the topic of Nutrition would be conducted after

school hours with a group of learners. The prototype comprised online group problem-

solving tasks, online discussion questions, and quiz questions using text messaging

(Table 1).

The tasks, activities and guidelines for the lesson prototype are mapped to the First

Principles of Instruction. These tasks and activities will be part of the design documents,

which will be evaluated by the experts before development.

The evaluation phase

The evaluation consists of two parts: the experts’ review, and after improvements are made

on the instructional materials, the implementation and evaluation of the CmL prototype by

a group of students.

Experts’ review

Five experts were selected based on specific criteria of both qualification and experience as

follows: (a) all experts had to be teachers with at least ten years’ experience. (b) Content

experts had to have at least a degree level qualification in science, the rationale being the

reviewed topic was elementary school science. (c) Technology experts had to have at least

a certificate in the use of current technology as CMC tools were employed.

Eight experts comprising four in each area were identified to be in the panel, but only

five consented to participate in the review. The five experts, comprising three content

experts and two technology experts, were all educators who had been using technology for

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

instruction. Two of them were school teachers and three were officers with the Educational

Technology Division of the Ministry of Education. All of the experts had more than ten

years’ experience in teaching science. The two technology experts had a Master’s degree in

Instructional Technology and were using collaborative tools for instruction.

The experts reviewed the design and used a checklist to ensure the elements of col-

laborative learning (Palloff and Pratt 1999) and Merrill’s First Principles were appropri-

ately applied. On completion of the review, the experts were interviewed to probe further

into the comments they made on the checklist.

Data collected from the comments on the checklist, and the transcripts of interviews

were analysed to determine the areas of concern in the design of the prototype. The

emergent themes related to the design, language, management and the learning environ-

ment were identified as important for CmL (Palloff and Pratt 1999). The CmL prototype

was improved based on the feedback.

Implementation

The CmL prototype was implemented with 14 students from an urban secondary school.

The school had a multiracial student population reflective of the multiracial Malaysian

population. The participants were volunteers from a sample of 158 students. A survey of

the student sample indicated that the majority had access to mobile phones (81.6 %), and

computers (63.9 %). In addition, almost half had used the telephone and text messaging for

learning on a weekly basis (48.7 and 45.9 % respectively).

Firstly, the volunteers had a 2-h training session on the use of the CMC tools. The

module could be accessed online, at school or at home using desktop computers or laptops.

The module commenced with the online meeting when the discussion questions and the

problem tasks were assigned. The volunteers were given a week to complete the tasks.

During this period, a text message quiz was pushed to the participants’ mobile phones

using SMS.

Data was collected from observations of the frequency of participants’ access to the

technology tools, as well as interviews on the perception of the CmL prototype for

learning. The transcripts of the online communications would determine the interactions

and the evidence for learning.

Table 1 Learning activities in the CmL lesson

Learningactivities

Description

Online meeting At a predetermined time, online meetings are conducted with an instructor as facilitator.Learners can ask questions among themselves, or ask the instructor in the discussionforum. The option of using online chat is offered

Onlinediscussion

Online discussion questions would also be presented at the start of the meeting in thediscussion forum. The discussion would continue throughout the week asynchronously

Online problemtask

The problem task for the groups would commence during the meeting. The task could bedone asynchronously or synchronously on the wiki

Quiz The SMS Quiz would be pushed to learners throughout the week for the period of thelesson. Feedback would be given immediately through text messages

D. DeWitt et al.

123

Findings and discussion

Evaluation of the design phase

This section answers the first research question on the issues which the experts believe

need to be addressed in the design of the prototype. The experts did not raise any con-

cerns on the First Principles of Instruction, nor on using the language of science. On the

other hand, there were concerns on issues related to management, instruction and the CmL

environment.

Management

The experts were concerned about the cost of equipment, both for the mobiles and com-

puters, which students could not afford. They were also concerned about the huge amount

of data which the teachers had to manage during the implementation. The time spent on the

learning activities was also a concern: ‘‘There is already no time in class. The teachers are

trying to finish the syllabus.’’ The concern for lack of time for instruction might also

indicate the experts’ conception of science knowledge.

