Bárbara Mariana Gutiérrez Pérez
ABSTRACT
This article covers the evaluation made by a cohort of students in higher education regarding the use of certain resources in the implementation of Blended Learning. The experience involved a total of 71 students enrolled on a subject in the Degree in Social Work at Salamanca University in Spain. The students were divided into two groups, each of which was assigned a different type of b-learning (blended block/programme flow model and rotation model). The aspects evaluated were related to ease of use, the suitability of these resources, their effects on student learning, and motivation in each one of the two types of b-learning environments. The results reflect a generally positive assessment of the resources used, as well as minimal differences between the two groups.
- Irene Cremades Soler and Alejandro Granero Andújar. 2019. Aprendizajes Invisibles en la Sociedad Knowmad desde un Enfoque Sociocomunitario. En Actas del VIII Conferência Internacional Investigaçao, Práticas e Contextos em Educação, 3 – 4 de mayo de 2019, Leiria, Portugal. 218-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25766/st5t-v230Google Scholar
- Rocío Muñoz Benito, Maribel Rodríguez Zapatero, Leonor Pérez Naranjo, and Cristina Morilla García. 2020. Effect of the implementation of CLIL and KNOWMAD competences on Student's motivation in Higher Education. Journal of English Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.4457Google Scholar
- John Moravec. 2013. Knowmad society. Education Futures, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
- Jeffery S. Drysdale, Charles R. Graham, Lisa R. Halverson, and Kristian J. Spring. 2013. Analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet and Higher Education 17, 90-100.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chuck Dziuban, Charles R. Graham, Patsy D. Moskal, Anders Norberg, and Nicole Sicilia. 2018. Blended Learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15, 1, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antonio Bartolomé-Pina, Rosas García-Ruiz, and Ignacio Aguaded. 2018. Blended Learning: panorama y perspectivas. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 21, 1, 33-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.21.1.18842Google Scholar
- Ana Duarte Hueros, María D. Guzmán Franco, and Carmen R. Yot Domínguez. 2018. Aportaciones de la formación Blended Learning al desarrollo profesional docente. RIED, Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 21, 1, 155-174Google Scholar
- Li Cheng, Albert D. Ritzhaupt, and Pavlo Antonenko. 2019. Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 793-824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barbara Ross and Karen Gage. 2006. Global perspective on blended learning. In Bonk, Curtis J., Graham M, Charles R. The Handbook of Blended Learning: global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, 155-168Google Scholar
- Mario Vásquez Astudillo and Antonio V. Martín-García. 2020. Activity Theory: Fundamentals for Study and Design of Blended Learning. Cadernos de Pesquisa 50, 176, 450-468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/198053147127Google Scholar
- Antonio R. Bartolomé. 2004. Blended Learning. Conceptos básicos. Pixel-Bit 23, 7-20Google Scholar
- María C. Llorente. 2009. Formación semipresencial apoyada en la red (Blended Learning). MAD, SevilleGoogle Scholar
- Lourdes Morán. 2012. Blended Learning. Desafío y oportunidad para la educación actual. EDUTEC. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología EducativaGoogle Scholar
- Anthony G. Picciano. 2014. Introduction to Blended Learning: research perspectives. In A. Picciano, C.R. Dziuban, & C.R. Graham. Blended Learning: research perspective. Routledge, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
- Jesús Salinas Ibáñez, Bárbara de Benito Crosetti, Adolfina Pérez Garcías, and Mercè Gisbert Cervera. 2018. Blended Learning, más allá de la clase presencial. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 21, 1, 195-213Google Scholar
- Bárbara M. Gutiérrez-Pérez and Antonio V. Martín-García. 2020. Evaluation of Quality in Blended Learning Training. In A.V. Martín-García, Blended Learning: convergence between technology and pedagogy. Springer, Switzerland, 91-111Google Scholar
- Nicole Hockly. 2018. Blended Learning. ELT Journal 72, 1, 97-101. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccx058Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antonio V. Martín-García. 2020. Blended Education Systems: In Search of Deep Learning. In A.V. Martín-García, Blended Learning: convergence between technology and pedagogy. Springer, Switzerland, 65-89.Google Scholar
- Charles R. Graham. 2006. Blended Learning Systems. Definition, current trends and Future Direction. In J. Curtis, C. Bonk, & R. Graham (Ed.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspective, Local Designs. John Wiley and Sons, 3-21Google Scholar
