Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction.

Presenting a higher education case study from Mexico: "Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey" (ITESM-CCM) College, Mexico city campus, describing faculty best and worst practices using a blended learning approach in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. The article comments on conceptual definitions of blended learning, its epistemological and pedagogical bases and foundations, and the technological and instructional problems, difficulties, constraints, and successes that ITESM-CCM faculty has when they are using a blended learning approach.

**********

Blended Learning (B.L.) is widely used today in many higher education institutions, especially those which have embraced distance education and any other form of e-learning as one of their major institutional and teaching efforts, such as "The Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey" (ITESM) has done in Mexico.

One of the most competitive private higher education institutions in Mexico, "El Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey" (ITESM) (also named TEC de Monterrey), has implemented for more than eight years, videoconferencing, TV satellite, and online instruction to deliver distance education courses and programs; and also more than six years using different e-learning platforms (LearningSpace, BlackBoard, FirstClass, BSCW, WebTec) to enhance its traditional face-to-face and distance education programs at undergraduate and graduate level (masters and doctoral).

This effort has produced new and unique teaching and instructional experiences in blended learning environments (a combination with computer technology and Internet components with traditional face-to-face teaching forms and e-learning formats), going from those environments, which are entirely e-learning (online, web-based, videoconferencing, TV-satellite), to others, which are just mediated by computer communication (using multimedia, CDRoms, Internet), and also, from those environments which are just traditional face-to-face instruction using computer and online tools to enhance their courses.

This blended learning continuum has produced many teaching, instructional, and learning situations and practices; some with success, others with failures and frustrations for teachers, instructors, and learners. ITESM has a particular background on faculty best and worst practices using a blended learning approach for its e-learning courses and face-to-face courses. The intent of this article is to show such best and worst teaching practices, reflect on them, and present an urgent need for a deeply pedagogical and academic reflection on this type of education (Blended Learning) so widely used today in many places around the world. As Osguthorpe and Graham (2003), have said: "The term 'blended learning' is being used with increased frequency in academic journals and conferences as well as 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. 277).

This article will also comment on pedagogical and technological problems, difficulties, constraints, and successes that faculty have had at ITESM-Mexico City Campus when they are using a blended learning approach in their teaching practices.

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 declared that: "Blended learning arrangements combine technology based learning with face-to-face learning and have become quite popular in different contexts" (Kerres & De Witt, 2002, p. 101). 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 previous 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 & Graham, 2003, p. 227).

Some authors have suggested the term hybrid when referring to courses that mix face-to-face instruction with distance education delivery systems (Brown, 2001; Young, 2002). Because this "hybrid" word and terminology implies a very particular meaning and it can produce confusion, the word blend is preferred to explain this particular educational and learning situation "that focuses on the mingling together of face-to-face and technology in ways that lead to a well-balanced combination" (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003, p. 229).

Therefore, the term blended learning is used to describe a solution that combines several different educational delivery methods, such as collaboration software, web-based courses, and computer communication mediums with traditional face-to-face instruction. "Blended learning also is 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 communication technology systems we are seeing the integration of e-learning into traditional learning programs, creating blended learning.

However, other authors have defined blended learning in a more detailed way, such as Driscoll (2002), she stated 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).

I agree with 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 a tailored learning ..." (p. 26). Therefore, the different definitions of blended learning make us reflect on the complexity and richness of this type of learning and educational process. The definitions presented here in a brief manner do not cover all the existing definitions within the specialized literature; however the intention was to present a conceptual background about what does it mean, blended learning and how it is treated by the current researchers. The successful implementation and use of blended learning requires the understanding of the strengths of the different mediums, how learners engage in this type of learning process and how they use information from each different medium and how they can handle online (or other distance education modality) and the traditional (face-to-face) teaching methods in a combined form (Reay, 2001).

As a conclusion of this section, Osguthorpe and Grahanm (2003) stated 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. 230-231).

Finally, 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 (print-based 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., e-mail-based communication, e-learning platforms, discussion boards).

* Synchronous web-based training (e.g., chat rooms, computer conferencing) (Kerres & De Witt, 2003; Hoffman, 2001).

The following section discusses the importance of reflecting on the epistemological bases of blended learning as an educational and instructional approach.