Instruction

The experts had concerns on the medium of instruction, the accuracy of content, assess-

ment guidelines and other instructional needs. The experts stressed on the use of simple

English which was easy-to-understand. In the prototype, the medium of instruction was

English. English was the language of instruction for science from the years 2003 to 2011,

instead of the national language, Bahasa Melayu (MOE 2008).

The experts also suggested that more examples and a detailed assessment plan be

provided for the learners. The belief was that the learner required structure in problem-

solving tasks, ‘‘I gave guidelines on what I wanted for the content. There was once, when I

didn’t guide them, and it went haywire: it was not systematic at all.’’ This may indicate the

belief that science knowledge was dualistic in nature.

CmL environment

The experts had some reservations about allowing learners to negotiate rules in the CmL

environment. The learners could actually determine whether accurate language use was

necessary. However, the experts felt that the guidelines should specify to the learners in

advance what was negotiable.

Interactions, including interactions with learning materials, were considered important.

The experts felt that more face-to-face meetings were required to establish a personal

relationship with the learners: ‘‘They see you personally, and have a rapport.’’ In addition,

improvements on design and colour of the web pages, and media such as videos and

graphics, were suggested. Text messages were considered innovative and interesting for

communicating new developments and information. The only concern was of the text

message display on the small screen of the mobile phone: ‘‘You are not only asking

questions, you are also giving them information on the mobile. There are a lot of things to

read.’’

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

Summary

The experts’ responses indicated their belief in the importance of structure and the

acquisition of factual science knowledge as detailed in the syllabus which had to be

completed (Ling 2002; Oliveira et al. 2011). They preferred a structured learning envi-

ronment with guidelines and rules, and more time for face-to-face instruction (Sharma and

Anderson 2009).

Although the experts used technology, they still seemed concerned about human-

interaction and learning-materials design rather than the online learning environment. This

might be because the use of interactive courseware for science and mathematics was

dominant in Malaysian schools. Teachers had been given training for this instructional

resource during the Smart School Pilot Project (1999–2002) and the English for the

Teaching of Mathematics and Science (ETeMS) project (2003–2007) (MOE 2008; Kumar

et al. 2008). However, broadband internet connectivity was only provided in schools in

2012 (MOE 2012). Hence, the lack of use of CMC tools for learning might be attributed to

a lack of infrastructure for online communication.

The experts acknowledged that language is important for acquiring science knowledge.

However, language was narrowed down to the accurate use of English for teaching in the

ETeMS project. There is no mention of learners acquiring the language and processes

which scientists use for collaboration in a community (Hogan and Fisherkeller 2005;

Sharma and Anderson 2009). The experts did not raise any concerns on the design of the

CmL prototype using Merrill’s First Principle of Instruction for teaching science in the

Malaysian context. Their concerns were for instructional and management issues, which

were addressed during development. A system for data collection was developed and the

learners used their own communication devices. The prototype was implemented after

school hours. The comments related to instruction and the CmL environment, were used

for further improvement.

Evaluation of the CmL prototype implementation

The prototype was implemented to answer the research question on the learners’ reactions

to the use of the CmL prototype in enhancing interaction and learning of science. Inter-

actions were reported from the observation of the frequency of participation with the tools,

the perception of difficulty in using the prototype, while learning focused on the perception

and use of the language of science to interact and build knowledge.

Interactions

There were interactions in the CmL prototype as learners actively participated in com-

pleting the tasks. On the wiki, content was uploaded, with at least half the group members

making contributions (Table 2). For members who did not log-in, they verified during the

interview that they had discussions with their group members before the content was

posted by another group member. Some groups assigned one person to upload the solution

on the wiki (Su and Beaumont 2010).

On the discussion forums, learners seemed to prefer viewing their peers’ response rather

than responding themselves. This was because all the participants had viewed the discussion

on the forum (100 %), but there was only 43 % participation (Table 3). The lack of response

might be attributed to the learners’ perception of the dualistic nature of knowledge (Emdin

2011). Once the correct answer was given, there was no further need of discussion.

