Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University

182

Published on

Khlaisang, J; Koraneekij, P. (2012). Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at …

Khlaisang, J; Koraneekij, P. (2012). Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive Reflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University. Proceedings of the Fourth International e-Learning Conference 2012, organized by the Thailand Cyber University Project, Office of the Higher Education Commission, Bangkok, Thailand, June 14, 2012.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
182
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Khlaisang, J; Koraneekij, P. (2012). Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online Interactive ReflectiveLearning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’ Inquiring Mind and Retention at ChulalongkornUniversity. Proceedings of the Fourth International e-Learning Conference 2012, organized by the Thailand CyberUniversity Project, Office of the Higher Education Commission, Bangkok, Thailand, June 14, 2012.Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online InteractiveReflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of EducationStudents’ Inquiring Mind and Retention atChulalongkorn UniversityJintavee Khlaisang1and Prakob Koraneekij 21Department of Educational Technology and Communications,Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (jintavee.m@chula.ac.th)2Department of Educational Technology and Communications,Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (prakob.k@chula.ac.th)ABSTRACTThis paper is a report on the findings of a Researchand Development (R&D) aiming to develop themodel of blended e-Learning using OnlineInteractive Reflective Learning Logs (OIRLs) inorder to enhance students’ inquiring mind andretention, to study the result of using such model,and to purpose the model of Blended e-Learningusing OIRLs to enhance students’ inquiring mindand retention for further implication. The sampleconsisted of 8 experts in the fields during the modeldeveloping stage, while there were 40undergraduate students for the model try out stage.The research procedures included 3 stages: (1)model development, (2) model try out, and (3)model revision and confirmation. The researchresults were divided into 3 parts according to theprocedures as described in the following session.First, the data gathering from the literature reviewwere reported as a draft model ; followed by theresearch finding from the experts’ interviewsindicated that the model should be included 6components and 5 procedures to effectivelyenhance learners inquiring mind and their retention.The 6 components were Learning ManagementSystem (LMS), learning courseware, learningresources, communication, learning assessment,and OIRLs activity; while the procedures included:1) blended e-Learning activity, 2) writing OIRLsactivity, 3) reading and giving feedback to peers’OIRLs (instructor/learners), 4) revising OIRLsactivity, and 5) reviewing OIRLs activity. Second,the research finding from the try out stage foundthat there were significant differences betweenpretest and posttest of inquiring mind scores, whilethere were no significant differences betweenposttest and retention scores at the .05 level for bothgroups (experimental group 1 and experimentalgroup 2). When comparing between theexperimental group 1 (online interactive reflectivelearning logs without observation, feedback, andpositive reinforcement from instructor) and theexperimental group 2 (online interactive reflectivelearning logs with observation, feedback, andpositive reinforcement from instructor), the posttestscores of inquiring mind and retention scores ofexperimental group 2 were higher than the scores ofexperimental group 1 although significantdifferences between such scores were not found.Third, according to the finding from the try outstage and the comments from the experts, thedeveloped model was revised and proposed in thereport for further implication and references.KeywordsBlended e-Learning, Online InteractiveReflective Learning Logs, Retention,Inquiring Mind1) INTRODUCTIONIn accordance with the desiredcharacteristics of ChulalongkornUniversity graduates, one of thecharacteristics is inquiring mind, which isan inquiry capability in exploring, andcomparing existing knowledge to the newknowledge. It also includes initiation ofnew experiment which later will lead toscientific thinking that considered one ofthe powerful tools to generate newknowledge. Online Interactive ReflectiveLearning Logs (OIRLs) in the blendedlearning environment can be considered asone of the tools in enhancing suchcapability. OIRLs is a structured onlineinteractive reflections which learners willwork in pair, then each one would beassigned to read, reflect, and shareexperience, with positively monitoring andsuggesting by instructor. OIRLs isadvantage in not only increasinginteraction and communication between
