Vol.6 (2016) No.

6
ISSN: 2088-5334

Measuring Validity and Reliability of Perception of Online

Collaborative Learning Questionnaire Using Rasch Model
Sharifah Nadiyah Razali#,*, Faaizah Shahbodin*,##, Mohd Hafiez Ahmad**, Helmi Adly Mohd Noor###
#
Kolej Komuniti Selandar, Jalan Batang Melaka, 77000 Selandar, Melaka, Malaysia
E-mail:[email protected]
*
Faculty of Information and Communication Technology Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka,
Hang Tuah Jaya, 76100 Durian Tunggal, Melaka, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
##
Centre of Technopreneurship Development (C-TED) Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka,
Hang Tuah Jaya, 76100 Durian Tunggal, Melaka, Malaysia
**
Kolej Komuniti Bukit Beruang, 23, Jalan Bukit Beruang Indah 1, Taman Bukit Beruang, 75450 Melaka, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]

###
Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Institute of Industrial Technology,
Persiaran Sinaran Ilmu, 81750 Bandar Seri Alam, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract— This study aims to generate empirical evidence on the validity and reliability of Perception of Online Collaborative
Learning Questionnaire (POCLQ) using Rasch model. The questionnaire was distributed to 32 (N=32) Diploma Hotel Catering
students from Politeknik Ibrahim Sultan, Johor (PIS). Data obtained was analysed using WINSTEP version 3.68 software. The
finding showed that POCLQ had high reliability with five categories of difficulties items. So, it can be concluded that POCLQ is
reliable and strongly accepted. Meanwhile, analysis of items fit showed there were six items that are not in the specified range and
based on standardised residual correlation measurement value; there were five items found to be overlapped that should be dropped.
All the items that needed to be dropped based on the analysis of result had been refined and retained for the purpose of the study and
based on expert's view. Therefore, all items remained after Rasch analysis. It is hoped that this study will give emphasis to other
researchers about the importance of analysing items to ensure the quality of an instrument being developed.

Keywords— soft skills; online project based collaborative learning; instrument validity; instrument reliability; Rasch model

prospects. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are

I. INTRODUCTION confronted with the challenge of producing graduates who
Education is important in contributing towards the future meet the needed skills of employers. Therefore, the
formation of an individual in the national development development of soft skills in a study plan is extremely
agenda. Through education, the development of human needed. 21st-century graduates are required to be equipped
capital in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes can be with skills that include critical thinking, problem solving,
formed. Albano and Othman [1], [2] emphasise that the collaboration, and communication.
employability asset consists of knowledge, skills, and Interest in collaboration is a natural outgrowing trend in
attitudes. With globalization, there is a big wave of change education towards active learning, whereby students become
in the skills demand by employers. Most employers today involved in constructing their own knowledge through
look for soft skills rather than academic achievement as the discovery, discussion, and expert guidance. Collaborative
primary criteria for the election of employee [3]. learning is a learning approach that leads to the theory of
According to Abdullah [4] soft skills is crucial for the constructivism [5] and it has been used as a learning strategy
enhancement of employment performance and career that has been practiced worldwide for many years [6]. Many

966
published reports have outlined the advantages of show that CL has been widely implemented in teaching and
collaborative learning suggesting that it improves academic learning. Then again, the question arises as to why students’
performance, promotes soft skills development (i.e., mastery of soft skills is reported to be low. This indicates
communications, collaboration, problem-solving, and critical that although CL is implemented widely in the teaching and
thinking skills), and increases satisfaction in the learning learning process, it does not often naturally happen in a
experience [7]–[10]. group. It is difficult to monitor and at the same time to
The benefits of collaboration in learning have been evaluate the CL process as CL activities are mostly
proven by Social Constructivism [5], [11], [12]. However, conducted outside of class time. Swan et. al, Andresen and
collaboration does not often happen naturally in a group. To Brindley et. al [42]–[44] stated that the evaluation of
establish and maintain active collaboration is a challenging students’ contributions in group work encourages them to
task due to the lack of or low participation of other group participate actively in group activities. This is also helpful in
members to participate actively in the group work [13]. overcoming the free rider issue which is often mentioned by
Some members do not participate or do not contribute to previous researchers [45], [46]. Here arises the importance
group work [14]. Young [15] report on studies based on of online platform for the facilitation of CL environments.
western students that stress on the role of collaboration in Nowadays most educational institutions adopt LMS via
enhancing student learning achievements. However, Zhu [7] the used of open sources such as Moodle and Sakai or
affirms that only a few empirical studies have examined commercials such as Blackboard to centralise contents,
student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge learning and assessment activities in a specific learning
construction through collaboration from a cross-cultural environment [47], [48]. LMS provides a variety of
perspective. Researches eg. by Santhanam et. al; So and communication tools such as a forum, chat, discussion board
Brush; and Wu et. al [16]–[18] critically question on and video or audio conferencing [49], [50]. Learners can use
student’s satisfaction in collaborative learning environments. these features to facilitate their communication and
Frustration is a common feeling among students involved collaborative work in this learning environment [51]. LMS
in collaborative learning experiences because educators improves the quality of teaching and learning by enabling
assume that every student makes an equal contribution [19] educators to monitor [52] and evaluate [53] the students’
and same grades are awarded to each team member [20]–[22] involvement. Moreover, LMS offers opportunities for
even despite the imbalance in the level of commitment by increased collaboration through the interaction function [34].
students [23]. Hence, there is a need to monitor and evaluate Currently, Moodle (Modular Object Oriented Dynamic
students’ contribution in group work which, on the other Learning Environment) is the most popular LMS because it
hand, encourage student participation [22], [24], [25]. But it is a free open source [54]–[57]. Moodle was developed by
is difficult for educators to monitor and evaluate the learning Dougiamas (1998) based on social constructivism
process [21], [26] as collaborative learning activities were pedagogical philosophy [58]. Therefore, it has been widely
mostly done outside of class time. Students also reported that adopted by institutions. Furthermore, Polytechnics have
it was difficult to meet outside class [21] so that educator is designed and developed their own LMS using Moodle
not able to ensure the presence of each team member at each platform called CIDOS (Curriculum Information Document
meeting. Therefore, instructors are not able to observe all the Online System). Therefore, OPBCL will be developed using
processes occurring within the student groups and evaluation Moodle platform.
is done based on the quality of the final product, ignoring the Even the advantages of LMS are commonly known, and it
teamwork process [8]. Certain strategies must be applied to is a well-known fact that without appropriate pedagogical
monitor and evaluate the learning process. Technology can support, the effectiveness of online learning cannot be
be used to measure soft skills [27] and monitor collaborative produced. Concerns arise among educators about the use of
learning process [28], [29]. Assessment through online learning theory in online learning [59]–[61]. The studies
platform provides an advantage as students’ conversations have been reported that most online learnings do not
are recorded in writing [30]. incorporate any learning theory or pedagogy. Witte et. al;
Arend; and Gaytan and McEwen [31], [32] suggest the Kivunja; and Al-Ansari et. al [53], [62], [63] emphasised the
use of online discussions to grade students’ activity. use of appropriate learning theory in online learning to
Learning Management System (LMS) provides online increase learning effectiveness. Furthermore, previous
discussion features such as discussion boards and forums to studies have highlighted that LMS has not been fully utilised
facilitate communication and collaborative work in online by educators. LMS provides many types of tools [49] such
learning environments. But Gleadow et. al [33] elucidate that as communication, productivity, assessment and course
current LMS discussions and forums do not support management features [64]. However, educators have been
engagement and accessibility. Stromman [34] emphasise that found to use only the productivity feature such uploading
if the online platform is unable to facilitate collaborative and sharing notes or handouts while ignoring other features
learning it will cause low active participation. Therefore, the ([35]. Besides, the study also reported that HEIs are still
communication features of LMSs are poorly utilised in most using LMS in teaching due to the course content facilities.
institutions Affendi et. al [35] and the lecturer prefers to Therefore, the frequency in the use of LMS by the HEIs is
employ the Social Networking Sites to facilitate their very low and has become unpopular among educators ([65].
communication. Besides that, the drawback of LMS is that uninteresting
Even though Collaborative Learning (CL) has been interfaces may result in decreased students’ motivation [66].
proven to promote soft skills [8], [9], [36]–[39]. Previous Based on students’ perspectives, educators must use an
literature [40], [41] and this study’s preliminary findings attractive layout that students familiar with in order to

