Students' Perceptions of a Blended Learning Environment to Promote Critical Thinking

Abstract

Critical thinking is considered as one of the indispensable skills that must be possessed by the citizens of modern society, and its cultivation with blended learning has drawn much attention from researchers and practitioners. This study proposed the construction of a blended learning environment, where the pedagogical, social, and technical design was directed to fostering critical thinking. The purpose of the study was to find out students' perceptions of the learning environment concerning its design and its influence on their critical thinking. Adopting the mixed method, the study used questionnaire and interview as the instruments for data collection. The analysis of the data revealed that the students generally held positive perceptions of the environment, and they believed that the blended learning environment could help promote their critical thinking in different aspects.

Full text

CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND PEDAGOGY
published: 25 June 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.696845
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845
Edited by:
Robyn M. Gillies,
The University of
Queensland, Australia
Reviewed by:
Tommaso Turchi,
University of Hertfordshire,
United Kingdom
Muhammad Saud,
Airlangga University, Indonesia
*Correspondence:
Dan Lu
lud090@nenu.edu.cn
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Educational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 18 April 2021
Accepted: 31 May 2021
Published: 25 June 2021
Citation:
Lu D (2021) Students’ Perceptions of
a Blended Learning Environment to
Promote Critical Thinking.
Front. Psychol. 12:696845.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.696845
Students’ Perceptions of a Blended
Learning Environment to Promote
Critical Thinking
Dan Lu*
School of Foreign Languages, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China
Critical thinking is considered as one of the indispensable skills that must be possessed
by the citizens of modern society, and its cultivation with blended learning has drawn
much attention from researchers and practitioners. This study proposed the construction
of a blended learning environment, where the pedagogical, social, and technical design
was directed to fostering critical thinking. The purpose of the study was to find out
students’ perceptions of the learning environment concerning its design and its influence
on their critical thinking. Adopting the mixed method, the study used questionnaire
and interview as the instruments for data collection. The analysis of the data revealed
that the students generally held positive perceptions of the environment, and they
believed that the blended learning environment could help promote their critical thinking
in different aspects.
Keywords: students’ perceptions, blended learning environment, critical thinking, design, survey
INTRODUCTION
The development of critical thinking has drawn attention of the education ministries and
institutions of different levels in countries all over the world. In the last two decades, researchers
and practitioners have been exploring the ways to integrate critical thinking cultivation into the
instruction of different disciplines, proposing strategies and interventions to promote critical
thinking, among which blended learning has been widely recognized (e.g., Van Gelder and Bulker,
2000;Gilbert and Dabbagh, 2005; Yukawa, 2006). Blended learning is proposed as focusing
on optimizing achievement of learning objectives by applying the “right” personal learning
technologies to the “right” person at the “right” time and “right” place (Singh, 2003). A blended
learning environment, integrating the advantages of the e-learning method and traditional method,
is believed to be more effective than a face-to-face or online learning environment alone (Kim and
Bonk, 2006; Watson, 2008; Yen and Lee, 2011). Studies have been conducted to construct blended
learning environments to improve students’ critical thinking. Most of them, however, adopted
standardized tests or coding schemes to examine the effectiveness of the learning environments
on students’ critical thinking (Chou et al., 2018), paying less attention to students’ perceptions and
attitudes. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to address this gap.
Critical Thinking
There are a vast number of definitions of critical thinking in the literature (e.g., Paul,
1992; Ennis, 1996; Fisher and Scriven, 1997). Despite the emphasis on different aspects,
the core of critical thinking entails taking charge of one’s thinking to improve it. Paul
and Elder’s definition and model of critical thinking were adopted in the study. According

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
to Elder and Paul (1994), critical thinking refers to “the
ability of individuals to take charge of their own thinking
and develop appropriate criteria and standards for analyzing
their own thinking” (p. 34). They proposed that critical
thinking is composed of three dimensions: elements of thinking,
intellectual standards, and intellectual traits. People demonstrate
critical thinking when they use intellectual standards (clarity,
precision, accuracy, importance, relevance, sufficiency, logic,
fairness, breadth, depth) to measure elements of thinking
(purposes, assumptions, questions, points of view, information,
implications, concepts, inferences) (Paul and Elder, 1999).
Critical Thinking Cultivation With
Information Communication Technology
Tools
Studies applying ICT tools to cultivate critical thinking have been
increasingly emerging in the literature. The systematic review
conducted by Chou et al. (2018) analyzed and reported the
trends and features of critical thinking studies with ICT tools.
