Khlaisang, J. (2012). Development of Pedagogical Blended E-Learning Model UsingCognitive Tools Based Upon Constructivist A...
when teaching in e-Learning environment.Such e-Learning, pedagogy could benamed, for example, Project-BasedLearning, Probl...
with three sub models for learners toeffectively construct their knowledge. Thegeneric model included three elements andth...
group database, (6) evaluation wasexamined for content understanding, (7)content reflection was placed throughonline group...
order to gain in-depth data concerningconstruction of knowledge, the learners’process of knowledge construction wereobserv...
Figure 4 Scores of Learners’KnowledgeConstruction process of modules 12.1.2. Module 2 Collaborative Project-Based Learning...
( = 4.33, S.D. = 0.06) and 4.60, S.D. =0.14) for module 3. The description of 16items for overall instruction part are asf...
stages might take a lot of efforts whencompared to other stages when teaching inblended learning environment.Accordingly, ...
Bonk, C., Kim K. & Zeng, T. (2005).Future Directions of Blended LearningIn Higher Education and WorkplaceLearning Settings...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Development of Pedagogical Blended E-Learning Model Using Cognitive Tools Based Upon Constructivist Approach for Knowledge Construction in Higher Education

365 views

Published on

Khlaisang, J. (2012). Development of Pedagogical Blended E-Learning Model Using Cognitive Tools Based Upon Constructivist Approach for Knowledge Construction in Higher Education. 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
365
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Development of Pedagogical Blended E-Learning Model Using Cognitive Tools Based Upon Constructivist Approach for Knowledge Construction in Higher Education

  1. 1. Khlaisang, J. (2012). Development of Pedagogical Blended E-Learning Model UsingCognitive Tools Based Upon Constructivist Approach for Knowledge Construction inHigher Education. Proceedings of the Fourth International e-Learning Conference 2012,organized by the Thailand Cyber University Project, Office of the Higher EducationCommission, Bangkok, Thailand, June 14, 2012.Development of Pedagogical Blended E-Learning Model UsingCognitive Tools Based Upon Constructivist Approach forKnowledge Construction in Higher EducationJintavee Khlaisang11Department of Educational Technology and Communications,Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (jintavee.m@chula.ac.th)ABSTRACTThis paper is a report on the findings of a Researchand Development (R&D) aiming to develop themodel of pedagogical blended e-Learning modelusing cognitive tools based upon constructivistapproach for knowledge construction in highereducation, and to examine the result of using suchmodel. The sample consisted of 8 experts in thefield during the model development stage, whilethere were 21 undergraduate students (11 and 10students for each experimental group respectively)for the model try out stage. The researchprocedures included 3 stages: (1) modeldevelopment, (2) model try out, and (3) modelrevised and confirmation. The research resultswere 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. Then, the researchfinding from the experts’ interviews indicated thatthe model should include one generic model withthree sub models for learners to effectivelyconstruct their knowledge. The generic modelincluded three elements and three procedures, whileeach sub model included four elements and threeprocedures with 7 steps which elaborated from thegeneric one. The three elements of the genericmodel comprised of (1) instructors and learnersactive roles, (2) activities, and (3) assessment, whilethe procedures included (1) pre-instruction, (2)instruction with cognitive tools, and (3) evaluationwith process and product. Regarding the submodels, all three sub models comprised of the same4 elements including (1) instructors and learnersactive roles, (2) pedagogical based activities, (3)cognitive tools, and (4) assessment, while the 3procedures with 7 steps were different according tothe pedagogy applied to each model. The pedagogyincluded Collaborative Discussion-Based Learning(CDBL), Collaborative Project-Based Learning(CPjBL), and Collaborative Problem-BasedLearning (CPBL). Second, the research findingfrom the try out stage found that there weresignificant differences between pretest and posttestof knowledge construction’s scores at the .05 levelfor both groups (experimental group 1 usingsynchronous interaction-based cognitive tool, andexperimental group 2 using asynchronousinteraction-based cognitive tool), while theobservation and projects’ scores of each sub modeltryout were also increased for both groups. Whencomparing between the experimental group 1 andthe experimental group 2, the posttest scores ofknowledge construction of experimental group 1were higher than the scores of the experimentalgroup 2 although significant differences betweensuch scores were not found. Likewise, whencomparing the observation and projects’ scores, thescores of experimental group 1 were slightly higherthan the scores of experimental group. Concerningthe satisfaction scores, both experimental groupsrated as very high satisfaction to the model. Lastly,according to the finding from the try out stage andthe confirmation from the experts, the developedmodel was revised and presented in the report forimplication and further references.Keywordse-Learning, Pedagogical Blended e-Learning, Cognitive Tools, ConstructivistApproach, Knowledge Construction1) INTRODUCTIONNowadays, implication of e-Learning hasincreased rapidly in higher education sinceit has been considered to be one of thesolutions for learning limitation with thetime and place constraints. Besides, withthe benefits gained from web2.0technologies, it has increasedcommunication channel between instructorand learners, as well as among learnersthemselves. However, many times,instructors seem to neglect to applyappropriate pedagogy in which willenhance learners’ knowledge construction,