967
facilitate OCL [67]. In addition, Gleadow et.al [33] report It can only be used as a supplement in the teaching and
that LMS face challenges in terms of engagement and learning process [68]. Earlier, previous researches have
accessibility. Previous literature has discussed on the suggested on replacing LMS with SNSs due to its potential
communicational features of LMS which are poorly utilised in enhancing communications, community building, and
in most institutions. This is because LMS do not provide engagement, however, a study by Buzzetto-more [94]
supportive environments that can support interaction and reported opposite where student do not want SNSs to replace
communication [56], [66]. Due to the incapability and LMS.
limitations of LMS, such as networking and communications Many researchers in the field of education have looked
[68], lecturers sought for other applications as a replacement into the potential of adapting SNSs in their teaching and
for the built-in discussion forum in LMS [56], [69]. Martins learning process [65], [95], [96], various studies have
et. al [70] also suggest on replacing traditional LMS with focused on the integration of conventional LMS such as
Social Networking Sites. Moodle with SNSs. This has left a gap in the body of
Social Networking Sites (SNSs) are an online services, knowledge on how SNSs can be integrated into LMS
platforms, or sites that focus on facilitating the building of platform to facilitate Online Collaborative Learning (OCL)
social networks or social relations among people who, for which would promote the development of soft skills.
example, share interests, activities, backgrounds, or real-life Therefore, with the availability problem as stated, then the
connections. SNSs are a part of Web 2.0 tools that have study to propose effective online learning environment that
become the most of the crucial communication tools can facilitate Collaborative Learning is significant.
nowadays. There is no specific definition of Social In continuation of the previous study [97]–[99], Online
Networking Sites [71]. However, it’s the core features of are Project-Based Collaborative Learning (OPBCL) prototype
to facilitate interaction and collaboration among users. Since was developed based on the model proposed to enhance
their introduction, SNSs such as Myspace, Facebook, and students soft skills [100]. Therefore, research testing
Twitter have attracted millions of users, many of whom have instrument must be developed to evaluate the effectiveness
integrated these sites into their daily practices. SNSs provide of OPBCL. Research testing instrument plays an important
users a platform to share information, exchange views, and role in collecting data to answer the research questions that
support interaction [72]. Moreover, SNSs supported have been set [101]. A research testing instrument called
constructivist approach in learning in order to increase Perception of Online Collaborative Learning Questionnaire
students' knowledge construction and to promote interaction (POCLQ) was developed to measure learners’ perception
[73]. Zaidieh [74] was described these networks as social towards OPBCL.
because it allows communication and strengthens the ties The main quality indicators for any testing instrument in
between members on the Internet. research are the reliability and validity [102]. It is important
Various studies have been conducted to examine SNS’s to get the validity and reliability of an instrument before
usages in education [66]. These studies showed that SNSs carrying out the actual study to ensure the smooth process of
enable interaction, collaboration, resource sharing, active the actual study. Therefore, this study aims to determine the
participation, and critical thinking in educational activities validity and reliability of POCLQ.
[75]–[79]. Wheeler et.al, Rifkin et.al and Zourou [80]–[82] Validity is the extent to which a research testing
suggested that SNSs could be used to enhance the instrument measures what it is supposed to measure.
relationship, improve motivation, offer personalized material Therefore, good conclusions can be made from the sample of
and develop collaborative skills. According to Smith (2009), study [103]. Meanwhile, reliability is the extent to which a
SNSs are capable of promoting the development of online research testing instrument can be expected to obtain
community and extend learning beyond the classroom. consistent results when repeated. The reliability can provide
Meanwhile, studies by Barbour and Plough; Zakaria; and a consistent validity [104]. Furthermore, review and
Ventura and Martin-Monje [79], [84], [85] argued that the validation by a domain expert are required to ensure that the
incorporation of social media into blended learning course instrument meets its objectives [104], [105]. Therefore,
can enhance the learning experiences. Moreover, Silius et. al expert validation was conducted before performing a pilot
[86] found that SNSs could improve collaborative learning study.
and social interaction by attracting and motivating the Two types of validation which are face and content
student to participate in the learning process. validation were performed by three experts in online
Even though earlier evidence have indicated the collaborative learning (lecturer from Public Institution),
effectiveness of SNSs, some argue that SNSs distract three subject matter experts (lecturer from Malaysia
learners where students spend less time in their studies thus Polytechnic) and three experts in the developer of system
resulting in lower knowledge performance [87]–[91]. design. Face validation aims to check the language used and
Conversely, Pasek et. al [92] replicated study that the presentation of the overall layout of instruments. For
investigated the relationship between Facebook use and content validation, Aiken [106] stated that it intended to
which had grade reported opposite. A similar result was examine the extent to which the ability of a measuring
reported by Wang et.al [93] study which reported that SNSs instrument to measure what should be measured.
do not academically improve the learning process. Although Then, a pilot study was conducted to test the reliability of
several studies have indicated that SNS enable interaction, the instrument used. Reliability is the extent to which a
collaboration, resource sharing, active participation, and research testing instrument can be expected to obtain
critical thinking in educational activities [75]–[78], but it consistent results when repeated. Rasch model approach was
simply cannot be successful in meeting the students’ needs. implemented to check the reliability and validity of the

