Hybrid blended learning solutions in a STEM teaching of the degree course in Computer Engineering
10.3280/exioa2-2023oa16821
The case study reports the implementation of Hybrid Blended Learning solutions in the teaching of Fundamentals of Analysis and Probability in the Computer Engineering Degree Course at the University of Padua. The teaching organization and methodology have been revised in a transformative perspective, using innovative STEM and digitally integrated approaches in blended learning mode (Ministerial Decree 289/2021). The context of the study is a cohort of 200 students, divided into two groups for organizational issues. The study analyzed data collected with different instruments: a survey administered by the lecturer and the course evaluation questionnaire required by university quality assurance standards, focusing on overall satisfaction, organizational and teaching aspects and perceived workload. In addition, data on final examination assessment were taken into account.
application/pdf
2499-507X
16821
2
en
Carlo Mariconda
Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching - Open Access
STEM
Hybrid blended learning solutions in a STEM teaching of the degree course in Computer Engineering
Text.Serial.Journal
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa
8
Saggi e ricerche
2023-12-13
2023-11-21
2023-12-13
2023-12-13
EXIOA
Carlo Mariconda
2023/12/13
10.3280/exioa2-2023oa16821
Università di Padova
2499-507X
2
STEM
en
Zhang, L., Carter Jr., R. A., Qian, X., Yang, S., Rujimora, J., Wen, S. (2022). Academia’s responses to crisis: A bibliometric analysis of literature on online learning in higher education during COVID-19. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 620-646. Doi: 10.1111/bjet.13191.
Hybrid blended learning solutions in a STEM teaching of the degree course in Computer Engineering
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa/article/download/16821/2575
8
Saggi e ricerche

Hybrid blended learning solutions in a STEM
teaching of the degree course in Computer
Engineering
Marina De Rossi*, Carlo Mariconda^


Abstract
The case study reports the implementation of Hybrid Blended Learning
solutions in the teaching of Fundamentals of Analysis and Probability in the
Computer Engineering Degree Course at the University of Padua. The teaching
organization and methodology have been revised in a transformative
perspective, using innovative STEM and digitally integrated approaches in
blended learning mode (Ministerial Decree 289/2021). The context of the study
is a cohort of 200 students, divided into two groups for organizational issues.
The study analyzed data collected with different instruments: a survey
administered by the lecturer and the course evaluation questionnaire required
by university quality assurance standards, focusing on overall satisfaction,
organizational and teaching aspects and perceived workload. In addition, data
on final examination assessment were taken into account.

Keywords: Higher education, Blended Learning, Teaching methods,
Educational technology, STEM.

Article submitted: 26/09/2023; accepted: 08/11/2023
Available online: 13/12/2023


Hybrid Blended Learning Solutions

  With the development of information and communication technologies, the
way of teaching, especially in higher education, has gradually shifted from the

*
 Marina De Rossi, Università di Padova, e-mail: marina.derossi@unipd.it.
^
 Carlo Mariconda, Università di Padova, e-mail: carlo.mariconda@unipd.it.
The article was written by Marina De Rossi and the data provided by Carlo Mariconda.

Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (ISSNe 2499-507X), 2023, 2

Doi: 10.3280/exioa2-2023oa16821
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
traditional face-to-face learning experience to the more efficient blended
learning approach. Many researchers and institutions have begun to thoroughly
investigate the principles and models of this unconventional learning method,
given its flexibility (Bernard et al., 2014; Gaebel et al., 2021). According to
data from the European University Education (Gaebel & Morrisroe, 2023), over
the past decade, blended learning mode is much more accepted and used
throughout the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
    Currently, blended learning is an increasingly popular innovative mode of
educational delivery: on average, it is used in 75 % of EHEA institutions,
whether in some courses or University-wide (Gaebel & Morrisroe, 2023).
Especially following the response to the Covid-19 emergency, some institutions
have begun to provide hybrid learning and teaching, that is, courses that can be
taken both physically and virtually (Megahed & Ghoneim, 2022). However, a
paradigm shift in instructional design is needed to achieve effectiveness in
teaching-learning processes.
    For example, McGee and Reis (2012) identified common errors that occur
in the design of blended courses, including a lack of consistency between online
and face-to-face modes and attempted direct conversion from one mode to the
other. Other studies have identified guidelines for blended design and teaching
to ensure that this approach achieves maximum effectiveness (Reeves &
Reeves, 2012; Sancassani et al., 2023). These include the importance of
addressing content-related methodological issues ahead of technology;
constructive alignment of course content; building cognitive, social, and
instructional presences; selective adoption of new social media tools; and
commitment to systematic formative assessment. They suggested that a well-
planned online and blended learning environment should be geared toward
pedagogical-technology integration, beginning by reviewing the core
components of the discipline before considering which technologies can be
used; aligning the instructional context constructively with the expected
learning outcomes; using constructive and collaborative learning theory within
the framework of the community of inquiry to maintain effective levels of
cognitive, social and instructional presence; taking into consideration different
age groups and potential pedagogical effectiveness in selecting the adoption of
new technologies; engaging in formative assessment for the continuous
improvement of existing blended subjects.
    All this requires solid design skills on the part of teachers, specifically in the
ability to integrate different types of knowledge: disciplinary content expertise,
knowledge of appropriate methodological approaches and the pedagogical
possibilities of digital tools. This unique amalgam of expertise has been framed
in research as the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) (De
Rossi & Trevisan, 2018; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Angeli & Valanides, 2009)

                                            24
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
framework. Hybrid blended learning modes have been extensively studied over
the past two decades, highlighting a paradigm shift in education geared toward
promoting innovative teaching-learning processes (Graham & Dziuban, 2008;
Torrisi-Steele & Drew, 2013). The literature has shown that the reasoned use
of ICT promotes flexibility of space and time through learner-centered
approaches (Philipsen et al., 2019).
    Moreover, with the advent and consolidation of ICT use in the synergy
between formal, non formal, and informal learning contexts, new models of
integrated teaching, known as hybrid instructional solutions, have become
widespread and continue to be refined. The term “hybrid solution”
encompasses a variety of instructional formats, including blended learning
(Kaleta et al., 2007). The literature interprets the hybrid education approach
basically as a combination of face-to-face and distance learning activities that
are technologically integrated (Graham, 2006). Indeed, the implementation of
hybrid educational solutions can take many forms: among others, the
integration of technology into face-to-face teaching in a fluid dynamic (Trentin,
2015), the use of multiple methodological approaches, tools, and instructional
formats between presence and distance (Bruggeman et al., 2021; Philipsen et
al., 2019). The educational quality of hybrid solutions is based on their ability
to foster active learning, support collaborative and student-centered instruction,
and enable sustainability processes from a work-life balance perspective (De
Rossi & Trevisan, 2023; Bruggeman et al., 2021).
    Education supported by hybrid blended learning solutions (HBLS) can be
developed with different approaches in organizing learning processes. For
example, adding online activities to traditional in-person classes, designing
blended learning paths with flexible spatial/temporal distribution of activities
between presence and distance, setting up specific platforms as integrated
learning environments (Alammary, 2014).
    However, the preparation of teaching staff and institutions for the
integration of digital tools in teaching has not always produced quality results,
and this critical issue became particularly clear when the Covid-19 pandemic
forced the online transition (De Rossi & Trevisan, 2022; Trevisan et al., 2021;
Trevisan & De Rossi, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022).
    The challenge has been taken up in 2021-22 by the University of Padua as
part of the Teaching4Learning@Unipd® (T4L) Project, which has as its main
objective the improvement and innovation of university teaching through
faculty professional development (De Rossi & Trevisan, 2022). An extensive
program has been initiated to disseminate blended learning mode (upon faculty
adherence, with the coordination of course chairs) to implement online lesson
delivery for up to 10% of lecture hours (Ministerial Decree 289/21).