D. DeWitt et al.

123

There was more interaction in the Quiz as the learners interacted with the tutor. All the

students answered the questions almost immediately (100 %). In addition to the formal

Quiz, text messaging was used among the learners for discussions related to their problem

task. This high rate of interaction on the mobile phone was because this communication

device was easily accessible: ‘‘Our phone is with us all the time, in our pockets, so we can

just reply immediately. With computer we need to access the internet. This takes time’’. In

addition, the feedback and questions in the SMS Quiz were personalized to the learner

(Sampson and Zervas 2013).

There were interactions in attempting the problem-solving task on the wiki. The

interactions continued in the text messages and in face-to-face communication for this task.

The language of science was used during collaboration as learners discussed the approach

to solving the problem and shared their opinions in simple and easy to understand language

with science elements (Linn et al. 1999). In all the CmL tools, the language used could be

patterned and modeled by other learners.

There seemed to be little difficulty in using the CmL prototype. The learners gave

positive comments on the use of wikis (‘‘easy’’, ‘‘interesting’’, ‘‘best’’ and ‘‘get to work as a

group and discuss online’’) and text messages (‘‘interesting’’, ‘‘fun’’, ‘‘can test my brain’’).

However, there were mixed responses to the discussion forum: some liked it (‘‘because can

give our opinions and comments’’), while others did not (‘‘was preoccupied with school

homework’’, and ‘‘too many discussions’’). The reasons for the dislike of forums seemed to

be that it was a waste of time which could be better spent on acquisition of factual

knowledge (Ling 2002; Oliveira et al. 2011).

Learning science

Learners perceived that the CmL tools assisted in improving learning (Table 4). This was

supported by data acquired during the interviews. The learners had to gather information

(‘‘It makes me open my book, which I won’t open if I don’t have exams’’), as well as

observe the patterns that model the language of science (‘‘I get to see the discussions and

learn from it’’). The practice of using these models, with reinforcement, facilitates learning

(‘‘We can memorize and remember the revision done.’’)

Table 2 Participation on thewiki

Number of participants, N = 14

Group Number ofmembers

Number ofmembers log-ins

Group members’participation

1 4 4 100 %

2 3 2 67 %

3 3 3 100 %

4 4 2 50 %

Total 14 9 –

Table 3 Participation on the discussion questions forum

Number ofviews

Number ofposts

Number of members viewing,n (%)

Number of members’ postings,n (%)

24 14 14 (100 %) 6 (43 %)

Number of participants, N = 14

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

The interactions using the language of science enabled the learners to generate new

knowledge. The learners confirmed that ‘‘The SMS Quiz makes me remember.’’ Modeling

the language of science also seemed to assist the learner in recalling facts: (‘‘Because we

like to talk to our friends, and this chit-chat helps us recall better.’’)

CMC tools also enabled different forms of interaction. The wiki was a platform to

‘publish’ the solution to the problem (Fig. 2), while the discussion forum enabled infor-

mation exchange and debates to be conducted (Fig. 3).

The evidence of learning on the wiki can be seen in this example as the learner explored

the ingredients used for making chapati (Fig. 2). The learner was able to identify the

components in ingredients for chapati. Scientific verbal knowledge was used: carbohy-

drates, protein, dietary fiber, thiamin and riboflavin (Ellerton 2003; Karpov and Haywood

1998). There was evidence of thinking in the text as they tried to identify the missing food

class (‘‘So, what’s the missing food class?’’). There was also evidence of critical thinking

as a comparison of ghee to butter oil, anhydrous was made, and the computation of fat,

cholesterol and Vitamin A in a half teaspoon of ghee was outlined.

The interactions on the discussion forum also seemed to reinforce learning. In an

example of a discussion on calories required by ‘‘growing teenagers’’, the learners rein-

forced the fact that teenagers require more calories when active. There was critical thinking

involved as some participants questioned the number of calories required by teenagers.