968
instruments used. In recent years, Rasch models also referred Table 1 shows the content of the questionnaire and the
as item-response theory (IRT) or latent trait models, have number of items included in this section.
provided an alternative framework for understanding TABLE I
measurement and alternative strategies for judging the QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENT AND NUMBER OF ITEMS IN SECTION B
quality of a measuring instrument [102], [107]. Applications
Factor Element No of Item Total
of Rasch model can produce an instrument that is reliable
Usability LE1-LE6 6
and valid [108]. According to Azman [109], there are eight
diagnostic data analysis in the instruments development Learning Accessibility LE7-LE9 3
Environment Stability LE10-LE12 3
process such as (i) the reliability and separation item
respondents, (ii) polarities item, (iii) the compatibility (fit) Overall LE13-LE14 2
item, (iv) the value of standardized residual correlation in Content LD1-LD3 3
determining leaning item (v) the distribution of item Time LD4-LD5 1
Learning
difficulty levels and abilities respondents (vi) Differential Process LD6-LD8 3
Design
The items Functioning (DIF) based on gender; (vii) the Evaluation LD9-LD11 3
appropriateness of the measurement scale based on the use Overall LD12 1
of categories; and (viii) unidimensional. Learner-learner LI1-LI3 3
Learning
However, the use of this form of diagnosis depends on the Learner-teacher LI4-LI6 3
Interaction
needs of the study. In determining the validity and reliability Overall LI7 1
of the POCLQ, the item functionality only checks perform Critical Thinking and
SS1 1
Problem-Solving
on (i) the reliability and separation item respondents, (ii)
polarities item, (iii) the compatibility (fit) item, (iv) the value Soft Skills Collaboration SS2 1
of standardized residual correlation in determining leaning Communication SS3 1
item and (v) the distribution of item difficulty levels and Overall SS4 1
abilities respondents.
The respondents answered the questionnaire using Likert
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS scale. According to Likert in 1974, the rate or level of
agreement on a question can be obtained using Likert scale.
A. Design of study This study used a 6 Likert scale to avoid students from
The study conducted in the form of a descriptive survey choosing a midpoint answer in 5 Likert scale. According to
study. According to Cohen and Manion in Ghaffar [110], the Chomeya [116], using a 6 Likert scale can reduce the
survey is to take the data at a certain time, often using deviation of personal decision making. Furthermore, a 6
questionnaires. Therefore, researchers choose to distribute a Likert scale was chosen when the respondents were needed
set of questionnaire to each respondent to obtain feedback to answer either the positive or negative perception. A 5
easily. Likert scale is not suitable for use in this study because the
POCLQ was developed to measure learners’ perception respondents had prior experience using the developed
towards the proposed prototype. The development of the prototype. A 5 Likert scale is used only if there is concern
instrument is based on the steps used in Jamil [101] study that the respondents are not familiar with the environment
which are: (i) identify constructs and elements based on being studied. The scale used was (1) strongly disagree, (2)
document analysis, (ii) expert validation on the constructs disagree, (3) somewhat disagree, (4) somewhat agree, (5)
and elements that have been previously identified, (iii) item agree and (6) strongly agree as illustrated in Table 2.
development (iv) expert validation of the developed
instrument and (v) pilot test run. TABLE II
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT SCORE
B. Instrument
Score 1 2 3 4 5 6
The instrument was developed based on the OCL
construct of (i) learning environment, (ii) learning design, Level of Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agreement Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
(iii) learning interaction and (iv) soft skills. The
development of items was adapted and modified from [111]–
C. Respondents
[115]. The items also have been agreed upon by experts
based on literature through the theories related to The pilot study respondent selection was based on
construction and dimensional constructs. This instrument is purposive sampling. According to Denscombe (2010),
divided into two sections: purposive sampling is a way of getting the best information
by selecting respondents who are most likely to have the
1) Section A: Section A is related to the background of experience to provide quality information and valuable
the respondents. This section contains nine items related to insights on this research. For the purpose of the pilot test,
gender, age, residence, computer literacy, CIDOS experience, Politeknik Ibrahim Sultan was selected for computer
CIDOS forum experience, SNSs experience, Facebook equipment and internet connection capabilities. In addition,
account and PBL experience. the administration and lecturers also showed interest and
2) Section B: Section B consists of items that are cooperation during the preliminary study process. A total of
designed to assess student’s perception toward the proposed 32 respondents were involved in the pilot study sessions, and
prototype. The section contains 37 items developed based on it involved students who have taken the Nutrition subject.
factors and elements that have been identified before in [97]. The subjects were selected based on discussions with the

969
head of the program as the nature of Nutrition subject is a does not measure the construct, and it should be dropped or
theory-based subject and also a curriculum that requires refined because it is difficult or not leading to questions (out
project assignment in the syllabus. Since Nutrition is a of focus). The findings also indicated that the items that are
theory-based subject, students were passive in comparison to produced could measure any item to be measured, and it is
hands-on subjects. The implementation of the CL in moving in one direction with other items that measure the
theoretical subject increases students’ learning effectiveness construct.
[118]. Data obtained was analysed using WINSTEP version TABLE V
3.68 software. ITEM POLARITY
Entry Number PTMea Corr. Item
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 22 .48 LD8
The development of Perception of Online Collaborative 4 .49 LE4
Learning Questionnaire (POCLQ) used in this study was 12 .49 LE12
34 .52 SS1
developed using 6 Likert scales. The finding will be 5 .53 LE5
discussed according to reliability and separation index, items 35 .54 SS2
validity and variable map. 18 .55 LD4
17 .56 LD3
A. Reliability and Separation Item 37 .57 SS4
Results from the analysis of POCLQ showed that the 11 .58 LE11
25 .59 LD11
value of Cronbach Alpha (α) is 0.95 as shown in Table 4. 19 .59 LD5
According to Zikmund and Babin [119], the Cronbach Alpha 1 .59 LE1
value of the POCLQ instruments are very good and effective 8 .59 LE8
with a high level of consistency and can be used for the real 24 .60 LD10
study. Cronbach Alpha value was interpreted as in Table 3 7 .60 LE7
28 .61 LI2
below. 31 .61 LI5
TABLE III 3 .61 LE3
CRONBACH ALPHA INTERPRETATION SCORE 32 .62 LI6
14 .62 LE14
Cronbach Alpha Value 10 .63 LE10
Score Interpreted 36 .63 SS3
0.8 - 1.0 High Reliability 33 .64 LI7
0.7 - 0.8 Good Reliability 9 .64 LE9
0.6 - 0.7 Fair Reliability 13 .65 LE13
< 0.6 Poor reliability 6 .65 LE6
2 .65 LE2
Besides that, person reliability value is 0.95, indicating a
29 .66 LI3
high reliability with a 4.19 separation index (Table 4) that 27 .66 LI1
showed five categories of difficulties items. Bond and Fox 16 .67 LD2
[120] described the reliability of more than 0.8 as very good 26 .67 LD12
and strongly acceptable. Meanwhile, Linacre [121] stated 21 .68 LD7
that the separation of more than two is good value. The 30 .70 LI4
23 .72 LD9
findings indicate that the item has high reliability and five 20 .75 LD6
categories of difficulties items are detected. 15 .78 LD1