                                           25
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
Research Questions and Instruments

    The research was realized as a case study (Yin, 2009), guided by the
following research question:
• how do students perceive the efficacy of a HBLS course in the STEM area?
● how do they perceive the teaching modalities?
● how do they perceive the different assessment methods?
    Its context was the course of Fundamentals of Analysis and Probability
(Computer Engineering curriculum) at the university of Padova, in the
academic year 2022-2023. This context was deemed relevant to the research
question because this was the first time the course implemented HBLS
consistently.
    A total of 200 students enrolled in the course were selected as participants
for the case study, through a conventional sampling technique. The students
were adequately informed of the means and scope of the research.
    Further, the cohort of students was divided in two groups, namely A (n =
100) and B (n = 100). This was due to the classroom capacity, not research
design. The two groups were divided according to their matriculation number
but no differences whatsoever occurred in their education. The same face-to-
face and online activities were realized in both groups, with the same
percentage (1/3 online and 2/3 face-to-face), the same organization of the space
on the Moodle platform and support materials.
    The two groups had the following demographic characteristics: students in
their first year of higher education, mostly male (85%) and with an average age
of 20.

The course

    The HBLS design of the course aimed to integrate the contents of the
Mathematics discipline with those of Technology through the use of digital
resources, while activating collaborative and reflective processes in students
between presence and distance, using the MOODLE platform. The teaching
approach was that of the STEM disciplines, which is based on an
interdisciplinary design and methodological orientation that stimulates the
integrated development of disciplinary and transversal skills required by the
labor market (Kennedy & Odell, 2014). The STEM teaching method
encompasses an innovative teaching method aimed at enhancing the
connections between the disciplines (i.e., mathematics and technology as a
transversal skill), enabling the student to have a critical reading of everyday
events, to improve their cognitive reasoning and problem solving processes,
and to have a greater capacity for communication (Ortiz-Revilla, 2022).

                                           26
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
    Several conditions can favor the effectiveness of STEM teaching, such as
the use of technologies as a support to teaching (not as a substitute for the
teacher); the integration of approaches typical of direct instruction and of
collaborative instruction (especially if based on structured meta-cognitive
strategies and based on pair-work or small group work); the valorization of
teacher-student and peer feedback with a formative function (Allan et al.,
2019). However, Evidence Based Education research data show that it is not
technologies that are the main factor affecting the quality of teaching, but rather
teaching strategies and methods (Hattie, 2009, 2012; Calvani, 2014).
    For this reason, special attention was paid in this course to the instructional
design for both groups A and B. Maximum consistency was sought between in-
presence (2/3 of tot hours) and distance activities (1/3 of tot hours); the
diversification of teaching formats suited to the different training objectives
(frontal lessons and workshops for group work), of teaching resources and
strategies (Mariconda, 2023), MOOCs for flipped classroom experiences
(Mariconda, 2020); Perusall for the creation of peer review strategies;
ChatGPT and in general Artificial Intelligence to generate tasks to be carried
out autonomously.
    Two assessment strategies were used:
• for attending students: formative assessment through weekly quizzes, shared
    comments (using Perusall), peer review and summative test at the end of the
    course;
• for non-attending students: a summative assessment in the institutionally
    mandated exams sessions.
    It should be noted that attendance to class (either face-to-face or online) was
not mandatory, and students attending the HBLS activities were 128.
    The course quality was monitored through two instruments: a Wooclap
survey on the MOODLE platform, administered by the lecturer at the end of
the course to the attending students, to record: participation in the distance
activities; students’ perceptions of teaching methodologies and assessment
strategies proposed in HBLS modality; students’ perceived effectiveness of the
course on their learning. The second instrument was the institutionally-
mandated questionnaire, to be filled in before enrolling for the final exam, of
which we will consider the items relating to overall satisfaction, HBLS
organization, perceptions of the lecturer's action, contents and program offered,
and the perceived workload.
    In addition, the pass rate of the final examination at the end of the course
was considered, distinguishing between the results of the attending students
(i.e. who benefitted from formative assessment) and those not attending. Such
final examinations consisted in solving mathematical and engineering
exercises, applying the theoretical knowledge addressed during the course.

                                           27
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
   The passing rate was considered relevant to the research question because it
indicates the effectiveness of the course in fostering learning in the students.

