El Aprendizaje Híbrido y la educación digital del profesorado
universitario
Blended Learning and digital education of university teaching staff
Jorge Balladares-Burgos
Universidad
UTE, Quito, Ecuador
jballadares@ute.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7033-1970
(Received on: 01/07/2018; Accepted on: 15/07/2018;
Final versión received on: 20/08/2018)
Cita del artículo: Balladares-Burgos, J. (2018). Blended Learning and digital
education of university teaching staff. Revista Cátedra. 1(1), 53-66.
Resumen
El aprendizaje híbrido o el aprendizaje mixto es una modalidad de
aprendizaje integrador que utiliza de manera combinada componentes presenciales
y virtuales. Esta modalidad puede contribuir a los sistemas de capacitación y
formación digital del docente universitario a través del desarrollo de
competencias digitales, con el fin de mejorar los procesos educativos
universitarios. A partir de una revisión de diferentes fuentes bibliográficas
relacionadas a experiencias y resultados de investigaciones del uso del
aprendizaje híbrido para el desarrollo profesional en línea del profesorado
universitario. Entre los resultados, se percibe que los procesos de
capacitación en la modalidad en línea o
virtual no han sido suficientes para responder a los desafíos de la educación
superior en la era digital, y el aprendizaje híbrido o mixto se constituye como
una alternativa de educación digital del docente en la educación superior.
Luego se presentan los resultados de una investigación de un curso de formación
en Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación (TIC) aplicada a los procesos
de enseñanza-aprendizaje para docentes universitarios. Se concluye que el
aprendizaje híbrido es una modalidad efectiva para los cursos de educación
digital del profesorado porque el componente presencial complementa el
aprendizaje virtual; además, ante los problemas de conectividad y de acceso al
internet la modalidad de aprendizaje mixto es una alternativa para la formación
continua del profesorado.
Palabras clave
Aprendizaje
híbrido, educación digital, educación en línea, profesorado, universidad.
54
Abstract
Blended learning is an integrating education program that combines
computer-based activities with regular classes. It contributes to the quality
of higher education through the improvement of ICT training programs and the
development of e-competences in higher education. There has been a literature
review of different bibliographic sources related to b-learning and Teaching
Professional Development. As a result of this review, it is perceived that
e-learning training programs are not efficient enough to face the challenges of
blended education, and Blended Learning could be an alternative for teacher
online professional development. Then, research results of the incidence of an
ICT training course for higher education
professors are shown. It is concluded that blended learning is an effective
modality for teachers' digital education courses because the face-to-face
component complements virtual learning. In addition, due to problems of connectivity
and access to internet, b-learning modality is an alternative for the
continuing education of higher education professors.
Keywords
Blended learning,
digital education, online education, professor, university.
1. Introduction
The
challenges of educational quality in higher education has emerged questions
about the incidence of online teacher training programs in the improvement of educational processes in the university
classroom. As for the use of information and communication technologies (ICT)
in the classroom, there is a digital division between the generations of
teachers and the new generation of students. The training programs or systems
in teaching technology for the
training of professors have not proved to be effective in responding to the development of methodological and
practical strategies with ICT both inside and
outside the classroom. The university professor is in the midst of
attention and controversy, recognizing
a generalized perception of dissatisfaction with respect to the quality of
educational processes, since the contents that are taught do not generate
useful knowledge to understand the personal, social and professional life of
individuals (Pe rez, 2010). Nowadays, professors face new
challenges and contexts in the age of information and uncertainty, and perceive a
generational estrangement between the professor and the student, affecting the
contemporary educational processes, since this is a knowmad society constituted by new
nomadic generations of knowledge (Cobo and Moravec,
2011; Moravec, 2013).
