Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Effect of a blended learning

environment on student critical
thinking and knowledge transformation

Min Jou, Yen-Ting Lin & Din-Wu Wu

To cite this article: Min Jou, Yen-Ting Lin & Din-Wu Wu (2014): Effect of a blended
learning environment on student critical thinking and knowledge transformation,
Interactive Learning Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2014.961485

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.961485

Published online: 09 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 107

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20

Download by: [Chinese University of Hong Kong] Date: 21 November 2015, At: 20:11
 Interactive Learning Environments, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.961485

Effect of a blended learning environment on student critical thinking and

knowledge transformation
*
Min Jou , Yen-Ting Lin and Din-Wu Wu
Department of Industrial Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C.
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

(Received 3 November 2013; final version received 1 September 2014)

With the development of information technology and popularization of web applications,

students nowadays have grown used to skimming through information provided through
the Internet. This reading habit led them to be incapable of analyzing or integrating
information they have received. Hence, knowledge management and critical thinking (CT)
have, in recent years, become important topics in higher education. However, there are
many web applications that may serve as effective teaching and learning tools. This study
therefore proposed a blended learning environment that incorporated useful web
applications within a knowledge transformation model to create an educational
environment capable of improving CT and knowledge transformation for student users. A
semester-long experiment was then conducted to evaluate this learning environment.
Results revealed that the proposed approach was effective in improving student CT and
knowledge transformation. Students were also satisfied with the courses and teaching
methods used by the proposed learning environment which also effectively improved their
learning motivation.
Keywords: knowledge management; critical thinking; web application

Introduction
The Taiwanese society is becoming increasingly digitalized. According to the latest
inves-tigation report made by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting, and
Statistics in 2011, Internet coverage in Taiwan reached a historical height of 67.7% in
2010 with 17.26 million Internet users; this was a growth of nearly 180% compared to 10
years ago (2010). The Directorate-General also announced in the Investigation Results on
the Status of Computer Use in 2011 that PC ownership reached a record height of 71.3%
with 12.649 million units in 2010 which was an increase of 370,000 from 2009 (DGBAS,
2011).
The increased popularity of computers and Internet connectivity made it convenient for
obtaining and sharing information online. However, many students simply skimmed through
information when perusing data and became less able in data analysis or inte-gration. This
reading habit would also affect the abilities to carry out higher levels of critical thinking (CT).
Thus, knowledge management and CT became critical areas in research during recent years as
these skills are fundamental for knowledge development (Yeh, 2009). Continuous interchange
of explicit and implicit knowledge was used in the training

*Corresponding author. Email: joum@ntnu.edu.tw

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 M. Jou et al.

of higher levels of thinking skills to achieve the objectives of knowledge transformation.

The principles of knowledge transformation referred to this study were based on the
theory of knowledge creation proposed by the Japanese scholars Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995). When members share knowledge within an institution, the value of the
knowledge would be elevated through interaction and exchange, initiating the
transformation and cre-ation of knowledge for the entire organization.
Developments in cloud computing included the creation of web services and appli-
cations such as Flickr, Dropbox, Evernote, and Google apps. These web services are free
and come with user-friendly interfaces and powerful functions, making them extremely
popular and indispensable to some users. Hence, many investigations have pointed out
that these web services may be adopted as useful educational tools used by students and
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

instructors to carry out meaningful educational activities (Alexander, 2006; Hughes,

2009; Schneckenberg, Ehlers, & Adelsberger, 2011; Thompson, 2007; Wang, Woo,
Quek, Yang, & Liu, 2012).
With these in mind, a blended learning environment has been developed in this study
(Dias, Diniz, & Hadjileontiadis, 2014). In this learning environment, Google services
were incorporated into a knowledge transformation model to promote CT in traditional
face-to-face class activities. Moreover, the learning environment would then be applied in
a Taiwanese university course to evaluate its effectiveness. Results showed that both
instructors and students were pleased with the proposed learning system and that it was
effective in improving motivation for learning, CT skills, CT dispositions, and knowledge
management of the student users.

Literature review
Critical thinking
One of the most well-known definitions of CT was made by Ennis (1991) who defined
CT as “reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do”
(pp. 1–2). Another definition was provided by Moore and Parker (2009) who stated that
CT is “the careful application of reason in the determination of whether a claim is true”
(p. 3).
Eggen and Kauchak (1996, 2001) proposed four elements that must be incorporated
into CT lesson plans for educational settings. These four elements are introduction and
review, presentation, guided practice, and independent practice. The general concept is
that teachers must improve student attention and learning motivation while providing
clear and crucial information as well as CT instructions so that students can understand
the value of CT. CT and practice opportunities should also be incorporated and
encouraged during student–teacher and student–student interactions. The final element of
independent practice requires students to use memory and knowledge trans-formation
abilities individually so that they would be familiar with the necessary procedures.

