Universidad Católica Argentina

“Santa María de los Buenos Aires”

Facultad de Filosofía y Letras

DEPARTAMENTO de LENGUAS

CARRERA: Profesorado de Inglés

CURSO LECTIVO: 2022

CÁTEDRA: Ateneos 1

Docente: Lic. Laura De Ángelis

Alumna: Delia Marone

Hybrid Education: Challenges and

Opportunities at University

1
Contents
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................

2. Taxonomy: Different hybrid models...............................................................................

2.1. Belnded or Hybrid?.................................................................................................

2.1.1. Blended Courses.............................................................................................

2.1.2. Hybrid Courses................................................................................................

2.1.3. Flipped Courses..............................................................................................

2.2. Teach in different hybrid models............................................................................

3. Dimensions of analysis..................................................................................................

3.1. The Combined Learning Experiences....................................................................

4. Benefits of Hybrid Learning............................................................................................

5. Structuring Classes and Activities...............................................................................

5.1. asynchronous.......................................................................................................

5.2. face-to-face...........................................................................................................

6. The Students Experience.............................................................................................

7. Institutional Framework................................................................................................

8. Conclusion...................................................................................................................

9. References...................................................................................................................

2
1. Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the distinction between synchronous and

asynchronous approaches tended to reproduce the logic of differentiation between
theoretical classes and practical classes. The synchronous virtual meetings imitated
the centrality of the teacher explaining the theoretical corpus during face-to-face
classes. In many cases, exchanges that eventually took place in physical classrooms
were minimized.

Added to this is the fact that it was occasionally operated under the assumption that the
synchronous virtual meeting would "be recorded" and would later be uploaded to the
virtual classroom and/or to video sharing sites, such as YouTube, which affected the
absence or intermittent presence of the students on live sessions.

The evaluations were carried out in a context of strong concern for control and their
verification nature was deepened (we still face the same challenge: the pedagogical
approach to assessment). And now, with the university buildings open, the idea that
virtuality is here to stay is installed.

In a world that is physical and virtual at the same time (Baricco, 2019), why would the
university not be?

Furthermore, authorities at universities are beginning to carry out an analysis that

covers issues of budget, infrastructure, positioning and coverage, and from the policies
are beginning to discuss definitions, with potential regulatory impact, on the possibilities
that open up in terms of the courses taken that begin to be called, in a generic way,
hybrids.

It is important to build teaching practices representative of their time, that deeply

understand it, that recognize its limits and possibilities and, in turn, that transform it.

What it is proposed here is to face a collective project, which allows us to rediscover

a transforming meaning in the teaching practices at the university in relation to a
beaten world.

We need to understand this different world we are living in order to rethink the teaching
practices that are developed in the university. We are not what we were, we will not be
again, why would we continue teaching or learning in the same way?

The virus mutated our ways of living, relating, working and entertaining. In large cities,
we began to make daily electronic transactions, to buy things virtually, to make medical

3
consultations through video calls and to hold online meetings, among many other
things. These actions became part of our daily lives.

Baricco (2021) affirms that the pandemic represents "what we were looking for" and
asks: "If the Pandemic is a scream, what are we screaming?" (p. 42). Among his
responses appears tiredness and the need to stop. Let's go back for a moment to our
classrooms before the pandemic started. Did we not feel that tiredness and that need,
perhaps? Did we not want to stop because we knew that what we were doing was
losing meaning? Did we not sometimes want to scream to see if that way someone
reacted and something different happened?

2. Taxonomy: Different hybrid models

2.1. Belnded or Hybrid?

2.1.1. Blended Courses

A blended course involves face-to-face class sessions that are accompanied by online
materials and activities —essentially a “blend” of both live and online learning. A
fundamental component of a blended course is that these online materials are not
intended to “replace” face-to-face class time; rather, they are meant to supplement and
build upon the content discussed in the classroom (Bruff, 2020; Temple University,
2022; UAF, 2021).