BLENDED LEARNING EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASES

In this section, certain blended learning epistemological bases will be treated and reflected upon. Blended learning, as a topic to be studied, is so new that there are few academic sources and attempts in the sparse literature to reflect theoretically on its pedagogical and epistemological foundations. There is an urgent need to reflect on these pedagogical and epistemological bases, and because of a lack of understanding of the well established theoretical principles, blended learning as an educational and instructional approach makes this urgent need a priority.

Currently, those teachers, instructors, and trainers who are experimenting with blended learning environments are doing it with certain educational goals in mind, and these goals often differ from one course or program to another. Osguthorpe and 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. social interaction; 4. personal agency; 5. cost effectiveness; and 6. ease of revision" (p. 231). These educational goals allow us to start understanding the pedagogical motives that teachers and trainers have to adopt and use in a blended learning approach in a given course or program.

The combination of face-to-face instruction and communication technology (e.g., computer communication, Internet, online instruction, delivery content software, etc.) in a blended learning situation create a myriad of educational possibilities that reflect its pedagogical richness. The access to knowledge that blended learning creates for "traditional courses" combining educational technology delivery methods, is one of its main assets. Also, in blended learning situations, social interaction is developed in an increasing manner, particularly because it breaks down the lack of social contact that many online and web-based courses usually have among students and instructors at a distance. To have a technological medium to support course activities and assignments in a blended learning course allows more personal control of student goals and instructor learning objectives. If a blended learning course is well planned, developed, and conducted, its cost effectiveness is obvious and proven.

In addition, Oravec (2003) commented 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 is a key element when instructors are developing blended learning courses. The accessibility of diverse mediums to store personal information (e.g., assignments, personal dairies, test, quizzes, etc.), using distance education technology, allows students to have a more critical and reflective attitude toward learning needs and achievements. Also, the opportunity to share student personal information with other students and instructors in a faster and easier way, creates a positive educational environment for academic feedback (student-student, student-instructor).

However, Oravec (2003), also stated, that:

  "... blended learning methodologies (such as online or face-to-face
  simulation gaming) require the assimilation of large numbers of
  regulations and rules. Such structured approaches are very useful
  for conveying information and encouraging students to learn particular
  techniques (especially, within blended learning environments)." (p.
  228)

This particular factor gives an important plus to those students engaged in blended learning situations; although such large numbers of regulations and rules can be a learning obstacle for those students who are not used to technology as a part of their learning process or for those who have fear and "terror" to this type of technology (for any reason).

On the other side, other authors have different epistemological criteria to reflect on what is blended learning and its pedagogical foundations, such as Valiathan (2002).

[She] ... applies didactical criteria to the categorization of blended learning approaches. She differentiates:

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 & 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 & De Witt, 2003, p. 103).

Other authors, such as, Kerres and De Witt (2003) declared that [...] blended learning basically refers to (at least) the mix of different:

1. Didactical methods (expository presentations, discovery learning, cooperative learning, etc.);

2. and delivery formats (personal communication, publishing, broadcasting, etc.) (p. 103).

These two authors also stated that: "Decisions about didactical methods and delivery formats are independent, which means all didactical methods can be delivered by (almost) any media ..." (Kerres & De Witt, p. 103). They proposed at least three main components or constituents be included or kept in mind when planning, developing, or delivering any blended learning course or program (or arrangement). These components are: (a) content, (b) communication, and (c) construction.

Kerres and de Witt (2003), stated 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. the knowledge consists of facts or rules the learner should be able to recall;

2. the knowledge can be explicated and communicated by media/technological means;

3. information should be presented to learners; and

4. the knowledge of certain information is a prerequisite for other communicative or constructive learning activities (p. 105).

In addition to the content component, Kerres and de Witt (2003) added the communication component as one of the most important constituents within any blended learning arrangement. They stated that:

  The communication component seams 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 should learn to formulate, express and discuss a personal
     point of view; and
  5. students should learn to participate in discussions, to formulate
     and receive
  6. feedback in discursive settings (Kerres & De Witt, p. 105).

Finally, Kerres and de Witt, think in regards to a construction component for any blended learning environment that: "The construction component will be included if:

1. knowledge is to be applied (and not only to be recalled);

2. the knowledge consists of procedures (and not only of declarative knowledge) that require practice; and

3. the content includes 'fuzzy' knowledge" (p. 105).

These authors question themselves on: How an instructor should combine these three components (content, communication, and construction)? The answer is that it will depend on the didactical and instructional design of his or her 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 & De Witt, 2003, p. 105).