Yan and Chou (2008) have raised four major points for developing CT skills
specifically directed toward East Asian students, namely modeling, interactions,
opportunities, and feedback. The main emphasis is also to let students understand what
CT is as well as its uses. Students would be provided with ample time to contemplate
during interactive activi-ties and practice. The key point of this CT development model is
that instructors must respond and provide feedback to student actions during both formal
and informal lesson time.
 Interactive Learning Environments 3

Knowledge transformation
Knowledge transformation is an idea promoted by the Japanese scholars Nonaka and Takeu-
chi in 1995 for their proposed theory on the generation of organizational knowledge (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge categorization and transformation undergo four perspectives
of socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI). The model empha-
sized that the transformation of knowledge forms in the SECI knowledge spiral would form
new knowledge. The detailed descriptions of the SECI model are presented as follows:

. Socialization

Socialization is the process of knowledge transformation and incorporation that occurs

Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

between individuals. Knowledge is transmitted to another person through both subtle and
immersive influences to create new personal tacit knowledge, and transforms tacit knowledge
into another form of tacit knowledge. The process incorporates communication, observation,
adaptation, and practice when knowledge is shared and absorbed.

. Externalization

Externalization takes place when an individual transforms, expresses, or demonstrates

per-sonal experience, techniques, and other forms of tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge using explicit language, texts, or media. Such transformation processes may
also involve metaphors, categories, concepts, and models. This is the most important
process of knowl-edge creation.

. Combination

Combination is the process whereby explicit knowledge is combined with other explicit
knowledge. Existing explicit knowledge would be used as a reference for the systematic
analysis, categorization, and combination of explicit knowledge received via various
forms of information media or language symbols. The end result would be the creation of
new explicit knowledge. Combination may also transform explicit knowledge into other
types of explicit knowledge.

. Internalization

Internalization is the process whereby explicit knowledge is transformed through

symboli-zation and specification into tacit knowledge. When individuals encounter new
explicit knowledge, they would first generate new explicit knowledge through
combination. Selec-tive integration would then reorganize the new knowledge into tacit
knowledge which would be absorbed and processed to expand, transform, or improve
existing tacit knowl-edge of the individual.

Knowledge transformation and CT

From the viewpoint of the social construction of knowledge, peer interaction amongst
stu-dents may cause knowledge disequilibrium, knowledge inconsistencies, opposability
of perception and ideas, and inadequacies in logical reasoning and strategies. However,
peer interaction allows each participant to provide opportunities and resources for others
to discuss and construct knowledge collaboratively. Social interactions would facilitate
 4 M. Jou et al.

the application of higher order thinking such as CT skills (Slavin, 1992). Hence, several
researches have pointed out that social construction is a key process in CT and must be
carried out through sharing and creation of knowledge in collaborative contexts (Moore
& Parker, 2009; Norris & Ennis, 1989).

Approach of a blended knowledge transformation learning environment

This study proposed a blended learning environment with Google services designed using
the SECI model to facilitate knowledge-transformation processes and improve student
CT. Figure 1 shows the learning environment framework. Figure 2 shows all the Google
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

ser-vices (Plus, Drive, Blogger, and Sites) adopted as educational tools in the learning
environ-ment. These tools would support the four processes of SECI where tacit and
explicit knowledge would be continuously transformed from one form to another in a
knowledge spiral to facilitate CT for the student users. The following paragraphs describe
the frame-work in detail:

. Socialization

In order to promote student observation skills and adaptability to socialization processes,

Google Plus was utilized to construct a community for the learning course. Course partici-
pants would be collaboratively involved in the course community to improve student–
instructor and student–student interactions, exchange, and sharing of knowledge. Google Plus
also made it easy to form study groups to achieve the aims of socialization.

. Externalization

Google Drive was utilized to help students externalize their tacit knowledge. The Drive
allows the course participants to use text, pictures, and other explicit media to externalize
tacit knowledge into various forms of explicit knowledge.

Figure 1. The blended knowledge transformation model for enhancing CT.

 Interactive Learning Environments 5
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

Figure 2. Snapshots of the learning platform.

