MICE 2.0: Designing multimedia content to foster active learning in a Malaysian classroom

Tse-Kian Neo, Mai Neo, Wai-Jing Kwok, Yeen-Ju Tan, Chen-Haw Lai and Che Embi Zarina
Multimedia University

With the strong emphasis of social constructivism, many educators are finding new ways to stimulate and enhance social activities within the classroom. One such method is the use of cooperative learning. A cohort of students worked in small teams cooperatively to complete an assignment while using blogs to document and reflect their work. Moreover, the students were required to use multimedia learning objects to enhance their knowledge in media production. The purpose of the study is to account for the students' perspective and experience learning in such an environment, known as Multimedia Integrated Cooperative-learning Environment (MICE) 2.0. A mixed method design approach was employed that included tests, survey and open-ended questions to gauge their learning ability, and attitudes about working in groups and using blogs in their learning process. The results showed that while the existence of the five cooperative components were crucial for a successful cooperative learning structure, the findings indicated that respect, tolerance and communication are important aspects in working successfully in teams. They also found using blogs as a good learning experience to use for reflecting upon their work. Overall, the learning environment showed that cooperative learning using technology allowed the students to gain lifelong learning skills that are important for their future endeavours.

Introduction

Research has found that students who actively participate in project-based learning enhance their capability of exploration and show improvement in their thinking skills (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, Bass & Fredricks, 1998). One such project-based learning approach is cooperative learning. This student-centred concept is based on the social constructivist learning approach as propounded by Vygotsky (1978) who posits that the idea of learning resembles a type of "social activity". Students can learn by interacting with their peers and teacher to achieve their learning goals. Vygotsky (1978) also suggested that the use of language becomes crucial as it provides the learner with the tools to interact, socialise and discuss with other peers or members of the community. Therefore through talking with their peers as well as more experienced individuals, learning occurs (Gerlach, 1994). McWhaw, Schnackenberg, Sclater and Abrami (2003) posit that learning takes place when an individual interacts with people from different backgrounds, knowledge and experiences. Thus, the concept behind group-based learning is to provide a suitable learning environment for learners to socialise, interact and learn.

Jacobs and Hannah (2004) stated that the term "cooperative learning" was implemented back in the 1970s where a large amount of research and practical work occurred on how best to implement peer power for the benefits of learning. Practices such as "interactivity, activation of prior knowledge, connecting the theoretical to the experiential, as well as relevance and efficacy to assess information" have become more consistent in cooperative learning theory (Coutinho, 2007, p.2028).

Learning in a cooperative learning environment also promotes knowledge sharing as students will benefit from sharing of ideas instead of working individually (Dahley, 1994). Furthermore, Saddler (2008) posited that cooperative learning is a powerful teaching strategy that can increase peer to peer interaction as well as student attitudes towards learning. It prepares students for real world situations and may help counteract the effects of competitive testing and working alone ((Zimbardo, Butler & Wolfe, 2003).

One of the benefits of learning cooperatively is that learners are forced to deal with each other face to face and this provides them with an opportunity for verbal discussion and problem-solving. Stevens and Slavin (1995) stated that the cooperative learning experience has proven to promote greater achievement in results and better retention, compared to an individual learning experience. As McNeese (2000, p.167) stated, "The idea of sharing individual knowledge through cooperative activities underlines the meta-cognitive/ cognitive benefits of having people work together." Therefore, cooperative learning strategies can result in better learning attitudes, as the students are given the opportunity to process knowledge and tasks together, develop more in-depth understanding of the subject matter, improve social skills and increase motivation towards learning.

Cooperative learning model

Components of cooperative learning include five aspects as suggested by Johnson and Johnson (1994a). They include positive inter-dependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal skills and group processing, all needed in the environment. Through positive inter-dependence, members of the groups must be made aware of the importance of their roles in the team. By realising that the success or failure of their project will depend on them working together, groups must perceive their goals to be inter-related to work together to reach their learning objectives. Johnson and Johnson (1999) determined nine ways in which positive inter-dependence can be structured, one of which is role inter-dependence. In this structure, each person in the team takes on a role with certain responsibilities which then support and contribute to the completion of the task together.