On the other hand, some authors think that instructors that 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 & Graham, 2003, p. 228 ). However, instructor's style and manner are less obvious and more difficult to describe as teaching methods are (Osguthorpe and Graham).

Keeping with the main idea of this section, to reflect on the didactical and epistemological bases of blended learning arrangements, the following citations clarify the primary pedagogical reason to use this type 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 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 &
  Graham, 2003, p. 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 & Graham, 2003, p. 228).

Figure 1 demonstrates the different combinations and mixes that can occur in blended learning environments (with traditional face-to-face learning and online learning).

Osguthorpe and Graham (2003), stated in regards to Figure 1, that:

  The important consideration is to ensure that the blend involves the
  strengths of each type of learning environment and none of the
  weaknesses of each. 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 environment shows that the
  instructor and designer struggle with the question of balance or
  harmony, perhaps, more than 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
  face-to-face meetings versus the online experiences? How often will
  students and teacher interact on 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 & Graham, 2003, p. 229).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Figure 2 presents three typical models of blended learning arrangement, that are usually found in many institutions that are using face-to-face instruction combined with online instruction.

Finally, other important theoretical components related to the reflection on the epistemological and pedagogical bases of blended learning educational environments are the social presence theory (McIsaac & Blocher, 1998; Lombard & Ditton, 1997), the media richness theory (Dennis & Kinney, 1998) and the media synchronicity theory (Dennis & Valacich, 1999). These theories have explained many learning and social aspects and phenomena within distant learning situations. These theories have given 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 medium (computer devices, telephone, fax, videoconferencing, TV satellite, etc.) and its delivery information resources (such as: Internet, web-based course, online instruction, self-paced courses, chat-rooms, e-mails, discussion boards, etc.), allows 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 as cited in Kerres & De Witt, 2003, pp.
  106-107).

  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 as cited in Kerres and De Witt,
  2003, p. 107).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

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 & De Witt, 2003, p. 107).

As the main conclusion of this section, it is important to comment that many of the postulates done here by these previous three theories and other theoretical postulates mentioned before are still in a process to be probed by more empirical research. Not all their assertions and statements are valid for all types 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 ITESM-Mexico City Campus faculty 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 among ITESM-Mexico City Campus faculty, who teach and deliver 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 learning and instructional 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 constrain 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 (e-learning platforms for delivering course content and learning activities at a distance). These e-learning platforms are important tools to help professors organize and deliver their class content and instruction. Classroom activities and assessment are designed, tested, and produced to and implemented through these e-learning platforms (this process is named "Rediseno"). The majority of courses combine face-to-face instruction with these electronic and technological platforms, creating many blended learning arrangements. There is a myriad of blended learning situations, in a continuum that goes from those instructors that only use the e-learning platforms (BlackBoard or WebTec) for content information (e.g., syllabus, readings, activity instructions, quizzes, etc.), to those instructors that highly interact with their students at a distance, using asynchronous and synchronous communication (e.g., discussion boards, e-mails, file exchange, chat rooms, white boards, etc.) through these e-learning platforms for delivery of their courses.

The Table 1 shows the number of course that use e-learning platforms in the entire ITESM System

ITESM-CCM blended learning courses use any 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 ("rediseno") within one of these platforms. 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 that keep teaching classes in the lecture mode. Professors give discipline-specific support for learning through e-mail, 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 and media create a large spectrum of blended learning arrangements among ITESM-CCM faculty and within their courses. While the tutorial and face-to-face teaching are the traditional platform 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 & Guba, 1985). The research design accomplished three goals. The first goal was to review the research rationale for carrying out the study. The second goal was to develop the research procedures 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 meaningful documents are used for gathering data. 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 had an important role during the final process of qualitative data analysis within the study (results and recommendations).

Since the purpose of the study was to determine and analyze ITESM-CCM faculty's blended learning best and worst teaching practices, this study was primarily descriptive and narrative in nature. As a qualitative study it shares the essential characteristics of qualitative research, "the goal of eliciting understanding and meaning, the researcher as primary instrument of data collection and analysis, the use of fieldwork, and inductive orientation to analysis, and findings that are richly descriptive" (Merriam, 1998, p. 11).