According to the findings of the review, the most often used
tools include online discussion (e.g., Cheong and Cheung, 2008),
coding or game design or Wikibooks creation (e.g., Yang and
Chang, 2013), and concept or argument maps (e.g., Rosen and
Tager, 2014). As for the method involved, the studies adopted
both quantitative and qualitative research methods (e.g., Shamir
et al., 2008;Yang, 2008; Yang and Chou, 2008; Butchart et al.,
2009; de Leng et al., 2009;Yeh, 2009). Data from various
measurements revealed overall positive results of using ICT
tools in critical thinking cultivation (e.g., Yang, 2008; Allaire,
2015; Shin et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2017). The findings of the
systematic review showed that the critical thinking-embedded
activities using ICT tools were more effective than face-to-face
activities in developing students’ critical thinking (Guiller et al.,
2008; Adam and Manson, 2014; Eftekhari et al., 2016). However,
students’ prescriptions of the learning design or critical thinking
development have not been fully addressed in the literature.
Blended Learning Environment
The concept of blended learning has been defined by several
researchers and scholars. For instance, Singh and Reed (2001)
defined blended learning as a learning program where more
than one delivery mode is being used to optimize the learning
outcome and cost of program delivery. According to Thorne
(2003), blended learning is a way of “meeting the challenges of
tailoring learning and development to the needs of individuals
by integrating the innovative and technological advances offered
by online learning with the interaction and participation offered
in the best of traditional learning” (p. 2). The above definitions
indicate that blended learning can combine the advantages of
both traditional face-to-face learning and e-learning and avoid
the drawbacks of the two learning modes. The effectiveness of
blended learning has been demonstrated by many studies, for
example, the findings of a meta-analysis have shown that blended
learning brings more positive impact on students learning than
online and face-to-face learning (BatdÄ, 2014). Despite the
merits of blended learning itself, the effectiveness is determined
by the proper design. How to achieve the equilibrium between
e-learning and face-to-face modes is crucial to the success of the
blended learning environment (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003).
This study applied the PST model developed by Wang
(2008) as the framework for the environment design. As
Kirschner et al. (2004) pointed out, an educational system is
a unique combination of pedagogical, social, and technological
components. PST model thus consists of three key components:
pedagogy, social interaction, and technology. According to
Wang (2008), the pedagogical design involves the selection
of appropriate content, activities, and the way to use the
resources; the social design refers to the construction of a safe
and comfortable environment where learners can share and
communicate; the technical design provides learners with a
technical space of availability, easy access and attractiveness.
In any learning environment, the three components play
different roles. The technical design offers a basic condition for
pedagogical and social design, while the pedagogical and social
design is considered as the most important factor that influences
the effectiveness of learning (Wang, 2008).
Perceptions of Blended Learning
Environment
It has been acknowledged that students’ perceptions and
satisfaction are important for determining the quality of
blended learning environment (Naaj et al., 2012). Studies
have been conducted to examine students’ views regarding
a blended learning environment and factors influencing it.
For example, Bendania (2011) study found that students hold
positive attitudes toward the blended learning environment and
the influencing factors mainly include experience, confidence,
enjoyment, usefulness, intention to use, motivation, and whether
students had ICT skills. The positive view was also reported
in the study done by Akkoyunlu and Yilmaz (2006), and it
was found to be closely related to students’ participation in
the online discussion forum. Findings from other studies (e.g.,
Dziuban et al., 2006; Owston et al., 2006) also revealed students’
positive attitudes toward the blended learning environment, and
the satisfaction could be attributed to features like flexibility,
convenience, reduced travel time, and face-to-face interaction.
Some studies, however, reported some negative perceptions of the
blended learning environment. For example, the results of the
study of Smyth et al. (2012) showed that the delayed feedback
from the teacher and poor connectivity of the internet were
perceived as major drawbacks of the environment. In another
study conducted by Stracke (2007), lack of reciprocity between
traditional and online modes, no use of printed books for reading
and writing, and use of the computer as a medium of instruction
was considered as major reasons for students withdraw from the
blended course. These findings indicate that students’ negative
attitudes toward the blended learning environment mainly come
from the inadequate design (Sagarra and Zapata, 2008).
The review of the above studies indicates that applying ICT
tools to cultivate critical thinking has gained much popularity
and produced positive results. Few studies, however, focus on
students’ perceptions of a learning environment designed to
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
promote critical thinking despite the fact that many studies have
been conducted to explore students’ perceptions of a blended
learning environment in general. Therefore, the purpose of the
current research is to investigate students’ perceptions of a
blended learning environment with the orientation of critical
thinking development.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Questions
By adopting the mixed method, this study aims to answer the
following two questions:
1. What are students’ perceptions of the blended learning
environment to promote critical thinking?
2. How do students perceive the impact of the blended learning
environment on the development of their critical thinking?
Context and Participants
The study was carried out in the course of Practical English
Writing which is a branch of the comprehensive English course
for first-year non-English majors at a Normal University in
mainland China. The 6-week course adopted a mixed learning
mode of classroom face-to-face and online learning. The face-
to-face class ran once a week and each class was 90 min. The
e-learning tasks were assigned either before or after the class. Six
independent learning centers with networked computers were
available for students to use and the whole campus was covered
with Wi-Fi signal.