TABLE IV Table 6 indicated the INFIT and OUTFIT MNSQ value of

RELIABILITY
item fit. Analyses of item fit refer to the value documented
Cronbach Alpha (α) Reliability Separation in the infit and outfit Mean Square (MNSQ). Observations
0.95 0.95 4.19 on the value of the index are required to determine whether
the item developed is appropriate (item fit) to measure a
B. Items Validity latent variable or construct. Based on the Bond and Fox
Item validity was measured according to Point Measure [120], to determine the suitability of the item built, the infit
Correlation (PTMea Corr.), INFIT and OUTFIT mean and outfit MNSQ should be in the range of between 0.6 to
square (MNSQ) and Standardised Residual Correlation. 1.4. According to Jailani [122], outfit MNSQ should be
Table 5 showed the PTMea Corr. value of item polarity. given more emphasis than Infit MNSQ in determining
Examination of the polarities item is intended to test the congruity items that measure constructs. If the result showed
extent to which the developed construct achieves its goals value over 1.4 logit means that the item is confusing,
and the relationship among the developed items of the meanwhile if the result showed value below 0.6 logit, it
respondents. Based on the analysis, the PTMea Corr. showed means that the item is too easy as expected by the
no negative value items, therefore no items should be respondents [123]. In addition, the value of infit and outfit
dropped. According to Bond and Fox [26], to determine ZSTD should be within -2 to +2 [120]. But if the value of
whether the item measured the constructs, the value shown infit and outfit MNSQ is accepted, then the ZSTD index can
on the PTMea Corr. must be in the positive (+). If the value be ignored [123]. The results of this pilot study analysis
obtained is negative (-), it means that the developed item found that there were six items that are not in the specified

970
range and it should be dropped or defined. These items are TABLE VII
STANDARDIZED RESIDUAL CORRELATIONS
items LE4, LE12, SS2, SS3, SS4, and LD9. In this study, all
of the items listed were refined and retained for the purposes Correlat Entry MNSQ Entry MNSQ
Result Result
of the study, based on expert’s views. ion Number Outfit Number Outfit
.81 2 .86 Retained 3 .91 Refined
TABLE VI .81 34 1.02 Retained 35 1.51 Refined
ITEM FIT .81 1 1.24 Refined 2 .86 Retained
.77 34 1.02 Retained 37 1.45 Refined
Entry Infit Outfit Items .73 4 1.95 Refined 5 .91 Retained
Number MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD .72 35 1.51 Refined 37 1.45 Retained
4 2.03 3.3 1.95 3.1 LE4 .66 1 1.24 Retained 3 .91 Retained
12 1.75 2.5 1.64 2.2 LE12 .65 7 1.20 Retained 8 .92 Retained
35 1.54 1.9 1.51 1.9 SS2 .64 15 .67 Retained 16 .75 Retained
.62 5 .91 Retained 6 .82 Retained
36 1.45 1.7 .63 .61 SS3
37 1.47 1.7 1.45 1.7 SS4
1 1.32 1.3 1.24 1.0 LE1 C. Variable Map
17 1.26 1.1 1.22 .9 LD3 Fig. 1 showed the Person Item Distribution Map (PIDM).
11 1.26 1.0 1.25 1.0 LE11 PIDM showed the items or respondents map that indicates
7 1.21 .9 1.20 .8 LE7
whether the instrument is produced in accordance with the
26 1.15 .7 1.13 .6 LD12
18 1.14 .6 1.10 .5 LD4 respondent's ability to agree. According to Rashid et. al
10 1.12 .5 1.13 .6 LE10 [124], PIDM is concerned on how the persons' ability on the
19 1.05 .3 1.07 .4 LD5 latent trait responds to item difficulty. Person distribution
34 1.03 .2 1.02 .2 SS1 which is shown in the left side of Fig. 1 showed that 56.25%
9 .99 .0 1.02 .2 LE9 of the respondents portrayed a high agreement to the
31 .90 -.3 .98 .0 LI5
27 .96 -.1 .98 .0 LI1 construct and 43.25% of the respondents expressed low. The
3 .98 .0 .91 -.3 LE3 distributions of the person indicated that it is able to be
5 .93 -.2 .91 -.3 LE5 easily agreed upon by the respondent. Meanwhile, item
2 .92 -.2 .86 -.5 LE2 distribution shown on the right side showed the level of item
8 .92 -.2 .92 -.2 LE8 difficulty. Meanitem acts as the threshold and is set to be zero
14 .90 -.3 .88 -.4 LE14
25 .88 -.4 .86 -.5 LD11
on the logit scale. The item at the higher location than
20 .88 -.4 .86 -.5 LD6 Meanitem showed the higher level of difficulty compared to
32 .78 -.8 .85 -.6 LI6 the item at the lower location. Item LE2 and LE3 are the
6 .84 -.6 .82 -.7 LE6 easiest items meanwhile, item LE11 and LI14 are the most
16 .78 -.9 .75 -1.0 LD2 difficult item in this study. The distributions of the items
30 .75 -1.0 .75 -1.0 LI4
indicate the level of difficulty of the item is nearly balanced.
24 .72 -1.1 .72 -1.2 LD10
21 .70 -1.3 .71 -1.2 LD7
22 .68 -1.3 .71 -1.2 LD8
33 .68 -1.4 .68 -1.3 LI7
29 .65 -1.5 .68 -1.3 LI3
15 .68 -1.4 .67 -1.4 LD1
13 .65 -1.5 .64 -1.6 LE13
28 .61 -1.7 .63 -1.6 LI2
23 .45 -2.7 .48 -2.5 LD9