University
professors are in a position of
immersing in digital training to improve the
educational process of the new generation of digital university. In fact, it is perceived
that formal ICT training is not sufficient for the development of digital competencies in professors, and
that it should be thought of a permanent digital training that recovers daily good practices and a
continuous training with ICT (Lo pez,
2005;
Valverde-Berrocoso, 2011;
Valverde-Berrocoso, Garrido y Ferna ndez, 2010). Blended learning or
B-learning is the learning
facilitated through the efficient combination of different teaching methods and models and learning
styles, and based on a transparent communication of all areas involved in the course (Heinze and Procter,
2004). Some authors consider this new trend towards mixed learning as a step backwards because
they regain in-site components instead of using virtual education, and mention
the failure of e-Learning (Bartolome ,
2004). On the other hand, other experts see it as an innovative model that combines
the
55
best of each modality and improves the
quality of the teaching-learning process at
different organizational levels of
an educational institution and offers
several possibilities of making
combinations for the training processes (Bonk and
Graham, 2004; Graham 2004; Llorente and Cabero, 2008; Pen alosa,
2013).
It
is considered that a digital training proposal of university professors of the
current generation will contribute to the development of digital and
informational competencies. In addition, the professor will be trained to use
ICT as methodological strategies in the classroom that can contribute to
improving the quality of the student’s learning. For this reason, this paper
will present a proposal for an innovative training course for university
professors.
2. Literature revision
Different
difficulties of virtual training programs or e-Learning for teacher training
(Schnerkenberg, 2010) must be mentioned because the effectiveness of e-learning
training and the need to seek other teacher training strategies (Volk and
Keller, 2010) has been questioned. In addition, the interest for this
literature review is focused on knowing what have been the advances in the
research around the B-learning, blended learning or mixed learning, as an
alternative for the digital training of university professors (Drysdale, et
al., 2013; Gu zer and Caner, 2014).
The
starting point of this literary review will be the work done by Halverson,
Graham, Spring, Drysdale and Henrie (2014) who carried out an analysis on the
topics of the most cited articles in the first decade of research on blended
learning. With regard to the use of blended learning for the professional
development, these authors claim that it has been a minority trend (3.5%) in
research compared to other thematic trends in research about blended learning,
such as research on instructional design, learning styles and results,
exploration, comparison, technology and interaction, among others. Although
this study was based on the research published in English, it is opted for the
thematic trend of professional development as the most akin or approximate to
what is understood in Spanish as training.
Blended
learning is projected as a future modality for the improvement of the
university educational Quality (Wold, 2013) and for the professional
development of the professor (Owston et al., 2008). In a literature review from
1999 to 2012 on blended learning, Güzer and Caner indicate that this modality
is perceived as useful, enjoyable, flexible and motivating for apprentices,
although it has as a challenge to generate better learning environments through
social interaction and collaborative work. The study mentions that blended
learning has been implemented in recent years in different school settings,
including training programs. In the future, studies on mixed or blended
learning will focus on how to create effective or successful experiences on
their implementation, and in turn, should consider the inclusion of mobile
learning or M-learning that uses new devices such as tablets, smartphones,
among others (Güzer and Caner, 2014).
The
study on the trend analysis in dissertations and thesis on blended learning
conducted by Drysdale et al. (2013) considers that one of the trends used of
this modality is in the field of professional development. Although this
analysis indicates that there is a low percentage of blended-learning studies
directed to professional training (7%), the authors interpret that this result
does not show the potential of professional development needs, and that
upcoming research on blended learning should be about the professional needs of
56
administrative and teaching staff in educational institutions (Bicen, Ozdamli
and Uzunboylu, 2014; Drysdale et al., 2013), although research in this field
has still been incipient in the first decade of research on blended learning
(Halverson et al., 2014).
Within
the institutional variables in education as critical factors in the success of
blended learning, Valverde-Berrocoso mentions the ability to implement more
flexible organizational structures in universities. Within this organizational
structure should be considered professor training or support to professors
(Valverde-Berrocoso, 2011). In this way, blended learning becomes an
alternative modality for the improvement of the teaching-learning processes and
it constitutes a tendency in the use of the ICT for the university teaching
(Valverde-Berrocoso, López, Garrido and Díaz, 2004). This modality is
considered ideal for the professional development of the students coursing
training teaching (Fainholc, 2008).