The participants of the study involved a total of 90 non-
English major students (33 males and 57 females) aging from 18
to 20 in 2020. The students were allocated into classes of Level
A after the placement test of English proficiency, which means
their English was about higher intermediate level. Adopting the
International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test (Paul
and Elder, 2006), which was developed from Paul and Elders’
thinking model, the study assessed students’ critical thinking level
at the beginning of the course and found that the students’ overall
critical thinking level was at the lower medium level. But their
information literacy level was sufficient to cope with the online
platform and the software in the blended learning environment.
Before the implementation of the course, the instructor informed
the students about the study, and the consent forms were signed
by the students.
Environment Design
For the learning environment to achieve the purpose of
developing learners’ critical thinking, its structural components
should be designed to provide favorable conditions for critical
thinking cultivation. A systematic review conducted by Lu (2018)
has identified a series of favoring conditions that could promote
the students’ critical thinking, which include (a) critical thinking
as one of the teaching objectives, (b) tasks involving the operation
of ideas, (c) authentic context, (d) rich and diversified resources,
(e) interaction and collaboration, (f) scaffolding and guidance,
(g) communicative tools. These conditions were mapped to the
design of the components of the PST learning environment
model and the designing strategies were generalized from
TABLE 1 | Strategies for pedagogical design.
Guiding principles Strategies
Critical thinking skills as learning
objectives
Introducing the concepts and
frameworks of critical thinking to
students
Informing students of critical thinking
as learning objectives
Operation of ideas Including tasks of writing, discussion,
and evaluation
Choosing topics that induce collisions
of ideas
Authentic context Providing sufficient details
Creating interesting situations
Rich and diverse resources Collecting information from different
media and perspectives
Providing students with relevant
websites and searching engines
the instruction practice to guide the detailed design of the
environmental components.
Pedagogical Design
In terms of the pedagogical design, the thinking skills that can be
cultivated were first decided according to the particular learning
content. Aiming at promoting the thinking skills, the learning
tasks which mostly introduced problems in the “real” context
and involve the operation of ideas were designed. Furthermore,
rich and diversified resources were provided to the students. The
specific strategies of pedagogical design are listed in Table 1.
When designing the learning objectives of the activities,
the basic concepts and frameworks of critical thinking were
introduced to the students, making them aware of its meaning
and significace. Furthermore, students were informed of the
thinking skills targeted and their importance. When students
associated the thinking skills with the tasks, they would try to use
the skills to accomplish them.
In order to enable tasks to involve more operations of
ideas, writing, discussion, and evaluation activities were given
the priority to provide more opportunities for students to
communicate with each other and reflect upon their ideas.
Besides, the topics of these activities were chosen to induce
more collision of ideas. For example, in learning to write
complaint letters, students were assigned the roles of customers
who made the complaints and the managers who responded to
the complaints. In such an activity, students could realize the
existence of different perspectives and think more adequately
and deeply.
The creation of a relatively real context drew on the following
two strategies: One is to provide sufficient details. In the case
of the job application writing, details such as the information
about the potential employer were provided to the students so
that they could consider themselves as “real” potential employees.
The other strategy is to create interesting situations. The contexts
described were usually attractive to the students, which helped
arouse students’ interest in completing the tasks.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
TABLE 2 | Strategies for social design.
Guiding
principles
Strategies
Interaction and
collaboration
Grouping students according to the features of
the tasks
Designing interaction of different types
Creating various opportunities for students to
communicate with the teacher
Scaffolding and
guidance
Emphasizing the process of thinking Giving full
play to the role of peers
Creating “democratic” atmosphere
Setting up an encouragement system
With the purpose of collecting sufficient and diversified
resources, both traditional and online media were included.
Since the materials in the textbook are rather limited, the
relevant online resources would make complementation for
students to have sufficient resources to deal with. To meet
the multi-angle nature of resources, the information collected
came from different positions and perspectives. For instance, the
students were introduced to the websites both for job hunting
and recruitment so that they could read information from the
perspectives of both employers and potential employees. To
help students conduct resource searches by themselves, online
resources such as the Online Writing Lab of Purdue University
were presented to them to conduct searches. The search was
usually directed by a clear question or a problem, and students
needed to accurately identify the target source. Some search
engines were also introduced to the students, enabling them to
compare and select the relevant resources. Students needed to
first define what their search objectives were, then assess the
search and query results one by one, and finally synthesize the
resources to make a reasonable decision.
Social Design
With the purpose of cultivating students’ critical thinking in
the environment, interactions and collaborations of different
types were stressed in the design (see Table 2). Furthermore,
the scaffold and guidance from the teacher and the peer were
designed to provide support to the students.
In designing interaction and collaboration-rich community,
the strategies were applied to target both student-student
and student-teacher communities. In terms of student-student
community, students were grouped according to their levels and
the requirements of the activities. Specifically, in a demanding
task, students of different academic levels were grouped to ensure
the implementation. In a relatively free discussion, students were
grouped according to their own will so that they could feel
more comfortable sharing their ideas. Also, various types of
interactions such as information exchange, discussion, debate
were designed. With the change of partners, roles, and tasks,
different critical thinking skills were trained. As for the student-
teacher community, the student-teacher communication was
facilitated through various forms of teacher-student interaction,
such as teachers’ feedback, office hour, and communications on
TABLE 3 | Strategies for technological design.
