Hybrid Blended Learning Solution for Teacher Education Innovation
10.3280/exioa1-2023oa16039
The study reports data from the implementation of hybrid blended learning solutions (HBLS) in initial teacher training programmes for pre-school and primary school teachers. The design of the relevant university courses were revised in a transformative way, using innovative and digitally integrated approaches (DM 289/2021). Twenty teacher educators and 364 students were involved through the administration of semi-structured questionnaires whose dimensions investigated organizational flexibility to facilitate work-life balance processes, methodological quality and the role of teachers in HBLS.
application/pdf
2499-507X
16039
1
en
Ottavia Trevisan
Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching - Open Access
Work Life Balance
Hybrid Blended Learning Solution for Teacher Education Innovation
Text.Serial.Journal
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa
8
Saggi e ricerche
2023-06-20
2023-06-12
2023-06-20
2023-06-20
EXIOA
Ottavia Trevisan
2023/06/20
10.3280/exioa1-2023oa16039
Università di Padova
2499-507X
1
Work Life Balance
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.
Hybrid Blended Learning Solution for Teacher Education Innovation
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa/article/download/16039/2295
8
Saggi e ricerche

Hybrid Blended Learning Solution for Teacher
Education Innovation
Marina De Rossi*, Ottavia Trevisan **




Abstract
The study reports data from the implementation of hybrid blended learning
solutions (HBLS) in initial teacher training programmes for pre-school and
primary school teachers. The design of the relevant university courses were
revised in a transformative way, using innovative and digitally integrated
approaches (DM 289/2021). Twenty teacher educators and 364 students were
involved through the administration of semi-structured questionnaires whose
dimensions investigated organizational flexibility to facilitate work-life
balance processes, methodological quality and the role of teachers in HBLS.
Keywords: Higher Education, Blended Learning, Teacher Training, Teaching
Methods, Educational technology, Work Life Balance.

First submission: 11/04/2023; accepted: 15/05/2023
Available online: 20/06/2023


Hybrid Blended Learning Solutions for Teacher Training

   The effective introduction of information and communication technologies
(ICT) in education requires solid design skills on the side of the teachers.
Indeed, the ability to integrate different types of knowledge is required:
disciplinary content expertise, knowledge of appropriate methodological
approaches and oh the pedagogical affordances of digital tools. This unique
amalgam of competencies has been framed in research as the Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPCK – Mishra & Koehler,
2006; Angeli & Valanides, 2009). The implications of digitally integrated

*
    Università di Padova, e-mail: marina.derossi@unipd.it.
**
    Università di Padova, e-mail: ottavia.trevisan@unipd.it.

Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (ISSNe 2499-507X), 2023, 1

Doi: 10.3280/exioa1-2023oa16039
                                    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
teaching practices have been studies extensively over the last two decades,
highlighting a paradigm shift in didactics geared towards fostering innovative
teaching-learning processes. Literature has shown that the reasoned use of
ICT promotes flexibility of space and time through student-centerd
approaches (Tondeur et al., 2017).
    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 instruction solutions, have spread and
continue to be perfected. The term ‘hybrid solution’ (often used
interchangeably with ‘blended solution’) is broad and encompasses a variety
of teaching formats including blended learning (Kaleta et al., 2007; Millichap
& Vogt, 2012). The literature agrees in interpreting this approach
fundamentally as a combination of face-to-face and distance learning
activities, technologically integrated (Graham, 2006). Indeed, the realization
of hybrid didactic solutions can take many forms: among others, integrating
technology into face-to-face teaching in a fluid dynamic (Trentin, 2015),
deploying multiple methodological approaches, tools and didactic formats
between presence and distance (Millichap & Vogt, 2012; Philipsen et al.,
2019). The educational quality of hybrid solutions is based on their ability to
foster active learning, to support collaborative, student-centerd instruction and
to enable sustainability processes in a work-life balance perspective
(Bruggeman et al., 2021).
    Instruction supported by hybrid blended learning solutions (HBLS) can be
developed with different approaches in the organization of learning processes.
These may range from the addition of online activities to a traditional in-
presence classes; to the instructional design of blended learning pathways
with the flexible spatial/temporal distribution of activities between presence
and distance; to the use of specific platforms as integrated learning
environments (Alammary, 2014).Various forms of HBLS have long been
introduced in university education for some positive implications:
1) it allows for flexible curricula (Bruggeman, 2021);
2) it allows for the enhancement of learning personalization (Boelens et al.,
    2018);
3) it allows for improved class engagement and student collaboration.
    However, the preparedness of teaching staff and institutions for the
integration of digital tools in education has not always produced quality
results, and this critical issue became particularly evident when the Covid-19
pandemic forced the online transition (De Rossi & Trevisan, 2022; Trevisan
& De Rossi, 2022; Trevisan et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). On a global
scale, through the many studies that have been produced in the time of the
pandemic, clear criticalities have emerged: poor quality of educational

                                           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
provision; lack of teacher training and inequality in access to education for
students; infrastructural, personal and contextual hindering issues (Manca &
Delfino, 2021).
   In vocational training courses, as in the case of initial teacher training, the
challenges are:
1) the implementation of curricula organized to develop practical skills and
   competences;
2) active, multimedia and multi-modal methodological approaches to
   knowledge representation;
3) the greater involvement of students by encouraging collaborative processes
   to train them to work in teams (Marzano & Calvani, 2020).
   This challenge was taken up in 2021-22 by the Master’s Degree Course in
Primary Education at the University of Padua, in which it was decided to
exploit the opportunities offered by the integration of ICT in teaching. As per
the Ministerial Decree 289/2021, up to the 10% of the total number of class
hours were provided remotely through the reasoned use of ICT.