Due to the generational gap on the use of technologies and the
generation of knowledge, the need for a digital education of university
professors can be raised. This formation should not only include the
instrumental use of information
technologies and communication through the training in office automation to the
professor, but also through the
development of digital competencies in which learning is generated, knowledge
is managed and competencies are
developed for the general scope. In this way, the professor will be capable of
promoting science and technology in students in terms of the development of
digital competitions (Regalado, 2013). From this perspective, some research
results are raised about blended learning and its impact on the digital
training of university professors.
As
for digital professor training, it may be
considered that ICT courses for university
professor training are not enough to
develop digital skills. The
development of digital competencies or informational capacities Valverde-Berrocoso, 2011) are not only in function of the training, but also
of the daily use of ICT (Valverde-Berrocoso et
al., 2010) and of the incentives offered by the institution of higher
education, such as awards for good practices in the use of ICT or expansion
of virtual or online careers
(Schnerkenberg, 2010). ICT-based training or certification programs should
include Web Resources 2.0 for higher
education, as well as tools for e-research and e-science for the
university professor, as well as assess the importance of reflective learning methods for the acquisition of E- competencies (Volk and Keller, 2010).
The
latest researches also coincide that
higher education institutions have the
challenge of increasing the number of professors who know how to teach online
or use blended learning modalities to organize learning to through professor training strategies that are fast, effective and lead to
immediate practical results (Gregory and Salmon, 2013). Although the university
professor still has difficulty in incorporating technology in the classroom, it
is perceived that there is an
increase in the interest of articulating technology with the contents, the
pedagogy and the knowledge (Rienties, Brouwer
and Lygo-Baker, 2013). There are also studies on successful experiences
in candidates for professor
positions, in which the results in the elaboration of multimedia projects
provided better results in groups that used blended learning modality to
contact in person and online with their peers and trainers (Bicen et. al, 2014)
or to create blended communities for the
professional development of the professor (Matzat, 2013).
One
of the horizons for research on blended learning and digital teacher training is found in blended problem-based learning-blended
PBL, which will allow future analyses to be
57
carried out for the
professional development of University professors (Donnelly, 2010). In turn, blended learning provides an excellent opportunity for them to learn at work,
sharing and communicating with other colleagues, and improving classroom
practices and learning from their students (Owston et. al, 2008).
The
creation of innovative portfolios
where formal and non-formal information on professor education is included, and
where professors' learning communities are developed
can be an alternative for the
development of digital competencies. The professor portfolio is presented as a
tool for reflection, the continuous improvement of teaching practices and the
development of competencies (Seldin, 2011). In this way the development of the professor's digital competencies will
not depend exclusively on formal
training but also on non-formal and informal
training.
3. Methodology
This
research has a qualitative approach and the case study was used. The case study
aims to study a certain phenomenon, situation or scope in its real and own
context; in turn, it allows describing, analyzing and interpreting the
complexity of the case. The case study is the examination of an action example,
in which specific incidents and facts are studied; it also collects selective
biographical and documented information (Walker, 1983).
The
object of study is a course of professor training of an Ecuadorian university,
so the contextualization of the case allows situating in the reality of the
university professors in Ecuador. In turn, the complexity of the phenomenon
study sets it in a holistic perspective that allows having different sources of
data and permanence in the field or place of the study (A lvarez and San Fabia
n, 2012).
The
case study is carried out in three phases. The first phase is the
contextualization of the digital training of university professors in Ecuador. In this first phase, an analysis
of the situational context of higher education in Ecuador is carried out. The second
phase consists of the case study of the digital training course for university professors. This second
phase starts with an initial description, which raises the background of the
digital training course and its context. In turn, the instructional design of
the professor's digital education course is described. The following is an
analysis and interpretation of the results of the course. The case study ends
with a third phase. It establishes
the final conclusions of the study.
|
Phases
|
Code
|
Assesment
of the case study - description
|
|
Phase
1.
|
1
|
Legal
context of Higher Education in Ecuador
|
|
Context of the digital formation of university
|
2
|
Institutional
context of the University
|
|
professors
|
|
|
|
Phase
2.
|
3
|
Initial
Description
|
|
Study case:
course of
|
4
|
Problem
|
|
digital formation for university professors
|
5
|
Analysis and interpretation of the results of the
course for the professor training
|
|
|
6
|
Analysis and
interpretation of the results of the
|
58
|
|
|
intitutional professor
evaluation
|
|
Phase 3. Conclusions
|
7
|
Conclusions
|
Table
1. Phase details and target of the study case
For the case study concerning the course of digital education for the
university professors, the techniques of the documentation review and the
learning products review were used. A representative sample of 23 university
professors was used, these professors took the digital education course. As
instruments, records of the documentary analysis of the evaluations and
evidence of learning of the studied courses were used. This analysis was
complemented by tabulation, graphing, analysis and interpretation of the
results of the current study.