Merriam (1998) commented that a basic or generic qualitative study is probably the most common form of qualitative research in education, and involves the researcher "seek[ing] to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspective and worldviews of the people involved" (p. 11). She also added that:

  Data are collected through interviews, observations, or document
  analysis. Findings are a mix of description and analysis--an analysis
  that uses concepts from the theoretical framework of the study. The
  analysis usually results in the identification of recurring patterns
  (in the form of categories, factors, variables, and themes) that cut
  through the data or in the delineation of a process. In these studies
  the analysis does not extend to building a substantive theory as it
  does in grounded theory studies (Merriam, 1998, p. 11).

Within case study type research "the interest is in process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation" (Merriam, 1998, pp. 18-19). Merriam stated that, "case studies are differentiated from other types of qualitative research in that they are intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit or bounded system such as an individual, program, event, group, intervention, or community" (p. 19). Therefore, this study can be framed within the theoretical and empirical characteristics of a basic or generic qualitative study and case study type, because it searches for understanding of specific educational phenomenon, ITESM-CCM faculty blended learning best and worst teaching practices. Thus, basic or generic qualitative study and case study were considered the most appropriate methodology for this study. In particular, the use of case study fieldwork tools, such as fieldwork participant observation, interviews, and document analysis were highly useful and meaningful during the study.

The findings described here arc 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 and instructors. Although the data for this case study is primarily qualitative, the researcher of this study 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 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 approach to a purposive sampling. This sampling was a nonrandom one, constituted by 10 university professors (5 female professors and 5 male professors).

Rationale for the Study

The main reason for this qualitative study was to document and analyze the current teaching practices and 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, how its faculty combines face-to-face instruction with distance education technology devices during their instructional processes.

A third reason was to discover if these blended learning teaching practices and strategies represent those described as desirable and appropriate in the sparse research literature on distance education.

Data Collection

Data were gathered from unstructured interviews of 10 ITESM-CCM instructors (faculty), and participant observation was conducted on their blended learning courses (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Also, participants were asked to answer one questionnaire, and to record the range of teaching practices of their blended learning courses.

The techniques of data collection used in this study were: fieldwork participant observation, unstructured interviews, and recollection of courses' documents and non-verbal cues (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

  The major instrument of data collection in naturalistic inquiry [or
  Phenomenology] is the human investigator but the sources of the data
  are both human and non-human. When the investigator uses the data
  collection techniques of interviews, observation, and nonverbal cues
  the interaction is between human instrument and human sources of data.
  When the investigator analyzes documents, records, notes, and
  unobtrusive informational residues, the interaction is between human
  instrument and non-human sources (Lion, 1985, p. 27).

The recording modes consisted of field notes, tape recordings, pictures, documents, handouts, reflexive journals, methodological logs, memos, and anything else which documents the cultural scene under study (Spradley, 1979). The following passages describe the recording modes used in this research study.

The research was conducted over a semester period. Although participant observation, which was conducted during an entire 16 week-semester, was the primary source for most of the data used (with extensive fieldnotes for each session), interviews and compilation of course documents also contributed important data. The 10 instructors were solicited as participants for the interviews and questionnaire. In total 10 interviews took place. A semistructured interview format employing both closed-and open-ended questions was used, and 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 10 ITESM faculty members who were teaching in blended learning courses at Mexico City Campus during the spring semester of 2004. The selection of the ten blended learning instructor-participants was based on the following criteria: (a) instructors had to be teaching a traditional face-to-face course using any e-learning platform (BlackBoard or WebTec); (b) 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, (c) they had to use varying kinds of technology for delivering instruction (e.g., the Web, e-mail, chat-rooms, etc.); and (d) they had to use both synchronous and asynchronous forms of interaction in their courses. The 10 instructors were contacted personally through a direct person-to-person interview.

Description of Instructor-Participants

At ITESM-CCM several professors were invited to participate, looking for those instructors that were reflective practitioners. From those who responded, 10 professors were recruited, they represented a diversity of interests, disciplines, and course topics at the undergraduate level (within the Colleges of Humanities and Engineering) and the graduate level. Some professors had extensive experience in dealing with blended learning situations and contexts, while others were relatively new to this kind of 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 learning activities to students varied widely. All of them teach in the traditional face-to-face mode, and give lectures, but at the same time use diverse distance education mediums (e.g., e-mails, discussion boards, white boards, chat rooms, e-learning platforms). Table 2 describes in a brief manner, faculty participants' characteristics.