  • 2. learners and instructors, as well as amonglearners, but also would help learners tothoroughly understand the concept andprocess of the content when interacting andclarifying information through OIRLs. Inaddition to OIRLs, this research alsoproposed its’ use along with blended e-Learning, since blended e-Learning is acombination of strength from in class andonline instructions regarding contentprovider, activities, and assessment. Byarranging the OIRLs activities through theonline channel of blended learning; itwould offer flexibility to the learners inboth time and place manners and also servethe learners’ differentiates of ways oflearning. OIRLs would also consider theproper method in evaluating learner’understanding and the retention. Thus for,to support the university’s policy regardingthe graduates’ characteristics in enhancinginquiring mind and learner retention, thepurposes of this research study were todevelop blended e-Learning model usingonline interactive reflective learning logsto enhance faculty of education students’inquiring mind and retention atChulalongkorn University (Deaton,Deaton, and Leland, 2010; Aulls & Shore,2008; Bonk & Graham, 2006; Khlaisangand Koraneekij, 2009; Steenson, 2006;Wilson & Smilanich, 2005).2) THE RESEARCH STUDY AND THEFINDINGSThe research objectives of this study were:(1) to develop blended e-Learning modelusing OIRLs to enhance Faculty ofEducation students’ inquiring mind andretention at Chulalongkorn university, (2)to examine result from the tryout of theblended e-Learning model using OIRLs toenhance Faculty of Education students’inquiring mind and retention atChulalongkorn university, and (3) topropose blended e-Learning model usingOIRLs to enhance Faculty of Educationstudents’ inquiring mind and retention atChulalongkorn university. Accordingly, theresearch methods used in this studycomprised of 3 phases: Phase 1 Literaturereview of model components andprocedures, and development of blended e-Learning model using online interactivereflective learning logs, Phase 2 Try outblended e-Learning model using onlineinteractive reflective learning logs, andPhase 3 Propose blended e-Learning modelusing online interactive reflective learninglogs. The details are described as follows:2.1) Phase 1 : Literature review of modelcomponents and procedures and ModeldevelopmentThe sample in this phase consisted of 5experts in the field of curriculum,instruction, and educational technology.The instruments used in this phaseconsisted of (1) experts’ interviewing formand (2) model evaluation form. Theprocess in this phase included: (1) the datagathering from the literature review werereported as a draft model and (2)researcher interview the 5 experts in thefield of curriculum, instruction, andeducational technology using the experts’interviewing form and the modelevaluation form. The former result fromthe review of totaled 100 relatedliteratures, which included 40 Thailiteratures and 60 international literatures,found that the model should include 5components and 5 procedures to effectiveenhance learners inquiring mind and theirretention. The 5 components wereLearning Management System (LMS),electronic courseware, OIRLs activity,communication, and learning assessment;while the procedures included: (1) blendede-Learning activity, (2) writing OIRLsactivity, (3) reading and peer(instructor/assigned learner) providingcomment OIRLs activity, (4) reviewingOIRLs activity, and (5) revising OIRLsactivity. However, after gathering the resultfrom the experts’ interviews, somesuggestions were made as follows: (1) thecomponent of learning resources should beadded to support the learners’ inquiringmind; (2) Step 3 of the procedures should
  • 3. give chance for non-assigned peers to alsoread and give feedback to the reflection;and (3) Step 4-5 of the procedures shouldbegin with revising and then reviewing theOIRLs. Also such two steps should giveopportunities for one who write reflectionand one who provide feedback to be ableto go back and forth repeatedly, since suchprocess might not complete perfectly at thefirst time. In conclusion, based on theresult of literature review and experts’interview, the development of the modelshould include 6 components and 5procedures to effective enhance learnersinquiring mind and their retention. The 6components were Learning ManagementSystem (LMS), learning courseware,learning resources, OIRLs activity,communication, and learning assessment;while the procedures included: 1) blendede-Learning activity, 2) writing OIRLsactivity, 3) reading and giving feedback topeers’ OIRLs (instructor/learners), 4)revising