Results

    The first analyzed data come from the lecturer’s survey administered to both
groups at the end of the course lessons but before the final examination (January
2023). A total of 128 students took part in the survey, answering the 4 questions
on:
1. attendance to peer review activities during the course;
2. preference for HBLS also in other courses – as an index of satisfaction with
    the teaching modalities implemented;
3. perceived effectiveness of HBLS and formative assessment for their own
    learning;
4. perceived effectiveness of HBLS in fostering content learning.
    Table 1 synthesizes the results.
                                                                                  Indifferent/
                                                                                  I don’t
                                                              Yes      No         know
                                                              124      4
 1. I participated in the peer review and in at least half                            0
 of the weekly quizzes.                                       96,88%   3,13%
                                                              70       31         27
 2. I would like to attend other courses in the future with
 the HBLS mode used in this course.                           54,69%   24,22%     21,09%
 3. I would like in the future to attend other courses        87       25         16
 offering the type of in-progress assessment used in this     67,97%   19,53%     12,50%
 course.
 4. I feel that the mode used in this teaching (HBLS +        75       25         28
 formative assessments) enabled me to learn the content       58,59%   19,53%     21,88%
 better than a traditional course.

   Overall, attendance to at least half of the blended learning and peer
assessment activities was at a positive level (62% out of the total of 128 students
taking the survey), taking into account that attendance at lectures was not
compulsory.
   The answers to the next three questions (2,3,4) are affirmative for more than
50% of the respondents. In particular, with regard to the possible opportunity
to be able to apply the formative assessment with diversified tests realized
during the learning pathway to other subjects (67.97%).
   The institutional survey was mandatory for the entire cohort (N = 200) and
anonymously filled out. From the data extracted from the institutional survey
(N = 200), some differences can be seen between the assessments (score 0-10)
of participants.

                                                28
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
    Below we will present a summary of the results of the different sections of
the questionnaire comparing the responses of the group A and B. indeed, data
was gathered divided by group.
    Overall satisfaction: group A recorded an average score of 6.96 out of 10
(20.2% answers with a rating lower than 6; 60.6% answers with a rating between
6-8 and 19.9 answers with a rating between 8-10). Group B, instead had an
average score of 8.08 (3.9% answers with a rating lower than 6; 53.25% answers
with a rating between 6-8 and 42.85% answers with a rating between 8-10).
    Organization of the course: this section groups together a set of questions
relating to the teacher’s clarity in presenting the training objectives, the mode
of assessment, the appropriateness of teaching-learning time and the teaching
material. In both groups the evaluations were positive. Students in group A
evaluated course organization quality with an average score of 8.56 (8.05%
answers with an evaluation below 6; 26.66% of answers between 6-8; 55.56%
answers with an evaluation between 8-10). Group B gave an average score of
8.74 (3.9% answers with an evaluation below 6; 53.25% answers with an
evaluation between 6-8 and 42.85% answers with an evaluation between 8-10).
    Teaching activity (teacher’s action): this section includes questions relating
to students' assessment of the teacher's actions: motivating and arousing interest
in the discipline taught; clarity of presentation; willingness to provide
clarifications and explanations; perceived usefulness of the workshops and
other learning activities on offer. As can be seen in the table (the complete data
on all questions in the section of the questionnaire on teaching activity), there
are differences between the evaluations of the two groups of students. In
particular, the evaluations of group B in all questions are > 8 (%) (Table 2).

Table 2 - Teaching activities data
 Teaching activities                Avg             < 6 (%)       6-8 (%)          >8 (%)
                                  (dev. St.)
                                  A       B      A        B       A       B       A       B
 Teacher action to              6.93 8.22      19.19     5,19   51,52   42,86   29,29   51.95
 stimulate motivation and
 interest in the discipline.
 Clear definition of           6.84    8.00    21.21      3,9   52,53   55,84   26,26   40.26
 assessment methods.
 Availability of the teacher   8.52    8.93    6.19       0     34,02   33,33   59,79   66.67
 to give clarifications and
 explanations.
 Perceived usefulness for      7.34    8.30     14       4,92   53,52   44,26   32,04   50.82
 learning the discipline,
 derived from workshops
 and other proposed
 teaching activities