With the widespread use of learning management systems such as Moodle, the
blended course approach has become very popular since class materials are easily
accessible to students (you may already be teaching a blended course and not even
know it). Instructors will often use their online courses to post articles, videos,
podcasts, quizzes, and interactive online activities for students to engage with outside
class time. Since these materials are readily available via multiple devices, students
can independently review course content at their own pace, on their own time, and as
many times as necessary. This is a key reason why students not only often perform
better in blended courses, but they also often have higher motivation and lower anxiety.

2.1.2. Hybrid Courses

4
“Blended courses” and “hybrid courses” are terms most likely to be used
interchangeably, but hybrid courses differ in that their online components are intended
to replace a portion of face-to-face class time. Online interactions can either be
synchronous, meaning that students are interacting online in real time, such as through
class sessions conducted via Zoom, or asynchronous, meaning that students interact
online at different times, such as through online discussions or VoiceThread (Bruff,
2020).

In addition to having many of the benefits of a blended course, the hybrid approach is
ideal for students who are living in different locations or are part-time due to a busy
schedule or a full time job. Students do not have to travel to the face-to-face classroom
as often and can complete coursework when and where it is most convenient for them
(Temple University, 2022). As opposed to a fully online course, however, maintaining
the face-to-face component of the course can also help support students’ sense of
class community, one of the biggest struggles an instructor faces in a fully online
course.

2.1.3. Flipped Courses

A flipped course also typically includes both face-to-face and online components, but
the way in which students interact with course content is different than in a traditional
course. In a traditional course, students learn fundamental concepts in the classroom,
either through lecture or class activities, and engage with materials that build upon that
knowledge outside of the classroom. In a flipped classroom, this approach is inverted:
Students learn fundamental knowledge prior to class, such as through readings,
podcasts, or videos, and expand upon that knowledge through activities conducted in-
class with the support of the instructor (Harvard University, 2020). Flipped courses are
thus usually also blended courses, since materials are often provided online, and they
can also be hybrid courses, if some of the class interactions take place online (Harvard
University, 2020; UAF, 2021; Temple University, 2022). However, blended and hybrid
courses are not always flipped.

A host of research supports the flipped course approach. It has been found to allow
students to learn fundamental knowledge based on their preferences and strengths,
provide more class time for active learning, increase opportunities for peer-to-peer
collaboration and teacher-student mentorship, and encourage the instructor to
consistently monitor students’ progress. A flipped course thus allows both students and
the instructor to take full advantage of both online resources and class time.

5
 2.2. Teach in different hybrid models

3. Dimensions of analysis

We will use two dimensions for defining courses: delivery medium and instruction type.
Delivery medium is defined as the medium through which instruction is delivered to the
learner (Margulieux et al, 2016). The two main types of delivery media are via an
instructor and via technology, so they will be the end points of this dimension (see
Figure 1). Delivery via an instructor implies that the learner receives instruction in a
face-to-face environment, whereas delivery via technology makes no assumptions
about the physical environment of the student. Instead, technology-delivered instruction
allows for flexibility in the learning experience. For example, the physical location of the
learner is flexible in a class that meets synchronously via a video conference. For
another example, the pace of the instruction is flexible when learners individually watch

Figure 1 - Delivery medium of learning experiences ranging from 100% delivery

via an instructor to 100% delivery via technology
a video recorded by their instructor.

The dimension of instruction type is defined by the roles that the students and
instructors take during instruction. The two main types of instruction are information
transmission and praxis, so they will be the end points of this dimension (see Figure 2).
Information transmission is defined as instructor-driven delivery of content to the
learner (Gonzales, 2012). During information transmission, the instructor or
instructional program dictates information while the student receives information.
Examples of information transmission are lectures and educational videos. Praxis, on
the other hand, is defined as studentdriven learning through the application of
knowledge (Singh, 2012). During praxis, the student applies knowledge while the
instructor or program supports the student by providing guidance and feedback.
Examples of praxis are experiential learning and discussions.

6 Figure 2 - Instruction type dimension of learning experiences ranging from 100%

information transmission to 100% praxis.
The delivery medium and instruction type dimensions are independent and can be
used to differentiate types of courses, such as hybrid and blended classrooms, and
create consistent definitions for them. These dimensions are used to form the structural
foundation of the Learning Experiences Taxonomy (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 - Delivery medium and instruction type dimensions

orthogonally crossed to form the structural foundation for
Learning

The Fundamental Learning Experiences The dimensions form four quadrants, and
these quadrants represent the four fundamental learning experiences in the taxonomy.