  2. 2. when teaching in e-Learning environment.Such e-Learning, pedagogy could benamed, for example, Project-BasedLearning, Problem-Based Learning. Thusfor, this research has proposed pedagogyblended e-Learning model which iscombination of strength of variousteaching methods, strategies, andtechnologies. Based on the findings, suchmodel would enhance learners’opportunities to access to the contents, toparticipate in the activities, and toexchanges and brainstorm among learnersthrough online social network which willlead to learners’ knowledge construction inhigher education. The construction of theknowledge in this study was emphasizedon cognitive domain addressed in Bloom(2001) comprised of 2 levels – the lowerlevel including remembering,understanding, and applying and the higherlevel including analyzing, evaluating, andcreation. Such domain would look in 4dimensions including (1) factualknowledge, (2) conceptual knowledge, (3)procedural knowledge, and (4) meta-cognition knowledge.2) THE RESEARCH STUDY AND THEFINDINGSThe research objectives were to developpedagogical blended e-Learning modelusing cognitive tools based uponconstructivist approach for knowledgeconstruction in higher education. While thethree detail objectives are addressed asfollows: (1) to examine review ofliteratures, as well as experts’ opinion,towards the most popular top threepedagogies used in e-Learningenvironment, (2) to develop the modelsaccording to the most popular top threepedagogies used in e-Learningenvironment, integrated with 6 types ofcognitive tools in order to enhanceknowledge construction, and (3) to tryoutthe effectiveness of the model whichdeveloped under the most popular top threepedagogies used in e-Learningenvironment, integrated with 6 types ofcognitive tools. Hence, the researchmethods used in this study comprised of 3phases in accordance to the objectives:Phase 1 Literature review of modelcomponents and procedures, anddevelopment of pedagogical blended e-Learning model, Phase 2 Trying outpedagogical blended e-Learning model,and Phase 3 Proposing pedagogicalblended e-Learning model. Figure 1illustrates research procedures, while thedetails are described in the followingsession:Figure 1 Research ProceduresPhase 1 Literature review of modelcomponents and procedures and ModeldevelopmentThe sample in this phase consisted of 5experts in the field of curriculum andinstruction, educational technologies, andeducational measurement and evaluation.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 interviewed the 5 experts in thefield of curriculum and instruction,educational technologies, and educationalmeasurement and evaluation. using themodel evaluation form. The former resultfrom the review of totaled 180 relatedliterature (75 Thai literature and 105International literature) found that themodel should include one generic model
  3. 3. with three sub models for learners toeffectively construct their knowledge. Thegeneric model included three elements andthree procedures, while each sub modelincluded four elements and sevenprocedures which elaborated from thegeneric one. The three elements of thegeneric model comprised of (1) instructorsand learners roles, (2) activities, and (3)assessment, while the procedures included(1) pre-instruction, (2) instruction withcognitive tools, and (3) evaluation.Regarding the sub models, all three submodels comprised of the same 4 elementsincluding (1) instructors and learnersroles, (2) pedagogical based activities, (3)cognitive tools, and (4) assessment, whilethe 7 steps were different according to thepedagogy applied to each model. Thepedagogy included collaborativediscussion-based learning (CDBL),collaborative project-based learning(CPjBL), and collaborative problem-basedlearning (CPBL). However, after gatheringthe result from the experts’ interviews,some suggestions were made as follows:(1) the three sub models should include 3major procedures with the details of 7minor steps in total; (2) the names ofcognitive tools should be addressed; and(3) the evaluation should give emphasizedon both process and product which couldbe retrieved such outputs by scores fromthe examination, the project rubric, as wellas the observation form. Also, the roles ofinstructors and learners should be activewhich will be congruence with the conceptof cognitive constructivist learningenvironment. In conclusion, based on theresult of literature review and experts’interview, the development of the modelshould include one generic model withthree sub models for learners to effectivelyconstruct their knowledge. The genericmodel included three elements and threeprocedures, while each sub model includedfour elements and three procedures withseven steps which elaborated from thegeneric one. The three