Faculty Best Practices Using

Transcription

1 Presenting a higher education case study from Mexico City, ITESM-CCM College, describing faculty best and worst practices using a blended Faculty Best Practices Using Blended Learning in E- learning and Face-to- Face Instruction Fernando J. Mortera-Gutiérrez learning approach in e-learning and faceto-face instruction. The presentation will comment on conceptual definitions of blended learning, its epistemological and pedagogical bases, and the technological and instructional difficulties, constraints, and successes that ITESM-CCM faculty members have experienced when using a blended learning approach. Introduction Blended Learning (B.L.) is widely used nowadays in many higher education institutions, especially those which have embraced distance education and other forms of e-learning as one of their major institutional strategies, such as "The Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey" (ITESM) in Mexico. One of the most competitive private higher education institutions in Mexico, "EI Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey" (ITESM) (also known as the TEC de Monterrey), has used videoconferencing, TV satellite and online instruction to deliver distance education courses and programs for more than 8 years. They have also worked for more than 6 years with different e-learning platforms (LearningSpace, BlackBoard, FirstClass, BSCW, WebTec) in order to enhance their traditional face-to-face and distance education programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels (Masters and Doctoral). This effort has produced new and unique teaching and learning experiences in blended learning environments (a combination of computer technology and Internet components with traditional face-to-face teaching forms and e-learning formats), including those environments which are entirely e- learning (online, web-based, videoconferencing, TV- satellite), those which are mediated by computer communication alone (using multimedia, CDRoms, Internet), and others which are traditional face-toface instruction using computer and online tools to enhance their courses. This blended learning continuum has produced many teaching and learning situations and practices; some with success, others with failures and frustrations for teachers and learners. ITESM has evidenced faculty best and worst practices using a blended learning approach for e-learning and face-to-face courses. The intent of this article is to show such best and worst practices, to reflect on them and to propose the urgent need for a deeper pedagogical and academic reflection regarding this kind of design and delivery strategy (Blended Learning) so widely used nowadays in many places around the world. As Russell T. Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham (2003) have said: "The term "blended learning" is being used with increased frequency in academic journals and conferences as well as in industry trade shows and magazines. However, closer scrutiny reveals that there is considerable disagreement regarding the meaning of the term [and a great need to conduct more research and reflection on it]" (p. 227). This article will also comment on pedagogical and technological difficulties, constraints, and successes that faculty members have experienced the ITESM-Mexico City Campus when they have used a blended learning approach as part of their teaching practice. 2

2 What is Blended Learning? Blended Learning has been defined in a variety of ways in the current specialized literature. The most common and current definition states that blended learning combines face-to-face instruction with distance education delivery systems (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003). In the same sense other researchers declare that: "Blended learning arrangements combine technology based learning with faceto-face learning and have become quite popular in different contexts" (Kerres and De Witt, 2002, p.10l). These different contexts can be K-12 schools, universities, and work places - for training and learning purposes. One of the basic conceptualizations for this common definition is that: "Those who use blended learning environments are trying to maximize the benefits of both face-to-face and online methods [or technology delivery methods] - using the web for what it does best and using class time for what it does best" (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003, p. 227). Some authors have suggested the term hybrid when referring to courses that mix face-toface instruction with distance delivery systems (Brown, 2001; Young, 2002). Because this last term implies a very specific meaning and it can produce confusion the word "blend" is preferred to explain this particular educational event "that focuses on the mingling together of face-to-face and technology in ways that lead to a well-balanced combination" (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003, p. 229). Therefore, the term "blended learning" is used to describe a solution that combines several different delivery methods, such as collaboration software, Web-based courses, and computer communication practices with traditional face-to-face instruction. "Blended learning is also used to describe learning that mixes various event-based activities, including face-to-face classrooms, live e- learning, and self paced learning" (Valiathan,'2002). With the development of new delivery systems we are seeing the integration of e-learning into traditional learning programs, creating blended learning. Other authors have defined blended learning in a more detailed way, such as Margaret Driscoll (2002), who states that: [...] blended learning refers to four different concepts: a) Blended learning: To combine or mix modes of Web-based technology (e.g., live virtual classroom, self-paced instruction, collaborative learning, streaming video, audio, and text) to accomplish an educational goal. b) To combine various pedagogical approaches (e.g., constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism) to produce an optimal learning outcome with or without instructional technology. c) To combine any form of instructional technology (e.g., videotape, CD-- ROM, Web-based