Guiding
principles
Strategies
Communicative
tools
Choosing the most convenient tools for
synchronous communication
Leaving enough time for asynchronous
communication
Tencent QQ, which were necessary to keep students on the right
track of developing thinking skills. With various opportunities
of communicating with the teacher, students would not feel
powerless or frustrated when facing difficult tasks, thus ensuring
the achievement of the learning objectives.
Four strategies were employed when designing the scaffolding
and guidance. First, the process of thinking was highlighted.
When the focus fell on critical thinking processes such as
establishing viewpoints, making assumptions, and evaluating
information, students had examples to follow when they
conducted these activities independently. Second, the role of
peers was given full play. In many cases, the demonstration of
peers was more direct and effective for the students to develop
critical thinking skills. Third, the teacher consciously created a
“democratic” classroom and online atmosphere, where students
could express their opinions without fearing judgment from
the “authority” or other people. Fourth, the teacher established
awarding incentives to encourage students to take the initiative
to meet challenges and develop thinking. For example, if
one student’s feedback to others’ work was deeper and more
thorough, the instructor gave the student more marks and
demonstrated the work to the whole class with their permission.
Technological Design
Moodle (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning
Environment) was the main platform of the e-learning
environment. A composition reviewing and grading software
TRP (Teaching Resources Platform) was also used to facilitate
teachers’ grading of the compositions. TRP mainly focuses on
the mistakes related to language and grammar, which could help
direct teachers’ attention to the composition’s structure, logic,
coherence, and other aspects. In addition, Tencent QQ, a social
networking software frequently used by students, was selected to
send messages and notices to students.
As shown in Table 3, both synchronous and asynchronous
instruments were applied to provide sufficient communication
among students in designing communicative tools. When
designing the synchronous instruments, the instructor used the
Tencent QQ, which could conveniently support the simultaneous
real-time communication between learners and encourage group
members to fully communicate with each other. The discussion
board of Moodle was used as asynchronous tools, and sufficient
time was given to the students to respond to other people’s
opinions or solve problems. The students could use the time
to find information, consult others and translate complex ideas
into words.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
TABLE 4 | Cronbach alpha coefficients for modified WEBLEI.
Scales Cronbach’s
alpha
N of items
Pedagogical
design
0.764 7
Social design 0.805 7
Technical design 0.884 6
Total 0.901 20
Research Instruments
Learning Environment Questionnaire
The questionnaire adapted from the Web-Based Learning
Environment Instrument (WEBLEI) was used to elicit the
information of students’ perception of the learning environment.
The original WEBLEI questionnaire was first created and
subsequently modified by Chang and Fisher for investigating
online learning environments in University settings. The primary
purpose of the questionnaire was to capture “students’ perception
of web-based learning environments” (Chang and Fisher, 2003, p.
9). The questions in the WEBLEI questionnaire are able to cover
the three elements of the PST learning environment model. The
researcher modified the questionnaire according to the context of
the current study. The Cronbach alpha coefficients indicated the
acceptable reliability of the modified questionnaire (see Table 4).
Interviews
In order to explore students’ perceived improvement of
critical thinking and the in-depth reasons behind students’
perceptions of the learning environment and critical thinking
instruction, interviews were conducted after the administration
of the adapted WEBLEI questionnaire. Eight students were
randomly chosen and invited to the interview one by one. The
interviews lasted about 30 min and were audio-recorded with the
participants’ approval.
Data Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected for this
study. In terms of quantitative analysis, descriptive statistics
were used to describe the means, standard deviations. As for
qualitative data, the recordings of the interviews were transcribed
for content analysis. The content about the perceptions of
the environment was categorized with the outline of the
learning environment components. Regarding the development
of students’ critical thinking, the “elements of thinking” from
Paul and Elder’s thinking model formed the framework for data
analysis. The relevant script was examined and coded according
to the framework by the researcher and her collegue to generalize
the aspects of critical thinking improvement.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Students’ Perceptions of the Environment
Students’ Perception of the Pedagogical Design
The means and standard deviation scores of students’ perception
of the pedagogical design are listed in Table 5. The overall
mean score was 3.86 (SD =0.79), suggesting that students were
generally satisfied with the pedagogical design. Item 1 (M =
3.98, SD =0.80) (The learning objectives are clearly stated),
Item 4 (M=3.93, SD =0.83) (Expectations of assignments are
clearly stated), and Item 5 (M =4, SD =1.00) (Activities are
planned carefully) got particularly high scores, which indicates
that students were aware of the careful design of the activities,
content, and context.