OIRLs based on peers’ feedbacksand suggestions, and 5) reviewing newfinding from peers’ OIRLs. The modeldeveloped from this phase is as shown infigure 1.2.2) Phase 2 : Model try outThe sample in this phase included 40undergraduate students registered in theDesigning Web-Based Instruction courseand the Introduction to Web-BasedInstruction program courses in the firstsemester of an academic year 2011. Thesamples were divided into two groupswhich are 20 students for an experimentalgroup 1 (online interactive reflectivelearning logs without observation,feedback, and positive reinforcement frominstructor) and 20 students for anexperimental group 2 (online interactivereflective learning logs with observation,feedback, and positive reinforcement frominstructor). There were 6 instruments usedin this phase including : blended e-Learning with OIRLs lesson plan, blendede-Learning courseware , students’ inquiringmind self-assessment test, students’ basiccomputer ability test, students’ retentiontest, and students’ satisfaction towards themodel test; while the process in this phasewere described as follows. First, the twotests including inquiring mind self-assessment test and basic computer abilityFigure 1: Development of Blended E-Learning Model Using Online InteractiveReflective Learning Logs to Enhance Faculty of Education Students’Inquiring Mind and Retention at Chulalongkorn University
  • 4. test were completed by the students inorder to explore the former levels of theirinquiring mind and the result of the basiccomputer ability were used to dividedstudents into two experimental groups.Then instructions were initiated for 9weeks followed blended e-Learning withonline interactive reflective learning logslesson plan. After that the posttestinquiring mind self-assessment test and theretention test were conducted in order tocompare learners’ former and latter levelsof inquiring mind and learning ability. Inorder to explore the learner’ retention, theretention test were conducted again upontwo weeks after completing the lesson. Inaddition, the students’ satisfaction towardsthe model test was conducted uponcompletion of the lesson in order toexplore the appropriateness towards theuse of such model with this target group.Data were analyzed using frequency,percent, mean, standard deviation, t-testand repeated measures ANOVA. Theresearch results indicated as follows.2.2.1) Learners’ Inquiring MindLearners who participated in theexperimental group 1 and group 2 hadinquiring minds’ post-test mean scoressignificant higher than pre-test mean scoresat .05 level of significance. However, whencomparing inquiring minds’ post-testsmeans score of the experimental group 1and group 2, there was no significantdifferent at .05 level of significance. Thedetails are described in Table 1.Table 1: Scores of Learners’ Inquiring MindScores ofInquiringMindExp Group 1 Exp Group 2 S.D.  S.D.Pre-test 109.10 6.38 111.10 7.10Post-test 116.70 7.06 117.85 7.27Note: Exp Group 1 = Experimental Group 1Exp Group 2 = Experimental Group 2In additional to the statistic reports, thecontent analysis of the inquiring mindprocess retrieved from the OIRLs activitiesalso reported in order to see the process oflearners developing their inquiring mind.Such process of inquiring minddevelopment was content analyzedreported in 6 steps : (1) awareness of thehappening, (2) start questioning thenleading to hypothesis, (3) collecting databy using various methods, (4) analyzingraw data to meaningful and credential data,(5) synthesizing data for the further use indifferent situation, and (6) when gatheringnew data, learners are able to confirmingand/or adjusting his/her own meaningfuldata.2.2.2) Learners’ RetentionLearners who participated in theexperimental group 1 and group 2 hadachievement’s pre-test mean scoressignificant different than post-test meanscores, as well as retention mean scoreat .05 level of significance. However, whencomparing post-test mean scores andretention mean scores between two groups,there were no significant different at .05level of significance. Also, retention meanscores of both experimental groups werenot significant different at .05 level ofsignificance. The details are described inTable 2.Table 2: Scores of Learning Result basedon the Retention TestScores ofLearningResultExp Group 1 Exp Group 2 S.D.  S.D.Pre-test 16.00 2.68 15.90 3.16Post-test 22.95 .69 24.10 .65Retention-test23.45 .71 23.70 .68Note: Exp Group 1 = Experimental Group 1Exp Group 2 = Experimental Group 22.2.3) Learners’ SatisfactionConsidering result from students’satisfaction towards the model test, it wasfound that learners rated the satisfactiontowards the model at the high level forexperimental group 1 and at the highestlevel for experimental group 2 ( = 4.18and = 4.24 respectively). When