- Michael Horn and Heather Staker. 2011. The rise of K-12 Blended Learning. Innosight Institute.Google Scholar
- Ali Alammary, Judy Sheard, and Angela Carbone. 2014. Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 30, 4Google Scholar
- Charles R. Graham. 2014. Developing models and Theory for Blended Learning Research. In A. Picciano, C. Dziuban y C. Graham (Ed.), Research Perspectives in Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Álvaro H. Galvis Panqueva. (2017). AHA, más allá de APA con AVA, donde las mezclas deben ser multidimensionales. In P. Ávila Muñoz & C. Rama Vitale (Ed.), Internet y educación: amores y desamores. INFOTEC, Mexico, 179-200.Google Scholar
- Clayton M. Christensen, Michael Horn, and Heather Staker. 2013. Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An introduction to the theory of hybrids. Clayton Christensen Institute, USAGoogle Scholar
- Marta Cleveland-Innes and Dan Wilton. 2018. Guide to blended learning. Commonwealth of Learning, Burnaby British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
- Antonio V. Martín García; Bárbara M. Gutiérrez Pérez, and Judith Martín Lucas. 2019. Analysis of useful tools in B-Learning environments. In: Proceedings of INTED2019 Conference. pp. 3800 - 3808.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alvaro H. Galvis. 2018. Supporting decision-making processes on blended learning in higher education: literature and good practices review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15, 25Google ScholarCross Ref
- Begoña Gros. 2015. La caída de los muros del conocimiento en la sociedad digital y las pedagogías emergentes. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS) 16, 1, 58-68Google ScholarCross Ref
- Asunción Lledó Carreres and Gonzalo Lorenzo Lledó. 2010. Una perspectiva pedagógica en la inclusión de las TIC en la docencia universitaria. In R Roig Vila & M Fiorucci Claves para la investigación en innovación y calidad educativas. La integración de las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación y la Interculturalidad en las Aulas. Marfil, Alicante, 247-60.Google Scholar
- César Coll, Teresa Mauri, and Javier Onrubia. 2008. El análisis de los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje mediados por las TIC: una perspectiva constructivista. In E Barberà, T Mauri, & J Onrubia (Coord), Cómo valorar la calidad de la enseñanza basada en las TIC Pautas e instrumentos de análisis. GRAÒ, Spain, 47-60Google Scholar
- César Coll, Teresa Mauri, and Javier Onrubia. 2008. Análisis de los usos reales de las TIC en los contextos educativos formales: una aproximación sociocultural. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 10, 1Google Scholar
- Jennifer Hoffmann. 2014. Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. CEdMA EuropeGoogle Scholar
- Mugenyi J. Kintu, Chang Zhu, and Edmond Kagambe. 2017. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 14, 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gloria Mothibi. 2015. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between E-Learning and Students' Academic Achievement in Higher Education. Journal of Education and Practice 6, 9, 1-5.Google Scholar
- Hugo Trejo González. 2019. Technological resources for the integration of gamification in the classroom. Tecnología, Ciencia y Educación 13, 75-117.Google Scholar
- María Espada, José Antonio Navia, and Maite Gómez-López. 2020. Rendimiento académico y satisfacción de los estudiantes universitarios hacia el método flipped classroom. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado 2, 1, 116-135. DOI: 10.30827/profesorado.v24i1.8710Google Scholar
- Gary R. Morrison, Steven M. Ros, Jennifer R. Morrison, and Howard K. Kalman. 2013. Designing effective instruction. Wiley, Hoboken NJGoogle Scholar
- Construction of Digital Identity through B-Learning Training: Resource Evaluation
Recommendations
Formative assessment in b-learning: effectively monitoring students learning
TEEM '14: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing MulticulturalityOne of the objectives of Higher Education is the development of learner autonomy so that students can become effective and efficient learners, with the capability for lifelong learning and for actively engage in the development of a knowledge society. ...
Effects of Learning Analytics on Students' Self-Regulated Learning in Flipped Classroom
The present article is aimed at analyzing the effects of learning analytics on students' self-regulated learning in a flipped classroom. An experiment was conducted with 96 engineering students, enrolled in a subject offered in the Flipped Classroom ...
Applying the Polysynchronous Learning to Foster the Student-centered Learning in the Higher Education Context: A Blended Course Design
Teaching and learning computer programming has posed great challenges for both instructors and students. An emerging blended learning mode-polysynchronous learning has potentials to motivate and engage students in the programming learning process, to ...
Comments