training, film) with face-to-face instructor-led training. d) To mix or combine instructional technology with actual job tasks in order to create a harmonious effect of learning and working. The point is that blended learning means different things to different people, which illustrates its widely untapped potential (p. 54). Finally, I agree with Michael Fox's (2002) definition of blended learning as "... the ability to combine elements of classroom training, live and self-paced e-learning, and advanced supportive learning services in a manner that provides tailored learning..." (p. 26). The different definitions of blended learning make us reflect on the complexity and richness of this type of learning process. The definitions presented here in a brief manner do not cover all the existing definitions within the specialized literature; however the intention is to present a conceptual background about what it means. What is Blended Learning and how is it treated by the current researchers? The successful implementation and use of blended learning requires an understanding of the strengths of the different mediums, knowledge of how learners engage in this type of learning process, how they use information from each medium and how they can handle online (or other distance education modalities) and traditional (face-to-face) teaching methods in a combined form (Reay, 2001). The following list shows the most used elements within blended learning situations (in order of relevance):. Traditional classroom or lab settings (face-to-face instruction).. Reading assignments (printbased workbooks).. CD-ROM (self-paced content).. Performance support tools (e.g., collaboration software, threaded discussions, online testing, etc.).. Teletraining (e.g., videoconferencing, audioconferencing).. Stand-alone Web-based training and learning (virtual classroom). Asynchronous Web-based training / online instruction (e.g., -based communication, e- learning platforms, discussion boards).. Synchronous Web-based training (e.g., chat rooms, computer conferencing)(kerres and De Witt, 2003; Hoffman, 2001). Russell Osguthorpe and Charles Graham (2003) state that: Those who are currently experimenting with blended learning environments are doing it with certain purposes in mind, and the purposes often differ from one course to another. [...] The purposes vary widely from one case to another. And this only shows the potential of blended learning to adapt itself to different settings, students, and content (pp ). The following section will talk about the importance of reflecting on the epistemological bases of blended learning as an instructional approach. Blended Learning Epistemological Bases In this section some blended learning epistemological bases will be treated. Because blended learning, as a topic to be studied, is so new there are few academic sources in the sparse literature to reflect theoretically on its pedagogical and epistemological foundations. There is an urgent need to reflect on this educational field, because of the lack of wellestablished theoretical principles that allow us to understand the phenomenon of blended learning as an educational approach. Currently, those teachers and trainers who are experimenting with blended learning environments are doing it with certain goals in mind, and these goals often differ from one course or program to another. Russell. T Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham (2003) have identified six goals that educators might espouse as they design blended environments (e.g., courses and programs), these goals are: "1. pedagogical richness; 2. access to knowledge; 3. 3

3 social interaction; 4.personal agency; 5. cost effectiveness; and 6. ease of revision" (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003, p. 231). These educational goals or realms allow us to understand the pedagogical motives to adopt and use a blended learning approach in a given course or program. The combination of face-to-face instruction and technology (e.g., computer communication, Internet, online instruction, delivery content software, and so on) in a blended learning situation creates a myriad of educational possibilities that reflect its pedagogical richness. The access to knowledge that blended learning creates for "traditional courses" combining technology delivery methods is one of its main assets. Also, in blended learning situations social interaction is developed to a higher degree, particularly, because it breaks down the barriers for social contact that many online and web-base courses have. To have a technological medium to ease course activities and assignments in a blended learning course allows for more personal control of students' goals and instructors learning objectives. If a blended learning course is well planned, developed and conducted, its cost effectiveness is highly illustrated and proved. In addition, Jo Ann Oravec (2003) comments that: "... blended learning initiatives already place a high priority on the objective of using technological resources in critical and reflective ways in the classroom" (p. 232). This particular component has to be kept in mind when instructors want to develop blended learning courses. The accessibility to diverse mediums to store personal information (e.g., assignments, personal diaries, tests, quizzes, and so on), using distance education technology, allows students to have a more critical and reflective attitude toward their learning needs and achievements. Also, the opportunity to share personal information with other students and instructors in a faster and easier way creates a positive educational environment for academic feedback (studentstudent, student-instructor). However, Jo Ann Oravec (2003), also states, that: "... blended learning methodologies (such as online or face-to-face simulation gaming) require the assimilation of large numbers of rules. Such structured approaches are very useful for conveying information and encouraging students to learn particular techniques [especially within blended learning It environments]" (228). This particular factor gives an important plus to those students engaged in blended learning situations; although excessive rules can be an obstacle for those