Table 7 indicated the MNSQ outfit value of standardised

residual correlation. Standardised residual correlation
measurement value is to determine whether there are items
that overlap. High residual correlations for the two items
showed the item is not independent, either because the item
has the same characteristics among each other or for both
incorporate several other dimensions that are shared.
According to Linacre [121], if the correlation value above
0.7, it showed a high correlation value where only one item
is to be maintained while the other items have been dropped Fig. 1 Distribution of difficulty level
or defined. The analysis showed that six items were
overlapping based on the correlation established. Items that
should be dropped or defined are LE3, SS2, LE1, SS4, LE4, IV. CONCLUSIONS
and SS2. In this study, all of the items listed were refined The finding showed that POCLQ instruments had high
and retained for the study since they were still needed in the reliability with five categories of difficulties items. So, it can
instrument, based on expert's views. be concluded that POCLQ instrument is reliable and strongly
accepted. The findings on items polarity also indicated that
the instrument could measure any item to be measured, and
it move parallel with other items that measure the construct.
However, based on the analysis of item fit, six items were

971
found to be out of 0.6-1.4 range. Moreover, from the [15] A. Young, “Structuring asynchronous discussions to incorporate
learning principles in an online class: One professor’s course
analysis on standard residual correlations, five items were
analysis,” MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 217–
found to be overlapping. However, all the items that needed 225, 2008.
to be dropped based on the analysis of result had been [16] R. Santhanam, S. Sharath, and W. Jane, “Using self-regulatory
refined and retained for the purpose of the study and based learning to enhance e-learning-based information technology
training.,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 26–47, 2008.
on expert's view.
[17] H.-J. So and T. A. Brush., “Student perceptions of collaborative
In determining the quality of an instrument being learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning
developed, the best method used by most researchers is environment: Relationships and critical factors.,” Comput. Educ., vol.
analysing items [107]. In this study, Rasch measurement 51, no. 1, pp. 318–336, 2008.
[18] J.-H. Wu, R. D. Tennyson, and T.-L. Hsia, “A study of student
model was used to analyse each item in Perception of Online
satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment,” Comput.
Collaborative Learning Questionnaire (POCLQ). Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 155–164, 2010.
Application of Rasch model in the instrument can determine [19] Q. Wang, “Using online shared workspaces to support group
the construct validity of items and gave a clear definition of collaborative learning,” Comput. Educ., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1270–
1276, Nov. 2010.
constructs that can be measured are consistent with
[20] Z. Zhang and Z. Han, “A Phenomenographic Study into Conceptions
theoretical expectations. It is hoped that this study will give of Social Relations in Online Collaborative Learning - Case Study of
emphasis to other researchers about the importance of China Higher Education Learners,” in IEEE International
analysing items to ensure the quality of an instrument Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering
(ICCSSE), 2008, pp. 146–149.
developed.
[21] A. Zhang, “Peer Assessment of Soft Skills and Hard Skills,” J. Inf.
Technol. Educ. Res., vol. 11, pp. 155–168, 2012.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [22] A. Burke, “Group Work : How to Use Groups Effectively,” J. Eff.
Teach., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 87–95, 2011.
Sharifah Nadiyah Razali would like to acknowledge the [23] N. Capdeferro and M. Romero, “Are online learners frustrated with
financial support of Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka collaborative learning experiences?,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance
(UTeM) and the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia Learn., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 26–44, 2012.
for her Ph.D. study. [24] K. Swan, J. Shen, and S. R. Hiltz, “Assessment and Collaboration in
Online Learning,” Jaln, vol. 10, pp. 45–62, 2006.
[25] J. Trimbur, The Call to Write, Sixth Edit. Wadworth Cengage
REFERENCES Learning, 2013.
[26] T. J. Ellis and W. Hafner, “Building a framework to support project-
[1] M. B. Othman, “Tahap kompetensi pelajar melaksanakan kerja amali
based collaborative learning experiences in an asynchronous learning
berpandukan domain psikomotor simpson,” 2012.
network,” Interdiscip. J. E-Learning Learn. Objects, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
[2] G. Albano, “A knowledge-skill-competencies e-learning model in
167–190, 2009.
mathematics,” Conoc. destrezas y competencias Un Model. para
[27] S. Caruana, “Accreditation of Soft Skills in Higher Education using
aprender matemáticas en un entorno virtual, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 306–
ICT .” pp. 1–13, 2011.
319, 2012.
[28] A. D. Greenberg and A. H. Nilssen, “The Role of Education in
[3] R. Ismail, I. Yussof, and L. W. Sieng, “Employers’ perceptions on
Building Soft Skills,” 2014.
graduates in Malaysian services sector,” International Business
[29] M. W. L. Fong and R. Sims, “e-WIL in Student Education,”
Management, vol. 5, no. 3. pp. 184–193, 2011.
Interdiscip. J. E-Learning Learn. Objects, vol. 6, 2010.
[4] M. Abdullah-Al-Mamun, “The Soft Skills Education for the
[30] L. Kearns, “Student Assessment in Online Learning: Challenges and
Vocational Graduate: Value as Work Readiness Skills,” Br. J. Educ.
Effective Practices,” MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach., vol. 8, no. 3,
Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 326–338, 2012.
pp. 198–208, 2012.
[5] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society. Cambridge (Massachusetts):
[31] B. D. Arend, “Course Assessment Practices and Student Learning
Harvard University Press, 1978.
Strategies in Online Courses,” J. Asynchronous Learn. Networks, vol.
[6] S. Ashton-Hay, “Constructivism and powerful learning environments:
11, no. February, pp. 3–18, 2006.
create your own!,” in 9th International English Language Teaching
[32] J. Gaytan and B. C. McEwen, “Effective Online Instructional and
Convention, 2006.
Assessment Strategies,” Am. J. Distance Educ., vol. 21, no. 3, pp.
[7] C. Zhu, “Student Satisfaction , Performance , and Knowledge
117–132, 2007.
Construction in Online,” Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 127–
[33] R. Gleadow, B. Macfarlan, and M. Honeydew, “Design for learning
136, 2012.
– a case study of blended learning in a science unit,” F1000Research,
[8] H.-J. Lee and C. Lim, “Peer Evaluation in Blended Team Project-
vol. 4:898, 2015.
Based Learning; What Do Students Find Important?,” Educ. Technol.
[34] E. Strømman, “Participant activity and facilitator strategies in an
Soc., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 214–224, 2012.
LMS-based discussion forum,” Nord. J. Digit. Lit., vol. 10, no. 1–
[9] M. K. Kabilan, W. F. W. Adlina, and M. A. Embi, “Online
2015, pp. 43–62, 2015.
Collaboration of English Language Teachers for Meaningful
[35] H. Afendi, E. Mohamed Amin, and S. Abdul Halim, “Learning
Professional Development Experiences.,” English Teach. Pract. Crit.,
Management Systems in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions,”
vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 94–115, 2011.
2011.
[10] A. S. Nurbiha, “Cognitive Engagement in Computer Supported
[36] W. W. M. Ada, “Computer supported collaborative learning and
Collaborative Learning Environment,” Universiti Teknologi
higher order thinking skills: A case study of textile studies,”
Malaysia, 2012.
Interdiscip. J. E-Learning Learn. Objects, vol. 5, pp. 145–167, 2009.
[11] M. Nyikos and R. Hashimoto, “Constructivist theory applied to
[37] C. Filigree, “Instructional Technology and Collaborative Learning
collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD,” Mod.
Best Practices : Global Report and Recommendations,” 2012.
Lang. J., vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 506–517, 1997.
[38] P. Sancho, J. Torrente, E. J. Marchiori, and B. Fernández-Manjón,
[12] I. Alzahrani and J. Woollard, “The Role of the Constructivist
“Enhancing moodle to support problem based learning. The Nucleo
Learning Theory and Collaborative Learning Environment on Wiki
experience,” in IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference
Classroom, and the Relationship between Them,” in Online
(EDUCON), 2011, pp. 1177–1182.
Submission, 2013.
[39] E. Ahmad, M. Y. Jailani, and M. A. Aina Aishikin, “Developing soft
[13] R. Chiong and J. Jovanovic, “Collaborative Learning in Online Study
skill in Advanced Technology Training Centre ( ADTEC ): an
Groups: An Evolutionary Game Theory Perspective,” J. Inf. Technol.
analysis of comparison,” Elixir Soc. Stud., vol. 39, pp. 4895–4904,
Educ. …, vol. 11, pp. 81–101, 2012.
2011.
[14] L. Freeman and L. Greenacre, “An examination of socially
[40] A. Hennessey and R. A. Dionigi, “Implementing cooperative
destructive behaviors in group work,” J. Mark. Educ., vol. 33, no. 1,
learning in Australian primary schools: Generalist teachers’
pp. 5–17, 2011.
perspectives,” Issues Educ. Res., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 52–68, 2013.