Besides depending of each other, individuals within the team will also need to be take responsibility for their own actions. According to Millis (2002), each individual member of the group must be individually responsible for their own academic performance. Tanner, Chatman and Allen (2003) stated that randomly assigning roles to students provides each member in the group "an entry point for participation" that will allow them to assume their individual responsibility accordingly. Stanton and Fairfax (2007) argued that building a team's productive manner is the first step in encouraging individual accountability in cooperative learning environments.

Being individually accountable for their actions will encourage members to feel motivated to contribute to the team. Also, increased individual accountability tends to increase the perceived positive inter-dependence among group members (Archer-Kath, Johnson & Johnson, 1994a). In order to enhance accountability, Millis (2002) suggested that marks or grades that are assigned must also reflect the individual contributions. If a person within the team is made to feel that he or she is needed and properly rewarded, he or she will be more inclined and motivated to cooperate with the rest of the members (Johnson & Johnson, 2003).

Promotive interaction, sometimes also known as face to face interaction, allows the team to build and maintain relationships with each other. Being supportive and encouraging one another creates a healthy working environment for members. This includes helping one another with problems and supporting each other, which can encourage each member to do their best. Johnson and Johnson (1989) explained that by encouraging promotive interaction, members are more likely to be personally committed to each other to accomplish the group goals.

By requiring students to work in groups, the need to learn to work as a team arises. Because many students do not usually work in a cooperative learning environment, they may lack group and social skills. These social skills are not necessarily inherent, but can be taught and learnt. Social skills such as communication, leadership, trust building, decision making as well as conflict management, are needed to have effective team building (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1991; Smith 1995). Through discussions and effective group communications, members within the groups are able to sustain the overall inter-relationship among the group and therefore, cooperating effectively with one another. Tanner et al. (2003) also stated that these social skills should include listening to views of all members, providing constructive criticism, learning to ask clarifying questions and being open to alternative views. Moreover, being respectful to each other and their thoughts and ideas enhances team spirit in a group.

Johnson et al. (1991) suggested that group processing involves the group members discussing their contribution and efforts and maintaining productive working relationship. Allowing the group to reflect on their work provides them with the knowledge of how well they are progressing and what needs to be done or modified (Gaikwad, 1996). Tanner et al. (2003) suggested that over time, by engaging in group processing, students will improve their cooperative learning skills. Learning how to broach stressful situations within a group will provide experience in resolving conflicts and enhancing team relationships. Moreover, they proposed that successful group processing can be achieved through explicit conversation or written responses to the group by the teacher. Johnson and Johnson (1994a) recommended that teachers may need to observe and listen to students' discussions, in order to provide valuable information on how much the students understand about the tasks at hand, the content as well as the required instructions and the strategies being learnt.

According to Smith (1995), in order to differentiate good cooperative learning structures from weak ones, five basic elements (Table 1) need to be present in the environment and must be taken into account throughout the learning process. Johnson and Johnson (1994b) indicated that successful implementation of cooperative learning can lead to higher academic achievement, better interpersonal relationship among the learners and community and encourage learners to have positive attitudes towards the subject matter.

Therefore, this approach to learning can be used to enhance the learners' overall learning experience in a classroom compared with a conventional classroom environment. The skills learnt in such an environment encourages more students to work with each other and better prepare them for the job market by developing critical thinking skills, communication skills, organisation skills and others. Table 1 below illustrates the components of cooperative learning as well as the summary behind each component, while Figure 1 illustrates a simplified version with an action example.

Positive inter-dependence	Each team members/learner's success is dependent on the others being successful as well.
Individual accountability	Each member of the team is responsible and accountable for his or her contribution.
Promotive interaction	Each member or learner is encouraged to interact with the team by helping each other, solving problems, providing constructive feedback, supporting and encouraging one another.
Interpersonal skills	Each member or learner has the opportunity to communicate their ideas and expressions to the group and to resolve any conflicts that arises properly and constructively.
Group processing	Each member or learner is given the opportunity to cultivate a good working relationship with their group members through supporting and encouraging one another. Also, the efforts and contributions to the groups by individuals are made to feel appreciated.