Interactions showed that information was shared (‘‘My calories need is 1,941.0 and I’m

walking from school’’) (Jacob 2012; Schrire 2006). Although the grammar was imperfect,

the tutor refrained from correcting grammar, instead modeled the correct use of the lan-

guage of science.

Table 4 Perception of learning using the CmL

Tool Perception of learning with tool

Don’t know Agree Disagree

Wiki 2 12 0

Discussion forum 1 13 0

Text messaging (SMS quiz) 1 13 0

Number of participants, N = 14

Fig. 2 Screen capture for a problem task on the wiki

D. DeWitt et al.

123

There were interactions as the learners used the CmL prototype. There were both online

and face-to-face collaboration. The learners seemed to demonstrate new knowledge and

built their understanding as they made their work public on the wiki and discussion forum

(Bonk et al. 2009). In addition, the questions in the discussion forums allowed for

reflection, argument and debates, thus enhancing critical thinking (Schrire 2006). Athough

the text message quiz was synchronous and required immediate feedback (Sampson and

Zervas 2013), text messaging was versatile as learners used it to activate prior knowledge

as well as for reinforcement. Initially, there seemed to be little interaction on the CmL

prototype. However on further investigation, other forms of interaction which include both

face-to-face and text messages, were recorded. This initial resistance to participate, which

decreased after the benefits of using the prototype were realised, has also been recorded in

other studies (Su and Beaumont 2010).

Conclusions and implications

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the CmL prototype designed for

collaborative problem-solving could be used for interaction and learning secondary school

science.

Fig. 3 Screen capture of interaction on the discussion forum

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

The design of the CmL prototype for collaborative problem-solving on the topic of

nutrition employed the First Principles of Instruction (Merrill 2002). The combination of

three CMC tools with different affordances enabled interaction for modeling, sharing and

transformation of knowledge using the language of science (Ellerton 2003; Freebody 2005;

Nielsen 2012) (Fig. 4). The use of three different tools in a lesson has the potential to

enable different forms of interaction for learning. The preliminary findings indicate that

employing three tools in a CmL prototype could have better effects on learning as com-

pared to two (Arrigo et al. 2004; Rau et al. 2008).

There were several challenges faced during implementation. The prototype was

implemented after school hours on computers in the school, or at home. In Malaysian

schools, students are not allowed to bring mobile phones or laptops to school, and this

might have contributed to a lower participation rate. It is believed that there might have

been more interactions if students were allowed to use these devices to access the module

in schools as well.

There were several limitations to this study. Firstly, although there were interactions and

the language of science was used, there was no evidence that this was solely due to the use

of the CmL prototype. Secondly, the sample size was small as it involved only five experts

and 14 students. Thirdly, the experts were asked to ensure Merrill’s First Principles were

applied in the prototype. However, the emergent themes during experts’ review of the

evaluation phase did not reflect these principles. Hence, more rigorous methods are

planned to address these limitations in future studies.

The belief on the nature of science among the experts influenced the evaluation of the

tasks, learning environment and resources. The experts seemed to have a dualistic

Fig. 4 The CmL lesson prototype

D. DeWitt et al.

123

perception of the nature of science knowledge, and placed more importance on factual

knowledge (Emdin 2011; Ling 2002; Oliveira et al. 2011). This also seemed to be reflected

among the learners as was observed during the online interactions.

However, the CmL design seemed to enable both face-to-face and online interactions

within the community of learners (Brown 2006; Johnson and Johnson 2004; Jonassen et al.

2005). The language of science seemed to be important as learners gathered and presented

information on the wiki, forums and text messaging (Bonk et al. 2009; Su and Beaumont

2010). In addition, there was exchange of information and knowledge-building in the

discussion forums and text messages (Naismith et al. 2004; Schrire 2006).

Although the findings of this study should not be interpreted beyond its limitations, the

study is significant as the preliminary findings indicate that the CmL prototype could be

used for science instruction in the Malaysian context. The encouraging first results indicate

that the science teachers’ beliefs on the dualistic nature of science knowledge may not be a

hindrance to the implementation of the CmL prototype. The study is explorative in nature

but it indicates that providing a collaborative problem-solving environment with a CmL

prototype may encourage interactions and the use of the language of science to support

learning. There is some evidence that the learners were able to model and construct their

knowledge through the interactions in the CmL prototype tools. Each tool had different

affordances, and when used in combination, seemed able to address most of the learners’

needs for modeling patterns, reflection and knowledge construction.