Instructor-transmitted describes the top, left quadrant in which courses are primarily
delivered via instructor and information transmission. In the examples below, the only
instructional guidance that students receive is through watching or listening to their
instructor.

Technology-transmitted describes the bottom, left quadrant in which courses are

primarily delivered via technology and information transmission. In the examples below,
the only instructional guidance that students receive is through watching videos.

Instructor-mediated describes the top, right quadrant in which courses are primarily
delivered via instructor and praxis (i.e., the student applies knowledge with an
instructor who provides guidance and feedback).

7
Technology-mediated describes the bottom, right quadrant in which courses are
primarily delivery via technology and praxis (i.e., the student applies knowledge using
technology that provides guidance and feedback).

3.1. The Combined Learning Experiences

The taxonomy has four combined learning experiences: one for each combination of
adjacent quadrants. Though hybrid and blended are often confounded (e.g., Allen &
Seaman, 2010), in discriminating definitions, hybrid is used to describe courses that
are simply part faceto-face and part online (e.g., Arispe & Blake, 2012; Johnson, 2012;
Sands, 2002).

Lecture hybrid describes the combination between instruction-transmitted and

technology-transmitted experiences. In lecture hybrid courses, the student receives
information partially via an instructor and partially via technology. In the examples
below, information is being transmitted to the students via both delivery media. For the
technology-delivered portion, sometimes students watch the delivery synchronously
(i.e., live lecture), and sometimes they watch it asynchronously.

Online mixed describes the combination between technology-transmitted and

technology-mediated learning experiences. In online mixed courses, the students
receive information from and apply knowledge with guidance from technology. In the
examples below, the students use technology to receive knowledge and receive
feedback while applying their knowledge

4. Benefits of Hybrid Learning

In the more than ten years that hybrid learning has been widely practiced, numerous
studies have been done on its effectiveness. The results are pretty clear: not only do
students tend to prefer it as their format of choice, but the learning outcomes and
academic achievement are stronger with hybrid than for either face-to-face or online
teaching alone. Why is this the case? A big reason is flexibility – not just in terms of
how time is used, but for how courses are taught, how students can engage with
material and demonstrate learning, and how they interact with each other and the
instructor. Whereas with face-to-face or online instruction, one format is chosen and

8
used exclusively (and thus cut off from the benefits of the other), hybrid learning can
offer the best of both in one unified experience. Face-to-face teaching, on one hand,
allows a kind of immediate, real-time engagement that can be difficult to capture online.
Back-and-forth discussions, group work, presentations, and indepth conceptual
scrutiny can often be more robust in this setting, where visual cues (such as confused
faces) and immediate interaction can offer meaningful learning opportunities. Deeper
collegial relationships can be fostered among students and the instructor, leading to a
community atmosphere that can be more difficult to forge online. Online learning, on
the other hand, can excel with independent exploration, innovative collaboration,
information and technology literacy, and content mastery. Students can watch videos
and read articles again and again to reinforce conceptual familiarity, complete
assignments in a time and place that best suit their individual needs, and take more
time crafting written dialogue with their peers. Online discussion forums offer
opportunities to develop a more sustained and richer exploration of material than the
more rapid-fire interaction of a faceto-face classroom, and students who may not be
comfortable speaking in a room full of people often blossom as strong contributors
online. Both formats offer unique advantages which can be difficult if not impossible to
replicate in the other, which is why combining the two into a single experience can
create powerful learning opportunities. But the advantages can reach beyond that –
studies also suggest that hybrid learning leads to lower rates of attrition and more
efficient use of campus resources (especially classrooms and parking). It should come
as no surprise then, that hybrid learning is often cited as the most effective format