Instructor-participants consisted of 10 university professors (five female professors and five male professors). Nine professors belong to the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, just one professor belong to the Division of Engineering. Ten professors teach at the undergraduate level, and among them, four instructors teach at the masters and doctoral level. Nine out of 10 instructors have more than 10 years teaching in the traditional face-to-face mode; two professors have 20 years teaching classes in this way; the other two instructors have 18 years teaching face-to-face classes; one professor has 16 years teaching face-to-face courses; another two professors have 15 years; another one has 14 years; and finally one professor has just 9 years teaching in the traditional way. The average (mean) of years teaching classes in the traditional face-to-face mode among instructor-participants of this study is: 16.2 years.

It was interesting to find that five out of 10 instructor-participants have some distance education teaching experience, the rest have never taught a distance education course. Among those who have this teaching experience three have less than two years, and just two have 9 and 12 years (those who have worked in direct contact with different kinds of distance education initiatives within and out of ITESM system). The average (mean) of years teaching classes in distance education situations among instructor-participants of this study was: five years.

Related to blended learning experience among instructor-participants, the findings show that all of them have 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 one year. Three professors have six years teaching blended learning courses; other two professors four years; one three years; and two instructors have two years teaching blended learning courses. The average (mean) of years teaching classes in the blended learning mode among instructor-participants of this study is: 4.6 years.

Basically, instructor-participants have 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 at the Mexico City campus.

Data Analysis

The qualitative methods used to analyze and examine the data (from interview notes, fieldwork observation notes, nonverbal cues, 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 type of analysis expanded the interview process and selection of subsequent data. Data analysis also included an intense examination of reflective journal notes and peer debriefing. These instruments allowed a level of validity and trustworthiness in the study.

Rationale for the data analysis methods used. Qualitative methods were used during data analysis of interview notes, fieldwork observation notes, nonverbal cues, and course documents. Most of the research tasks in the remaining steps of the study involved detailed analysis of the data using qualitative and interpretive methods, such as: Formal Content Analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), Constant Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and construction of Trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba).

Formal Content Analysis consists of the division of a text into units of meaning and "quantification" of these units according to certain rules of coding. Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that:

  [C]ontent analysis is an objective, systematic, and general
  description of the manifest content of a text. Objectivity means that
  every stage in the research process must be based on explicitly
  formulated rules and procedures. The content of the text is to be
  emphasized, and the values and beliefs of the researcher must not
  influence the result of the examination. Some kind of reliability test
  can be undertaken, so that another researcher can obtain the same
  result from the same rules and data (p. 337).

The characteristics of the modern content analysis are:

  First, it is a process that is "carried out on the basis of explicitly
  formulated rules and procedures." Second, content analysis is a
  systematic process. Third, content analysis is a process that aims for
  generality, by which [...] seems to mean that the result of the
  analysis should have "theoretical relevance," that is, should permit
  generalization from the analyzed text to some theoretical model.
  Fourth, that content analysis deals in manifest content. (Lincoln &
  Guba, p. 338).

Regardless of the fact that content analysis has been seen in the past as a quantitative technique, it is highly used as a qualitative technique for social analysis as well; especially, because it allows a deep understanding of the cultural perspectives and feelings of research participants from the data recorded from them in texts and documents during the investigation (field notes, reflective journals, observations reports, and interview reports).

The Constant Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of data analysis is widely used in many kinds of qualitative studies, whether or not the researcher is building a grounded theory.

  Basically, the constant comparative method involves comparing one
  segment of data with another to determine similarities and differences
  (for example, one quote about returning to school as an adult with
  another quote by the same or another respondent). Data are grouped
  together on a similar dimension. This dimension is tentatively given a
  name; it then becomes a category. The overall object of this analysis
  is to seek patterns in the data. These patterns are arranged in
  relationship to each other in the building of a ground theory.
  (Merriam, 1998, p. 18).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) described the four stages of Glaser and Strauss's method:

  1) comparing incidents applicable to each category, 2) integrating
  categories and their properties, 3) delimiting the theory, and 4)
  writing the theory. Although this method of generating theory is a
  continuously growing process--each stage after a time is transformed
  into the next-earlier stages do remain in operation simultaneously
  throughout the analysis and each provides continuous development to
  its successive stage until the analysis is terminated (p. 268).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) advised that the interest of a Generic or Basic qualitative study and Case study is not theory development (e.g., grounded theory), but the data processing and interpretation of this method.