These preliminary findings may also indicate that Malaysian science teachers might be

able to use the CmL prototype to enhance science learning as learners are given oppor-

tunities to use the language of science on a wiki, forum and text messaging. This is in line

with the government’s emphasis on quality education and technology integration for more

effective methods of instruction as outlined in the National Education Blueprint (MOE

2012). The Ministry of Education’s initiative to provide highspeed broadband internet

access of at least 1 Mbps for all schools will help overcome the challenge of slow internet

connection in schools (MOE 2012).

Further studies could be conducted in the development of CmL modules for other topics

in science applying Merrill’s First Principles. In addition, longitudinal studies to determine

the effects of the CmL module, and qualitative studies for more in-depth investigations

would be required before conclusions on the impact of the module can be made. Prolonged

engagement with the CmL module might encourage the user to participate actively and the

results of the interactions could differ (Su and Beaumont 2010). Hence, studies on the role

of the instructor, learners’ attitude and motivation, learners’ cognitive strategies and types

of interactions need to be conducted to provide insights into CmL for science as well as for

other subjects (ChanLin 2012). A larger sample could be used for evaluating the effec-

tiveness of the CmL modules. This is an exploratory study and more rigorous methods are

planned for future studies. In conclusion, the CmL prototype has seemed to allow inter-

actions for collaboration in the language of science on the three CMC tools to facilitate

learning.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the University Malaya Research Grant [RG386-12HNE]and Flagship Research Project [FL019-2012].

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

Appendix

Table 5 Learning activities in the CmL webpage

Activity Technology tool/activity Rationale

Gathering andevaluatinginformation

Web pageExamples of calorie content

of different foodsHyperlink to tools and

websites:Nutrition and energyanalyzer tool

Energy food comparisontool

Nutrients and caloriessearch tool at NutrientData Lab

Interactive software tocompare nutrition in food

Calories required on DailyNeeds Calculator

Calorie requirement ofpeople with differentactivities

Activation phaseLink to prior knowledge by allowing learners to recall

calorie content of different foodsDemonstration phaseExamples on webpages, and links are referredVideos, tables, and other applications (nutrient and

Calorie Search Tool) depending on the type ofcontent to be taught are provided. The relevantmedia (video, text, graphic) is referred

Learner guidance techniques given through examplesApplication and integration phaseThe learner can use the information for application in

the tasks

Table 6 Learning activities in the discussion forum

Activity Technology tool/activity Rationale

Discussionquestions

Discussion forum onlineDiscussion to compare food labels on several

drinks and determine the number ofcalories

Activation phaseLink to prior knowledge by allowing learners

to recall different types of drinks, foodlabels, calories, and amount of liquid(250 ml). Remind learners that this will beneeded for next phase for organization ofknowledge

Beverages familiar to the learner is used forrelevance

Examples from peers’ answers in thediscussion forums

Demonstration phaseAssist by providing the learner guidance

techniques through peer and instructorfeedback during interactions

Discussion to compare drinks which havemore energy according to calorific value for250 ml

Application phaseLearners practice, apply knowledge and are

assessedCorrective feedback and coaching when

requiredScaffolding gradually withdrawn as learner

improves and the zone of proximaldevelopment is reduced

Discussion on calories required by anaverage teenager and whether the learnerconsumes enough calories