                                               29
                                   Copyright © FrancoAngeli
         This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                   No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                             please see: http://creativecommons.org
    Content and program: the section includes two questions; one on the
coherence between the course syllabus and the activities carried out, and the
other about student interest in the content. In group A, the average score of the
two answers was 7.85 (10.13% average of answers with a rating lower than 6
in the various aspects investigated; 46.38% answers with a rating between 6-8;
43.48% answers with a rating between 8-10). In group B the average score was
8.36 (4.6% answers with a rating lower than 6; 42.72% answers with a rating
between 6-8 and 52.76% answers with a rating between 8-10).
    Perceived workload: this section includes one question about whether
students believe they had adequate prior knowledge to understand the course
topics. It also has another question regarding the perception of the
appropriateness of the assigned workload, considering the amount of course
credits (Table 3).

Table 3 - Perceived workload data
   Perceived workload         Avg (dev.       < 6 (%)          6-8 (%)          >8 (%)
                                 St.)
                              A       B      A       B       A        B       A         B
   Adequacy of prior         7.67 8.06     10.02    3,09   57,14    55,84   32,36     40.26
   knowledge
   Adequacy of the           5.22 6.84     49.49   23,38    40,04   42,86   10,11     33.76
   required study load

   A final reflection was conducted on the data collected through final
examination results from the 2013/2014 academic year considering the
methodological and evaluative transformations made to teaching over the past
decade by the same lecturer.
   Until 2013/14, this course was carried out exclusively in the classroom, with
face-to-face lectures and traditional assessment methods (summative, with a
final exam). The average pass rate was 35% in the first session after the course
and 55% in the following exam sessions.
   From 2014/15 to 2021/22, the course continued to be taught in the traditional
mode (face-to-face only), but changing the mode of assessment. For attending
students, various types of activities and assessments with feedback (formative
assessment) were instituted, as well as a final examination at the end of the
course. For non-attending students, only the final exam was maintained for each
exam session (summative assessment). The average pass rate of the
examinations for students who carried out the formative assessment activities
during the course, in the years taken into consideration was: 50% pass rate in
the first session after the course and 60% in the other subsequent sessions.
Grades were between 18 and 26 for 57%, between 27 and 30 and Honors for
43%.


                                            30
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
   For the academic year 2022/23, the teaching was carried out using the HBLS
approach and considered in this study included a formative and summative
assessment. 69% of the students passed the final examination (21% with a grade
between 18 and 26, 79% with a grade between 27 and 30 and Honors). 76% of
the students passed the exam in the subsequent winter and summer sessions.


Conclusion

    Overall, the feedback provided by students through the teacher survey
showed a high percentage of participation in blended learning and formative
assessment activities, out of the total number of students enrolled. The idea of
extending this way of organizing the course to other disciplines was well
received by most of the students involved, although for around 20% the
response was negative. This can be explained by the subsequent analysis of the
data from the institutional evaluation questionnaire. As can be seen from the
workload perceptions, in general the lowest ratings were recorded on the
adequacy of the workload required (Table 3). In fact, despite success in terms
of passing exams and grades obtained, satisfaction on this dimension was lower
in academic year 2022-23 than in previous years when teaching was delivered
in the traditional mode. Despite adherence to the institutional load of 25
working hours per credit and the reduction of the number of lectures by a third
in favor of online teaching, the amount of autonomous and group work, to be
carried out at times other than lectures, was perceived as excessive. One
explanation could be related to the busy academic calendar, with a few weeks
of intensive coursework close to exam sessions, as opposed to more diluted
periods for subsequent exam sessions. The concentration of the course in a few
weeks may not be entirely adequate to support continuous formative assessment
activities. A less demanding formative assessment might be more effective. The
help provided by ChatGPT and generative Artificial Intelligence in homework
could be more adequate if a part of the formative assessment was carried out in
the classroom (Liu & Gibson, 2023).
    These considerations align with the University's guidelines on blended
teaching, which encourage lecturers, together with course chairs, to consider
spatio-temporal organization as a crucial element of teaching quality, especially
in HBLS environments.
    A final interesting element is the figure that emerged in the section of the
institutional questionnaire devoted to Teaching Activities. As mentioned
above, the teacher, activities, time, digital resources and assessment methods
were the same for both groups of students considered, however the evaluations
of the various questions, although overall above sufficient, returned by the