Regarding building Trustworthiness, Lincoln and Guba (1985) have mentioned the importance of certain measures that have to be employed during the implementation of a qualitative inquiry, thus, "either increase the probability that a judgment of trustworthiness with eventually be achieved or that provide the data that will subsequently be needed to reach that judgment" (p. 281). These authors recommend several steps for building trustworthiness. Some of these steps are the following: (a) maintaining of fieldwork journals, (b) triangulation of data, (c) gathering referential and meaningful material (documents), and (d) developing and maintaining an audit trial. These steps were the key elements carefully used and developed for building trustworthiness during this qualitative case study research to support the main statements and ideas of this article.

Findings

This section presents the results (findings) of the study and will discuss the main two 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 in the literature on distance education and blended learning.

Based on Reigeluth (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: (a) those instructor-participants that developed and adjust, before classes start, 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 got a more easy way to handle the combination of Face-to-Face (F-t-F) and e-learning technology; (b) one of the best practices was to establish a 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; and (c) another best practices was to establish a well defined set of assignments to be develop by the students at the end of each unit or module. It means, to describe well within the e-learning platform, what they have to do to avoid confusion.

The worst blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to instructional conditions, were: (a) the majority of instructor-participants do not develop any instructional analysis before their courses start: they do not use any needs assessment or they do not know how to develop an instructional analysis; therefore, many of them do not define their learning objectives based on specific learning needs among their future students, they define their learning objectives based on the content of their syllabus (content-driven are their courses); (b) it was interesting was to find that some of the instructor-participants do not pay attention on student individual learning needs; students learning needs are "ignore" in many cases, what it is important is to carry out the entire syllabus content; and (c) because many of the courses are syllabus-driven, the administration of the F-t-F instruction subordinates the e-learning component, making it just a communication tool to delivery syllabus information, not using the distance education potential of the e-learning component.

Methods. The best blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to instructional methods, were: (a) instructor-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; (b) those professors that developed visual and audio teaching materials had students that better understood the concepts, themes, and issues; the e-learning component was a great tool to complement the F-t-F instruction because it allowed many of these visual and audio materials to be stored; (c) instructors that knew how to handle the e-learning component (Blackboard or WebTec, e-mail, discussion boards, forums, and so on) have better control on the use of the communication and information delivery technology used; they accept the use of the e-learning component in a positive way, with less resistant than those who have a negative disposition toward it. It appeared that the acceptance and the knowledge on the use 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: (a) saturate the e-learning platform (BlackBoard or WebTec) and instructor's e-mail account with student assignments, it is a very bad idea to request that every assignment be sent to the instructor's e-mail address and the e-learning platform professor's drop-box. In blended learning situations the administration of two modes of collection and receiving students' assignments can be pretty complicated, and turn into a "nightmare." It is important to define which one will be used: Delivery in the traditional handy manner (F-t-F instruction) or posted in the e-learning platform, or sent by e-mail; (b) mix assignments and homework within the e-learning platform in a disorganized way, it can make a "mess;" and (c) not knowing how to handle a technical problem was a big issue among instructor-participants, they lost a lot of class time trying to fix it; also the lack of institutional technical support can be an obstacle for the success of a blended learning course; (d) not knowing how to correctly use each technological medium to deliver the instruction and learning activities can create problems in the process of teaching and administrating the blended learning course.

Results. The best blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to the instructional results, were: (a) the organization of every learning outcome on time through the complete semester helped greatly to accomplish learning objectives; (b) those instructors who were flexible with the administration of students' assignments have a better educational response from the students; and (c) professors that always gave feedback to their student requests, questions, and doubts have more impact on and help motivate their students' performance, as opposed to those who did not give immediate feedback, or give negative feedback.

The worst blended learning teaching practices and strategies found, related to the instructional results, were: (a) one of the worst practices found was within those instructor-participants that made the e-learning platform (BlackBoard or WebTec) the "main and only engine" of their blended learning class; to depend and rely entirely on the e-learning components and not prepare class for the F-t-F class sessions diminished the learning potentialities of F-t-F instruction; (b) those professors that give too much information in an exaggerated way saturate students and create great confusion among them; and (c) finally, one of the worst practices, more related with the humanitarian and psychological aspects, than the pedagogical ones, was to mistreat students when they do not reach the expected final learning outcome.