Integration phaseThe transfer of knowledge of calorie counting

to a different situationLearners’ new knowledge is publically

demonstrated on discussion forumLearners reflect, discuss and defend new

knowledge and skills learnt

D. DeWitt et al.

123

Tab

le7

Lea

rnin

gac

tivit

ies

inth

ew

iki

Act

ivit

yT

ech

nolo

gy

tool/

acti

vit

yR

atio

nal

e

Gro

up

pro

ble

m-

solv

ing

Wik

iE

stim

ate

the

tota

lam

ou

nt

of

calo

ries

ina

giv

enm

eal

usi

ng

the

ener

gy

tab

lein

the

clas

sw

ebp

age

Pro

ble

mM

eals

assi

gn

edar

ea

uth

enti

cM

alay

sian

foo

dth

ele

arn

erco

nsu

mes

Th

isp

rob

lem

iso

ne

of

man

yp

rob

lem

sre

late

dto

nu

trit

ion.T

he

solu

tio

no

fth

isp

rob

lem

task

wil

lal

low

lear

ner

sto

pro

gre

ssto

ano

ther

larg

erp

rob

lem

task

inth

en

ext

less

on

Pro

ble

m4

:E

stim

ate

the

tota

lam

ou

nt

of

calo

ries

inth

em

eal

giv

ento

yo

ur

gro

up

from

the

ener

gy

tab

leg

iven

Act

ivati

on

phase

Rel

evance

of

the

earl

ier

qu

esti

on

sfo

rso

lvin

gth

ep

rob

lem

Dem

on

stra

tio

np

ha

seL

earn

ers

vie

wso

luti

on

so

fo

ther

gro

ups

on

the

wik

ias

the

dem

on

stra

tio

no

fre

lev

ant

con

ten

tT

his

con

ten

tp

rov

ides

lea

rner

gu

ida

nce

tech

niq

ues

,an

dis

rein

forc

edth

rou

gh

feed

bac

kd

uri

ng

inte

ract

ion

sam

on

gp

eers

and

inst

ruct

or

Ap

pli

cati

on

ph

ase

Lea

rner

sp

ract

ice,

ap

ply

kno

wle

dg

ean

dar

ea

sses

sed

Co

rrec

tive

feed

ba

ckan

dco

ach

ing

wh

enre

qu

ired

Sca

ffo

ldin

gis

gra

du

all

yw

ith

dra

wn

asth

ele

arn

erim

pro

ves

and

the

zon

eo

fp

rox

imal

dev

elo

pm

ent

isre

du

ced

Inte

gra

tio

np

ha

seT

he

transf

erof

know

ledge

of

calo

rie

cou

nti

ng

tod

iffe

ren

tm

eals

Lea

rner

sp

ub

lica

lly

dem

on

stra

teth

eso

luti

on

toth

ep

rob

lem

task

on

the

wik

iL

earn

ers

use

thei

rcr

eati

vity

top

rese

nt

the

solu

tio

nto

the

task

Lea

rner

sre

flec

t,d

iscu

ssan

dd

efen

dth

en

ewkn

ow

led

ge

an

dsk

ills

lear

nt

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

References

Anastopolou, S., Sharples, M., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., & Wright, M. (2011). Creatingpersonal meaning through technology-supported science inquiry learning across formal and informalsettings. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 251–273.

Anderson, T. (2010). Interactions affording distance science education. In D. Kennepoh & L. Shaw (Eds.),Accessible elements: Teaching science online and at a distance (pp. 1–18). Edmonton: AU PressAthabasca University.

Arrigo, M., Gentile, M., Taibi, D., Chiappone, G., & Tegolo, D. (2004). mCLT: An application for col-laborative learning on a mobile telephone. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Mobile learninganytime everywhere: A book of papers from MLEARN 2004 (pp. 11–15). London: Learning and SkillsDevelopment Agency.

Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Kim, N., & Lin, M.-F. G. (2009). The tensions of transformation in three cross-institutional wikibook projects. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 126–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.04.002.

Brown, B. A. (2006). ‘‘Its isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff’’: Language identity and appro-priating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96–126.

Champagne, A. B., & Kouba, V. L. (2005). Writing to inquire: Written products as performance measures.In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A humanconstructivist view (pp. 223–248). London: Elsevier.

ChanLin, L.-J. (2012). Learning strategies in web-supported collaborative project. Innovations in Educationand Teaching International, 49(3), 319–331.