elements of thegeneric model comprised of (1) instructorsand learners active roles, (2) activities, and(3) assessment, while the proceduresincluded (1) pre-instruction, (2) instructionwith cognitive tools, and (3) evaluationwith process and product. Regarding thesub models, all three sub modelscomprised of 4 elements including (1)instructors and learners active roles, (2)pedagogical based activities, (3) cognitivetools, and (4) assessment, while theprocedures included : (1) pre-instruction,(2) instruction with cognitive tools, and (3)evaluation with process and product.However, the detail seven steps of each aredifferent according to the appliedpedagogy that could be described in thefollowings. CDBL comprised of thefollowing steps: (1) content outline andtimeframe were presented, (2) objectivesfor discussion were presented, (3)resources for discussion were prepared, (4)course and group database were placed fordiscussion, (5) cognitive tools were used tofind out solution according to the assigneddiscussion topics, (6) findings werepresented with review and comments frompeers, and (7) content reflection was placedthrough online group learning log. CPjBLcomprised of the following steps: (1)project objectives were addressed, (2)group project was initiated tentativelythrough group database, (3) group plan wasbrainstormed through group database, (4)group project was developedcollaboratively with various types ofcognitive tools, (5) group project waspresented with the use of cognitive tools,(6) group project was evaluated with theuse of cognitive tools, and (7) contentreflection was placed through online grouplearning log. CPBL comprised of thefollowing steps : (1) facts related resourceswere prepared for learners, (2) activityobjectives were presented and problemswere specified , (3) problem evaluationprocess and solution were presentedthrough the use of cognitive tools, (4)group plan was presented throughcognitive tools, (5) hypothesis, synthesis,and solution were presented through the
  4. 4. group database, (6) evaluation wasexamined for content understanding, (7)content reflection was placed throughonline group learning log. The modeldeveloped from this phase is as shown infigure 2.Phase 2 Model try outThe sample in this phase included 21undergraduate students registering in theDesigning Web-Based Instruction courseand the Introduction to Web-BasedInstruction program courses in the secondsemester of an academic year 2011. Thesamples were divided into two groupswhich are 11 students for an experimentalgroup 1 (synchronous interaction-basedcognitive tool) and 10 students for anexperimental group 2 (asynchronousinteraction-based cognitive tool). Therewere 7 instruments used in this phaseincluding : pedagogical blended e-Learning using cognitive tools based uponconstructivist approach lesson plan,cognitive tools, students’ basic computerability test, students’ knowledgeconstruction test, students’ knowledgeconstruction observation form, students’knowledge construction rubric, andstudents’ satisfaction towards the modeltest. While the process in this phase weredescribed as follows. Firstly, the two testsincluding students’ basic computer abilitytest and students’ knowledge constructiontest, were completed by the students inorder to explore the former levels of theirknowledge and the result of the basiccomputer ability were used to dividedstudents into two experimental groups.Then instructions were initiated for 15weeks followed pedagogical blended e-Learning using cognitive tools based uponconstructivist approach lesson plan whichdivided into 3 modules according to theproposed models. The three modulesincluded (1) Collaborative Discussion-Based Learning: CDBL (three weekduration) for, (2) Collaborative Project-Based Learning: CPjBL (seven weekduration) and (3) Collaborative Problem-Based Learning: CPBL (five weekduration). After that the posttest ofknowledge construction test wereconducted at the end of each module inorder to compare learners’ former andlatter levels of knowledge construction. InFigure 2: Pedagogical Blended E-Learning Model Using Cognitive Tools Based UponConstructivist Approach for Knowledge Construction in Higher Education
  5. 5. order to gain in-depth data concerningconstruction of knowledge, the learners’process of knowledge construction wereobserved through the online learningenvironment using the observation form. 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, anddependence and independence t-tests.The research results indicated as follows.2. 1 Learners’ Knowledge ConstructionLearners who participated in modules 1-3both the experimental group 1 and group 2had knowledge construction’ post-testmean scores significant higher than pre-testmean scores at .05 level of significance.However, when comparing knowledgeconstruction’ post-tests means score of theexperimental group 1 and group 2, therewas no significant different at .05 level ofsignificance. Though, the post-tests meansscore of the experimental group 1 werehigher than score of the experimentalgroup 2 in all three modules. The detailsare illustrated in Table 1 and figure 3.Table 1: Scores of Learners’ KnowledgeConstructionScores ofKCExp Group 1 Exp Group 2 S.D.  