972
[41] R. M. Gillies and M. Boyle, “Teachers’ reflections on cooperative extra-curricular activities: A comparison between two Middle
learning: Issues of implementation,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 26, no. Eastern dental schools,” Saudi Dent. J., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 36–43,
4, pp. 933–940, 2010. 2016.
[42] K. Swan, J. Shen, S. R. S. Hiltz, and J. Shen, “Assessment and [64] S. Kumar, A. K. Gankotiya, and K. Dutta, “A comparative study of
collaboration in online learning,” J. Asynchronous Learn. …, vol. 10, moodle with other e-learning systems,” in 2011 IEEE 3rd
no. 1, pp. 45–62, 2006. International Conference on Electronics Computer Technology, 2011,
[43] J. E. J. Brindley, L. M. L. Blaschke, and C. Walti, “Creating effective pp. 414–418.
collaborative learning groups in an online environment,” Int. Rev. [65] D.-Z. Marijana, B. L. Aleksandra, and R. M. Aleksandar, “Fostering
Res. Open Distance Learn., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2009. engineering e-learning courses with social network services,” in 19th
[44] M. a Andresen, “Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, IEEE Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR), 2011, pp. 122–125.
outcomes, assessments, and\nlimitations,” Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. [66] H. N. Nguyen, H. Kim, Y. Jo, and K. Dieter, “Sharing Cognition
12, no. 1, pp. 249–257, 2009. LMS : An Alternative Teaching and Learning Environment for
[45] M. N. H. Mohamad Said, M. Forret, and C. Eames, “Online Enhancing Collaborative Performance,” Educ. Technol. Int., vol. 16,
collaborative learning in tertiary ICT education: Constraints and no. 1, pp. 1–30, 2015.
suggestions for improvement,” in Proceedings - 2013 International [67] M. Said, M. Forret, and C. Eames, “Analysis of Contradictions in
Conference on Informatics and Creative Multimedia, ICICM 2013, Online Collaborative Learning using Activity Theory as Analytical
2013, pp. 153–158. Framework,” J. Teknol., vol. 2, pp. 57–63, 2014.
[46] D. Balliet, “E-Research Collaboration and the Free-Rider Problem: [68] S. A. Ishan and C. Y. Tham, “Implementation of Facebook Study
Communication Solutions to Social Dillemas in Computer Mediated Groups as Supplements for Learning Management Systems ( LMS )
Research Collaboration,” in e-Research Collaboration: Theory, in Adult ODL Environments,” Asian Assoc. Open Univ. Journal, vol.
Techniques and Challenges, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2011.
277–287. [69] R. Hern’ndez, H. R. Amado-Salvatierra, C. Guetl, and M. Smadi,
[47] A.-H. Carlos, B.-L. Miguel L., G.-S. Eduardo, A.-P. Juan I., E.-G. “Facebook for CSCL, Latin-American Experience for Professors,” in
Guillermo, and R.-C. Adolfo, “Enhancing Learning Environments by 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning
Integrating External Applications,” Bull. IEEE Tech. Comm. Learn. Technologies, 2012, pp. 327–328.
Technol., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 21–24, 2013. [70] J. Martins, R. Gonçalves, V. Santos, and J. Pereira, “Network Based
[48] H. Coates, R. James, and G. Baldwin, “A critical examination of the Model For E-Learning 2.0,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 47, no.
effects of learning management systems on university teaching and 0, pp. 1242–1248, 2012.
learning,” Tert. Educ. Manag. 11(1)19-36, 2005., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. [71] Z. Du, X. Fu, C. Zhao, Q. Liu, and T. Liu, “Interactive and
19–36, 2005. Collaborative E-Learning Platform with Integrated Social Software
[49] R. Queirós, J. P. Leal, and J. Paiva, “Integrating Rich Learning and Learning Management System,” in International Conference on
Applications in LMS,” State-of-the-Art Futur. Dir. Smart Learn., pp. Information Technology and Software Engineering, 2013, vol. 212,
381–386, 2015. pp. 11–19.
[50] K. Kuosa, D. Distante, A. Tervakari, L. Cerulo, A. Fernandez, J. [72] F. Ataie, A. Shah, and M. N. Mior Nazir, “Innovative web 2.0 based
Koro, and M. Kailanto, “Interactive Visualization Tools to Improve collaborative learning and study circle model,” in The 5th
Learning and Teaching in Online Learning Environments,” Int. J. International Conference on Information and Communication
Distance Educ. Technol., vol. 14, no. 1, 2016. Technology for The Muslim World (ICT4M), 2014, pp. 1–6.
[51] A. I. Ilyas, “Interactive Tutoring in Blended Studies : Hindrances and [73] Schroeder, A., S. Minocha, and C. Schneider, “Social Software in