Using Time Wisely

With fewer in-seat sessions than a traditional face-to-face class, hybrid makes the time
that students and their instructor spend together a more precious commodity. As such,
greater focus needs is placed on using that time more purposefully. Whereas in a
traditional classroom, a certain amount (sometimes a significant amount) of in-seat
time might be spent watching videos, reading texts, and taking notes during faculty
lectures, in a hybrid course, students are more often assigned these kinds of content-
centered tasks in the online portion of the course, and spend face-to-face time more
deeply exploring it, analyzing it, deconstructing it, and collaborating together to develop
new ideas. This kind of teaching approach is similar to what is called the “flipped
classroom” model, in which students review video lectures and other resources online
on their own, who then come to class ready to go further with what they covered. But
the flipped classroom model is not a totally appropriate comparison for the potential of
hybrid teaching. The sessions that are designated for online work in a hybrid class are

9
not merely for reviewing material – they are intentionally much more active. The
expectation in a hybrid course, of both students and the instructor, is that in-seat time is
more actively used. The question, “Can students do this on their own (alone or in
groups)?” becomes a primary consideration in the course planning process, so much
so that if students come to class only to be given a read-and-review assignment, they
are often irked by what they see as an inadequate use of time, a wasted opportunity.
The key to taking full advantage of that potential all lies in planning

5. Structuring Classes and Activities

5.1. asynchronous

Asynchronous requires careful design to be configured into a powerful experience. It is

necessary to think about the rhythm, the configurations of interaction and their mobility,
the other voices that will participate, the quality of the materials and the references and
the frequency of reconstructions, among other issues. There is one aspect that we
consider totally critical: the interventions of the teacher(s) in this deployment.
Regarding this, it is necessary to understand and help students to understand the
nature of the interventions, their extension and their frequency. For example, in an
exploratory phase teachers may be following the exchanges, but not necessarily
intervene because, precisely, they are looking for opening and divergence, while in an
advanced stage they may decide to make very surgical interventions indicating
adjustments that are typical of the deployment of the professional in the countryside.
Faced with a thread of students to position a topic on Twitter, the teacher could build
questions as answers and label other specialists. Or for a series of group contributions,
the teacher could make a study of the recurrences that she recognizes between the
productions and share a feedback in which she points them out from a short video.
These examples are based on the conviction that we need to banish the idea that the
only possible interventions are the questions and answers in the forums and the
returns to the tasks in the virtual campuses that currently occupy most of the
possibilities. They are part of a classic model in which students generally intervene
under pressure.

5.2. face-to-face

10
Considering all the possibilities that have opened up —on demand, live, hybrid,
asynchronous— the question that now arises is: Why would we really meet? Why
does the new habitat have to preserve a face-to-face expression? Let's start from this
base: with marked exceptions, everything that is taught in the university today and
taking into account the enormous possibilities offered by technological environments
can be taught without the need for us to be in the same physical space. Here we
should not appeal to bonds, affection and emotionality as an argument in defense of
presence, because —more often than not—if there is something that university
teaching lacks, it is work on that level. I does not mean this is okay, we should worry
about generating teaching practices permeated by recognition and affection at this
level. The truth is that they do not often occur, except in exceptions and if building them
is urgent, then it is also in virtuality, as De Alba (2021) points out.

After all that we have grieved for the physical absence, in the return to the buildings we
have the obligation to build experiences that take responsibility for transforming, with
concrete and constant actions, the reality from where we are (and how we can). It
would not be logical for our students to leave their homes to be restrained in
classrooms. Taking responsibility is also a way to recover our humanity, rediscover
ourselves, honestly ask ourselves what is the education we want.

“Face-to-face encounters must be the scenario for that experience that is worth living,
for our students and for ourselves, too” (Maggio, 2018). One from which we came out
transformed, whose imprint will remain in our memory and in which our traces will leave
marks in the spaces. One planned in present tense. One in which we deepen the ties
and emerges as a collective highly accomplished in transformation.

Perhaps the time has come that instead of devoting all our energy to asking ourselves
how we are going to deal with the virtual components, we begin to think very seriously
about what we are going to do with the face-to-face ones. So that we all really want to
attend, assuming the complexity involved in building a new habitat.