S.D.CDBLPre-test 52.00 2.44 42.50 1.38Post-test 77.00 1.33 67.50 1.58CPjBLPre-test 37.38 1.95 32.72 2.06Post-test 66.16 1.75 63.55 2.08CPBLPre-test 34.08 2.16 30.00 2.01Post-test 81.83 1.40 80.83 0.94Note:KC = Knowledge ConstructionExp Group 1 = Experimental Group 1Exp Group 2 = Experimental Group 2CDBL = Collaborative Discussion-Based LearningCPjBL = Collaborative Project-Based LearningCPBL = Collaborative Problem-Based LearningFigure 3 Scores of Learners’KnowledgeConstruction of the three modulesIn addition, not only the post test scoreswould be collected, but also theobservation and the content analysis of theknowledge construction process retrievedfrom the pedagogical blended e-Learningand cognitive tools activities also reportedin order to see the process of learnersdeveloping their construction ofknowledge. Such process of knowledgeconstruction development was contentanalyzed reported in 6 steps along with thedetail characteristics of each. The six stepsincluded (1) remembering, (2)understanding, (3) applying, (4) analyzing(5) evaluating, and (6) creation. The detailsof each module are described in thefollowing sections.2.1.1. Module 1 Collaborative Discussion-Based Learning : CDBLThe mean scores of knowledge creationprocess of experimental group 1(synchronous interaction-based cognitivetool) and experimental group 2(asynchronous interaction-based cognitivetool) were at the average level (61.34%and 52.08% respectively) upon completionof module 1. Though, the scores of bothgroups showed the improvement ofknowledge creation process throughout themodule (three week duration) and score ofthe experimental group 1 was higher thangroup 2. The detail of each week scorespresenting the increasing of knowledgecreation scores of both groups are shown infigure 4.
  6. 6. Figure 4 Scores of Learners’KnowledgeConstruction process of modules 12.1.2. Module 2 Collaborative Project-Based Learning : CPjBLThe scores of knowledge creation processof experimental group 1 (synchronousinteraction-based cognitive tool) andexperimental group 2 (asynchronousinteraction-based cognitive tool) were atthe average level (67.16% and 66.09%respectively) upon completion of module2. Though scores of both groups showedthe significant improvement of knowledgecreation process during the seven-weekduration of learning in this model (from36.11 increasing to 97.91 for both groups)and score of the experimental group 1 washigher than group 2. The detail of eachweek scores presenting the significantincreasing of knowledge creation scores ofboth groups are shown in figure 5.Figure 5 Scores of Learners’KnowledgeConstruction process of modules 22.1.3. Collaborative Problem-BasedLearning : CPBLThe scores of knowledge creation processof experimental group 1 (synchronousinteraction-based cognitive tool) andexperimental group 2 (asynchronousinteraction-based cognitive tool) were atthe average level (81.66% and 78.33%respectively) upon completion of module3. When comparing among the threemodels, the scores of both groups in thismodel showed the most significantimprovement of knowledge creationprocess during the five-week duration oflearning (from 55.55 improving to 98.61for group 1 and from 54.16 improving to97.22 for group 2) and score of theexperimental group 1 was higher thangroup 2. The detail of each week scorespresenting the most significant increasingof knowledge creation scores of bothgroups when compared among the threemodules are shown in figure 6.Figure 6 Scores of Learners’KnowledgeConstruction process of modules 32.2 Learners’ Satisfaction towards themodelConsidering result from students’satisfaction towards the model try out, thesatisfaction were examined in 2 aspectsincluding 16 questions representing theoverall instruction designed based on theproposed model along with lesson plan and7 questions representing 7 steps ofinstruction for each module. It was foundthat learners rated the satisfaction towardsoverall at the highest level ( = 4.33, S.D.=0.16 for group 1 and = 4.54, S.D.= 0.19for group 2). When considering eachmodule, group 1 rated highest level ( =4.29, S.D. = 0.21) and group 2 also ratedhighest level (4.53, S.D. = 0.23) formodule 1; group 1 rated highest level ( =4.35, S.D. = 0.19), as well as group 2 ratedhighest level ( = 4.66, S.D. = 0.21) formodule 2; and group 1 rated highest level
  7. 7. ( = 4.33, S.D. = 0.06) and 4.60, S.D. =0.14) for module 3. The description of 16items for overall instruction part are asfollows: (1) pre-instruction are well plan inpreparing learners becoming accustomedto the Learning Management System, (2)Instruction was initiated in learners’challenging manners and summarizing atthe end , (3) instructor was well planduring the summarized step and pointedout to the applicable and further use, (4)the courseware was accessibility, (5) theLearning Management System and thecourseware were well equipped accordingto the learners’ need and the coursecontent, (6) the Learning ManagementSystem and the courseware were welldesigned for both text and illustration, (7)the online activity tool was accessibility,(8) the brainstorming activity throughonline activity tool was appropriate, (9) theassessment through online test wasappropriate, (10) the authentic assessmentthrough online observation wasappropriate, (11) the authentic assessmentthrough creation of project wasappropriate, (12) the course contentincluding group database and coursedatabase were accessibility, (13) thebrainstorming activity through groupdatabase (one type of cognitive tools) wasappropriate, (14) the evidence presentingprocess of group works through cognitivetools (database tool, concept map tool, andpresentation tool) were appropriate, (15)the process of group works using cognitivetools (database tool, concept map tool, andpresentation tool) were applicable, and(16) the content review through cognitivetools (database tool, concept map tool, andpresentation tool) were applicable. Thedescription of each item for the threemodules are congruence with the submodels’ steps described in phrase 1. Thedetail scores of 7 steps for experimentalgroup 1 are shown in figure 7, while thedetail score of 7 steps for experimentalgroup 2 are shown in figure 8.Figure 7: Learners’(experimental group 1)satisfaction towards the PedagogicalBlended E-Learning Model UsingSynchronous Cognitive ToolsFigure 8: Learners’(experimental group 2)satisfaction towards the PedagogicalBlended E-Learning Model UsingAsynchronous Cognitive ToolsPhase 3 Model revised and confirmationThe 3 experts considered that thedevelopment of pedagogical blended e-Learning model using cognitive toolsbased upon constructivist approach had thehighest level of appropriateness towardsthe knowledge construction in highereducation. The detail of each dimension forconsideration included: (1) Modelrationale, (2) Model purposes, (3) Modelillustration, (4) Model components(Generic Model & Specific Model), (5)Generic model procedures, (6) Specificmodel procedures, (7) Appropriateness ofthe model towards knowledge constructionin higher education, and (8) Overall of themodel is appropriate and applicable.Though, experts had informativesuggestions to the study. Some of them, forexample, adding details of following upand evaluation stages since these two
  8. 8. stages might take a lot of efforts whencompared to other stages when teaching inblended learning environment.Accordingly, the role of Teaching Assistant(TA) has played viral role in supportinginstructor, especially in the following upstage. Also, the generic model shouldaddress the proportion of instructionoffering in face-to –face mode, as well asthe one offering in online mode which willbe more applicable for other instructorswho are not in the field of educationaltechnology.3) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSBased on the research finding, the top threepedagogical blended e-Learning modelincluded (1) Collaborative Discussion-Based Learning (CDBL), (2) CollaborativeProject-Based Learning (CPjBL), and (3)Collaborative Problem-Based Learning(CPBL), while the 6 types of cognitivetools based upon constructivist approachfor knowledge construction in highereducation comprised of database tool,concept map tool, spreadsheet tool,simulation tool, presentation tool, andconference tool. According to the try outphase of the three models, it was foundsignificant difference at the 0.05 level inpre-test and post-test scores of both groups.However when compared post-test scoresof both groups, significant differences werenot found. Based on such findings, it canbe concluded that all three pedagogicalblended e-Learning model are effective.Also, by applying either synchronous orasynchronous interactive-based cognitivetools, it would applicable andinterchangeable for all three models. Suchstatistic finding was strongly congruencewith the observation results finding thatthere was improvement of knowledgeconstruction process consistently. However,when consider the improvement of higherlevel of knowledge construction, thesynchronous cognitive tools presented thehigher improvement scores, especially inthe area of evaluating and creation. Inaddition, when compared among the threemodules, module 3 (CPBL) showed thehighest scores of knowledge creation. Suchfindings were congruence with numerousliterature reviews, for example, the work ofBonk, Kim, and Zeng (2005) discussedabout the future directions of blendedlearning in higher education and workplacelearning settings and the proposed threemodels also were mentioned about itseffectiveness and popularity in thishandbook. It can also be supported by thearticle titled Pedagogy-Based HybridLearning: from concept to practices(Khlaisang and Koraneekij, 2009), whichmentioned about the effective use ofProblem-Based Learning and Project-Based Learning in blended learningenvironment. The finding also can besupported by the work from De Graaff andKolmos (2007), Yang, Richardson, French,and Lehman (2011), Alonso, Manrique,and Vines (2009) who studied theeffectivenss in managing of change whenimplementing problem-based and project-based learning in higher education with theconstructivist and blended learningenvironement. The research finding wasalso congruence with the work of Reeves,Laffey, and Marlino, (1997) and Wang(2004) mentioning about the effective useof cognitive tools in higher education.Further suggestion based on the researchfindings are addressed that otherpedagogical blended e-Learning modelsshould be proposed for the broadly use inother fields of higher education. Also,cognitive tools used in such models shouldbe further examine for the mostappropriate tools in constructing cognitiveknowledge, especially the higher level ofknowledge including analyzing, evaluating,and creation, which are considered theultimate goals of higher education learning.3) REFERENCES AND APPENDICESAlonso, F., Manrique, D., and Vines, J.M.(2009). A Moderate Constructivist e-Learning Instructional Model Evaluatedon Computer Specialists. Journal ofComputers and Education, 53, 57-65.