Table 3 shows the diverse faculty teaching practices found at ITESM, Mexico City Campus, that are used in their blended learning courses. This table presents, in a brief manner, the results of the case study. Because lack of space, these findings are presented within this document in a concentrated way, it does not mean that all the diverse practices found are outlined here, however the most significant ones are shown.

The next section presents the conclusions and recommendations of this qualitative study about the ITESM-CCM faculty's 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 today, especially at the ITESM System.

One of the major findings of this case study is that ITESM-CCM faculty have encountered several challenges in using a blended learning solution (didactical and technological ones). ITESM needs to train its faculty more, not only in the technological aspect on how to use e-learning communication technology (the institutions have done great efforts in this area), but also training in its pedagogical, instructional, and didactical aspects (ITESM has made some effort but a stronger and more extended effort is necessary in this area). A special academic and training department or unit will be ideal to help in the didactical, pedagogical and instructional problems that professors have in their blended learning courses. Success is not just putting traditional F-t-F instructors in place and supplying them with e-learning computer communication technology, hoping they will develop acceptable skills; it is training them with pedagogical and didactical tools, and teaching them 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 targeted audience is a big challenge, but it has to be done to have success in any blended learning arrangement. To learn how to combine, in a proper manner, F-t-F 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 equal academic training as any other type of educational modality (such as: early childhood, special education, adult and human resources training, distance education, etc.).

I would like to finish this article with the following citation, 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 &
  Graham, 2003, p. 228).

A final recommendation is that further qualitative and quantitative research will offer a fuller understanding on blended learning environments, especially those related to the teaching practices and strategies used in this new form of education.

References

Brown, D.G. (2001). Hybrid courses are best. Syllabus Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.wfu.edu/~brown/Syllabus%20Articles/SylHybrid%20Courses.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), 256-274.

Dennis, A., & Valacich, J. (1999, January). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media Synchronicity. Paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference of Systems Sciences, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning. E-Learning 3(3), 54.

Fox, M. (2002). Keeping the blended promise. E-Learning, 3(3), 26-29.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Hofman, J. (2001). Blended learning case study. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.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), 101-113.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lion, L. (1985). A proposal for naturalistic inquiry. Body image, self-concept, and sexual functioning of the dying person. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of telepresence. Journal of Cumputer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).

McIsaac, M.S., & Blocher, J.M. (1998). How research in distance education can affect practice. Educational Media International, 35(1), 43-47.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oravec, J.A. (2003). Blendin by blogging: Weblogs in blended learning initiatives. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 225-233.

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.

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.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/aug2002/valiathan

Young, J.R. (2002). Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm

Note

The instructors and participants in this study were promised that confidentiality would be maintained at any time (procure privacy and anonymity). Informed consent forms were obtained from each instructor.

FERNANDO MORTERA-GUTIERREZ

ITESM-CCM, Mexico

[e-mail]

Table 1 Number of Course Using the Different ITESM E-Learning Platforms
at System Level

               Fall      Spring    Fall
E-learning     Semester  Semester  Semester
Platform       2001      2002      2002

LearningSpace  11,000    10,500     9,500
Blackboard        250     1,250     3,300
WebTec              -        50       200
Total          11,250    11,800    13,000

               Spring    Fall      Spring
E-learning     Semester  Semester  Semester
Platform       2003      2003      2004*

LearningSpace   7,500     2,000         -
Blackboard      5,500    10,000    12,000
WebTec            350     2,200     3,000
Total          13,350    14,200    15,000

* ITESM campuses final estimation for this academic period.

Table 2 Descriptions of Participants

                       1               2                3
Participants           A               B                C

Rank                   Full Professor  Full Professor   Full Professor
College                ITESM-CCM       ITESM-CCM        ITESM-CCM
Area of Expertise      Communications  Social Sciences  Liberal Arts
Course Taught          Organizational  Sociology.       Oral Expression
                       communication   Sustainable
                                       Development
Level of Course        Undergraduate   Undergraduate,   Undergraduate
                                       Masters,
                                       Doctoral
Face-to-Face Teaching  15 years        14 years         20 years
Experience
Distance Education     0 years         2 years          0 years
Experience
Blended Learning       6 years         4 years          6 years
Experience
E-learning platform    Learning Space  Learning Space   Learning Space &
used                   & Black Board   & Black Board    Black Board