Figure 1: Five elements of cooperative learning
(adapted and constructed based on Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998)

Social learning using Web 2.0

One such Web 2.0 tool is 'web-logs' or 'blogs'. Blogs are considered to be learning tools that can encourage autonomous, deep and reflective strategies (Fiedler, 2003) and as such are ideal for use in constructivist learning environments. The popularity of using blogs lies in the scope for interactivity (Williams & Jacobs, 2004). Blogs help the students to share and express their opinions with the other members. It also serves as a tool to organise their work because learners are able to preview their work in progress online throughout their learning. Moreover, they are able to make comments and to receive other people's comment in order to improve their work and to increase discussions amongst learners. Since blogs provide the space for individuals to voice their opinions and expression, bloggers are given a sense of personal empowerment and belonging to the learning community at large (Farmer, Yue & Brooks, 2008). Through the use of social interaction with blogs, learners are situated in a learning environment that can take place beyond the boundaries of the classroom.

However, in order to use blogs successfully as a learning tool, support by appropriate pedagogies is needed (Makri & Kynigos, 2007). Integrating blogs together with a cooperative learning structure, allow cooperative learning to move outside the confines of the classrooms and enables students to continue learning in their teams at their own time and place. Smith (1995) encouraged teachers to provide students with means for the group to discuss and monitor their progress. By doing so, groups are able to evaluate their contribution as well as their progress, which in turn will enable them to maintain team coherence more effectively. Moreover, using blogs to supplement cooperative learning allows students to be more open and free to comment on their team's work than in class, as they can take an additional perspective on group atmosphere (Huang, Huang & Yu, 2011).

By taking advantage of the components of cooperative learning and the characteristics of blogging, to create a technology and media rich-environment that allow learners to cooperate with one another to achieve their learning goals, is the focus of this study. Hence, the MICE 2.0 or Multimedia Integrated Cooperative-learning Environment 2.0 was formed. Through combining technology and media into a learning environment, students are given the opportunity to use their social skills as well as their techno-prowess, to learn together and acquire lifelong learning skills in preparation for the work life ahead of them.

Method

In addition to developing this site, students were required to use blogs as part of their process documentation. The blogs were used to allow the group to reflect on their work and to show progress in their development of their assignment. Overall the learning environment was coined as Cooperative-learning 2.0 as they utilised the tenets of cooperative learning set forth by Johnson and Johnson (1994a), as well as using currently available Web 2.0 applications such as blogs. Moreover, the students were using multimedia learning objects and professional multimedia development tools to design and develop multimedia application.

In the past, students were required only to develop personal websites, usually working in pairs. The shift towards using cooperative learning approach allows them to enhance their lifelong learning skills including teamwork skills as well as their organisational and communication skills. This was their first time using blogs as well as working in a group setting to develop multimedia applications.

Sample

Although these students were accustomed to using computers ands the web to study their management courses, they had not experienced any multimedia development tools and Web 2.0 tools in any of their previous courses. Therefore, this was their first time using multimedia and Web 2.0 to create multimedia content. The students were mainly first year students aged between 19 and 21 years. The total number of students in this course was 53 (N=53), coming from a multi-cultural background including Malays, Chinese, Indian and other ethnic races from Malaysia, together with a few foreign students. This convenience sample was chosen as it was typical of the mix of university students in Malaysia.

Class structure

The theme of this presentation of the course was 'Malaysian Culture and Heritage'. This broad based theme was chosen to provide them with a wide variety of choices for their website development. Each group was required to design a website based on an aspect of this theme which might include architecture, food, various sub-cultures and so on. The assignment lasted for the entire semester of 14-weeks, and they were allowed to pick their own group members and group leaders. They were also asked to nominate a group name for their project and a group leader.