4. Results
From
the records of the documentary analysis of the participants' evaluations of the
digital education course, item 1 of the evaluation investigated whether the
participant is able to use new concepts in his/her teaching after the course.
82.60% of participants fully agree on the ability to use new concepts after the
course, while 17.40% agree, and no one chose the other options. It can be
interpreted that a high percentage of the participants show a high degree of
satisfaction because the course provided them new concepts to be applied in
their teaching work.
Item 2 asked if the participant is able to use new ICT tools to
facilitate learning once the course has been completed. The results showed that
73.9% of professors are fully in agreement, compared to 26.1% who agree. It is
observed that there is a high percentage of professors who say that after the
course they are able to use new ICT tools to facilitate learning. The fourth
part of the course participants mention that they agree, proving that the
course met the initial expectations of the participants.
Item 3 investigated whether the participant is capable of innovating
didactic resources using ICTs once the course has been completed. 78.3% of
professors are fully in agreement to be able to improve didactic resources in
the classroom using ICT, while 21.7% agree. As a trend, it can be observed a
large number of professors expressing a high degree of satisfaction, stating
that the course has allowed them to innovate didactic resources with the use of
ICTs, which confirms that the course fulfilled the objectives established.
Item 4 asked if the participant is able to improve his/her professional
practice after the course. To this question 78.3% of professors are fully in
agreement to be in the capacity to improve their professional teaching
practice, while 21.7% say they agree. Therefore, it can be inferred that this
course has helped all participants to improve their professional practice by
incorporating the use of ICT in their teaching methodology.
Item
5 expresses whether the participant is able
to reflect on the teacher-student relationship through the use of ICT. 73.9% of professors are fully in agreement
to be able to reflect on the student-professor relationship through the use of
ICT, while 26.1% agree, and no participant chose the other options. As a
similar trend to the responses of previous items, it can be interpreted that the significant acceptance of the course by the participants
59
managed to consider the professor-student relationship through the
incorporation of ICT in the educational process. It can be interpreted that
with the use of ICT is leaving aside a vertical relationship professor-student,
in which the professor was the axis of the educational process, to move to a
horizontal relationship in which the student becomes the center of learning.
Item 6 addressed whether the participant is able to reflect on his/her
conception of education through the use of technology. 65.2% of professors are
fully in agreement to be able to reflect on their conception of education
through the use of technology, while 34.8% agree. As an interpretation of the
outcome to this question, it can be said that the use of ICT considers the
education in the professor, although its result does not denote the same
enthusiasm of the previous answers. Probably the use of technology privileges
the practical and not the theoretical aspect, so that participants, although
they agreed, did not express the same degree of high satisfaction in that
technologies lead to a reflection on education.
Item 7 mentions whether the participant is able to apply the didactic
process (start, development and closure of a class) after the course, 69.6% of
the teachers are fully in agreement to be in the ability to use the didactic
process when the class is started, developed and closed; while 30.4% express
they agree. It can be inferred that the course provided the methodological
strategies necessary for the development of a class.
Item 8 asked on whether the participant is able to exchange
methodological experiences with their colleagues after the course. To this
answer, 78.3% of participants fully agree on being able to exchange
methodological experiences with their colleagues. However, 17.4% express that
they agree, 4.3% say they do not know, and no participant chooses the other
options. Most participants mentioned that the course developed the ability to
exchange experiences with peers and academic peers, although it is important to
mention that a minimum percentage responded "I don't know" in this
question, which infers a doubt from the participant. It can be interpreted that
within a small group of participants, the development of this item during the
training event was not clear.