In the pandemic education scene, time has been altered almost as much as space
(Maggio, 2021). Time, usually formalized, structured and scheduled according to the
use of physical spaces, was transformed, and even so we were able to get ahead. This
shows, first of all, that time can be different.

6. The Students Experience

11
A hallmark of any good hybrid course is seamless integration of online and face-to-face
activities. This integration requires a thoughtful focus on the student experience, so that
students are presented with engaging material and prompted to interact with it in
innovative ways. That is not meant to imply that activities need always to be terrifically
fun (although fun can be good), but they should be engaging, because this leads to
students being more motivated to learn and succeed. The possibilities of how students
interact with content and with each other are greatly expanded in a hybrid course; just
having them read articles online and then meet to discuss them in-class, for example,
takes no real advantage of a class format that can otherwise be a transformative
experience. But engaging students can be challenging in any course – how do we
make it happen in hybrid? In his article, "Blended Learning: Strategies for
Engagement," educational consultant and Edutopia online editor Andrew Miller offers
the following strategies to maximize student engagement:

1) Leverage Virtual Class Meetings with Collaborative Work: One of the most
prominent features of blended learning is the virtual (or synchronous) class
meeting. Sometimes teachers spend the entire class in a virtual meeting room
lecturing and presenting content. These meetings are often recorded and
available for students to watch later, so they can be a more flexible learning
activity than traditional in-class lecturing. With the potential time savings of
having students watch recorded lectures, students can instead problem-solve
together, collaborate on projects, and use virtual break-out rooms for guided
practice. If you want students to be engaged in the class meetings, it must be
meaningful. Collaborative work can be meaningful when students problem-
solve together, plan, and apply their learning in new contexts.

2) Create the Need to Know : The key here is an engaging model of learning.
Teachers can use project learning to create authentic projects where students
see the relevance and need to do the work whether that work is online or in the
physical classroom. The same is true for gamebased learning. If students are
engaged playing a serious game about viruses and bacteria, then teachers can
use the game as a hook to learn content online or offline. Through
metacognition, and the "need to know" activity, students "buy-in" to the learning
—no matter when and where that learning occurs.

3) Reflect and Set Goals: Related to the comment on metacognition above,

students need to be aware of what they are learning as well as their progress
towards meeting standards. Teachers need to build in frequent moments, both
as a class and individual, to reflect on the learning and set S.M.A.R.T. goals

12
 [specific, measureable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound]. Through these
measurable and student-centered goals, students can become agents of
learning, rather than passive recipients. Use reflecting and goal-setting both
online and offline to create personal connection to the learning and
personalized goals.

4) Differentiate Instruction through Online Work: In a blended learning

classroom, there is often online work that needs to occur. This might be a
module on specific content, formative assessments, and the like. However,
students may or may not need to do all the work that is in a specific module. In
an effort to individualize instruction, use the online work to meet individual
students needs. Whether an extension of learning, or work to clarify a
misconception, the work that occurs online can be more valuable to students
when it is targeted. Students are no longer engaged in uninteresting busy work,
but focused, individualized learning.

5) Use Tools for Mobile Learning: Edutopia recently published a guide called
“Mobile Devices for Learning”. This guide provides a variety of apps and tips,
proposing that teachers use mobile devices as part of the learning environment.
The great thing is that blended learning can partner well with many strategies
and apps. If you use the flipped classroom model, for example, apps like Khan
Academy, BrainPop, and YouTube are incredibly useful. Leverage the flexibility
of where students can learn, and engage them outside the four classroom
walls.

7. Institutional Framework

Problems begin to appear when decisions about what will be done are transferred to
the teachers without an agreed institutional framework and without a redesign of
teaching practices in a more comprehensive sense.

With the gradual opening of university buildings, the authorities began to outline some
definitions that recognize the tensions installed from the experiences of the pandemic
and also the learning that occurred in the communities as a whole. In this context, a
rather particular idea about hybrid education begins to emerge. In this case, it is not
about recognizing the dual nature of our reality, physical and virtual at the same time,
but about building an idea of a physical classroom equipped with high-definition

13
technology in the emission and reception of audio and voice. Thus, the hybrid
classroom allows students who are in the physical classroom to be attended to at the
same time and, simultaneously, to others connected from different places.