                                           31
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
students in group A are on average 1 point lower than those of the students in
group B. This set of data aligns with the statements of Evidence Based research
(Hattie, 2012) that highlight the relevance of the teacher's methodological
action, rather than just the technological equipment, and the students' awareness
of the changes they will have to face when faced with innovative HBLS
teaching. Indeed, again according to Evidence Based literature, technological
implementation in education is most effective when it is guided by active
learning strategies; when multiple learning possibilities are implemented; when
the student is facilitated in the autonomous use of digital resources and when
peer learning and feedback are optimized (Marzano & Calvani, 2020). This
requires the competence not only of the teacher, through specific training, but
also of the students, so that they are effectively prepared to learn in an
innovative way (Coggi & Ricchiardi, 2018).
    The case considered has some limitations when considering the application
of the intended STEM teaching approach, which did not span the entire
curriculum with more than one course in the STEM area disciplines but was
only applied to one course in which the learning objectives of mathematics and
technology were integrated. However, the relevance of the study lies in the
context of the bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering, which is fully within
the STEM area, and in the didactic design developed that addresses the learning
objectives in an interdisciplinary manner and with an active learning approach
(student-centred participatory and collaborative learning) (Kennedy & Odell,
2014). This activity is part of the policies undertaken by the University of Padua
to promote the STEM area. Starting from the academic year 2022-23, the
university has implemented a dedicated platform that also offers postgraduate
master courses in this area (e.g. Omics Data Analysis; Biostatistics for Research
and Scientific Publication; Advanced Biostatistics for Clinical Research;
Pharmaco-epidemiology and Evaluation of Integrated Care; Geostatistics for
Human, Animal and Environmental Health; Machine Learning and Big Data in
Precision Medicine and Biomedical Research; Synthesis of Empirical Evidence
and Reproducibility of Research).


References

Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education:
   Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational
   Technology, 30(4), 67-74. Doi: 10.14742/ajet.693.
Allan, C. N., Campbell, C., & Crough, J. (2019). Blended learning designs in STEM
   higher education. Blended learning designs in STEM Higher Education, 339-362.
   Springer.


                                           32
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and Methodological Issues for the
   Conceptualization, Development, and Assessment of ICT-TP-CK: Advances in
   Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education,
   52(1), 154-168. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006.
Bernard, R., M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C.
   (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher
   education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher
   Education, 26(1), 87-122.
Bruggeman, B., Tondeur, J., Struyven, K., Pynoo, B., Garone, A., & Vanslambrouck,
   S. (2021). Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended
   learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 48-57. Doi:
   10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100772.
Calvani, A. (2014). Come fare una lezione efficace. Carocci.
Coggi, C., & Ricchiardi, P. (2018). Sviluppare un insegnamento efficace in Università-
   Developing effective teaching in Higher Education. Form@ re, 18(1), 23-38. Doi:
   10.13128/formare-22452.
De Rossi, M., & Trevisan, O. (2018). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
   in the literature: how TPCK is defined and implemented in initial teacher education.
   Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 7-23
De Rossi, M., & Trevisan, O. (2022a). Innovare la didattica universitaria con Hybrid
   Blended Learning Solution: Una ricerca design-based project per la formazione
   iniziale degli insegnanti. Formazione & Insegnamento, 20(3), 475-490. Doi:
   10.7346/-fei-XX-03-22_33.
De Rossi, M., & Trevisan, O. (2023). Hybrid Blended Learning Solution for Teacher
   Education Innovation. Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching, 8(1),
   26-37. https://doi.org/10.3280/exioa1-2023oa16039
Gaebel, M. & Morrisroe, A. (2023). The future of digitally enhanced learning and
   teaching in European higher education institutions. European University
   Association absl.
Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Stoeber, H., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Digitally enhanced
   learning and teaching in European higher education institutions. European
   University Association absl.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.),
   The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 1, 3-21.
   Pfeiffer Publishing.
Graham, C. R., & Dziuban, C. (2008). Blended learning environments. In Handbook of
   research on educational communications and technology (pp. 269-276). Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to
   achievement. Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning.
   Routledge.
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering
   hybrid courses. In Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D. (Eds), Blended Learning:
   Research perspectives, pp. 111-144. Sloan Consortium.