students who are not used to technology as a part of their learning process or for those who have fear of technology (for any reason). On the other hand, other authors have different epistemological criteria to reflect on what blended learning and its pedagogical foundations are. One such author is Valiathan (2002). [She]... applies didactic criteria to the categorization of blended learning approaches. She differentiates in the following way: 1. Skill-driven learning (combines self-paced learning with instructor support to develop specific knowledge and skills); 2. attitude-driven learning (combines various events and delivery media to develop specific behaviors); and 3. competency-driven learning (combines performance support tools with knowledge management resources and mentoring to develop workspace competencies) (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, p. 103). "Like others, this model is descriptive in that it illustrates possible options to combine different elements but it does not propose a prescriptive model as to when and how these elements are to be included in a learning arrangement" (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, p. 103). On the other hand, Michael Kerres and Claudia De Witt (2003) declare that "[...] blended learning basically refers to (at least) the mix of different: 1. Didactic methods (expository presentations, discovery learning, cooperative learning, etc.); and 2. Delivery formats (personal communication, publishing, broadcasting, etc.)" (p.103). These two authors also state that: "Decisions about didactical methods and delivery formats are independent, which means all didactical methods can be delivered by (almost) any media..." (Kerres and De Witt, p.l03). They propose at least three main components or constituents to be included or have in mind when any blended learning course or program (or arrangement) is planned, developed, or delivered. These components are: a. content, b. communication, and c. construction. Michael Kerres and Claudia de Witt (2003), state that: [Blended] Learning arrangements most often consist of a content component; it is, however, not an essential ingredient of all environments. Approaches of virtual 'learning communities', for example, do not necessarily need a base of didactically structured learning materials. The content component will be included if: 1. knowledge consists of facts or rules the learner should be able to recall; 2. knowledge can be explained and communicated by media/technological means; 3. information is presented to learners; and 4. knowledge of certain information is a prerequisite for other communicative or constructive learning activities (p. 105). In addition to the content component, Michael Kerres and Claudia de Witt (2003) add the communication component as one of the most important constituents a within any blended learning arrangement. They state that: The communication component seems necessary when: 1. The knowledge reaches a certain complexity; 2. A deeper understanding of a theoretical framework is required; 3. The knowledge consists of different competing concepts; 4. Students learn to formulate, express and discuss a personal point of view; 5. Students learn to participate in discussions, to formulate and receive 6. Feedback in discursive settings (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, p. 105). Finally, Michael Kerres and Claudia de Witt, thinking of a construction component for any blended learning environment, state that: "The construction component will be included if: 1. knowledge is to be applied (and not only recalled); 2. knowledge consists of procedures (and not just declarative knowledge) that require practice; and 3. content includes 'fuzzy' knowledge" (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, p. 105). 4

4 These authors question themselves on the following: How should an instructor combine these three components (content, communication, and construction)? The answer will depend on the didactic and instructional design of the blended learning course (e.g., course conditions, methods, and results). "The question is how to find a suitable mixture of these components. Different learning theories accentuate different aspects and would emphasize one or the other component" (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, p. 105). The next figure 2, will present three typical models of blended learning arrangement, that are usually find in many institutions that are using face-toface instruction combined with on-line instruction. On the other hand, some authors think that instructors who use and experiment with blended learning environments "... typically believe that manner and style are at least as important as method, and that the benefits of effective manner and style are much more easily experienced when learners and instructors have sustained contact" (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003, p. 228 ). However, instructor's style and manner are less obvious and more difficult to describe than teaching methods (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003). Keeping with the main idea of this section to reflect on the didactic and epistemological bases of blended learning arrangements, the following citations clarify the primary pedagogical reasons to use this kind of educational approach (blended learning): Those who use blended approaches base their pedagogy on the assumption that there are inherent benefits in face-to-face interaction (both among learners and between learner and instructor) as well as on the understanding that there are some inherent advantages to using online methods in their teaching. Thus the aim of those using blended learning approaches is to find a harmonious balance between online access to knowledge and face-to-face human interaction (Osguthorpe and Graha~, 2003, 229). [For example] The balance between online and face-to-face components will vary for every course. Some blended courses, because of the nature of their instructional goals, student characteristics, instructor background, and online resources, will include more face-to-face than online strategies. Other courses will tip the balance in favor of online strategies, using face-to-face contact infrequently. Still others will mix the two forms of instruction somewhat equally (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003, p. 228). Figure 1 shows the different combinations and mixes that can occur in blended learning environments (with traditional face-to-face learning and online learning). Common Types of Blended Learning Environments Source: Russell. T. Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham, 2003, p.230. Russell. T Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham (2003), state about this last figure that: The important consideration is to ensure that the blend involves the strengths of each type of learning environment and none of the weaknesses. Perhaps the face-to-face contact features a poorly delivered lecture with no student participation and the online portion of the course includes tedious, over-prompted forms of practice. This is clearly not the type of blended learning environment that an institution wants to offer (p. 228). Our experiences with blended learning environments show that the instructor and designer struggle with the question of balance or harmony, perhaps more than with any other issue as they determine the nature of the course delivery method. How often will students and teacher meet face-to-face, and how often will they complete assignments online? What will be accomplished during these faceto-face meetings versus the online experiences? How often will students and teacher interact in the discussion board? [...] Based upon its nature, each course may have a different balance point - a different way of harmonizing delivery methods. And there is always the threat of an out of balance, discordant blend that frustrates both student and teacher. (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003, p. 229). Finally, other important theoretical components related to the reflection on the epistemological and didactic bases of blended learning educational environments are the social presence theory (McIsaac and Gunawardena 1998; Lombard and Ditton, 1997), the media richness theory (Dennis and Kinney, 1998) and the media synchronicity theory (Dennis & Valacich, 1999). These theories have explained many learning and social 5

5 phenomena within distant learning situations. These theories have made meaningful contributions to the understanding of the pedagogical process of blended learning environments (in courses and programs). Social presence theory sustains that the communication done through different technology media (computer devices, telephone, fax, videoconferencing, TV satellite, etc.) and its delivery resources (such as: Internet, Web-based course, on-line instruction, self- paced courses, chatrooms, e- mails, discussion boards, and so on), allows for the creation of a sense of intimacy and immediacy among students and instructors. "In technology-based communication, people develop a feeling of participating in a 'real event' to different degrees. According to social presence theory, FTF communication generally should imply the highest level of social presence, whereas different forms of asynchronous communication should lead to lower levels of social presence (Lombard & Ditton, 1997)" (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, pp ). Media richness theory predicts that group performance on equivocal tasks (with multiple and possibly conflicting interpretations to the available information) is better supported by 'rich' media that provide many cues, immediate feedback, language variety and a personal focus. Richer media, like FTF communication, enable learners to communicate more quickly and to better understand ambiguous messages on equivocal tasks (Dennis and Kinney, 1998) (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, p. 107). Media synchronicity theory implies the amount and magnitude of work developed by different individuals working together on the same activity at the same time. "According to media synchronicity theory, tasks are composed of two fundamental communication processes: conveyance and convergence. Synchronous settings are more suited to reach a shared understanding (convergence), whereas asynchronous settings are better for the exchange of information (conveyance)" (Kerres and De Witt, 2003, p.l07). As a conclusion to this section it is important to comment that many of the postulates made here by the previous three theories and other theoretical postulates are still in need of being probed by more empirical research. Not all their assertions and statements are confirmed and validated for all type of blended learning situations, more rigorous academic and scientific research (quantitative and qualitative) is needed in these areas, however they are an important contribution within the debate of what is blended learning and its components. The following section will present the ITESM-Mexico City Campus faculty s best and worst practices. ITESM-Mexico City Campus Faculty Blended Learning Best and Worst Practices This section will show the results of a case study involving ITESM-Mexico City Campus faculty members who usually teach their courses using a blended learning approach. In particular, this section will describe ITESM-CCM faculty s best and worst teaching practices using a blended learning perspective. When we talk about best practices, we mean those pedagogical strategies that help and facilitate teaching and learning processes within a blended learning situation and the advantages that they imply. In the same way, when we talk about worst practices, we mean those pedagogical strategies that constraint teaching and learning processes within a blended learning situation and the disadvantages that they involve. Currently, at the ITESM-Mexico City Campus (CCM), the majority of courses offered each semester (80%) use Blackboard V.6 or WebTec (elearning platforms used to deliver course content and learning activities at a distance). These e-learning platforms are important tools to help professors organize and deliver their class content. Classroom activities and assessment are designed, tested and produced to be implemented through these e- learning platforms (this process is named "Rediseño" or redesign}. The majority of the courses