The students’ positive attitude toward the pedagogical design
was also revealed from the interview, in which they expressed
their satisfaction with the design of tasks and contexts. For
example, Student A expressed that the course was designed in
the way that they needed to “find solutions to the problems” by
themselves most of the time and he also enjoyed the discussions
in class. Student C recognized the relative authentic contexts
of the tasks, which helped her devote herself to the tasks. She
mentioned that in learning to write a CV, the teacher asked the
students to imagine the situation in which they were about to
graduate and hunt a job. “I felt the topic was very relevant to me,
so I was motivated to do this task well.” She told the interviewer.
Apart from the positive opinions, some students expressed
their concern about the pedagogical design. For example, Student
H said, “The online learning added to our workload. Sometimes
I was scared of all the online assignments we had to finish after
class.” And student G had difficulty adapting to this learning
approach. “It seemed that we were learning by ourselves. I am not
sure whether I have learned enough knowledge. I would rather
learn how to write from the teacher.”
Students’ Perception of Social Design
As seen from Table 5, the overall mean score of the social design
was 3.90 (M=0.82), indicating students’ generally positive
attitude toward the social design. The data gathered from the
students’ interviews also suggested that students were satisfied
with the social design. For example, student B mentioned that
she always received encouragement and help when dealing with
difficult tasks. Item 11 (M=4.07, SD =0.65) (Other students
respond promptly to my request), Item 12 (M=4.09, SD =0.91)
(The teachers give me quick comments on my work) and Item 14
(M=4.07, SD =0.58) (I was supported by a positive attitude
from my teacher and my classmates) scored higher than Item
9 (M=3.47, SD =1.01) (I can ask my teacher what I do not
understand) and Item 10 (M=3.79, SD =0.78) (I can ask other
classmates what I do not understand). This finding reveals that in
the environment, both students and teachers responded to others
promptly, but students had considerations when they needed to
consult others.
When asked the reason for this, the students suggested that
the teacher and the environment did provide them with the
opportunity to seek help, but sometimes they felt reluctant to
trouble others. Student E mentioned when he found something
he failed to understand, he would prefer to figure it out by himself
first and then seek help from the teacher and classmates. He
told the interviewer: “I thought the teacher was busy, and my
classmates were also busy, so I would prefer to figure it out
by myself.”
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
TABLE 5 | Students’ Perceptions of the Environment.
M SD
Pedagogical design
1. The learning objectives are clearly stated in each lesson. 3.98 0.80
2. The organization of each lesson is easy to follow. 3.84 0.76
3. The structure of the environment helps me focus on the learning. 3.56 0.72
4. Expectations of assignments are clearly stated. 3.93 0.83
5. Activities are planned carefully. 4 1.00
6. The content of the course worked well in a blended learning environment. 3.84 0.64
7. The presentation of the course content was clear. 3.84 0.75
Total 3.86 0.79
Social design
8. I communicate with other students in this subject electronically. 3.86 0.80
9. I can ask my teacher what I do not understand. 3.47 1.01
10. I can ask other students what I do not understand. 3.79 0.78
11. Other students respond promptly to my requests for help. 4.07 0.65
12. The teachers gives me quick comments on my work. 4.09 0.91
13. My classmates and I regularly evaluate each other’s work. 3.93 0.87
14. I was supported by a positive attitude from my teacher and my classmates. 4.07 0.58
Total 3.90 0.82
Technical design
15. I can access the learning activities at times convenient to me 3.84 0.92
16. The online material is available at locations suitable for me 3.93 0.92
17. I am allowed to work at my own speed to achieve my leaning objectives 3.79 0.83
18. I decided how much I want to learn in a given period 3.63 0.79
19. I decide when I want to learn 4 0.97
20. Using blended learning allowed me to explore the interest of my own 3.18 0.68
Total 3.73 0.85
Students’ Perceptions of Technical Design
As for the technical design (see Table 5), the average score is
3.73 (SD =0.85), which suggests that the environment provided
relatively sufficient technological support to the students. Item
16 (M=3.93, SD =0.92) (The online material is available at
locations suitable for me) and Item 19 (M=4, SD =0.97) (I
decide when I want to learn) got higher scores, which indicates
that students could enjoy the convenience of “anywhere” and
“anytime” in the learning environment.
This positive attitude was demonstrated in the interview data
collected from Student F who expressed his appreciation for
the freedom and the sense of control brought by asynchronous
discussion. He said, “I could finish the task at the time that is
convenient for me as long as I did not miss the deadline. I like it.”
One thing worth noticing is that the mean score of Item 20
(Using blended learning allowed me to explore the interest of my
own) is 3.18 (SD =0.68), which falls toward the middle of the 1–5
scale. This score reveals that students did not think the resources
of the blended learning environment play an important role in
exploring their own areas of interest. In the interview, student
D expressed that he did not find the resources very interesting,
for the range of the topics was rather limited, and he was not
attracted by the resources provided.
In sum, students’ ratings on different dimensions of the
questionnaire suggest that students perceived the productiveness
of the learning environment in a generally positive way.