                       4               5               6
Participants           D               E               F

Rank                   Full Professor  Full Professor  Full Professor
College                ITESM-CCM       ITESM-CCM       ITESM-CCM
Area of Expertise      Communication   Liberal Arts    Journalism
Course Taught          Content         Discourse       Communication
                       Analysis        Analysis        Theory,
                                                       Journalism
                                                       Theory
Level of Course        Undergraduate   Undergraduate   Undergraduate
Face-to-Face Teaching  18 years        20 years        15 years
Experience
Distance Education     0 years         0 years         1 years
Experience
Blended Learning       1 years         4 years         2 years
Experience
E-learning platform    Learning Space  Learning Space  Learning Space &
used                   & Black Board   & Black Board   Black Board

                       7               8               9
Participants           G               H               I

Rank                   Full Professor  Full Professor  Full Professor
College                ITESM-CCM       ITESM-CCM       ITESM-CCM
Area of Expertise      Electronic      Research        Research
                       Engineering     Methodology     Methodology
Course Taught          Thermodynamics  Quantitative    Qualitative
                                       Methodology     Methodology
Level of Course        Undergraduate   Undergraduate,  Undergraduate,
                                       Masters         Masters
Face-to-Face Teaching  16 years        9 years         18 years
Experience
Distance Education     0 years         1 years         9 years
Experience
Blended Learning       6 years         2 years         3 years
Experience
E-learning platform    Learning Space  Learning Space  Learning Speace &
used                   & Black Board   & Black Board   Black Board

                       10
Participants           J

Rank                   Full Professor
College                ITESM-CCM
Area of Expertise      Educational Technology
Course Taught          Educational Technology
Level of Course        Masters
Face-to-Face Teaching  17 years
Experience
Distance Education     12 years
Experience
Blended Learning       12 years
Experience
E-learning platform    Learning Space & Black Board
used

ITESM-CCM = Instituto Technologico y de Estudios Superiores de
Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de Mexico

Table 3 ITESM-CCM Faculty Teaching Best and Worst Practices Found Using
a Blended Learning Approach

Instructional
Design Components  Best Teaching Practices      Worst Teaching Practices

Conditions         1. Before courses start      1. The majority of
                   instructors outline the      ITESM-CCM case study
                   specific learning            instructor-participants
                   activities related to their  do not develop any
                   course content.              instructional analysis
                                                (needs assessment)
                                                before courses start.
                   2. Instructors establish     2. Some faculty does not
                   social contact with their    pay attention on
                   students about their         individual student
                   particular learning          learning needs. main
                   interest at the beginning    course objective,
                   of the course.               forgetting other
                   3. Instructors create a set  3. To accomplish the
                   of quizzes and assignments   entire syllabus as
                   related to each course       learning needs.
                   session to see students'
                   progress.
Methods            1. Instructors have          1. Instructors request
                   orientation and tutoring     for every assignment to
                   sessions with students       be sent by e-mail or
                   during the entire academic   other delivery system.
                   period.
                   2. Visual and audio aids     2. Instructors mix
                   are excellent to explain     assignments and homework
                   concepts and processes if    within Blackboard and
                   delivery systems are used.   WebTec in a disorganize
                                                way.
                   3. To think in a positive    3. Instructors do not
                   way on the advantages of     know how to fix a
                   the communication            technical problem or
                   technology available to      they lack of technical
                   delivery instruction helped  support.
                   a lot instructor-            4. Some instructors do
                   participants to cope with a  not use correctly each
                   blended learning course.     medium to delivery the
                                                instruction.
Outcomes           1. Instructors organize      1. Instructors make
                   every learning outcome on    their e-learning
                   time through the whole       platform (BlackBoard or
                   semester.                    WebTec) the "main
                                                engine" of their
                                                courses, "forgetting"
                                                the face-to-face
                                                instruction.
                   2. To be flexible with the   2. Some instructors give
                   assignments allowing         too much information and
                   student personal             saturate students.
                   development.
                   3. Instructors give          3. Some instructors
                   feedback as soon as          mistreat students when
                   possible and motivate        they do not reach the
                   students.                    expected final learning
                                                outcome.

Note: The instructional design components are based on Reigeluth (1983).
Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current
status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.