  • 5. considering each item, the report wasshown in figure 2.Note: o = Experimental Group 1o = Experimental Group 2Figure 2: Learners’satisfaction towards theBlended E-Learning Model Using OnlineInteractive Reflective Learning LogsAccording to figure 2, the description ofeach item are as follows: (1) lecture anddemonstration in face to face class areclear and applicable, (2) learningcourseware on Blackboard LearningManagement System is significant forreviewing course contents for in-depthunderstanding, (3) OIRLs activitiesthrough blog helps leaners to review bothconcept and process of learning, (4) byreading and commenting peers’ OIRLs ismeaningful for learning, (5) by readingpeers’ comment and revising OIRLs ismeaningful for learning and in-depthunderstanding, (6) by reviewing newfinding from peers’ OIRLs, it has enhancedanalyzing ability, (7) comment andsuggestion from instructors enhance datasearching and collecting abilities, (8)supportive feedback from peers enhancemotivation in data searching and collectingabilities, (9) supportive feedback frominstructor enhance motivation in datasearching and collecting abilities, (10)learning resource as suggested from peersthrough OIRLs enhanced learners’inquiring process and inquiring mind, (11)learning resource as suggested frominstructor through OIRLs enhancedlearners’ inquiring process and inquiringmind, (12) OIRLs activities enhancelearners’ inquiring mind, and (13) OIRLsactivities enhance learners’ retention.When considering Learners’ satisfactiontowards the Blackboard LearningManagement System, it was found that theoverall satisfaction was at the high levelfor both experimental groups ( = 4.06and = 3.94 respectively). Whenconsidering each item, the report wasshown in figure 3, while the description ofeach item are as follows: (1) accessibilityto e-courseware on Blackboard LMS, (2)accessibility to discussion on BlackboardLMS, (3) accessibility to OIRLs blog onBlackboard LMS, (4) accessibility toreview and feedback to peers’ OIRLs blogon Blackboard LMS, (5) accessibility torevise OIRLs blog on Blackboard LMS,(6) accessibility to complete assessment ofinquiring mind self-assessment test and,learning ability test, and (7) accessibility tocomplete authentic assessment andpresentation through Blackboard LMS.Note: = Experimental Group 1= Experimental Group 2= Average Score of bothExperimental GroupsFigure 3: Learners’satisfaction towards theBlackboard Learning Management System2.3) Phase 3 : Model revision andconfirmation
  • 6. The 3 experts considered that blended e-Learning model using online interactivereflective learning logs had the highestlevel of appropriateness towards theenhancement of inquiring mind andlearners’ retention. The detail of eachdimension of consideration included: (1)model rationale, (2) model purposes, (3)model illustration, (4) model components,(5) model procedures, (6) appropriatenessof the model towards enhancement ofinquiring mind and learners’ retention, and(7) overall of the model is appropriate andapplicable. Though, experts hadinformative suggestions to the study. Someof them, for example, adding details of therole of none assigned peers which isinteresting but hardly mention in thereport; there was the time constraint forlearners towards the OIRLs activities; andlearning strategies should be considered tobe certain that the model will workeffectively and efficiency. When firstintroduce OIRLs to the learners, instructorsshould monitor the steps strictly, then lateron might be able to let learners accomplishtheir own activities. Last but not least,both inquiring mind and retention shouldbe followed up an may compared with thetraditional instruction whether there will bedifferent found in both groups.3) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSAccording to the analysis and synthesis ofthe related review literatures, the experts’interviews, the model tryout, and thesuggestion from the experts, discussionand conclusions of the report is describedas follows:3.1) Appropriateness of the Modeltowards Enhancement of Inquiring MindAccording to the try out phase, it wasfound significant difference at the 0.05level in pre-test and post-test mean scoresof inquiring mind in both groups, howeverwhen compared post-test mean scores ofboth groups, significant differences werenot found. Based, on such finding, it can beconcluded that the model can effectivelyenhance learners’ inquiring mind. Sincethe scores of group 2 were higher thanscores of group, it may be implied thatOIRLs with peer and instructor’sfeedbacks could enhance learners’inquiring mind better than the OIRLs withonly peer feedbacks. However, sincesignificant differences were not found, itcould be concluded that both types ofOIRLs were applicable and could be usedinterchangeably. In fact, when