This result is consistent with the studies exploring students’
perceptions of the blending learning environment in general
(e.g., Akkoyunlu and Yilmaz, 2006; Dziuban et al., 2006; Owston
et al., 2006; Bendania, 2011; Wang and Huang, 2018). In
the study conducted by Wang and Huang (2018), a blended
environment was also constructed from the pedagogical, social,
and technical perspectives. The findings of the study reveal
that students are generally positive toward the design of the
learning environment. This may suggest that students would
perceive the learning environment positively if the elements of
the blended learning environment are carefully designed. Despite
the generally positive attitudes toward the learning environment,
some students expressed their concern about the workload and
adaptation to the way of learning in the interview. In study
Stracke (2007), the way of learning was also found to make
the students withdraw from the blended course. The findings
indicate that some students may need more time to adapt to more
student-centered learning.
Students’ Perceived Impact of the Blended
Learning Environment on the Development
of Their Critical Thinking
Drawing mainly on Paul and Elder’s framework of thinking
elements, the following themes emerged as to the students’
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
perceived improvement of critical thinking after data analysis and
are elucidated through students’ quotations.
Gaining a Deeper Understanding of the Concept of
“Critical Thinking”
In the interview, students talked about their improvement in
understanding the concept of critical thinking. For example,
Student D expressed that the environment helped him clarify the
concept of critical thinking. He used to consider the concept as
closely related to “criticizing” because of its Chinese translation
and came to realize that it was closer to the concept of
“rational thinking.”
Some students also expressed that the course helped them
realize the importance of critical thinking. As the teacher clearly
informed the students of the specific critical thinking skills each
task aimed to cultivate, students realized that “critical thinking is
not an abstract concept, but concrete ways of guiding people to
solve problems” (Student B).
Using Facts and Evidence to Support One’s Own
Opinion
In the interview, students also talked about the change they
experienced when forming and supporting their opinion. They
started to recognize the importance of facts and evidence in
their writing. Student E told the interviewer that he learned that
supporting ideas were very important to make one’s opinion
accepted. He said: “In accomplishing the writing tasks of the
course, I gradually learned to provide arguments with further
explanations, examples and,. . . maybe some dat a.”
Some students also suggested that facts and evidence were
important for them to convince others in the discussions. Student
B said: “In the past when someone disagreed with me, I usually
felt sad and angry. I would either remain silent or quarrel with
them. In this course, I learned that if I wanted others to accept my
opinion, I needed to convince them with evidence such as facts
and information.” She also felt excited that her well-presented
opinions were accepted several times during the discussion with
her team members.
Thinking From Multiple Perspectives
Another perceived effect is thinking from multiple perspectives,
which was mentioned by many students. For example, Student
A described how a particular activity helped him recognize the
importance of different perspectives and how his own writing
benefited from a particular activity in the course. “The teacher
asked some of us to play the role of employer and I was assigned
this role. When I thought from the employer’s perspective, I
knew what kind of employee I needed. . . When I wrote my
job application letter, I had a very clear idea what to include
in my letter.” (Student A) Student F also mentioned that
recognizing different perspectives helped him finish writing the
complaint letter well. According to him, he not only mentioned
the dissatisfaction in the complaint letter but also stated the
potential negative impact on the company to which he sent
the letter.
Exploring and Clarifying the Purpose Behind the
Texts or Behaviors
The interviewees also mentioned that they learned to explore and
clarify the purpose behind the texts or behaviors. Some students
explained how they started to consider purpose as an important
component in their writing. Student H told the interviewer that
when the teacher started to teach a new genre, she always asked
the students to discuss under what circumstances they could
meet or use this type of writing, and why they needed it in the
daily life. “In this way, I understand that there should be a clear
purpose behind each writing. And. . . and when I tried to finish
my own writing task, I also put the writing purpose into my
consideration.” said Student H.
Some students also told the interviewer that they gradually
learned to avoid distraction and stick to the purpose when they
conducted a discussion. According to student G, the students
tended to talk about irrelevant things when they had discussions
at the beginning of the course. With the instructors’ constant
reminding, they could realize whether they strayed from the
point and returned to the right track in time at the end of
the semester.
In summary, the data from the interview suggest that
students could perceive their critical thinking development in
different thinking dimensions. Furthermore, according to the
students’ opinion, their development in critical thinking was
also manifested in their writing and even transferred to other
activities. As for the promoting factors of the development, the
students recognized the importance of learning environment
design, especially the pedagogical design and the social design.
For example, students attributed their deeper understanding of
the concept to the instructor’s deliberate introduction of critical
thinking and focus on the development of thinking skills in the
activity design. Also, they believed that the teachers’ guidance and
peers’ scaffold enabled them to realize the importance of multiple
perspectives. These factors were also found to promote students’
critical thinking in the systematic review conducted by Chou et al.
(2018). This suggests that designing the elements of the learning
environment to provide favorable conditions for critical thinking
development could bring positive effects.