Item 9 asked whether the participant is able to develop his/her
teaching portfolio. To this question, 61% of the participants fully agree on
being able to begin the elaboration
process of the teaching portfolio. While 30.4% agree, 4.3% do not know
and 4.3% disagree. The course contemplated the reflection of the teaching
experience through a portfolio as a result of learning, and the participants perceived this item given their acceptance
degree. However, it is striking that a minimum percentage of participants
answered that they do not know and disagree, so it could be inferred that this
result of learning would have to be reviewed in upcoming courses, as they would
not perceive it as a thematic integrated in the course of methodological
strategies with ICT.
Item 10 asked if the participant is able to assess collaborative work
using ICT of students. As a result of this question, it can be said that 65.2%
of participants are fully in agreement to be able to assess the collaborative
work with ICT of students, and 34.8% say
that they do agree. It can be
interpreted that the high satisfaction degree that appears as a result to this
item evidence that the course promoted the collaborative work with ICT among
the participants.
60
Item 11 asked whether the participant is capable of driving meaningful
learning in their students through the use of ICTs. To this question, 73.9% of
the participants said they were completely in agreement, while 21.8% agreed,
and 4.3% responded that they did not know. Like the above questions, the
majority of participants consider that the course provided strategies to
generate meaningful learning in the students, although it draws attention that
a minimum percentage abstained from answering this question choosing the "I don't know" option. It can
be interpreted that although there was a highly satisfactory result, the use of
ICT in the classroom would still be perceived as an instrument and not as a
methodological strategy of the educational process.
As for item 12, participants were asked if they are able to incentivize
self-activities with ICT among their students. With regard to the analysis of
the answers to this question, 78.3% of the participants fully agree and 21.7%
disagree. It can be inferred that the course trained professors that the use of
ICTs fosters the student's self-activities, not only synchronously, but asynchronously.
Below
is a bank of short questions whose choices were satisfactory, unsatisfactory
and not satisfactory. Item 13 refers to whether at the beginning of the course
the objective was announced. 95.7% of the participants consider it satisfactory
that at the beginning of the course their objective was announced. 4.3%
consider it unsatisfactory. As for the organization of the course, there is an
acceptance of the majority of participants of the course that indicates that
the objectives were announced at the beginning of the class.
Item
14 asked whether the themes were consistent with the learning results of the
course, 91.3% of the participants considered satisfactory, 8.7% think they were
unsatisfactory. In this item the majority of participants agreed that the
course themes harmonized with the learning results and their evidence, even
though there is a minimum percentage of participants who disagree.
Item 15 asked whether the contents of the course were developed with
logical order, 91.3% of the participants consider that the logical development
of the contents was satisfactory,
while the 8.7% believe that it was unsatisfactory. It can be inferred that the
majority of participants agree that there was a logical and concatenated
development of the contents of the course, although there is a minimum
percentage of participants that indicate that the logical order of the subjects
of the course was not satisfactory.
Item 16 asked if cooperative work was promoted in the course. 87% felt
that it was satisfactory, while 13% believed it was unsatisfactory. It can be
inferred that there is a degree of satisfaction about the group activities that
fostered cooperative work, and that it allowed an interaction between the
participants, although question ten showed a high degree of satisfaction in relation
to the question sixteen.
Item 17 asked on whether the climate in which the course was developed
allowed its participation. 78.3% stated
that the climate of the course was satisfactory, while 21.7% said the climate
was unsatisfactory. It can be interpreted that there was a significant
percentage of participants in the course who perceived an unfavorable climate.
It should be asked what is meant by unsatisfactory climate, and in this it can
be inferred that there were problems in the facilitators-participants
relations, and even among the participants themselves.