. Combination

Google Blogger was utilized to help students analyze, categorize, combine, structuralize,
and evaluate existing explicit knowledge. Students may use blog articles to combine and
systematically present various types of explicit knowledge, and share these articles with
their peers and the instructor via a personal blog.

. Internalization

Google Sites were used to assist student collaboration and team projects via a Wiki-based
mechanism. The processes of organizing and compiling data would encourage CT and
internalization of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge amongst the students.
In general, the aim of the proposed blended learning environment would be to
facilitate student CT by continuously and collaboratively sharing, internalizing, and
creating knowledge.

Experiment
Research instrument, measures, and goals
Students were required to fill in feedback questionnaires in order to evaluate the effective-ness
of the proposed learning environment in terms of teaching and learning performances. The
questionnaires assessed student learning motivation, knowledge management, CT
 6 M. Jou et al.

skills, CT dispositions, and satisfaction. Detailed descriptions are provided in the

following paragraphs:

. Learning motivation: This study adopted a learning motivation questionnaire

Motiv-ated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) with an intrinsic value
scale. The intrinsic value scale has been recommended by researchers when
assessing student goals and beliefs about the importance and interest of class work.
The questionnaire included a total of nine items scored along a seven-point Likert
scale (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
. CT skill: This study adopted the traditional Chinese version of the California
Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Form A to assess student CT skills (Facione,
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

1990). The CCTST is a 34-item, multiple-choice test designed for college students,
graduate students, and adult professionals. The CCTST has a maximum obtainable
score of 34 points and assesses five areas of CT (analysis, evaluation, inference,
induction, and deduction). The internal consistency of CCTST Form A, measured
by Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), is .70.
. CT dispositions: The traditional Chinese version of California Critical Thinking
Dis-position Inventory (CCTDI) was applied to survey student CT dispositions in
this study. The CCTDI contains 75 items scored along a six-point Likert scale and
covers seven categories (inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity,
analyticity, truth-seeking, CT self-confidence, and cognitive maturity). The CCTDI
has been designed for students in higher education and beyond. Scores can range
from 5 to 60 for the subscales and from 35 to 420 for the overall assessment. The
overall and subscale reliabilities for the CCTDI would be .90 and .72–.80,
respectively (Cronbach’s alpha values).
. Knowledge management: The Knowledge Management Questionnaire (KMQ)
would be a five-point Likert scale assessment used to evaluate student knowledge
absorption, internalization, creation, sharing, and application after going through
the proposed learning activities (Biasutti & EL-Deghaidy, 2012).
. Satisfaction: This study utilized the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ) based
on a five-point Likert scale to evaluate student satisfaction (Biasutti, 2011). The
ques-tionnaire would be divided into three sections of tool, didactic material, and
professor.

Experimental design, participants, and procedure

To investigate the effectiveness of the proposed learning approach, a quasi-experimental
research was conducted on a single-semester (17 weeks) mechanism design course in a
computer-aided classroom at a Taiwanese university. A total of 60 undergraduate
students from the Department of Industrial Education with an average age of 20 years and
a course instructor participated in the experiment. Student participants were randomly
assigned to an experimental group and a control group of equal sizes. Table 1 shows the
course schedule. Both groups would undergo the same learning and teaching activities
led by the instructor during class time. The course contents and lesson activities include
professor lectures, par-ticipant discussions, exercises, and practical projects.
The course instructor specifically used real-life case studies throughout the course to
stimulate and facilitate student interactions, discussions, and CT since there are few guide-
lines in reference textbooks for these kinds of problems (Brown, 1997). In other words,
 Interactive Learning Environments 7

Table 1. Course schedule with weekly activity and targeted CT skills and dispositions.
Week 1 Theme Introduction of course and learning tools
Activities None
Target CT skills None
Target CT dispositions None
Week 2 Theme Pre-tests (learning motivation, CT skills, and CT
dispositions)
Activities None
Target CT skills None
Target CT dispositions None
Week 3 Theme Introduction of mechanism design
Activities Analysis of mechanism design process
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