consideringthe first three steps of model procedures, itcan be found that use of blended e-Learning can enhance opportunities forlearners to experience, review for in-depthunderstanding from both in class andonline activities, such as classdemonstration, brainstorming activities,practice, and presentation, then shift fromin class to online further discussion, andpresentation of projects through blog. Suchactivities presenting the fine transitionfrom face to face to online activities. Thenstep 2 of the procedure which learners hadchances to write OIRLs would presentwhether learners really understand theconcept of the course content, as well aslearning process. To support suchimplication, based on the learners’ surveyof their satisfaction, they expressed that inclass lecture and demonstration from thelecturers helped them to understandconcept of the course content in bothexperimental groups ( x = 4.35 and 4.45respectively); and by reviewing learningcourseware, it has enhanced theirunderstanding (4.40 and 4.50 respectively).When writing OIRLs, it helped learners toreview both course content, as well aslearning process which represent in thesame mean scores in both group ( x = 4.20).In addition to the statistic report, thecontent analysis also presented, some ofthe outstanding one is selected as presentedin the follows. “..by exploring learningcourseware and in class discussion , itreally helped me in understanding thecourse content clearer and deeper, ..Ireally enjoy sharing resources amonglearners”. Then in step 3 reading and
  • 7. giving feedback to peers’ OIRLs(instructor/learner), it was found thatlearners in both groups really enjoyedreceiving the comments and supportswhich could turn out to be positivereinforcement for their learning ( x = 4.10and 4.15 respectively). In step 4 revisingOIRLs based on peers’ feedbacks andsuggestions, quite difference were foundwhen compared experimental group 1(only peers’ feedback) and experimentalgroup 2 (peers and instructor’s feedbacks).Learners expressed informative feedbackfrom peers and/or instructor were helpfulin drawing conclusion for the learning athigh level of group 1 and highest level forgroup 2 ( x = 4.10 and 4.25 respectively)In step 5, reviewing new finding frompeers’ OIRLs, in which group 1 got thereview from only peers, when group 2 gotreview from both instructor and peers,learners opinionated that when reviewingnew finding from peers’ OIRLs, it was athigh level for group 1 and highest level forgroup 2 ( x = 4.05 and 4.10 respectively).Overall, The OIRLs has enhance inquiringmind and learners’ retention for both groupat high level ( x = 4.10 and 4.15respectively). Such conclusion anddiscussion are congruence to the work ofTungteerabunditkul (1999) and the work ofLi, Moorman, & Dyjur (2010) addressedthat in enhancing learners’ inquiring mind,instructors’ supportive and learningenvironment emphasizing interestingcontent, challenging activities withcollaboration have played vital roles. Theconclusion and discussion of this researchare also congruence with the work ofSteenson, C. (2006), Konold, K.E. et.al.(2004), and Smith and Gorard (2005)mentioned about the effectiveness oflearning logs to give formative feedbacksauthentically.3.2) Appropriateness of the Modeltowards Enhancement of RetentionsAccording to the try out phase, it wasfound significant difference at the 0.05level in pre-test and retention mean scoresin both groups, however when comparedretention mean scores of both groups,significant differences were not found.Based, on such finding, it can be concludedthat the model can enhance learners’retention. Though the scores of group 2were higher than scores of group 1, it couldbe implied that OIRLs with peer andinstructor’s feedbacks could enhancelearners’ retention better than the OIRLswith only peer feedbacks. However, sincesignificant differences were not found, itcould be concluded that both types ofOIRLs were applicable and could be usedinterchangeably. Based on the modelprocedures including (1) blended e-Learning activity, 2) writing OIRLsactivity, 3) reading and giving feedback topeers’ OIRLs (instructor/learners), 4)revising OIRLs based on peers’ feedbacksand suggestions, and 5) reviewing newfinding from peers’ OIRLs, theseprocedures can effectively enhancelearners’ retention. With the flexibility ofblended learning which activities can occurboth in class and online modes ofcommunication. In fact, in class canenhance learning ability in drawingconclusion through the brainstormingactivities with peers and the support frominstructors, while online activities offerchance for learners to think, process theirthought, ask questions, and even reviewthe course materials without the time andplace constraint. Such conclusion anddiscussion are congruence with the workfrom Collopy and Arnold (2009) discussedabout the benefits of blended learningcourse over the completed online courses.In addition, based on the feedback fromlearners, it was found that learners ratedthe highest scores on both experimentalgroup one and two ( x = 4.35 and 4.45respectively) in the point that the lecturesand demonstration in class have helpedlearners to understand concepts and gainedskills related to the course contents.Learners also rated the highest scores onboth experimental group one and two ( x =