There were twelve groups in total. Each individual member was responsible for one of the main links of the website. In other words, if there were five members, their group website would contain five main links that each member was responsible for building. They were all assessed upon both group and individual contributions. The group contribution consisted of the overall planning and ideation of the website while the individual contribution involved their personal effort in developing the main link that has been assigned to them by their group. There were several activities they had to conduct to develop a proposal detailing their ideation and objectives. Further along, they had to develop a plan for production which included designs for their graphical user interface, their website structure as well as content of their website. They were also required to reference any material that they used from websites and to provide a detailed account of the tools used to develop the media as well as the website.

All these activities were documented in a group blog hosted by any of the free blog services on the Internet. Each blog consisted of several pages, depending on the number of people per group. If there were five members, there were five pages with each member being responsible for entries in that specific page. The students were allowed to pick any service but it had to allow the lecturer and other students to view them and comment on them. In other words, they had to have a comment link made available to and by accessed by the entire class.

In addition, students were required to use online multimedia learning objects to give them some understanding of the characteristics of digital media. One such learning object was "Digital Sound". These multimedia modules were given as replacements for lectures, allowing them to learn on their own and at their own pace. Figure 2 below illustrates the class structure of this Cooperative-learning 2.0 environment. Furthermore, Table 2 details the activities that took place within the environment.

Figure 2: The structure of the Cooperative-learning 2.0 environment

Activities	Description
Forming cooperative teams	In the beginning of the course, the students were encouraged to form groups of their choice. The final project details were explained in class as well as uploaded online for their use. The project required the students to form small groups of 4-6 members and they had the opportunity and responsibility to find their own team mates. Each individual member was responsible for one of the main links of the website. In other words, if there were five members, their group website would contain five main links that each member will be responsible for building. They were all judged on both group and individual contributions. Their tasks were to work together cooperatively to complete their assignment.
Initial proposal	Once the groups were formed, they were to decide as a team an aspect of the overall theme of their final project, "Malaysian Culture and Heritage". When a topic had been decided, each team had to produce an initial proposal containing the title of their project, team members and team leader, their objective, target audience and references.
Teacher facilitation and multimedia learning environment	During the course of the class, students attended lectures on the characteristics and uses of digital media, as well as topics on content creation. Besides lectures, students engaged with discussions and consultation sessions to clarify as well as answer questions to assist them with their development and learning process. Several multimedia learning objects were used to substitute for conventional lectures. These multimedia learning objects allowed the students to experience a media-rich and student-centred environment. These learning objects were created following Gagne's Nine Events of Instructions which therefore considered as a good lesson design (Gagne, Briggs & Wagner, 1992; Teoh & Neo, 2007). One of the topics chosen for this multimedia learning object was "Digital Sound" (see Figure 3). The role of the teacher was to facilitate their questions regarding the requirements of the project, problems with software and overall direction of the project. The lecturer was also required to comment on all the students' blogs and to give suggestions on the progress of their development.
Developing cooperative plan using blogs	Through discussions and group meetings, each group eventually developed their own cooperative plan for implementation. Each blog consisted of several pages, depending on the number of people per group. If there were five members, there were five pages and each member was responsible for entries in that specific page. The plan would include their goals, design strategies, storyboards, flowcharts and information on their topic of interest. All this information was documented in entries on the blogs of each team (see Figure 4). Each team was required also to update their blog entries regularly and to post images, references, their sketches, graphical user interface (GUI) layout and site maps for their website, to document the development of their cooperative plan. Students were also encouraged to view other groups' blogs and to provide constructive comments to enhance designs and website development. Also, the lecturer provided guidance and comments on their blogs, including approving their cooperative plan, directors, design and technical suggestions. However, it was up to the groups to decide on their implementation process.
Multimedia authoring process (MAP)	In order for the teams to create their websites, they applied the steps provided in the Multimedia Authoring Process (Neo, Neo & Rafi 2004). The MAP was used as the development model and guidelines for the students to construct their multimedia-rich website, using what they have learnt in this class and prior knowledge. The steps in the MAP included the pre-authoring process (media acquisition, media conversion to digital and media editing), authoring process (synchronising media according to plan, adding interactivity and special effects, and testing) and post-authoring process (conversion to Shockwave Flash and burning the finished application to a CD). The teams had to rely on each other to create a complete website. They had to solve problems on their own or take constructive comments from other groups in the class.
Submission of completed website and updated blogs	Once the teams had completed their assignment, they submitted a report containing their modified proposal, flowcharts and any material they used in developing their application, as well as their final application (see Figure 5) to the lecturer. They had to have their blogs updated and ready for final assessment.