Target CT skills Analysis, induction

Target CT dispositions Systematicity, analyticity, CT self-confidence
Week 4 Theme Mechanism basic component
Activities Analysis of component characteristics
Target CT skills Analysis, induction
Target CT dispositions Systematicity, analyticity, CT self-confidence
Week 5 Theme Assembly design
Activities Component observation and design
Target CT skills Analysis, inference
Target CT dispositions Inquisitiveness, analyticity
Week 6 Theme Assembly fabrication
Activities Fabrication technique discussions
Target CT skills Inference, deduction, evaluation
Target CT dispositions Systematicity, analyticity
Week 7 Theme Power system
Activities Motor and transmission shaft discussions
Target CT skills Analysis, inference
Target CT dispositions Systematicity, analyticity
Week 8 Theme Mechanism analysis
Activities Mechanism motion analysis
Target CT skills Analysis, induction, evaluation
Target CT dispositions Open-mindedness, analyticity, truth-seeking, CT
self-confidence
Week 9 Theme Mechatronics
Activities Exploration and explanation mechatronics
Target CT skills Analysis, induction, evaluation
Target CT dispositions Open-mindedness, systematicity, analyticity,
truth-seeking, CT self-confidence
Week 10 Theme Functional mechanism
Activities Functional mechanism application
Target CT skills Analysis, inference, deduction, induction
Target CT dispositions Inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity,
analyticity
Week 11 Theme Materials and manufacture
Activities Exploration and explanation manufacturing
methods
Target CT skills Analysis, induction, evaluation
Target CT dispositions Systematicity, analyticity, truth-seeking, CT
self-confidence
Week 12 Theme Manufacturing scheme
Activities Manufacturing scheme analysis
Target CT skills Analysis, evaluation, deduction
Target CT dispositions Inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity,
analyticity, truth-seeking
(Continued)
 8 M. Jou et al.

Table 1. Continued
Week 13 Theme Measuring and test
Activities Explanation and measuring applications
Target CT skills Analysis, inference
Target CT dispositions Systematicity, analyticity, CT self-confidence
Weeks 14–16 Theme Project design
Activities Discussion with peers for mechanism technology
design
Target CT skills Analysis, inference, evaluation, deduction,
induction
Target CT dispositions Inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity,
truth-seeking, CT self-confidence
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

Week 17 Theme Post-tests (learning motivation, knowledge

management, CT skills, CT dispositions,
satisfaction)
Activities None
Target CT skills None
Target CT dispositions None
Note: CT, critical thinking.

these case studies would present complicated problems that require CT (Halpern, 1998;
Kennedy, Fisher, & Ennis, 1991). Students would have to continuously challenge their
own ideas and argue amongst themselves about the problems and the solution to the
problems.
Figure 3 shows the experimental process. All students took three pre-tests before
under-going the learning activities. The first test was on CT skills, the second was a CT
disposition test, and the third was a learning motivation questionnaire.
The course instructor would give lectures and engage students in various activities
during class time. Students in the experimental group would apply Google Drive to
record personal learning status and CT results. After class, these students would use
Google Plus to interact with their peers and the instructor to extend the discussions and
CT issues raised during class time, and apply Google Blogger to synthesize and publish
individual learning results. Students in the control group, on the other hand, would utilize
a course discussion board and printed reports to carry out such activities after class.
Before the end of the entire course, the instructor would require students to form groups
of five to conduct and present a project. Students in the experimental group would use
Google Sites for their projects while those in the control group would use Micro-soft
Office.
After going through the learning activities, all students received three post-tests,
namely a second set CT skills, CT dispositions, and learning motivation assessments.
Students in the experimental group were also required to take a knowledge management
and satisfac-tion questionnaire to survey their perceptions with regard to the teaching and
learning process and knowledge management.

Experimental evaluation
Learning motivation survey
A blended knowledge transformation learning environment to facilitate CT was applied
in a university-level industrial course in this study.
 Interactive Learning Environments 9
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

Figure 3. Experimental process.

All student participants were asked to fill out an MSLQ before and after the learning
activities to evaluate their learning motivation. The pre-test and post-test Cronbach’s alpha
values of the questionnaire items were .851 and .904, respectively. A one-way indepen-dent
sample analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used, with the post-test and pre-test scores of
learning motivation treated as the dependent variable and covariate, respect-ively.
Homogeneity of the regression coefficient was tested before performing ANCOVA. Results
confirmed the homogeneity of the regression coefficient (F(1,58) = 1.442, p-value
= .235 > .05). Table 2 shows ANCOVA results of the learning motivation post-test score
for the two groups as well as the mean scores and standard deviations. The mean of the
experimental group (4.997) was higher than that of the control group (4.770), implying
that students whose learning was supported by the proposed blended learning environ-
ment had slightly higher motivation. After eliminating the influence of the covariance on
the dependent variable, post-test learning motivation scores between the two groups
turned out to be significantly different (F(1,57) = 13.780, p-value = .000 < .05).
Therefore, the proposed blended learning environment significantly improved student
learning motivation.