This is not an original model; in fact, it was used in corporate settings long before the
pandemic. However, the rapid generalization of this idea as a way of solving the
tensions faced by universities in the post-pandemic is still striking. Obviously, this
model has a strong impact on investments in technological infrastructure. The gap
between those who can equip a classroom —a few, several or all— begins to become
visible. At the same time, it is necessary to give a strong debate on the pedagogical
nature of the experiences that will take place in these hybrid classrooms.

Others will say that the solution is to have more than one teacher so that one can pay
more attention to the classroom and the other to what happens online. It is true, but in
this case we wonder if it would not be more logical to split the experience. It requires
doubling the teachers, which in some cases can be done by dividing or specializing
teams and in others simply not, because they are chairs in charge of a single teacher.
And we must also contemplate the dreaded scenario: the teacher alone in the physical
classroom and all the students connected remotely. In that case, it would only be
justified to go in cases in which it is operated with specific material that requires on-site
demonstrations. In the others, why would you go?

In these possibilities, among many others, the students in the physical classroom could
be connected to the video call and the collaboration platform that is being used in the
subject. That opens the game to intervene on equal terms with their connected
partners. We might think that it is unlikely to happen because they went to the face-to-
face class for a reason, but we know that they live connected. The decision to be there
is surely due to their possibilities, tastes or other reasons that we will have to
understand and, of course, requires a solid connectivity infrastructure in the faculties.

8. Conclusion

What do we want from our proposals at the university? Probaly we want them to be
powerful, that they transform the students into what they want to be, that they leave
traces in their lives, that they inspire them to critically look at the world and build a

14
better one. Well, this demands, as we anticipate, creation and reacreation of our
teaching practices.

This requires a framework in which thinking and doing are mixed (Pendleton-Jullian
and Brown, 2018 in Maggio, 2021). We should offer a framework which, in a coherent
way, leads students to think and do, so different from repeating and applying. I
personally believe that the pedagogical proposal should not be based on the distinction
between theory and practice. If we “hack” that distinction, we could be leading to a
curriculum redesign at scale.

In virtuality, in numerous cases, the distinction between theoretical and practical

classes was maintained, with surprising derivations such as assimilating the theoretical
to the synchronous and the practical to the asynchronous. Given the immense change
that a dilution of the structure of theoretical and practical classes in many universities
can mean, we should work on this hypothesis: the current organizational form can be
redesigned, although the formal distinction is not eliminated (Magio, 2021). We can
make the proposal go far beyond those old ways of thinking about the world and its
anachronistic labels: integration is urgent. Our aim should be the design of living and
vibrant experiences inscribed in the complex reality.

Teaching with dialogue can now become a field of theory construction. This could be
the summum of the search: a university that promote original knowledge in its classes,
no longer as a product of the exceptionality of a teacher (Litwin, 1997) but as a result of
the renewal of approaches.

Nowadays, it is undeniable that the Internet constitutes a space we inhabit for long
hours. It is difficult for us to imagine ourselves outside the network; It is difficult for us to
think about our jobs, our ways of relating, our cultural goods, among other things,
outside the network. It is indisputable that the Internet not only appears in our lives in
moments of leisure but also in daily life. There seems to be no logical reason to avoid
adopting this reality at University. However, for hybrid education to work, it is necessary
to reduce the digital gap among students. Not only in access to tools (broadband,
computers, etc.), but above all in digital skills. Obviusly, teachers must be the first
ones to develop the appropriate skills required to teach online. This means, for
example, understanding the digital ecosystem, mastering the most common agile
methodologies, knowing specific software and speaking the appropriate language of
the Internet.

Faced with these situations, we have to accept that technology is here to say. Not only
that, hybrid education means giving continuity to the online work that millions of

15
teachers and students around the world have been doing as a result of the closure of
schools and universities, but without giving up the advantages of the face-to-face
encounters, with the aim of providing the best possible teaching.