Learning outcome

Figure 3 depicts the multimedia learning object that the students have to learn from, while Figure 4 shows an example of a group blog. Figure 5 shows a sample screen picture of the results of their effort, and Figure 6 shows the website itself. It should be noted that these students did not have any background in design and did not possess any multimedia development skills prior to this course.

Figure 3: Online module "Digital Sound"

Figure 4: Screen picture from a student's blog

Figure 5: Screen picture from students' completed website

Figure 6: Cultural and heritage site "Sarawak"

Research design

A set of pre- and post-test questions was given to the students to gauge their learning ability in the multimedia learning object. The purpose of the media-rich environment was to give them some prior knowledge on the characteristics and use of "Digital Sound". The students were given a pre-test at the beginning of the semester. To control for the testing issue of internal validity, the students were not informed of the pre-test and the post-test. It was given as a "pop quiz" type. The post-test was given after they had studied the learning object. The purpose of this testing was to determine their knowledge of the media as well as to know if they were able to recall the subject matter in a cooperative learning environment. The location as well as the person administering the tests remained consistent through out the testing period and they were seated as though it was a real examination setting.

Besides testing, the students were given a set of 5-point Likert scale survey items (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Undecided, 4=Agree and 5=Strongly agree). There were 25 questions in the survey that allowed the students to provide feedback on their attitude towards working in this environment. The survey was based on the five components of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994a), namely:

• Positive interdependence
• Individual accountability
• Promotive interaction
• Interpersonal skills
• Group processing

The full survey was administered to the students after the submission of their assignment. Besides these Likert survey items, the survey also contained several open-ended questions that the students were asked to answer. These related to their experience of working as a team and what they felt about doing so. The survey also contained several open-ended questions regarding how they liked or disliked using blogs in their learning.

They were required to complete this survey and since it was also their first time working in such an environment, they were keen to provide feedback on their experience. The students' learning outcomes or the results of their assignments are shown below, while the results of the testing are shown in the following paragraphs, together with the results of the survey and open-ended questions. The illustrative quotations of student feedback given below are from the survey's open-ended questions.

Analysis and results

Testing results

Survey results

Overall the results show that all the survey item means were well above 3.5 which indicate that the students felt positive towards this learning environment. The items relating to positive inter-dependance show that the students depended on their team members, as the means ranged from 3.70 to 4.0 while other areas in the survey such as personal accountability (m=3.81 to 4.00), promotive interaction (3.87 to 4.02), interpersonal skills (m=3.83 to 4.11) and group processing (m=3.77 to 4.06) also showed very high means. These results indicate the students attitudes toward the MICE 2.0 were favourable and they were able to cooperate with their group members. For the items relating to using blogs in their learning process, the means were also high, ranging from 3.62 to 3.75. It showed that the students were able to reflect and to communicate with their group members and peers by using blogs and posting entries and comments in them.

The following section focuses on the discussion of the results in detail. In addition to the Likert scale survey data, several open-ended questions were given to the students to provide feedback on their experiences in working in teams as well as using blogs in their learning. These open-ended questions generally asked them what they liked or disliked about the experience and why. The student feedback is presented as part of the discussion below to provide more evidence about their experiences in this learning environment.