Solutions,” Int. J. Appl. Linguist. English Lit., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2–3, Higher Education: The Diversity of Applications and Their
2016. Contributions to Students’ Learning Experiences,” Commun. Assoc.
[52] C. Beer, K. Clark, and D. Jones, “Indicators of engagement,” Proc. Inf. Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 547–564, 2010.
ASCILITE 2010, pp. 75–86, 2010. [74] A. J. Y. Zaidieh, “The Use of Social Networking in Education:
[53] S. Witte, J. Graham, E. Grysko, S. Bistrican, and A. Piotrowski, Challenges and Opportunities,” World Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. J.,
“Every Voice Counts: Partnering Literature and LiveScribe,” 2013. vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 18–21, 2012.
[54] C.-T. Tsai, H.-T. Lin, M.-H. Hung, C.-F. Lin, and S.-M. Yuan, [75] Y. Chen, “Learning styles and adopting Facebook technology,” in
“Exchanging Course Content Mechanism for Moodle LMS,” in 2010 Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET),
International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing 2011, pp. 1–9.
and Knowledge Discovery, 2010, pp. 464–467. [76] R. Ajjan, H., Hartshorne, Investigating faculty decisions to adopt
[55] F. J. Díaz, M. A. Schiavoni, M. A. Osorio, A. P. Amadeo, and M. E. Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. 2008.
Charnelli, “Integrating a learning management system with a student [77] N. Selwyn, “‘ Screw Blackboard ... do it on Facebook !’: an
assignments digital repository: a case study,” Int. J. Contin. Eng. investigation of students ’ educational use of Facebook,” in Poke 1.0
Educ. Life Long Learn., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 138–150, 2015. - Facebook social research symposium’, 2007, no. November, pp. 1–
[56] A. H. A. Abdallah, “E-Learning Management System from The 23.
Perspective of The Social Requirements,” Zarqa University, 2016. [78] R. Mason, “Learning technologies for adult continuing education,”
[57] capterra.com, “Top LMS Software,” 2012. [Online]. Available: Stud. Contin. Educ., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 121–133, Jul. 2006.
http://www.capterra.com/learning-management-system- [79] P. Ventura and E. Martin-Monje, “Learning specialised vocabulary
software/#infographic. through Facebook in a massive open online course,” in New
[58] S. Kim, J. Youn, and Y. Kim, “Design of Expanded Assessment perspectives on teaching and working with languages in the digital
Management System for Open-Source Moodle LMS Module,” in 3rd era, A. Parej-Lora, C. Calle-Martinez, and P. Rodriguez-Arancon,
International Conference on e-Education, e-Business, e-Management Eds. Research-publishing.net, 2016, pp. 117–128.
and e-Learning (IPEDR), 2012, vol. 27, pp. 43–47. [80] W. Rifkin, N. Longnecker, J. Leach, L. Davis, and L. Ortia,
[59] H. Fung and A. Yuen, “Factors Affecting Students’ and Teachers’ “Motivate students by having them publish in new media: An
Use of LMS – Towards a Holistic Framework,” in Hybrid Learning, invitation to science lecturers to share and tes,” in Motivating Science
vol. 74411, 2012, pp. 306–316. Undergraduates: Ideas and Interventions, UniServe Science
[60] A. Norazlina, “Kesan Penyesuaian Pembelajaran Berdasarkan Gaya Proceedings, 2009.
Pembelajaran Terhadap Pembentukan Pengetahuan Pelajar,” [81] S. Wheeler, P. Yeomans, and D. Wheeler, “The good, the bad and the
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2014. wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative
[61] B. M. A. D. Mastura, “A Framework on Collaborative Learning learning,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 987–995, 2008.
Activities to Actively Engage Students in Learning Management [82] K. Zourou, “On the attractiveness of social media for language
System,” Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, 2016. learning: a look at the state of the art,” OpenEdition, vol. 15, no. 1,
[62] C. Kivunja, “Exploring the Pedagogical Meaning and Implications of 2012.
the 4Cs ‘ Super Skills ’ for the 21 st Century through Bruner’s 5E [83] B. V. N. Smith, “Use of online educational social networking in a
Lenses of Knowledge Construction to Improve Pedagogies of the school environment,” North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
New Learning Paradigm,” Creat. Educ., vol. 6, no. February, pp. 2009.
224–239, 2015. [84] M. Barbour and C. Plough, “Social networking in cybershcooling:
[63] A. Al-Ansari, F. Al-Harbi, W. AbdelAziz, M. AbdelSalam, M. M. El Helping to make online learning less isolating.,” TechTrends, vol. 53,
Tantawi, and I. ElRefae, “Factors affecting student participation in no. 4, pp. 56–60, 2009.

