January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Table 5. Test index of MANOVA analysis
Effect Test index Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial eta squared
Pillai’s trace 0.86 5.44 10 72 0.000 0.43
CMP Wilks’s lambda 0.26 6.62 10 70 0.000 0.48
Level Hotelling’s trace 2.31 7.86 10 68 0.000 0.54
Roy’s largest root 2.08 15.00 10 36 0.000 0.68
Furthermore, individual ANOVAs were computed on the scores of the five KT stages. The results in Table 6 show
significant differences among the three clusters at each KT stage: acquisition, F(2, 39) = 8.71, p < 0.001,
communication, F(2, 39) = 11.59, p < 0.001, application, F(2, 39)=20.71, p < 0.001, acceptance, F(2, 39) = 29.03, p
< 0.001, and assimilation, F(2, 39) = 9.39, p < 0.001. In summary, different levels of CM perception had
significantly different effects on performance outcomes of KT in the five KT stages.
Table 6. Summary of one-way ANOVA and post hoc test
Independent Dependent SS df MS F Post hoc tests
variables variables
(Scheffe tests)
Acquisition 6.22 2 3.11 8.71 *** 3 > 1, 2 > 1
CM
perception
Communication
Application
Acceptance
8.47
20.24
13.83
2
2
2
4.24
10.12
6.92
11.59 ***
20.71 ***
29.03 ***
3 > 1, 2 > 1
3 > 1, 3 > 2
3 > 2 > 1
Assimilation 11.01 2 5.50 9.39 *** 3 > 1, 3 > 2
*** p value < 0.001
As described in Table 7, because all F-values were significant, a series of post hoc tests (Scheffe’s tests) were also
conducted to further compare the three clusters. The results revealed that the students in cluster three had a
significantly higher achievement than those in cluster one. That is to say, students in cluster three performed more
“acquisition” (5.86 versus 4.8, p < 0.001), and “communication” (5.77 versus 4.57, p < 0.001) than those in cluster
one. Additionally, their performance in “application” (6.29 versus 4.49, p < 0.001), “acceptance” (6.27 versus 4.71, p
< 0.001) and “assimilation” (5.91 versus 4.56, p < 0.001) was better than students in cluster one and cluster two. The
detailed information is listed in Table 7. The results of Scheffe’s tests reveal that significant differences were found
between cluster one and cluster three across all KT stages. Consequently, we concluded that students with higher CM
perception tended to perform better KT than those with lower perception.
Acquisition
mean (SD)
Table 7. KT of the three clusters
Communication
mean (SD)
Application
mean (SD)
Acceptance
mean (SD)
Assimilation
mean (SD)
Cluster 1 4.80 (0.69) 4.57 (0.50) 4.49 (0.54) 4.71 (0.55) 4.56 (0.99)
Cluster 2 5.39 (0.55) 5.39 (0.64) 4.91 (0.87) 5.30 (0.51) 4.92 (0.67)
Cluster 3 5.86 (0.58) 5.77 (0.64) 6.29 (0.43) 6.27 (0.35) 5.91 (0.65)
Total 5.36 (0.70) 5.27 (0.74) 5.16 (0.98) 5.40 (0.75) 5.09 (0.91)
Discussion and conclusions
The study investigated how students used CM integrated via AO/GO as a learning strategy and the progress of KT.
We examined the learners’ attitudes toward CM and investigated whether their perceptions caused differences in
their learning outcomes. We also presented the characteristics of each KT stage, illustrating knowledge conversion
for operation. The data analysis here also provided empirical evidence for the meaningful study in nanotech of
science domain.
The results of canonical correlation showed that students were in favor of using CM and this attitude significantly
and positively influences their KT performance. That is, if students express higher perception toward CM, they are
more likely to perform KT. The results reveal that significant differences were found between the students who have
111