  9. 9. Bonk, C., Kim K. & Zeng, T. (2005).Future Directions of Blended LearningIn Higher Education and WorkplaceLearning Settings. In Bonk, C. J. &Graham, C. R. (Eds.). Handbook ofBlended Learning: Global Perspectives,Local designs. Wiley, John & Sons.De Graaff E. and Kolmos A. (2007).Management of change: implementationof problem-based and project-basedlearning in engineering. Rotterdam:Sense Publishers.Jonassen D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996).Learning with Technology: UsingComputers as Cognitive Tools. In D.H.Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of researchfor educational communications andtechnology (pp. 693-719). NY:Macmillan.Jonassen, D. H. (1999). ConstructivistLearning Environments. In Clarles M.Reigeluth. Instructional DesignTheories and Models: A New Paradigmof Instructional Theory. Volume II. NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Khlaisang, J. and Koraneekij, P. (2009).Pedagogy-Based Hybrid Learning: fromconcept to practices. Faculty ofEducation, Chulalongkorn UniversityJournal, 38 (1), 93-108.Khlaisang, J. (2010). Proposed Models ofAppropriate Website and Coursewarefor E-Learning in Higher Education:Research Based Design Models.Proceedings of the E-Learning 2010:World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, &Higher Education, organized by theAssociation for the Advancement ofComputing in Education, Orlando,Florida, October 18-22, 2010. Pp. 1520-1529.Monsakul, J. (2008). A Research Synthesisof Instructional Technology in HigherEducation. Proceedings of the Societyfor Information Technology & TeacherEducation (SITE) 2008. InternationalConference, organized by theAssociation for the Advancement ofComputing in Education, Las Vegas,Nevada, March 3-7, 2008. Pp. 2134 -2139.Reeves, T.C., Laffey, J.M., and Marlino,M.R. (1997). Using Technology asCognitive Tools: Research and Praxis.[Online]. Available from: http://www.ascilite.org. au/conferences/ perth97/papers/ Reeves/Reeves.html, Retrievedon June 5, 2011.SLOAN, Consortium. (2005). Growing byDegrees Online Education in the UnitedStates [Online]. Available from:http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/growing_by_degree.pdf[2008,November]Wang, C.X. (2004). The instructionaleffects of prior knowledge and threeconcept mapping strategies infacilitating achievement of differenteducational objectives. DissertationAbstract International (Educationalsoftware, Curricula, Teaching).DAIA64/10 p3656, Apr 2004. ThePennsylvania State University Availablefrom: http://proquest.umi.com/ pqdweb,Retrieved on June 5, 2011.Waterhouse, S. (2005). The Power of E-Learning: The essential guide forteaching in the digital age. Boston, MA:Pearson Education, Inc.Yang, D., Richardson, J.C., French, B.F.,and Lehman, J.D. (2011). TheDevelopment of a Content AnalysisModel for Assessing Students’Cognitive Learning in AsynchronousOnline Discussions. EducationalTechnology Research and Development,59, 43-70.4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe author would like to express mysincere appreciation to ChulalongkornUniversity’s Ratchadapisek Sompot fundin supporting this research. Myappreciations also extend to all expertsinstructors, and students, participated inthis study.

×