combine face-to-face instruction with electronic and technological platforms, creating a variety of blended learning arrangements. There is a myriad of blended learning situations, in a continuum that goes from those instructors who only use the e-learning platforms (BlackBoard or WebTec) for content information (e.g., syllabus, readings, activity instructions, quizzes, etc.), to those who interact frequently with their students at a distance, using asynchronous and synchronous communication (e.g., discussion boards, s, file exchange, chat rooms, white boards, etc.) through these e-learning platforms for delivery of their courses. The following table shows the number of course that use e-learning platforms in the entire ITESM System. TABLE 1 Number of Course Using the Different ITESM E-learning Platforms at System Level ITESM-CCM blended learning courses use one of the e-learning platforms already mentioned (BlackBoard or WebTec), and each professor or instructor is responsible for updating and maintaining his or her course ("rediseño'j within the platform. The majority of ITESM-CCM professors teach their classes in the traditional face-to-face way, incorporating diverse pedagogical techniques and strategies, such as: Project Oriented Learning (POL), Problem Based Learning (PBL), and Collaborative Learning; however there are some professors who keep teaching classes in the lecture mode. Professors give discipline-specific support for learning through , e-learning platforms, and facilitate a program of face-to-face tutorials during office-hours. Traditional face-to-face pedagogical strategies and a combination of distance delivery communication technologies create a large spectrum of blended learning arrangements among 6

6 ITESM-CCM faculty. While tutorial and face-to-face teaching are the traditional platforms for collaborative learning, POL, and PBL, within ITESM- CCM courses; on the other hand, tutorial performance is not assessed, and student attendance and the use of the e-learning (Blackboard or WebTec) are mandatory. Methodology This case study about ITESM-CCM faculty blended learning best and worst teaching practices was conducted from the perspective of the Naturalistic Inquiry research paradigm (Constructivism) (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The research design accomplished three goals. The first goal was to review the rationale for carrying out the study. The second goal was to develop the procedures to be followed with detailed information on criteria employed for selection of respondents and participants and data collection (e.g., fieldwork journal, reflexive journals, and memos). In this section Generic Qualitative Study and traditional sociological Case Study features were adopted (Merriam, 1998). Both are important types of qualitative studies where fieldwork participant observation, interview of informants (structured and semi-structured interviews), and analysis of meaningful documents are used. The third goal was to identify and apply the qualitative data analysis methods used, such as Formal Content Analysis and Constant Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). These two methods played an important role during the final process of qualitative data analysis within the study (results and recommendations). The findings described here are taken from ITESM-CCM faculty blended learning best and worst teaching practices, drawn from participant observations, structured and unstructured interviews, and reflections of participant professors. Although the data for this case study are primarily qualitative, the researcher also draws on simple quantitative data recorded by participants through a questionnaire (with 20 questions). The underlying paradigm implies a 'naturalistic' philosophy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) within the phenomenological perspective, which is concerned with the study of a phenomenon in its natural setting, without separating any social event from its cultural context. The researcher of this study adopted this approach in order to construct a detailed picture of faculty perspectives, and to describe the extent of diversity in strategies of faculty teaching practices and strategies in blended learning situations. This philosophy has guided this study s approach to a purposive sampling. This sampling was a non-random one, constituted of 10 university professors (5 females and 5 males). Rationale for the study The main reason for this study was to document and analyze the current teaching strategies used by ITESM-CCM faculty within their blended learning courses, which were not yet documented in any existing study. A second reason was to determine the current instructional situation in ITESM- CCM blended learning courses, studying how its faculty combines face-toface instruction with distance education technology during their instructional processes. A third reason for the study was to discover if these blended learning teaching strategies represent those described as desirable and appropriate in the sparse research literature on distance education. Data collection Data were gathered from unstructured interviews (semi structured) with ITESM-CCM instructors (faculty) and participant observation was conducted on their blended learning courses (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Also, participants were asked to answer a questionnaire and to record the range of teaching practices of their blended learning courses. The research was conducted over a semester. Although participant observation, which was conducted during an entire 16 weeksemester, was the primary source for most of the data used (with extensive field notes for each session), interviews and compilation of course documents also contributed with important data. The ten instructors were solicited as participants for the interviews and questionnaire. In total ten interviews took place. A semi structured interview format, employing both closed-and open-ended questions, was used. There was also extensive probing. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. During the data collection participant observation and document examination were used to ensure triangulation. Case study participants' criteria selection The cases in this study are based on ten ITESM faculty members who were teaching in blended learning courses at The Mexico City Campus during the spring semester of The selection of the ten blended learning instructor-participants was based on the following criteria: 1) Instructors had to be teaching a traditional face-to-face course using any e- learning platform (BlackBoard or WebTec); 2) they had to be tenured or tenure-track faculty with previous experience in delivering courses at a distance or using any kind of e-learning platform, 3) they had to use varying kinds of technology for delivering instruction (e.g., the Web, , chat-rooms, etc.); and 4) they had to use both synchronous and asynchronous forms of interaction in their courses. The ten instructors were contacted personally through a direct person-to-person interview. Description of participants At ITESM-CCM several professors were invited to participate, emphasizing those instructors who seemed to be reflective practitioners. From those who responded, 10 professors were recruited, representing a diversity of interests, disciplines and course topics at undergraduate (within the Colleges of Humanities and Engineering) and graduate levels. Some professors had extensive experience in dealing with blended learning situations and contexts, while others were relatively new to blended learning situations. Although they all had a basic familiarity with Blackboard and WebTec, the extent of their use of online media for the support and delivery of content and facilitation of learning activities varied widely. All of them 7

7 taught in the traditional face-to-face mode, giving lectures, but at the same time they used diverse distance education media (e.g., s, discussion boards, white boards, chat rooms, e-learning platforms). The following table 2 describes in brief manner faculty participants' characteristics. TABLE 2 Descriptions of Participants ITESM-CCM= Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de Mexico. The sample included ten university professors (five females and five males). Nine professors belonged to the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences and one professor belonged to the Division of Engineering. Ten professors taught at undergraduate level, and among them, four instructors were assigned at the masters and doctoral level. Nine out of ten instructors had more than 10 years teaching in the traditional face-to-face mode; two professors had 20 years teaching classes this way; two other instructors had 18 years teaching face-to-face classes; one professor had 16 years teaching face-to-face courses; two professors had 15 years; while another one had 14 years; and finally one professor had just 9 years teaching in the traditional way. The average number of years teaching classes in the traditional face-to-face mode among instructor-participants of this study was: It was interesting to find that five out of ten of the participants had some distance education teaching experience, the rest had never taught a distance education course. Among those who had this teaching experience three had less than 2 years, and just two had 9 and 12 years (those who worked in direct contact with different kinds of distance education initiatives within and out of ffesm system). The average number of years teaching classes in distance education situations among instructor-participants of this study was: 5. Related to blended learning experience among instructor-participants the findings showed that all of them had some kind of teaching experience in this type of education. The maximum found was one professor with 12 years, and the minimum was one instructor with just 1 year. Three professors had 6 years teaching blended learning courses; another two professors 4 years; one 3 years; and two instructors 2 years teaching blended learning courses. The average (mean) of years teaching classes in the blended learning mode among instructor-participants of this study was: 4.6 years. Basically, the participants had many years teaching traditional face-to-face classes, very little experience or none with distance education teaching situations, and some experience with blended learning teaching arrangements. This is a common trend among ITESM faculty, at least in the Mexico City campus. 8

8 Data analysis The qualitative methods used to analyze and examine the data (from interview notes, fieldwork observation notes, non-verbal cues, and course documents and a questionnaire) were: Formal Content Analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), Constant Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and the construction of trustworthiness through triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Most of the research tasks in the remaining steps of the study involved detailed analysis of the data using these qualitative and interpretive methods. The data were interpreted and analyzed through a naturalistic and interpretative process of construction of categories or conceptual units (e.g., instructional design constituents, types of interactions, and types of instructional strategies and practices) and themes (e.g., instructional design and instructor interactions). Once research was underway, findings from this kind of analysis widened the interview process and selection of subsequent data. Data analysis also included an intense examination of reflexive journal notes and peer debriefing. These instruments allowed a level of validity and trustworthiness in the study. Findings This section will present the results of the study and will discuss the two main issues: Best and worst teaching practices and strategies among ITESM-CCM Faculty in blended learning situations; and whether those teaching practices and strategies represent the ones considered to be desirable according to the literature on distance education. Based on Reigeluth, C.M. s (1983) instructional design components model, the findings were divided in three main areas: a. instructional conditions (e.g., needs assessment, learning, objectives, content, etc.), b. instructional methods (e.g., learning activities, teaching strategies, delivery techniques, motivation, student feedback, etc.), and c. instructional results (e.g., learning outcomes, formative and summative evaluation). Conditions The best blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to instructional conditions, were: 1. Those participants who developed and adjusted (before classes started) their course learning objectives have fewer problems with the management of face-to-face teaching and e-learning teaching (using an e-learning platform, such as: BlackBoard or WebTec). They found it easier to handle the combination of F- t-f and e-learning technology. 