Clough, G., Jones, A. C., McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2009). Informal learning evidence in onlinecommunities of mobile device enthusiasts. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming thedelivery of education and training (pp. 99–112). Edmonton: AU Press Athabasca University.

Ellerton, N. F. (2003). Language factors and their relevance in problem posing and problem-solving inprimary mathematics and science classrooms. In Seminar Proceedings on Best Practices and Inno-vations in The Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics at the Primary School Level, (pp.15–33), August 11–15, 2003, Holiday Villa, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Min-istry of Education Malaysia.

Table 8 Learning activities in the SMS Quiz

Activity Technology Tool/Activity Rationale

Individualizedquiz

SMS QuizQuiz with multiple choice questions and

questions which require short answers

ProblemShort questions based on the discussion and

wiki tasks are pushed to learners.This solution to the quiz allows the learner

to progress to the next question.

Example: Identify the food class with thehighest energy per gram? REPLY bychoosing ONE of the following:carbohydrates, protein, fats

Activation phaseLink to prior knowledge and relevance of

the discussion questions and problemtasks for the solution

Demonstration phaseLearners demonstrate the solution which is

reinforced through feedback frominstructor

Application phaseLearners practice, apply knowledge and are

assessed. Corrective feedback is givenIntegration phaseLearners are able to demonstrate their

knowledge and feel the achievementwhen answering correctly

Learners reflect on the new knowledge andskills learnt

D. DeWitt et al.

123

Emdin, C. (2011). Dimensions of communication in urban science education: Interactions and transactions.Science Education, 95(1), 1–20. doi:10.1002/sce.20411.

Ford, M., & Leinonen, T. (2009). MobilED—Mobile tools and services platform for formal and informallearning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp.195–214). Edmonton: AU Press Athabasca University.

Freebody, P. (2005). Social perspectives on the cognitive revolution and education: From alien beings torobust trustees. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), The cognitive revolution in educational psychology (pp.293–322). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2010). Learning science at a distance: Instructional dialogues and resources. In D.Kennepoh & L. Shaw (Eds.), Accessible elements: Teaching science online and at a distance (pp.19–36). Edmonton: AU Press Athabasca University.

Gourova, E., Asenove, A., & Dulev, P. (2013). Integrated platform for mobile learning. In D. G. Sampson,P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Ubiquitous and mobile learning in the digital age (pp.67–92). New York: Springer.

Greeno, J. G. (1992). Mathematical and scientific thinking in classrooms and other situations. In D.F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 39–62). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Greiff, S., Wustenberg, S., Holt, D. V., Goldhammer, F., & Funke, J. (2013). Computer-based assessment ofcomplex problem solving: Concept, implementation and application. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 61, 407–421.

Hadjerrouit, S. (2013). Collaborative writing with wikis: Pedagogical and technological implications forsuccessful implementation in teacher education. In D. G. Sampson, P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, & J.M. Spector (Eds.), Ubiquitous and mobile learning in the digital age (pp. 37–50). New York: Springer.

Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, andmodels. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140)., Anew paradigm of instructional theory Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (2005). Dialogue as data: Assessing students’ scientific reasoning withinteractive protocols. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing scienceunderstanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95–127). London: Elsevier.

Hung, W. (2013). Team-based complex problem-solving: A collective cognition perspective. EducationTechnology Research Development, 61, 365–384. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9296-3.

Jacob, S. M. (2012). Analysing critical thinking skills using online discussion forums and CCTST. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 805–809.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 785–812).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. H., Lee, C. B., Yang, C. C., & Laffey, J. (2005). The collaborative principle in multimedialearning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 247–270). NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kadyte, V. (2003). Learning can happen anywhere: A mobile system for language learning. In J. Attewell &C. Saville Smith (Eds.), Learning with mobile devices: Research and development. A book of papers(pp. 73–86). London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Karpov, Y. V., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation:Implications for instruction. American Psychologist, 53(1), 27–36.