Discussion

Positive inter-dependence

Working with them was very challenging and fun at times. I learned a few skills from them and I wouldn't mind undertaking any other projects with them. (Student 1)

I feel very happy and satisfy when my hard work job had done. I also tried my best to ask my team mate when I face any problem. They are willing to teach me until I understand it. I hope I can learn more applications details about the software that had teach in Digital Media this subject so that I can create my own website in future. (Student 2)

My team mates are responsible and hardworking. They are willing to do the tasks I've assigned for them and send to me on time. I'm glad that I had a chance to work with them. They are some people that we can work with and rely on. (Student 3)

Blog is the method for team mates to communicate. (Student 1)

Can communicate and exchange ideas with group mates. (Student 2)

It made things easier for the team. (Student 3)

Individual accountability

The majority of the comments found in the open-ended questions showed that the students enjoyed working cooperatively and knew the value of their personal contributions to the team. Some illustrative comments:

I think I have done my best and also put my own effort to finish my task in this project. I have followed all the instructions given by our team leader and finish the task on time. In addition, I also try to involve all the knowledge learns from tutorial inside our project. (Student 1)

I have been very motivated by working on this project. It helped me to understand what to expect of my team mates the next time and how to conduct myself in a manner that will benefit us all. (Student 2)

I believe I gave my 100% of commitment and also effort to the team. I hope I lead the team well. I'm glad that I had the chance to be a team leader. (Student 3)

I think I can put a lot of effort on the part that I've done in the projects. (Student 4)

I like the fact that you can see what others wrote and be able to do better on my work. (Student 1)

I can interact with my friends, let them know my information. (Student 2)

I like about using blogs, since it quite attracting and can share information to other. (Student 3)

Interesting, can always refer back to it. (Student 4)

Promotive interaction

In addition to the Likert scale items, students were asked to give feedback about their experiences in working as a team. They understood the importance of team work to understand and complete the task at hand. Some illustrative comments included:

Once we face any problem on doing the project, we get help from each other. This can improve the quality of our project. Besides that, we all also cooperate to each other. Once team leader distribute task to us, we will work hard for it and try to finish it on time. (Student 1)

We helped each other and also put 100% of commitment into our project. I am happy to have hardworking team mates. Without them, it wouldn't be a success. (Student 2)

My team mates and team leader was so cooperative to each others. We try to share the knowledge we gain from tutorial and help each other in doing this project. (Student 3)

Able to post information to answer the member's questions and problems. (Student 1)

Can share problems with my group members and friends. (Student 2)

I like because the blog can make me improve in the software skills. (Student 3)

Interpersonal skills

Many of the students also felt that working in teams made the work less stressful (Item 2, M = 3.94), as they were able to depend on each other and communicate with each other effectively, to share ideas and knowledge with their members (Item 4, M = 3.85). The students also indicated that they improved their communication and interpersonal skills while working cooperatively on this project in small teams (Item 3, M = 3.87).

Having good interpersonal and communications skills was found to be important to many of the students, according to the comments found in the open-ended questions about how they felt they related to their team members. These comments provide further support to the high level of means found in this section of the survey:

To me, the project is quite tough because we need to work with 4 other team members. So, communication is very important. Miscommunications occurred but we overcame it well. (Student 1)

My teammates and team leader is good. We were communicated with others all the time about the projects when we face any problems.(Student 2)

I feel very happy to work together with my all members, team leader and tutorial leader. This is because we can easily communicate what we requested and learn many thing from each of them. We also help each other when facing any problems. (Student 3)

We can easily communicate with each other and solve any problems when faced it. (Student 4)

Know others information, can change my thoughts/ideas quickly. (Student 1)

I like the idea of comments by other peers on my work for adjustment. (Student 2)

I liked the idea of being able to comment/ receive comments on my work for ideas. (Student 3)

Group processing

From the comments found in the open-ended questions, many students stated that having a responsible and organised leader who is also being friendly and helpful was crucial, in order to function successfully as a team. Some of the responses included:

My team mates and my team leader are very nice and friendly. (Student 1)