61
|
Item
|
Description
|
Fully
agree
|
Agree
|
Do
not know
|
Disagree
|
|
1
|
The
participant is able to use new concepts in his/her teaching work after the
course
|
82.6%
|
17.4%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
2
|
The
participant is able to use new ICT tools to facilitate learning
|
73.9%
|
26.1%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
3
|
The participant is able to
innovate didactic resources using ICT
|
78.3%
|
21.7%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
4
|
The participant is able to improve his/her
teaching practice after the course
|
78.3%
|
21.7%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
5
|
The participant is able to
reflect on the professor- student relationship through ICT
|
73.9%
|
26.1%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
6
|
The participant is able to reflect on his/her
conception of education through the use of technology
|
65.2%
|
34.8%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
7
|
The participant is able to apply the didactic
process (start, development and closure of a class)
|
69.6%
|
30.4%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
8
|
The participant is able to exchange
methodological experiences with their colleagues after the course
|
78.3%
|
17.4%
|
4.3%
|
0%
|
|
9
|
The participant is able to
develop his/her educational portfolio
|
61%
|
30.4%
|
4.3 %
|
4.3%
|
62
|
10
|
The participant is able to
evaluate collaborative work using ICT
|
65.2%
|
34.8%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
11
|
The
participant is able to promote meaningful learning through ICT
|
73.9%
|
21.8%
|
4.3%
|
0%
|
|
12
|
The
participant is able to encourage self-activities with ICT
|
78.3%
|
21.7%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
13
|
The point of view of the
participants was respected
|
100%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
14
|
Trainers showed knowledge on the topics addressed
|
100%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
15
|
Participants were encouraged to participate
|
100%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
Table
2. Evaluations of the university professors on the training course in ICT
It can be perceived the satisfaction degree of the participants of the
digital education course from these seventeen items. Item eighteen allowed
participants to express the positive aspects they found in the course. Among
them can be highlighted the willingness of the facilitators, the number of
tools addressed in the course, the mastery of the topic by the facilitators. In
addition, they considered it very useful to learn new theories and
technologies. It is noted that the course was interesting and there was
interest and dedication of the participants.
On
the basis of these positive aspects, it is possible to highlight the experience,
disposition and motivation in person on the part of the facilitators of the
course, which allowed the course to develop in a good environment. It also
highlights the design of course activities in the virtual classroom that
allowed achieving collaborative and autonomous learning of participants through
the practice during and after the course.
Item ten allowed participants to express the negative aspects they
found in the course. The following are the negative aspects of the course:
• Lack of clarity in the explanation of the tasks.
• The peer knowledge level was uneven.
•
Allow discussion without respect
among peers.
• There were assistants who were not satisfied with the course.
• Lack of time.
• Many topics to cover.
• Time was somehow lost by the lack of participation of the participants.
• Lack of coordination in the communication on the activities. Confusion
in the
63
instructions.
• The level of knowledge of the participants was heterogeneous: those who
already knew were bored and those who did not know considered the
coursedeveloped very quickly.
• Lack of opening of some participants on new pedagogical criteria.
• Some issues were taught quickly.
•
Little time for practicing the activities.
• The evaluation of activities should be individual and not in public.
• Work evaluations should be more qualitative and non-quantitative.
• Trainers related to the technological area are required.
• Unpunctuality of the participants.
From
these negative aspects, it can be inferred that there were no negative aspects
of the course about the content and the methodology. It is perceived that the weakness
of the course settled in its organization, evidenced in elements such as
problems in the enrollment to the course, unpunctuality of the participants
that affected the development of activities, problems with the virtual
applications of the course and lack of time.
The
last items in the questionnaire suggested the participants to mention the
interesting aspects that they found in the course. The following points of
interest are mentioned:
• The importance of classroom tutoring.
• Technological tools updated in the virtual classroom.
• ICT is a necessary tool for professors.
• Teamwork of the instructors.
•
New ICT concepts.
• The collaborative dynamics of the course.
• Human and technological growth.
5. Conclusions and
recommendations
It
can be concluded that must be considered the models of professor training in
ICT towards a continuous digital formation, synchronous and asynchronous,
formal and non- formal, in-site and online, autonomous and collaborative of
professors. This digital training should
seek the development of e-competencies or digital competencies for the ICT
practices of the university professor both inside and outside the classroom
(Gregory and Salmon, 2013). The use of blended learning as an effective
modality for the professional development of the professor is relevant for the
promotion of digital competencies in order to improve the teaching strategies
through the use of information technology and communication (Drysdale et al.,
2013; Halverson et al., 2014; Owston et al., 2008; Wold, 2013).