CT skills survey
Students of the two groups were asked to take a CCTST Form A questionnaire to help
measure their CT skills before and after going through the course.
A one-way independent sample ANCOVA was used to analyze the survey. Table 3
presents the mean scores and standard deviations for each CCTST subscale along with
the p values from ANCOVA. Significant increases in CT skills were observed between
the experimental group and control group (p = .000). Results also indicated a significant
 10 M. Jou et al.

Table 2. ANCOVA results of the learning motivation post-test score between the two groups.
Number of Adjusted F
Group students Mean S.D. mean (1,57) p-Value
Experimental group 30 4.997 0.275 4.995 13.780 .00*
Control group 30 4.770 0.210 4.771
Total number of students 60 4.883 0.268
Note: S.D., standard deviation.
*p < .05.

increase in overall CCTST performance as well as improvement for all of the subscales,
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

including analysis, inference, evaluation, induction, and deduction.

CT dispositions survey
To survey student CT disposition, a one-way independent sample ANCOVA was used to
analyze the CCTDI data. Table 4 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for each
CCTDI scale, along with the p values from ANCOVA. A statistically significant increase in
systematicity (p = .045), analyticity (p = .020), and truth-seeking (p = .003) were observed.
Although scores in other scales were not that different, the overall CT disposition for students
in the experimental group was better than that for students in the control group (p = .047).

Knowledge management survey

Students of the experimental group were required to fill out a KMQ after the conclusion
of the course in order to survey their perceptions on knowledge management. The
Cronbach’s alpha value of the questionnaire items was .892. Table 5 shows the statistical
results.
Results indicated that most students felt positively about the knowledge management
applied during the course, with only a few feeling that it was not useful. From the per-
spective of knowledge creation scale, most students agreed that the proposed educational

Table 3. ANCOVA results of the CT skills post-test scores between the two groups.
CCTST Scale Group N Mean S.D. F(1,57) p-Value
Overall Experimental group 30 14.800 3.398 9.361 .003*
Control group 30 11.767 4.183
Analysis Experimental group 30 4.600 1.003 22.847 .000*
Control group 30 2.967 1.402
Inference Experimental group 30 5.500 1.635 8.746 .005*
Control group 30 4.233 2.063
Evaluation Experimental group 30 5.900 1.918 7.582 .008*
Control group 30 4.767 2.112
Induction Experimental group 30 5.833 1.578 8.162 .006*
Control group 30 4.533 2.129
Deduction Experimental group 30 7.733 2.116 6.166 .016*
Control group 30 6.233 2.487

Note: CCTST, California Critical Thinking Skills Test; N, number of students; S.D., standard deviation.
*p < .05.
 Interactive Learning Environments 11

Table 4. ANCOVA results of the CT dispositions post-test scores between the two groups.
CCTST Scale Group N Mean S.D. F(1,57) p-Value
Overall Experimental group 30 283.667 15.676 4.109 .047*
Control group 30 273.433 19.722
Inquisitiveness Experimental group 30 32.033 4.664 2.832 .098
Control group 30 30.867 3.560
Open-mindedness Experimental group 30 43.733 3.723 3.872 .054
Control group 30 41.533 4.281
Systematicity Experimental group 30 42.800 5.248 4.184 .045*
Control group 30 39.800 5.933
Analyticity Experimental group 30 44.900 4.536 5.734 .020*
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

Control group 30 42.800 4.852

Truth-seeking Experimental group 30 40.800 4.421 9.515 .003*
Control group 30 37.567 4.890
CT self-confidence Experimental group 30 48.667 5.142 0.000 .990
Control group 30 47.533 3.857
Cognitive maturity Experimental group 30 30.733 4.961 3.247 .077
Control group 30 33.333 6.682
Note: CCTDI, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory; N, number of students; S.D., standard deviation.
*p < .05.

activities were effective in promoting creative thinking and forming new concepts. For
the scale of knowledge application, over half of the students believed that they would be
able to apply personal knowledge in their individual work. For the scale of knowledge
acquisition, most students felt that they could identify accurate information from the
Internet and organize the resulting information. For the scale of knowledge sharing, many
students pointed out that they would support the use of these educational tools to share
information and personal knowledge with their peers. For the scale of knowledge
internalization, about three-quarters of the students believed that immersing in the
blended learning environment and learning activities helped with the internalization of
knowledge.