                                            33
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science
   education international, 25(3), 246-258.
Liu, L., & Gibson, D. (2023, March). Exploring the Use of ChatGPT for Learning and
   Research: Content Data Analysis and Concerns. In Society for Information
   Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 893-895).
   Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Mariconda, C. (2020). MOOC Analisi matematica: calcolo in più variabili ed equazioni
   differenziali. -- https://lms.federica.eu/course/view.php?id=137.
Mariconda, C. (2023). Introduzione al calcolo in più variabili ed equazioni
   differenziali. Springer.
Marzano, A. & Calvani, A. (2020). Evidence Based Education e didattica efficace:
   come integrare conoscenze metodologiche e tecnologiche nella formazione degli
   insegnanti. ECPS Journal, 22, 125-143. Doi: 10.7358/ecps-2020-022-maca.
McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices.
   Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22.
Megahed, N. & Ghoneim, E. (2022). Blended Learning: The New Normal for Post-
   COVID-19 Pedagogy. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
   (IJMBL), 14(1), 1-15. Doi: 10.4018/IJMBL.291980.
Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca (2021). Linee generali di indirizzo della
   programmazione delle università 2021-23 e indicatori per la valutazione periodica
   dei        risultati.        --        https://www.mur.gov.it/sites/default/files/2021-
   04/Decreto%20Ministeriale%20n.289%20del%2025-03-2021.pdf.
Mishra, P., & Koehler M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: a
   Framework for Integrating Technology in Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College
   Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Ortiz-Revilla, J., Greca, I. M., & Arriassecq, I. (2022). A theoretical framework for
   integrated STEM education. Science & Education, 31(2), 383-404. Doi:
   10.1007/s11191-021-00242-x.
Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Vanslambrouck, S., & Zhu, C. (2019).
   Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A
   systematic meta-aggregative review. Education Tech Research & Development, 67,
   1145-1174. Doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8.
Reeves, T.C., & Reeves, P.M. (2012). Designing online and blended learning in
   University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach. Routledge.
Sancassani, S., Baldoni, V., & Brambilla, F. (2023). La ricerca del giusto mezzo.
   Strategie di equilibrio tra aula e digitale. Pearson.
Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in
   higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice.
   International journal for academic development, 18(4), 371-383.
Trentin, G. (2015). Orientating pedagogy towards Hybrid spaces. In Nata, R. V. (Ed.).
   Progress in education, 35, pp. 105-124. Nova Science Publisher Inc.
Trevisan, O., & De Rossi, M. (2022b). Accessibility in Blended Learning and Hybrid
   Solutions at Higher Education Level: A Word from the Students. In Studium (Ed).
   Helmeto 2022 – Book of abstract, pp. 107-110.



                                            34
                                  Copyright © FrancoAngeli
        This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                  No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                            please see: http://creativecommons.org
Trevisan, O., De Rossi, M., Grion, V. (2021). The positive in the tragic: Covid
   pandemic as an impetus for change in teaching and assessment in higher education.
   Research on Education and Media, 12(1), 69-76. Doi: 10.2478/rem-2020-0008.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study research. Design and Methods. Sage.
Zhang, L., Carter Jr., R. A., Qian, X., Yang, S., Rujimora, J., Wen, S. (2022).
   Academia’s responses to crisis: A bibliometric analysis of literature on online
   learning in higher education during COVID-19. British Journal of Educational
   Technology, 53(3), 620-646. Doi: 10.1111/bjet.13191.




                                           35
                                 Copyright © FrancoAngeli
       This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial –
                 No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage
                           please see: http://creativecommons.org