2. One of the best practices was to establish direct social contact with the students at the beginning of the courses, especially when they offered orientation sessions on the use of the e-learning platform and the information to be found within it. 3. Another best practice was to establish a well defined set of assignments to be developed by the students at the end of each unit or module. Instructors need to describe clearly, within the e-learning platform, what students need to do, in order to avoid confusion. The worst blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to instructional conditions, were: 1. The majority of participants did not develop any instructional analysis before their courses started. They did not use any needs assessment or they did not know how to develop an instructional analysis; therefore, many of them did not define their learning objectives based on specific learning needs among their future students. They defined their learning objectives based on the content of their syllabus (content-driven). 2. It was interesting to see that some of the participants did not pay attention to student individual learning needs; students were "ignored". In many cases, what was most important was to carry out the entire syllabus content. 3. Because many of the courses were syllabusdriven, the administration of the face-to-face instruction subordinated the e- learning component, making it just a communication tool to delivery syllabus information, lowering the distance education potentialities of the e-learning component. Methods The best blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to instructional methods, were: 1. Participants who developed orientation and tutoring sessions during the entire course had a high degree of communication among their students, and had fewer problems with the planned learning activities, 2. Those professors who developed visual and audio teaching materials promoted better understanding of the concepts, themes and issues to be seen during class; the e-learning component was a great tool to complement the face-to-face instruction because it allowed for storage of many of these visual and audio materials. 3. Professors who knew how to handle the e-learning component (Blackboard or WebTec, , discussion boards, forums, and so on) had better control over communication and the information delivery technology used; they accepted the use of the e- learning component in a positive way, with less resistance than those who had a negative disposition towards it. It seems that acceptance and knowledge of any e-learning component in blended learning situations is a key element in the success of any blended learning course. The worst blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to the instructional methods, were: 1. Saturating the e-learning platform (BlackBoard or WebTec) and professor's account with student assignments; it is a very bad idea to request that every assignment be sent to instructor's address and e-learning platform professor's drop-box. In blended learning situations the administration of two modes of collecting and receiving students' assignments can be pretty complicated, and often turns out to be a "nightmare". It is important to define which one will be used: Delivery in the traditional hand-in manner (face-to-face instruction) or posted in the e-learning platform or sent by Mixing assignments and homework within the e-learning platform in a disorganized way can make a "mess". 3. Not knowing how to handle a technical problem was a big issue among participants, they lost a lot of class time trying to fix it; also the lack of institutional technical support could be an obstacle to the success of a blended learning course. 4. Not knowing how to use each technological medium correctly to deliver instruction and learning activities can create serious problems in the process of teaching and administering the blended learning course. Results The best blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to the instructional results, were: 1. Organization of every learning outcome on time through the complete semester helped greatly to accomplish learning objectives. 2. Those professors who were flexible with the administration of students' assignments had a better response from the 9

9 students. 3. Professors who always gave feedback to student requests, questions, and doubts had more impact and motivation on their students performance, than those who did not give immediate feedback. The worst blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to the instructional methods, were: 1. One of the worst practices found was within those participants who made the e-learning platform (BlackBoard or WebTec) the "main and only engine" of their blended learning class; to depend and relay entirely on the e-learning components and choose not to prepare class for the face-to-face class sessions diminished the learning potentialities of face-to-face instruction. 