Student satisfaction survey

A SSQ was used to assess the satisfaction of students in the experimental group for the pro-
posed blended learning environment. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the questionnaire items
was .855, and .881, .870, and .831 for the three scales of tools, didactic methods, and
professor, respectively. Table 6 shows the statistical results. In general, the SSQ survey results
indicated high degrees of satisfaction with respect to all of the three scales.

Discussion
Results showed that student participants achieved significant improvements in CT after
the course. The improvements were based upon several factors, such as the implemen-
tation of an appropriate pedagogical approach, the use of interactive technologies as well
as clear and organized teaching materials, and providing ample opportunities for
participant collaboration, and giving instructor support and feedback (Blass & Davis,
2003; Garrison & Anderson, 2003). To provide a comprehensive discussion, this
 12 M. Jou et al.

Table 5. Students’ perceptions toward knowledge management.

# SA and A (%) Neutral (%) D and SD (%) Mean
1 I selected the right information on the Internet
75.0 22.5 2.5 3.98
2 I documented the type of information needed
30.0 40.0 30.0 2.98
3 I documented the type of information needed
35.0 30.0 35.0 3.05
4 I related new information to previous knowledge
33.0 42.5 25.0 3.15
5 I updated my knowledge repertoire consistently
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

20.0 45.0 35.0 2.83

6 I categorized the new information in an organized way
30.0 47.5 22.5 3.13
7 I developed new ideas
25.0 42.5 32.5 2.93
8 I developed new concepts
27.5 40.0 32.5 3.00
9 I developed new ways of learning
45.0 35.0 20.0 3.35
10 I shared information with my peers
27.5 40.0 32.5 3.03
11 I support sharing information with others by the use of technological tools
30.0 42.5 27.5 3.08
12 I encourage a culture of knowledge sharing
40.0 30.0 30.0 3.15
13 I applied knowledge to my tasks
30.0 40.0 30.0 3.05
14 I referred to best practices
37.5 35.0 27.5 3.13
15 I transferred and adapted best practices to my tasks
27.5 40.0 32.5 3.03
Note: SA, strongly agree; A, agree; D, disagree; SD, strongly disagree.

paper shall evaluate the results based on three contexts, namely social, knowledge, and
technology.

Social context
Instructors play an important role in facilitating learning processes and implementing a
learner-centered approach in educational environments (Bower & Hedberg, 2010). During the
course of this study, the instructor was able to stimulate and promote student interactions and
collaborations in the blended learning environment. The instructor encouraged students to
express personal thoughts, and observed from the sides and gave feedback or inputs only
when required instead of giving a traditional one-sided lecture. The professor scale in the SSQ
investigation revealed how the students felt the instructor’s role. Students were generally posi-
tive about being encouraged to discuss and express personal opinions, and participate in peer
collaboration, and receiving guidance for various learning activities. Results of the SSQ in the
tool scale indicated that students were largely pleased with the ability to use Google services
in peer interactions. Therefore, in addition to the instructor, technology also played an
important role for the social aspect in the blended learning environment. For example,
Bosman and Zagenczyk (2011) indicated that social media tools can enable students to
 Interactive Learning Environments 13

Table 6. Students’ satisfactions toward the learning process.

# SA and A (%) Neutral (%) D and SD (%) Mean
Tool 1 I like seeing other participants interact with materials I had posted on
each Google service
55.0 35.0 10.0 3.53
2 Use of Google services helped me to share ideas with the other
participants
65.0 22.5 12.5 3.78
3 My group was able to come to a consensus by using Google services
50.0 27.5 22.5 3.45
4 I had learned through information exchanges with other participants
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

via Google services

62.5 32.5 15.0 3.50
5 Use of Google services promoted knowledge transformation
70.0 17.5 12.5 3.70
6 I felt comfortable seeing other participants reply or edit content I had
posted
62.5 30.0 7.5 3.63
Didactic material 1 Was clear
60.0 27.5 12.5 3.73
2 Was useful
65.0 25.0 10.0 3.73
3 Was challenging
72.5 25.0 2.5 3.90
4 Provided ideas for learning
67.5 17.5 15.0 3.70
5 Was connected to my background
80.0 15.0 5.0 3.98
Professor 1 Was friendly toward individual participants
60.0 32.5 7.5 3.75
2 Was dynamic and energetic in leading the learning activities
70.0 25.0 5.0 3.90
3 Made participants feel welcome in discussions
66.5 27.5 10.0 3.75
4 Encouraged participants to express ideas
65.0 25.0 10.0 3.78
5 Stimulated cooperation between participants
65.0 17.5 17.5 3.63
6 Stimulated formation of the online community
65.0 22.5 12.5 3.73
7 Gave feedback during activities
72.5 22.5 5.0 3.85
8 Gave appropriate suggestions
72.5 22.5 5.0 3.80
9 Helped in solving problems
65.0 27.5 7.5 3.73
Note: SA, strongly agree; A, agree; D, disagree; SD, strongly disagree.