Blended
learning can be an alternative to integrating ICT into professional professor
development not only as information
and communication technologies, but also as technologies for knowledge and learning management (Gu zer and Caner, 2014). The use of information
technology and education in higher education makes
it possible to improve the learning of university students,
considering that the new information and communication
technologies are part of everyday life. Its forms of interrelation,
knowledge management, thought development, and behaviors are mediated by the use of
64
ICT). This implies the study and analysis of new modalities to achieve meaningful, strategic and relevant learning; moreover, the university professor has as a challenge to immerse
himself/herself into new digital logic and look for alternative spaces and programs for their digital education and training (Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2004; Perez, 2010).
Digital
professor training is a challenge for the university professor in due to the
vertiginous advancement of technology. For this reason, blended learning is
considered as an alternative for the development of the professor's digital
competencies, from the presence of a formal training course, to the synchronous
and asynchronous use of digital tools that complement digital Training
(Regalado, 2013). In turn, the use of blended learning can be a digital
training alternative in countries where connectivity levels are still incipient
or limited: face to face can complement the university professor's digital
education.
Blended
learning is a virtual educational modality option integrating traditional and
innovative, virtual, formal and non-formal, synchronous and asynchronous
components of different languages, teaching approaches and learning styles.
Thus, the promotion of research on blended learning is a challenge for
researchers in educational technology (Valverde and Balladares, 2017).
Moreover, given the versatility of this modality by the blended and combination
criteria it has, it is important that the forthcoming research and educational
practices incorporate elements of mobile education (mobile learning or M-
learning) from the mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets and their corresponding
applications (apps), as well as the elements of the ubiquitous learning (U-
learning) that breaks with the traditional patterns of space and time in
education, and incorporates new technological tools such as interactive
television, satellite television, or cloud Learning or C-learning, which is the
learning that emphasizes communication, collaboration, the community and the
connection taking advantage of the potential of the clouds.
References
Bartolome , A. (2004). Blended
learning. Conceptos ba sicos. Píxel-Bit.
Revista de Medios y Educación, 23, pp. 7-20.
Bicen, H., Ozdamli, F. y Uzunboylu, H. (2014), Online
and Blended Learning Approach on Instructional Multimedia Development Courses
in Teacher Education. Interactive
Learning Environments, 22 (4),
pp. 529-548.
Bonk, C. J., y Graham, C. R. (2004). Handbook of blended learning: Global
Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer-An Imprint of
Wiley.
Cobo, C. y Moravec, J. (2011). Aprendizaje Invisible. Hacia una nueva ecología de la educación.
Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.
Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing Technology with Interaction in Blended
Problem-Based Learning. Computers &
Education, 54 (2), pp. 350–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.012
Drysdale, J. Graham, C., Spring K. y Halverson, L.
(2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying
blended learning. Internet and Higher
Education, 17, pp. 90–100.
Fainholc, B. (2008). Modelo tecnolo gico
en lí nea de Aprendizaje electro nico
mixto (o Blended learning) para el
desarrollo profesional docente de estudiantes en formacio n,
con enfasis en el trabajo colaborativo virtual.
RED. Revista de Educación
65
a Distancia, 21, pp. 1-34.
Gregory, J. y Salmon, G. (2013). Professional development for online
university teaching.
Distance education, 34 (3). https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835771
Gu zer, B. y Caner H. (2014). The past, present and
future of blended learning: an in depth analysis of literature. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
116, pp. 4596 – 4603.
Halverson, L.R., Graham, C.R., Spring, K.J. y Drysdale,
J.S. (2013). An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in
blended learning. Distance Education,
33 (3), pp. 381-413.
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale,
J. S., y Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited
scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education,
20(0), pp. 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
Heinze, A., y Procter, A. (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing
Environment conference proceedings. University of Salford: Salford.
Lo pez Noguero, F. (2005). Metodología participativa en la enseñanza universitaria.
Madrid: Narcea.