2. Those professors who gave too much information in an exaggerated way saturated students and created great confusion amongst them. 3. Finally, one of the worst practices, more related with the humanitarian and psychological aspects, than the pedagogical ones, was to mistreat students when they did not reach the expected final learning outcome. Table 3 shows the diverse faculty teaching practices at the ITESM, Mexico City Campus commonly used in blended learning courses. This table will present, in a brief manner, the results of the case study. Due to lack of space, these findings will be presented within this document in a concentrated way. It does not mean that all the diverse practices found are outlined, however the most significant ones are shown. TABLE 3 ITESM-CCM Faculty Teaching Best and Worst Practices found using a Blended Learning Approach The following section will present the conclusions and recommendations of this qualitative study about the ITESM-CCM faculty best and worst teaching practices and strategies in blended learning environments. Conclusion This article has commented on different important issues related to blended learning as an educational modality widely used nowadays, especially in the ITESM System. Through the introduction section the academic and theoretical importance and rational of the case study presented here was established. The intention of the first section of this document was to offer diverse definitions of what blended learning means and what its relationship with distance education is, trying to find the best definition to suit what was being observed during the study. The second section presents the epistemological and pedagogical bases of blended learning as an educational modality widely used around the world. The third section presents the ITESM-CCM case study, where the best and worst teaching blended learning practices and strategies used and applied by some of its faculty were analyzed. Also, the qualitative research methodology followed in this study is described (e.g., nature of this qualitative case study, rationale of the study, participants criteria selection, data collection, data analysis, etc.) in this section. The fourth section shows the results and findings of this case study on ITESM-CCM best and worst teaching blended learning practices and strategies among some of its university professors. The last part is the conclusions and recommendations. 10

10 One of the major findings of this case study is that the ITESM- CCM faculty has encountered several challenges in using a blended learning solution (didactic and technological ones). ITESM needs to provide more training for its faculty, not only in the technological aspect on how to use e- learning communication technology (the institution has made great efforts in this area), but also in its pedagogical, instructional and didactic aspects (ITESM has advanced but a stronger and more extensive effort in this area is needed). A special academic and training department or unit would be ideal to help in the instructional problems that professors have in their blended learning courses. It is not about just putting traditional face-to-face professors in a classroom and supplying them with e-learning computer communication technology, and hoping that they will develop as they can; it is about training them with pedagogical and didactic tools and allowing them to learn how to handle blended learning courses. There is always resistance to something new. Blended learning courses are unfamiliar territory for many professors and instructors who are responsible for the learning and development in their "traditional" courses. Selecting the proper content based on learning objectives and needs assessment, and tailoring it to the target audience is a big challenge, but it has to be done in order to have success in any blended learning arrangement. To learn how to combine in a proper manner face-to-face instruction with e-learning technology implies a training process that faculty ought to have at ITESM-CCM. Blended learning must be seen as an educational modality that needs strong academic training just like any other type of educational modality. I would like to finish this article with the following quote, which allows us to reflect more on the complexity of this "new educational modality" named Blended Learning. The balance between online and face-to-face components will vary for every course. Some blended courses, because of the nature of their instructional goals, student characteristics, instructor background, and online resources, will include more face-to-face than online strategies. Other courses will tip the balance in favor of online strategies, using face-to-face contact infrequently. Still others will mix the two forms of instruction somewhat equally (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003, p. 228). A final recommendation is that further qualitative and quantitative research will offer a fuller understanding about blended learning environments, especially those related to the teaching practices and strategies used in this new form of education. Note: The Instructors and Participants in this study were promised that confidentiality would be maintained at all times (procure privacy and anonymity). Informed consent forms were obtained from each instructor. References Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning. E-Learning 3(3), 54. Brown, D.G. (2001). Hybrid courses are best. Syllabus, online S y Ilabus%2 0 Artic les/sy 1H ybri d %2 OCourses.htm Dennis, A. & Kinney, S. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information systems Research 9(3), Dennis, A. & Valacich, J. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity, paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference of Systems Sciences, Hawaii, 5-8 January. Fox, M. (2002). Keeping the blended promise. E-Learning 3(3), Glaser, B.G.& Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. McIsaac, M.S., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1998). Distance education. Available online h!!l2;ll seamonkey.edu/~mcisaac/dechapter/. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hofman, J. (2001). Blended Learning Case Study. Online circuits.org/ 2001/apr2001/hofmann.html Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media 28(2-3), Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lombard, M. & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of telepresence. Journal of Cumputer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3), Oravec, J.A. (2003). Blendin by blogging: Weblogs in blended learning initiatives. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), Reay, J.(2001). Blended learning: A fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review 4(3),1. Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. On line aug2002/valiathan Young, J.R. (2002). Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online. Chronicle of Higher Education, online 11