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This study proposed the construction of a blended learning
environment to promote critical thinking in terms of
pedagogical, social, and technical design and explored students’
perceptions of the environment design and their perceived
impact on the improvement of critical thinking. The results
of the study suggests that students are generally satisfied
with the design of the learning environment, and students
considered the learning environment helpful in improving
critical thinking. Even though the study made a contribution to
the instructional design aiming at critical thinking promotion
in a blended learning environment, some limitations should be
duly noted. First, because the participants of the study were 90
students in the same University, the relative homogeneity of
the context may present a possible connection with the result.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
Therefore, replication is recommended with larger and more
diverse samples. Second, the study was not able to present the
relationship between environmental design and critical thinking
development quantitively. Further study could focus on the
correlation between design strategies and the improvement of
specific thinking skills, or the predictive capability of elements
design for the promotion of critical thinking.
This study also has some implications for critical thinking
cultivation in the instruction of specific disciplines. On the one
hand, the cultivation of students’ critical thinking requires the
detailed design of the blended learning environment. Special
attention needs to be paid to pedagogical, social, and technical
design covering factors such as learning objectives, student
interaction, and ICT tools. On the other hand, students’ troubles
and challenges such as the extra workload and emotional
factors should be taken into consideration when designing the
learning environment.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author/s.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and
approved by School of Foreign Languages, Northeast Normal
University. The patients/participants provided their written
informed consent to participate in this study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
DL designed and implemented the learning environment,
collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the article.
REFERENCES
Adam, A., and Manson, T. M. (2014). Using a pseudoscience activity to teach
critical thinking. Teach. Psychol. 41, 130–134. doi: 10.1177/00986283145
30343
Akkoyunlu, B., and Yilmaz, S. M. (2006). A study on students’ views on
blended learning environment. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 7, 43–56.
doi: 10.17718/TOJDE.25211
Allaire, J. L. (2015). Assessing critical thinking outcomes of dental hygiene
students utilizing virtual patient simulation: a mixed methods study.
J. Dent. Educ. 79, 1082–1092. doi: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.9.tb0
6002.x
BatdÄ, V. (2014). The effect of blended learning environments on academic
success of students: a meta-analysis study. Cankiri Karatekin Univ. J. Inst.
Soc. Sci. 5, 287–302. Retrieved from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jiss/issue/
25892/272867 (accessed June 11, 2021).
Bendania, A. (2011). Teaching and learning online: King Fahd University
of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) Saudi Arabia, case study. Int.
J. Arts Sci. 4, 223–241. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/
5017206/INSTRUCTORS_AND_LEARNERS_ATTITUDES_TOWARD_
TEACHING_AND_LEARNING_ONLINE_KING_FAHD_UNIVERSITY_
OF_PETROLEUM_AND_MINERALS_KFUPM_SAUDI_ARABIA_CASE_
STUDY (accessed June 11, 2021).
Butchart, S., Bigelow, J., Oppy, G., Korb, K., and Gold, I. (2009). Improving
critical thinking using web-based argument mapping exercises with automated
feedback. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 25, 268–291. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1154
Chang, V., and Fisher, D. (2003). “The validation and application of a new
learning environment instrument for online learning in higher education,” in
Technology-Rich Learning Environments: A Future Perspective, eds M. S. Khine
and D. Fisher (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.), 1–20.
Cheong, C. M., and Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking
skills: a case study in a Singapore secondary school. Australas. J. Educ. Technol.
24, 556–573. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1191
Chou, T. L., Wu, J. J., and Tsai, C. C. (2018). Research trendsand fe atures of critical
thinking studies in E-Learning environments: a review. J. Educ. Comput. Res.
57, 1038–1077. doi: 10.1177/0735633118774350
de Leng, B. A., Dolmans, D. H., Jo bsis, R., Muijtjens, A. M., and van der Vleuten,
C. P. (2009). Exploration of an e-learning model to foster critical thinking
on basic science concepts during work placements. Comput. Educ. 53, 1–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.012
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., and Sorg, S. (2006). “Blended
learning enters the mainstream,” in Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs, eds C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham (San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer), 195–206. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
284688507_Blended_learning_enters_the_mainstream (accessed June 11,
2021).
Eftekhari, M., Sotoudehnama, E., and Marandi, S. S. (2016). Computer-aided
argument mapping in an EFL setting: does technology precede traditional paper
and pencil approach in developing critical thinking? Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.
64, 339–357. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9431-z
Elder, L., and Paul, R. (1994). Critical thinking: why we must transform our
teaching. J. Dev. Educ. 18, 34–35.
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Fisher, A., and Scriven, M. (1997). Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment.
Norwich: Center for Research in Critical Thinking.