  • 8. 4.40 and 4.50 respectively) in the point thatonline course content materials andadditional resources have helped learnersto enhance their understanding of conceptsand gained skills related to the coursecontents. Concerning the OIRLs activity, ithas helped enhancing learners to reviewand fulfill knowledge in addition to whatthey learned. When considering theactivities that learners wrote OIRLs withtheir own language through blog enhancedlearners’ understanding of concepts andprocess, learners in both groups rated athigh levels (( x = 4.20 for both groups).Learners also opinionated that writingOIRLs enhanced their retention, it was athigh level for both group 1 and group 2( x = 4.20 and 4.10 respectively). Inaddition to the statistic report, the contentanalysis also presented, some of theoutstanding one is selected as presented inthe following. “..writing OIRLs isconsidered to be a positive reinforcementwhich lead me want to be improved” Suchconclusion and discussion are congruenceto the work of Rusmeprome (1989).mentioned about the meaningful contentwould enhance retention, and the work ofKhakhai (1997) indicated collaborativework and reflection would enhanceretention. The research conclusion is alsocongruence with the work of Deaton,Deaton, and Leland (2010) discussed aboutthe effectiveness of interactive reflectivelogs to enhance communications amonglearners, peers, and instructors which willlater lead to the trustworthy, belonging oflearning community, and eventually moreunderstanding of learning. Furthersuggestion, based on the learners’feedback, the tools or the system offeredmore flexibility in writing and correctingOIRLs are needed to further investigate.Also, according to the desiredcharacteristics of ChulalongkornUniversity, inquiring mind is one of suchdesired characteristics. Thus for, theblended e-Learning model to enhance othercharacteristics, for example, public mindand leadership should also be inconsideration.3) REFERENCES AND APPENDICESAulls, M. W. & Shore B. M. (2008).Inquiry in Education. New York, NY:Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (2006). Thehandbook of blended learning. SanFrancisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Collopy, R.M.B. & Arnold, J.M. (2009).To Blend or Not To Blend: Online andBlend Learning Environments inUndergraduate Teacher Education.Teacher Education, 18(2), 85-101.Deaton, C.M., Deaton, B.E. & Leland, K.(2010).Interactive Reflective Logs. SciChild, 48(3).Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007).Students’ Perceptions on EffectiveDimensions of Interactive Learning in aBlended Learning Environment.Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 133-146.Khlaisang, J. and Koraneekij, P. (2009).Pedagogy-Based Hybrid Learning: fromconcept to practices. Faculty ofEducation, Chulalongkorn UniversityJournal, 38 (1), 93-108.Khakhai, K. (1997). InstructionalPsychology. Bangkok: TechniquePrintingKonold, K.E. et.al. (2004). Using TeacherFeedback to Enhance Student. [Online]Available from: http://www.cec/sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCEC/ International/ StepbyStep/ ResourceCenter. Retrieved on April 19, 2011.Li, Q., Moorman, L., & Dyjur, P. (2010).Inquiry-Based Learning and E-Mentoring Via Videoconference: AStudy of Mathematics and ScienceLearning of Canadian Rural Students.Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 58, 729-253.Rusmeprome, V. (1989). EducationalMedia and Technology andContemporary of Teaching. Bangkok :ChuanPim.Tungteerabunditkul, N. (1999). Factors
  • 9. effecting inquiring mind of Lower Levelof Matthayomsuksa Students inEducational District No. 8. In-housepublications.Smith, E. and Gorard, S. (2010). Theydont give us our marks: the role offormative feedback in student progress.Assessment in Education: Principles,Policy & Practice. 12(1), pp. 21-38.Steenson, C. (2006). Learning Logs in theScience Classroom: The literacyAdvantage. Sci Scope, 29(7).Wilson, D. &Smilanich, E. (2005). TheOther Blended Learning. San Francisco,CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors would like to thank Faculty ofEducation, Chulalongkorn University’sfund in supporting this research. Ourappreciations also extend to all expertsinstructors, and students, participated inthis study.

×