connect with each other and facilitate collaboration. One such example would also
include the study performed by Bold (2006) using wiki techniques to support student
collaboration. In addition, several studies indicated that the online environment was
effective in promoting col-laborative work, experience sharing, and support for the team
project (Biasutti, 2011; Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, & Piggott, 2011; De Smet, Keer, De
Wever, & Valcke, 2010; Hew & Cheung, 2008).
 14 M. Jou et al.

Knowledge context
Knowledge construction is not confined to the individual. Rather, it is a social process
carried out between individuals, groups, and/or organizations. The task of sharing indi-
vidual knowledge or information during or after learning requires students to translate
(encoding) and recall (retrieval) information as needed (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In
the process of knowledge sharing, students must identify critical information that is worth
sharing, and the means of sharing it with their peers effectively. To accomplish the tasks
of encoding and retrieving, students have to engage in some form of infor-mation-
processing activity such as rehearsal, organization, or elaboration in order to clarify the
relationships between pieces of information and compare newly acquired infor-mation
with existing personal cognition (Gagne, 1985; Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992;
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

Reigeluth, 1983; Wittrock, 1979).

Technology context
Despite development and popularization of modern technologies, the use of such tools in
educational contexts often affected teaching and learning effectiveness (Zheng & Yano,
2007). From the instructor’s perspective, technology may provide different functions to
help design teaching plans and materials. However, variations in personal preferences
and skills of the instructors may result in a wide range of teaching performances and
environments. Similarly, different technological preferences and skills amongst students
may result in different learning attitudes, atmospheres, and performance. Hence,
educators must help eliminate or lower technological barriers experienced by students
and instructors during teaching and learning. The right technology must be selected for
educational activi-ties to achieve effective teaching and learning. Thus, the instructor
would have to first inform students about the objectives of applying Google services
during the course. Results of the tool scale in the SSQ investigation also revealed that
students felt positive about using Google services to help them conduct knowledge
creation, sharing, and transformation.

Conclusion
This study proposed a blended knowledge transformation learning environment to
facilitate knowledge spiral processes and develop CT skills amongst students. An
experiment was conducted in a mechanism design course at a university in Taiwan.
Various questionnaires were used to assess participant feedback. Results of the
questionnaires revealed that the par-ticipants appreciated the use of the proposed blended
learning environment to support their learning.

Contribution of the proposed environment to knowledge transformation and CT

The Internet is still undergoing rapid popularization and developments, making information
more and more accessible. As a result, students are increasingly used to rapid skimming
instead of critical reading. This preference for information intake would affect higher levels of
thinking skills and result in a significant lack of CT abilities. Many students could not flexibly
use what they had learned to solve real-life problems. To solve this issue, this study proposed
a blended learning environment to encourage knowledge trans-formation processes amongst
students, and thereby promoting their CT skills. The proposed
 Interactive Learning Environments 15

learning environment can also be used for other courses. Tertiary education is the cradle
of corporate professionals. Improvements in CT skills would be necessary for
augmenting existing research and development capabilities of corporations and industries
and improve national competitiveness. Hence, the blended learning environment may
also be adopted for professional training programs in corporate or industrial fields.

Limitations and future work

The proposed approach cannot be conducted in a traditional classroom as not every
student owned a tablet PC or smart phone. However, this issue will be resolved in the
future when these digital devices become more ubiquitous. Another limitation would be
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

that although the majority of the participants were familiar with web applications, many
were not familiar about applying these applications to support learning (Ng, 2012).
Therefore, course instruc-tors would have to spend additional time to provide sufficient
information and explicit instruction on using web applications for educational purposes.
The future direction of this study is to incorporate appropriate web applications in the
proposed blended learning environment for supporting various subjects, disciplines, and
educational pedagogies. Subsequent studies will involve a larger number of participants
to further investigate the learning effects and use Application Program Interface to
develop suitable solutions to support the blended learning environment.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided to this study by the National Science
Council of Taiwan, under the Grant No. 99-2511-S-003-034-MY3.