Kaye, A. R. (1992). Learning together apart. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computerconferencing: The Najaden Papers, vol. F90. Nato ASI Series. Proceedings of the NATO AdvancedResearch Workshop on Collaborative Learning and Computer Conferencing, Copenhagen, Denmark(pp. 1–24), July 29–August 3, 1991. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Kumar, N., Che Rose, R., & D’Silva, J. L. (2008). Factors affecting effective use of technology amongMalaysian teachers. European Journal of Social Sciences., 6(4), 108–122.

Ling, J. A. Y. (2002). Primary science curriculum implementation in Malaysia: Inquiry as hope and practice(Doctoral dissertation, Massey University, New Zealand).

Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P. & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education part-nerships: Case studies of students’ learning about ‘Rats in Space’ and ‘Deformed Frogs’. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 47(2), 61–85.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,50(3), 43–60.

Merrill, M. D. (2009). First principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr (Eds.), InstructionalDesign Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base (Vol. III). New York: RoutledgePublishers.

Design and development of a CmL prototype

123

Ministry of Education. (2008). Malaysia ICT in education: Cutting edge practice. Kuala Lumpur:Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Ministry of Education. (2012). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Preliminary report. KualaLumpur: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Report 11: Literature review in mobiletechnologies and learning. Bristol, UK: FutureLab Series.

Nielsen, K. H. (2012). Scientific communication and the nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9),2067–2086. doi:10.1007/s11191-012-9475-3.

Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2011). The implicit communicationof nature of science and epistemology during inquiry discussion. Science Education, 96(4), 652–684.doi:10.1002/sce.21005.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for theonline classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rau, P. L. P., Gao, Q., & Wu, L. M. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in high schooleducation: Motivation, pressure and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50(1), 1–22.

Rico, M., Coppens, J., Ferreira, P., Sanchez, H., & Agudo, J. E. (2013). Everything matters: Development ofcross-curricular competences in engineering through web 2.0 social objects. In D. G. Sampson, P.Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Ubiquitous and mobile learning in the digital age (pp.139–158). New York: Springer.

Saeed, N., Yang, Y., & Sinnappan, S. (2009). Emerging web technologies in higher education: A case ofincorporating blogs, podcasts and social bookmarks in a Web Programming course based on students’learning styles and technology preferences. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 98–109.

Sampson, D. G., & Zervas, P. (2013). Context-aware adaptive and personalized learning systems. In D.G. Sampson, P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Ubiquitous and mobile learning in thedigital age (pp. 3–18). New York: Springer.

Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitativeanalysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.

Sharma, A., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Recontextualization of science from lab to school: Implications forscience literacy. Science & Education, 18, 1253–1275. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9112-8.

Su, F., & Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning. Innovations inEducation and Teaching International, 47(4), 417–431.

Tan, Q., Liu, T.-C., & Burkle, M. (2013). Location-based environment for formal and informal learning:Context-aware mobile learning. In D. G. Sampson, P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.),Ubiquitous and mobile learning in the digital age (pp. 115–137). New York: Springer.

Turcotte, S. (2012). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry on buoyancy: A discourse analysis sup-porting the ‘‘pieces’’ position on conceptual change. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21,808–825. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9368-x.

Woo, M. M., Chu, S. K. W., & Li, X. (2013). Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediatedcollaborative writing. Education Technology Research Development, 61, 279–309. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9285-y.

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics ofknowledge-building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 55, 117–145. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9019-0.

Dorothy DeWitt is a senior lecturer at the Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology, Facultyof Education, University of Malaya. Her research interests are mLearning Curriculum, Science Educationand Developmental Research.

Norlidah Alias is a senior lecturer at the Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology, Facultyof Education, University of Malaya. Her research interests are Curriculum Design, CurriculumDevelopment, Curriculum Evaluation, Curriculum and Instruction, Future Curriculum, mLearningCurriculum, Delphi Technique, Pedagogical module, Learning Style and Developmental Research.

Saedah Siraj is a professor in Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology, Faculty ofEducation, University of Malaya. Her research interests are Curriculum Design, Curriculum Development,Curriculum Evaluation, Curriculum and Instruction, Future Curriculum, mLearning Curriculum, DelphiTechnique, Pedagogical module, Learning Style and Developmental Research.

D. DeWitt et al.

123