My leader is a nice and responsible leader. From earlier, she had assigned the jobs to us so that we can settle this assignment in a short period of time. She also teach and support us when we facing problems. She is a nice and friendly leader that lead our group members so well. My group members are also very kind and responsible. When face any problems, they willing to teach me and help me settle the problem so that our work can proceed faster. (Student 2)

My tutorial group leader is an international student, but he is also very responsible. He tried hard to mix with us and ask our opinions when choosing the topics for each groups. He worked hard to search more information about Malaysia tourism for us as out each group topics. We can clearly see that he really work very hard to be a good tutorial group leader. (Student 3)

It was the first time but very enjoyable and fun. (Student 1)

It was my first time to use the blog and I really love it. (Student 2)

Have fun on it because it helped me learned in an informal manner. (Student 3)

Negative blogging experiences

Too much work to be done. First it's assignment the blogs tiring (Student 1)

Didn't know how to use it so had a hard time. (Student 2)

Dislike as it's tedious to be reporting on a blog. (Student 3)

I hate blogs. First time. (Student 1)

I dislike about the blog because there were many steps to use the blog. (Student 2)

I do not like everyone to access and see my blog including project process. (Student 3)

I like the consistent updates. It makes me feel engaged and focused in my project/ studies. (Student 1)

It is a good learning method. (Student 2)

Good experience. (Student 3)

Conclusion

Acknowledgment

References

Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Individual versus group feedback in cooperative group. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(5), 681-694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9922999

Bruner, J. S. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational Researcher, 14(6), 5-8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1174162

Coutinho, C. P. (2007). Infusing technology in pre service teacher education programs in Portugal: An experience with weblogs. In R. Craslen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (pp. 2027-2034). Chesapeake: SITE. http://www.editlib.org/p/24975

Dahley, A. M. (1994). Cooperative learning classroom research. http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~andyd/mindset/design/clc_rsch.html

Deitering, A. M. & Huston, S. (2004). Weblogs and the "middle space" for learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(4), 273-278. http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/5mar2879z4.htm

Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept of psychology. Psychology Review, 3, 357-370.

Farmer, B., Yue, A. & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 123-136. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/farmer.html

Fiedler, S. (2003). Personal webpublishing as a refective conversational tool for self-organized learning. In T. N. Burg (Ed.), BlogTalks. (pp. 190-216). Vienna, Austria.

Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gaikwad, P. (1996). Cooperative learning: Setting the stage for faith and learning in the classroom. Institute for Christian Teaching, Silver Spring, MD (viewed 29 Aug 2011) http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_18/18cc_039-062.htm

Garfield, J. (1995). How students learn statistics. International Statistical Review, 63, 25-34.

Gerlach, J. M. (1994). Is this collaboration? In K. Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective technique. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goh. J. W. P., Quek, C. J., & Lee, O. K. (2010). An investigation of students' perceptions of learning benefits of weblogs in an East Asian context: A Rasch analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 90-101. http://www.ifets.info/journals/13_2/8.pdf

Huang, T.-C., Huang, Y.-M. & Yu, F.-Y. (2011). Cooperative weblog learning in higher education: Its facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive load. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 95-106. http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_1/9.pdf

Jacobs, G. & Hannah, D. (2004). Combining cooperative learning with reading aloud by teachers. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 97-118. [preprint verified 12 Jul 2012] http://www.georgejacobs.net/Articles/CL_and_Reading_Aloud.htm

Jensen, M., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Impact of positive interdependence during electronic quizzes on discourse and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 161-167. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27542374?

Johnson D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, Washington, DC: The George Washington University. [verified 12 Jul 2012; 4.0 MB] http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED343465

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1994). Cooperative learning in the classroom. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/194224.aspx

Johnson D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994a). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (5th ed.) Boston: Allyne & Bacon.

Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1994b). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, A. Villa & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning. Brookes Press, Baltimore. [verified 12 Jul 2012] http://clearspecs.com/joomla15/downloads/ClearSpecs69V01_Overview%20of%20Cooperative%20Learning.pdf

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (8th Ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Towards a constructivist design method. Educational Technology, April, pp. 34-37.