Notes on contributors
Dr Min Jou received his Ph.D. in 1994 from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. He
is a professor in the Department of Industrial Education at National Taiwan Normal University. He
is cur-rently an associate editor of Computers in Human Behavior.
Dr Jou has published a large number of research papers in leading journals and renowned
conferences and has been the program chair, conference chair and general chair of several
conferences. His research interests include technological education, application of ICT
technology in education, ubiquitous learning, and mechatronics.

Dr Yen-Ting Lin is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Industrial Education at National

Taiwan Normal University. He received his Ph.D. from the Department of Engineering Science at
National Cheng-Kung University in 2010. His research interests include mobile learning, collabora-
tive learning, knowledge management, and artificial intelligence.

Din-Wu Wu is a senior instructor in the Department of Industrial Education at National Taiwan Normal
University. His research interests include industrial education, digital content, and technology.

References
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause
Review, 41(2), 32–44.
Biasutti, M. (2011). Student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module. Computers
& Education, 57(3), 1865–1875.
 16 M. Jou et al.

Biasutti, M., & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2012). Using Wiki in teacher education: Impact on knowledge
man-agement processes and student satisfaction. Computers & Education, 59(3), 861–872.
Blass, E., & Davis, A. (2003). Building on solid foundations: Establishing criteria for e-learning
development. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), 227–245.
Bliuc, A. M., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning approach to teaching
foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their
relationship to academic performance. Computers & Education, 56(3), 856–864.
Bold, M. (2006). Use of wikis in graduate course work. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
17(1), 5–14.
Bosman, L., & Zagenczyk, T. (2011). Social media tools and platforms in learning environments.
In B. White, P. Tsang, & I. King (Eds.), Revitalize your teaching: Creative approaches to
applying social media in the classroom (pp. 3–15). Berlin: Springer.
Bower, M., & Hedberg, J. G. (2010). A quantitative multimodal discourse analysis of teaching and
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

learning in a web-conferencing environment – The efficacy of student-centred learning designs.

Computers & Education, 54(2), 462–478.
Brown, A. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious
matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., DeWever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous
discussion groups: Exploring the impact of three types of tutor training on patterns in tutor support
and on tutor characteristics. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1167–1181.
Dias, B. D., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2014). Towards and intelligent Learning
Management System under blended learning: Trends, profiles and modeling perspectives. In J.
Kacprzyk & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Intelligent systems reference library (Vol. 59, pp. 169–182).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (Taiwan).
(2011). National Statistics, R.O.C. (Taiwan). Retrieved November 1, 2011, from
http://www.stat.gov.tw/ public/Data/1101916403371.pdf
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (1996). Strategies for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills
(3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Ally & Bacon.
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ennis, C. (1991). Discrete thinking skills in two teachers’ physical education classes. The
Elementary School Journal, 91(5), 473–486.
Facione, P. A. (1990). The California critical thinking skills test (CCTST): Forms A and B. Millbrae,
CA: California Academic Press.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York:
Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.).
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and
practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains dispositions, skills,
struc-ture training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online
discus-sions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111–1124.
Hughes, A. (2009). Higher education in a Web 2.0 world (JISC Report). Retrieved May 22, 2010,
from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf
Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed
research. In L. Idol & B. Fly Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction:
Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2009). Critical thinking (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–
1078.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest
Publications.
 Interactive Learning Environments 17

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U., & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design
of learning – Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 42(5), 747–762.
Slavin, R. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and
empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative
groups (pp. 145–173). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thompson, J. (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for web 2.0 students? Innovate, 3(4), pp. 3, 4, 6. Wang, Q.,
Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learn-
ing management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology,
Downloaded by [Chinese University of Hong Kong] at 20:11 21 November 2015

43(3), 428–438.
Wittrock, M. C. (1979). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Researcher, 8(2), 5–
11. Yan, Y. T., & Chou, H. A. (2008). Beyond critical thinking skills: Investigating the relationship
between critical thinking skills and dispositions through different online instructional strategies.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 666–684.
Yeh, Y. C. (2009). Integrating e-learning into the direct-instruction model to enhance the
effectiveness of critical-thinking instruction. Instructional Science, 37(2), 185–203.
Zheng, Y., & Yano, Y. (2007). A framework of context-awareness support for peer recommendation in
the e-learning context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 197–210.