973
[85] M. H. Zakaria, “E-Learning 2 . 0 Experiences Within Higher [105] D. Gay and Airasian, “The Rating Scale Model,” in Linden W. J. &
Education : Theorising Students ’ and Teachers ’ Experiences in Web Hambleton R. K.: Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory,
2.0 learning,” Quensland University of Technology, 2013. Springer-Verlag: New-York, 2003, p. Chapter 4, 67-148.
[86] K. Silius, T. Miilumäki, J. Huhtamäki, T. Tebest, J. Meriläinen, and [106] S. Aiken, “Estimation Of Item Parameters,” in Fisher G. H. &
S. Pohjolainen, “Students ’ Motivations for Social Media Enhanced Molenaar I. W.: Rasch Models, Foudations, Recent Developments
Studying and Learning,” Knowl. Manag. E-Learning An Int. J., vol. 2, And Applications, Springer-Verlag: New-York, 2003, p. Chapter 3,
pp. 51–67, 2010. 39-52.
[87] P. A. Kirschner and A. C. Karpinski, “Facebook® and academic [107] N. M. Hanafi, A. A. Rahman, M. I. Mukhtar, J. Ahmad, and S.
performance,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1237–1245, Warman, “Validity and Reliability of Competency Assessment
2010. Implementation ( CAI ) Instrument Using Rasch Model,” Int. J. Soc.
[88] J. Cassidy, “Me media,” New Yorker 82, vol. no 13:50-9, 2006. Educ. Econ. Manag. Eng., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 162–167, 2014.
[89] M. Kalpidou, D. Costin, and J. Morris, “The Relationship Between [108] A. Abdul Aziz, Rasch Model Fundamentals: Scale Construct and
Facebook and the Well-Being of Undergraduate College Students,” Measurement Structure. Kuala Lumpur: Integrated Advanced
Cyberpsychology, Behav. Soc. Netw., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 183–189, Planning Sdn.Bhd, 2010.
2011. [109] H. Azman, “Instrument Penilaian Pembimbing dalam Pelaksanaan
[90] Gemmill and Petterson, “Technology use among college students: Pembelajaran Berasaskan Kerja (PBK) Pelajar di Industri,”
Implications for student affairs professionals,” NASPA J., vol. 43, no. Universiti Tun Hussien Onn, 2012.
2, pp. 280–300, 2008. [110] M. N. A. Ghaffar, Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Skudai: Penerbit
[91] P. A. Kirschner and A. C. Karpinski, “Facebook and Academic Universiti Teknologi Malaysia., 1999.
Performance 1,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1237– [111] A. S. M. Lau, “Hospital-based nurses’ perceptions of the adoption of
1245, 2010. Web 2.0 tools for knowledge sharing, learning, social interaction and
[92] J. Pasek, E. More, and E. Hargittai, “The FG study,” Peer-Reviewed the production of collective intelligence.,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol.
J. Internet, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1–14, 2009. 13, no. 4, p. e92, Jan. 2011.
[93] Q. Wang, W. Chen, and Y. Liang, “The Effects of Social Media on [112] H. M. Selim, “Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance :
College Students,” MBA Student Scholarsh., p. Paper 5, 2011. ConWrmatory factor models,” Comput. Educ., vol. 49, pp. 396–413,
[94] N. A. Buzzetto-more, “Social Networking in Undergraduate 2007.
Education,” Interdiscip. J. Information, Knowledge, Manag., vol. 7, [113] C. Lorenzo-Romero, M.-C. Alarcón-del-Amo, and E. Constantinides,
pp. 63–90, 2012. “Determinants of Use of Social Media Tools in Retailing Sector,” J.
[95] M. Al-Zoube, “E-Learning on the Cloud,” Int. Arab J. e-technology, Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 9–10, 2014.
vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 58–64, 2009. [114] M. G. Moore, “Three types of interaction.,” Am. J. Distance Educ.,
[96] J. McCarthy, “Utilising Facebook: immersing Generation-Y students vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–6, 1989.
into first year university,” J. Educ. Res. Gr. Adelaide, vol. 1, no. 2, [115] H. Ali, “A comparison of cooperative learning and traditional lecture
pp. 39–50, 2009. methods in the project management department of a tertiary level
[97] R. Sharifah Nadiyah, S. Faaizah, H. Hanipah, and B. Norasiken, institution in Trinidad and Tobago,” Caribb. Teach. Sch., vol. 1, no.
“Online collaborative learning elements to propose an online project 1, pp. 49–64, 2011.
based collaborative learning model,” J. Teknol., vol. 77, no. 23, pp. [116] R. Chomeya, “Quality of Psychology Test Between Likert Scale 5
55–60, 2015. and 6 Points,” J. Soc. Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 399–403, 2010.
[98] R. Sharifah Nadiyah, S. Faaizah, H. Hanipah, and B. Norasiken, [117] M. Denscombe, The Good Research Guide. Open University Press:
“Factors That Affecting The Effective Online Collaborative Learning McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Environment,” Pattern Anal. Intell. Secur. Internet Things, Adv. [118] P. Ruengtam, “Learning Efficiency in Theoretical Subjects of
Intell. Syst. Comput. 355, pp. 293–302, 2014. Interior Architecture by Cooperative/Collaborative Learning
[99] R. Sharifah Nadiyah, S. Faaizah, and P. A. Gede, “A Proposed Technique,” in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, vol.
Model for Online Project Based Collaborative Learning : Expert 68, pp. 281–294.
Review,” J. Netw. Innov. Comput., vol. 3, pp. 1–6, 2015. [119] W. G. Zikmund and B. J. Babin, Essentials of Marketing Research,
[100] R. Sharifah Nadiyah and S. Faaizah, “The Development of Online 4th editio. Australia: South-Western, 2010.
Project Based Collaborative Learning Using ADDIE Model,” [120] T. G. Bond and C. M. Fox, Applying The Rasch Model :
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 195, pp. 1803–1812, 2015. Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 2nd Editio.
[101] A. B. Jamil, “Model Pembelajaran Informal bagi Guru yang Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisers. Mahwah, New Jersey.
Mengajar Matapelajaran Teknologi Kejuruteraan,” Universiti Tun London., 2007.
Hussien Onn, 2014. [121] J. M. Linacre, Winsteps® Rasch Measurement Computer Program
[102] C. L. Kimberlin and A. G. Winterstein, “Validity and reliability of User’s Guide. Beaverton, Oregon : Winsteps.com, 2011.
measurement instruments used in research,” Am J Heal. Syst Pharm, [122] K. M. Jailani, Manual Pengenalan Pengukuran Rasch & Winstep.
vol. 65, no. 23, pp. 2276–84, 2008. Pengukuran dan Penilaian dalam Pendidikan. Fakulti Pendidikan
[103] J. Creswell, Educational research: Planning, conducting and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2011.
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, [123] J. M. Linacre, A user’s guide to WINDTEPS Rasch-model computer
NJ: Merril, 2005. programs. Chicago, Illinois: MESA Press., 2007.
[104] R. M. Yasin, F. A. N. Yunus, R. C. Rus, A. Ahmad, and M. B. [124] R. a Rashid, R. Abdullah, Ha. A. Ghulman, and M. S. Masodi,
Rahim, “Validity and Reliability Learning Transfer Item Using “Application of Rasch-based ESPEGS Model in Measuring Generic
Rasch Measurement Model,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 204, Skills of Engineering Students : A New Paradigm,” Eng. Educ., vol.
no. 2015, pp. 212–217, 2015. 5, no. 8, pp. 591–602, 2008.

974