To sum up, hybrid education is here to stay. Today, we have the chance to correct
failures and mistakes, and re-think our teaching practices in such a way that they fulfill
the expectations to which we aspire.

16
9. References

Alnajdi, Sameer (2014). Hybrid Learning in Higher Education.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United
States, 2010.

Arispe, K., & Blake, R. J. (2012). Individual factors and successful learning in a hybrid
course. System, 40, 449- 465.

Bruff, Dereck (2020) Active Learning in Hybrid and Physically Distanced

Classrooms. Vanderbilt University. Center for Teaching.
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2020/06/active-learning-in-hybrid-and-socially-
distanced-classrooms/De Alba, Alicia (2021) La construcción de la
presencialidad en la virtualidad como exigencia político-pedagógica. Revista
Argentina de Investigación Educativa, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13-29

Gallardo, Darío (2021) Tecnología Y Educación: La UCA Tendrá Aulas Híbridas Para
Brindar Clases Virtuales Y Presenciales En Simultáneo. Eco-Cuyo: Innovación y
Negocios. https://bit.ly/3RgGMo7

Gonzalez, C. (2012). The relationship between approaches to teaching, approaches to

e-teaching, and perceptions of the teaching situation in relation to e-learning
among higher education teachers. Instructional Science: An International Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 40(6), 975-998

Johnson, D. (2012). Power up!: Taking charge of online learning. Educational

Leadership, November, 84-85.

Litwin E. (1997) Configuraciones didácticas. Paidos. Buenos Aires.

Maggio, Mariana (2012) Enriquecer la enseñanza: los ambientes con alta disposición
tecnológica como oportunidad. 1era Ed. Buenos Aires. Paidos.

Maggio, Mariana (2021) Educación en pandemia: Guía de supervivencia para

docentes y familias. Paidós Argentina

Margulieux, Lauren; McCracken, W. Michael; and Catrambone, Richard, (2016) A

Taxonomy to Define Courses that Mix Face-to-Face and Online Learning.
Georgia State University Learning Technologies Division Faculty Publications
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/ltd_facpub/2/?
utm_source=scholarworks.gsu.edu%2Fltd_facpub
%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
O'Byrne, W. & Pytash, Kristine. (2015). Hybrid and Blended Learning. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 59. 137-140. 10.1002/jaal.463.

Poon, J. (2013). Blended learning: An institutional approach for enhancing students'

learning experiences. Journal of online learning and teaching, 9(2), 271-288.
Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30057995/poon-
blendedlearning-2013.pdf

17
Raad, Maurice & Odhabi, Hamad. (2021). Hybrid Learning Here to Stay! Frontiers in
Education Technology. 4. p121. 10.22158/fet.v4n2p121.

Singh, N. K. (2012). Exploration of praxis through personal and professional journey:

Implications. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(2), 428-443.

Online Articles

"2014 Community College Survey of Student Engagement Findings." Community

College Survey of Student Engagement. Center for Community College Student
Engagement, 21 June 2014. Web. 20 May 2015.
http://www.ccsse.org/survey/survey.cfm

"Blended Learning." Center for Teaching Excellence. Cornell University, 16 July 2014.
Web. 21 May 2015. http://www.cte.cornell.edu/teaching-ideas/teaching-with-
technology/blended-earning.html

"BlendKit Course: DIY Project Tasks." Blended Learning Toolkit. University of Central
Florida, 2015. Web. 21 May 2015. https://blended.online.ucf.edu/blendkit-course-
diy-project-tasks/

Blended Learning, Hybrid Learning, The Flipped Classroom… What’s the Difference?
(2017, April 7). [Blog post]. Retrieved
from https://www.panopto.com/blog/blended-learning-hybrid-learning-flipped-
classroom-whats-difference/

Harvard University (2020) Flipped Classrooms. The Derek Bok Center for Teaching
and Learning. https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/flipped-classrooms

Temple University (2022) Teach Hybrid. Center for the Advancement of Teaching.
https://teaching.temple.edu/return/teach-fall-2020/teach-hybrid
University of Alaska Fairbanks (2021) Modality is Really About Student Access.
Pedagogy Resources. https://iteachu.uaf.edu/modality/

18