Gilbert, P. K., and Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussion
of meaningful discourse: a case study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36, 5–18.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x
Guiller, J., Durndell, A., and Ross, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical
thinking: face-to-face or online discussion? Learn. Instruct. 18, 187–200.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.001
Huang, T. C., Jeng, Y. L., Hsiao, K. L., and Tsai, B. R. (2017). SNS
collaborative learning design: enhancing critical thinking for human computer
interface design. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 16, 303–312. doi: 10.1007/s10209-016-
0458-z
Kim, K., and Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning
in higher education: the survey says. Educ. Q. 29, 22–30. Retrieved
from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/the-future- of-online-teaching-
and-learning- in-higher-education-the- survey-says (accessed June 11, 2021).
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., and Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing
electronic collaborative learning environments. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 52,
47–66. doi: 10.1007/BF02504675
Lu, D. (2018). Research on the design and application of blended learning
environment with the orientation of critical thinking: a case of college practical
English writing course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Northeast Normal
University, Changchun, China.
Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., and Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction
with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. J. Inf. Technol.
Educ. Res. 11, 185–200. doi: 10.28945/1692
Osguthorpe, R. T., and Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments:
definitions and directions. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 4, 227–233. Retrieved
from: https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=
84d5540c-01b3- 4b86-8c21-962ff82af437%40sessionmgr103 (accessed June 11,
2021).
Owston, R. D., Garrison, D. R., and Cook, K. (2006). “Blended learning at
Canadian universities: issues and practices,” in The Handbook of Blended
Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, eds C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham
(San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer), 338–350.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845

Lu Learning Environment Promoting Critical Thinking
Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: what, why and how? New Dir. Community Coll.
1992, 3–24. doi: 10.1002/cc.36819927703
Paul, R., and Elder, L. (1999). Critical thinking: teaching students to seek the logic
of things. J. Dev. Educ. 23, 34–36.
Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2006). The International Critical Thinking Reading and
Writing Test. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Rosen, Y., and Tager, M. (2014). Making student thinking visible through a concept
map in computer-based assessment of critical thinking. J. Educ. Comput. Res.
50, 249–270. doi: 10.2190/EC.50.2.f
Sagarra, N., and Zapata, G. C. (2008). Blending classroom instruction with online
homework: a study of student perceptions of computer-assisted L2 learning.
ReCALL 20, 208–224. doi: 10.1017/S0958344008000621
Shamir, A., Zion, M., and Spector_Levi, O. (2008). Peer tutoring, metacognitive
processes and multimedia problem-based learning: the effect of mediation
training on critical thinking. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 17, 384–398.
doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9108-4
Shin, H., Ma, H., Park, J., Ji, E. S., and Kim, D. H. (2015). The effect of simulation
courseware on critical thinking in undergraduate nursing students: multi-site
pre-post study. Nurse Educ. Today 35, 537–542. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.004
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educ. Technol.
43, 51–54. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428863 (accessed
June 11, 2021).
Singh, H., and Reed, C. (2001). A White Paper: Achieving Success With Blended
Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.leerbeleving.nl/wbts/wbt2014/blend-ce.
pdf (accessed June 11, 2021).
Smyth, S., Houghton, C., Cooney, A., and Casey, D. (2012). Students’ experiences
of blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes. Nurse Educ.
Today 32, 464–468. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.05.014
Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: a qualitative study into why learners
drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL 19,
57–78. doi: 10.1017/S0958344007000511
Thorne, K. (2003). Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online and Traditional
Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Van Gelder, T., and Bulker, A. (2000). “Reason! improving informal reasoning
skills,” in Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference
(Melbourne, VIC). Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce84/
ec799ae2dc15d56939fd0a6e46123e88112e.pdf (accessed April 20, 2020).
Wang, Q., and Huang, C. (2018). Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a
blended synchronous learning environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 49, 451–462.
doi: 10.1111/bjet.12558
Wang, Q. Y. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of
ICT into teaching and learning. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 45, 411–419.
doi: 10.1080/14703290802377307
Watson, J. (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face
Education. North American Council for Online Learning report. Retrieved
from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509636.pdf (accessed June 11,
2021).
Yang, Y. T. C. (2008). A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large
University class in Taiwan: asynchronous online discussions with the
facilitation of teaching assistants. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 56, 241–264.
doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9054-5
Yang, Y. T. C., and Chang, C. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital
game authorship: enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic
achievement. Comput. Educ. 68, 334–344. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.
05.023
Yang, Y. T. C., and Chou, H. A. (2008). Beyond critical thinking skills: investigating
the relationship between critical thinking skills and dispositions through
different online instructional strategies. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 39, 666–684.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00767.x
Yeh, Y. C. (2009). Integrating e-learning into the direct-instruction model to
enhance the effectiveness of critical-thinking instruction. Instruct. Sci. 37,
185–203. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9048-z
Yen, J. -C., and Lee, C. -Y. (2011). Exploring problem solving patterns
and their impact on learning achievement in a blended learning
environment. Comput. Educ. 56, 138–145. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.
08.012
Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: collaborative critical
thinking as narrative. Int. J. Comput. Suppor. Collab. Learn. 1, 203–228.
doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-8994-9
Conflict of Interest: The author declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2021 Lu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 696845