Llorente,
M. C., y Cabero, J. (2008). Del e-learning al Blended Learning: nuevas acciones
educativas. Quaderns digitals, 51,
pp. 1-9.
Matzat,
U. (2013). Do Blended Virtual Learning Communities Enhance Teachers’
Professional Development More than Purely Virtual Ones? A Large Scale Empirical
Comparison. Computers & Education, 60
(1), pp. 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.006
Moravec,
J. (de.) (2013). Knowmad society. Minneapolis:
Education Futures.
Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J. y Lupshenyuk, D. (2008).
Blended Teacher Professional
Development: A Synthesis of Three Program
Evaluations. Internet and Higher
Education, 11, pp. 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.07.003
Pen alosa, E. (2013).
Estrategias docentes con tecnologías: guía práctica. Me xico:
Pearson.
Pe rez Go mez, A. I. (2010).
Aprender a educar. Nuevos desafí os para la formacio n de docentes. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 68, pp.
37-60.
Rienties, B., Brouwer, N. y Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The
effects of online professionaal development on higher education
teachers´beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, pp.
122-131.
Regalado, J.
A. (2013). Las competencias digitales en la formacio
n docente. Ra Ximhai, 9 (4), pp. 21-29. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=46129004002
Seldin, P. (2011). El portafolio
docente. Quito: Codeu
Schnerkenberg, D. (2010). Overcoming Barriers for
eLearning in Universities--Portfolio Models for eCompetence Development of
Faculty. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41 (6), pp. 979-991.
Valverde-Berrocoso, J. (coord.) (2011). Docentes e-competentes. Barcelona: Octaedro.
Valverde-Berrocoso, J.; Garrido, M.C.; Ferna ndez, R.
(2010). Ensen ar y aprender con tecnologí as: un modelo teo rico para las
buenas pra cticas con tic. Teoría de la
Educación. Educación y Cultura en la
Sociedad de la Información, 11 (1),
pp. 203- 229.
66
Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Lo pez E., Garrido M. C. y Dí az D. (2004).
Educacio n superior y entornos virtuales de aprendizaje: evolucio n de la
oferta formativa on-line en las Universidades Publicas. Revista Qurriculum, 17, pp. 95-117.
Valverde-Berrocoso,
Jesu s
& Balladares Burgos, Jorge (2017). Enfoque sociolo gico del uso del b-learning en la educacio n digital del docente
universitario. Sophia: colección de Filosofía de la Educación, 23(2),
pp. 123-140.
Volk, B.
y Keller, A. (2010). Zurich
E-Learning Certificate. A role model
for the acquirement of eCompetence for Academic Staff. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning,1, pp. 1-8.
Wold, K. (2013). Collaborative Inquiry: Expert Analysis
of Blended Learning in Higher Education. International
Journal on E-Learning 12 (2), pp. 221–38.
Author
JORGE BALLADARES-BURGOS obtained his PhD in
professor training and ICT in
education at Universidad de Extremadura (Spain) in 2017, and achieved the
extraordinary Doctorate Prize 2016/2017 awarded by the Council of Government of
Universidad de Extremadura. He obtained the master's degree in technologies
applied to the management and teaching practice in 2012, and the master's degree in philosophy in 2005 at the Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Ecuador. He obtained his degree in philosophy in 1997 and the title of professor of middle
and special education in philosophy in 1996
at Universidad del Salvador (Argentina).
He
is currently a tenured professor at Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial and
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. He is a visiting professor at
Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar and at Universidad Internacional de la Rioja.
He is columnist and member of the Scientific Board of the Journal Sophia of
Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (Ecuador). He is a columnist of the Journal
Nuevo Pensamiento of the Philosophical Research Institute of University del
Salvador (área San Miguel) of Argentina, and of the journal RELATEC of Spain.
He is an external investigator of the Ethno-mathematic project of Universidad
Central and the project of mobile digital classrooms and learning at Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Ecuador. His main research topics include digital
education, teacher training, ICT applied to education, online, blended, mobile
and disruptive education, educational innovation, public education policies;
ethno-philosophy, digital ethics, digital educational inclusion and digital
humanism.