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M. & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 313-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057

Lim C. P., Khine, M. S., Hew, T., Wong, P., Divaharan, S. & Lim, B. (2003). Exploring critical aspects of information technologies integration in Singapore schools. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 1-24. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/lim.html

Makri, K. & Kynigos, C. (2007). The role of blogs in studying the discourse and social practices of mathematics teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 73-84. http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_1/8.pdf

McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning (2nd ed). London: Kogan Page.

McNeese, M. D. (2000). Socio-cognitive factors in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2, 164-177. [verified 12 Jul 2012] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA476981

McWhaw, K., Schnackenberg, H., Sclater, J. & Abrami, P. C. (2003). From co-operation to collaboration: Helping students become collaborative learners. In R. M. Giles & A. F. Ashman (Eds), Co-operative learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Millis, B. J. (2002). Enhancing learning - and more! - through cooperative learning. Idea Paper #38. The Idea Centre, 211 South Seth Child Road Manhattan. http://www.theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/IDEA_Paper_38.pdf

Neo, M., Neo, T. K. & Rafi, M. E. (2004). Designing interactive multimedia curricula to enhance teaching and learning in the Malaysian classroom - From teacher-led to student-centred experiences. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(1).

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.

Saddler, B. (2008). Cooperative learning: A process for effective inclusion. [viewed 15 Aug 2011, verified 12 Jul 2012] https://www.kdp.org/teachingresources/pdf/Saddler.pdf

Smith, K. (1995). Cooperative learning: Effective teamwork for engineering classrooms. Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1995. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=483059

Stanton, P. & Fairfax, D. (2007). Establishing individual accountability for learning in an exam-less, group project course. Proceedings of the ASEE Mid-Atlantic Section Fall 2007 Conference, Temple University, pp. 3-12. http://www.asee.org/documents/sections/middle-atlantic/2007/04-Establishing-Individual-Accountability.pdf

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321-351. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED349098

Tanner, K., Chatman, L. S. & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Cooperative learning in the science classroom - beyond students working in groups. Cell Biology Education, 2, 1-5. http://www.lifescied.org/content/2/1/1.full.pdf+html

Teoh, B. S. P & Neo, T. K. (2007). Interactive multimedia learning: Students' attitudes and learning impact in an animation course. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4). http://www.tojet.net/articles/v6i4/643.pdf

Williams, J. B. & Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 232-247. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/williams.html

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zakaria, E. & Iksan, Z. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 35-39. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED496240

Zimbardo, P. G., Butler, L. D. & Wolfe, V. A. (2003). Cooperative college examinations: More gain, less pain when students share information and grades. Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 101-126. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20152702?

Appendix 1a-1c: Test of normality and paired t-test

	Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	df	Sig.
Difference score	.975	53	.330

b. Paired samples statistics

		Mean	N	Std. deviation	Std. error mean
Pair 1	Pretest score	9.94	53	3.060	.420
	Posttest score	12.70	53	3.434	.472

c. Paired samples test

		Paired differences					t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. dev.	Std. error mean	95% confidence interval of the diff.
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	Pretest score - Posttest score	-2.755	3.316	.455	-3.669	-1.841	-6.048	52	.000

Appendix 2: Results of the survey

Authors: Dr Tse-Kian Neo, Associate Professor and Dean, Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia Unversity, Cyberjaya, Malaysia Email: tkneo@mmu.edu.my Dr Mai Neo, Associate Professor and Dean, Institute of Postgraduate Studies, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia Email: neo.mai@mmu.edu.my Web: http://mmu-my.academia.edu/DrMaiNeo Wai-Jing Kwok, Yeen-Ju Tan, Chen-Haw Lai and Che Embi Zarina Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia Please cite as: Neo, T. K., Neo, M., Kwok, W. J., Tan, Y. J., Lai, C. H. & Zarina, C. E. (2012). MICE 2.0: Designing multimedia content to foster active learning in a Malaysian classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 857-880. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/neo.html