The Case Study

    The case study focuses on the didactic quality and sustainability provided
by the HBLS implemented in the Master’s Degree Course in Primary
Education at the University abovementioned, as perceived by the main
protagonists of the educational program: students and faculty. The initiative to
carry out a case study on the HBLS pilot arose in a time when strictly-distance
learning imposed by the pandemic emergency was slowly fading. At the time,
following national regulations, all study courses traditionally performed face-
to-face should have returned to conducting activities exclusively in the
classroom (Legislative Decree 19/2012, DM 439/2013, DM 6/2019, DM
989/2019, DM 446/2020, DM 289/2021, DM 1154/2021). Consequently, due
to the governmental instructions during that phase of the pandemic, at the
University of Padua, several forms of distancing education were adopted for
about two years in all Degrees. Forcedly, both completely distance teaching
solutions (most suitable at times of greatest restrictions), and dual teaching
solutions (i.e. classes delivered simultaneously face-to-face and remotely)
were activated.
    The Master’s Degree Course in Primary Education has a complex
organization: lectures, workshops and internships take place synergically
through each semester. It is a program that requires a strong design integration
of teaching courses. In addition, the target group of students consists of many
workers who already teach in schools and therefore need flexibility in

                                           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
schedules and activities that develop practical teaching skills. The experience
of emergency remote teaching during SARS-CoV-2 virus represented a novel
and fraught situation, not least because of the sudden change required in
instructional delivery. However, it was also an opportunity for teachers and
students to gain innovative teaching experiences through intensive use of the
Zoom and Moodle platform and other digital resources to support
teaching/learning processes. It was an opportunity to learn about
methodological potential and organizational sustainability.
    The qualification of teachers for the effective integration of technologies is
not to be confused with emergency digital solutions, which are now outdated.
Multidisciplinary scientific research established well before the pandemic,
and acknowledged also by international policies on didactic innovation in
Higher Education (EUA, 2018), clarifies effective technology integration in
education’s key characteristics and positive outcomes both in face-to-face and
in hybrid forms such as the HBLS mode. Evidence-Based Education studies
(Clark et al., 2006; Hattie, 2009; Bell, 2020; Calvani & Marzano, 2020)
indicate that the teaching process, including digitally integrated teaching, is
effective only in the measure that it is based on a coherent didactic design
encompassing disciplinary content, methodological approaches and evaluation
centered on learning processes. Crucial to this is the support offered by
specific learning environments managed between the classroom and platforms
(e.g. Moodle).
    The end of the pandemic created a favorable context for overcoming
traditional teaching formats based only on face-to-face classroom lectures. It
was stimulus for transforming teaching models and approaches. Innovation
was designed through HBLS teaching for 10% of all teaching hours (253
hours) of the entire 5-year Master's Degree Course in Primary Education (DM
289/2021, Annex 4). The initiative to integrate teaching with digital resources
was promoted by the FISPPA Department's Teaching Improvement Project,
funded by the university as an action of the faculty development project
Teaching4Learning @Unipd (T4L) (De Rossi & Fedeli, 2022).
    Embarking on this opportunity required comprehensive and collaborative
synergy between: the Master’s Degree Course coordinator, the office staff
scheduling classes and the faculty. In order to ensure quality, specific
attention was paid to the teacher educators’ instructional design, so to
guarantee consistency in the offering of activities and methodologies between
face-to-face and remote (in active and collaborative synchronous,
asynchronous modes). The 4 project implementation phases occurred between
2021 and 2022:




                                           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
- involvement of the teacher educators (faculty) on a voluntary basis to re-
  design the syllabus of their courses, possibly also including the workshop,
  if required (May-July 2021);
- design of the courses’ calendar schedule so to guarantee the optimal
  performance of the face-to-face lessons integrated with the remote
  activities carried out in synchronous and asynchronous forms (July-
  September 2021);
- training of teacher educators (faculty) on HBLS courses with an active
  learning methodological approach and open meetings for students. This
  phase aimed to raise awareness of the transformative elements and
  opportunities emerging from the reorganization of the courses for the
  coming academic year (June and September 2021);
- monitoring of the participant teacher educators’ practices during semesters
  I and II of the academic year 2021-2022. At the end of each semester, a
  questionnaire was administered to the students and faculty (January 2022,
  June 2022).

Research Questions and Instruments

    At the beginning of the academic year 2021-2022, the case study began
following two research questions:
- what are the possible effects of HBLS on the main elements of teaching
    (design; methodological-technological approach; assessment) as perceived
    by faculty and students?
- what are the possible effects of HBLS in terms of sustainability
    (organizational improvement of teaching-learning processes) perceived by
    faculty and students?
    The two focuses are closely interconnected. The first one, relating to the
level of the training offered, refers to the perspective of 'quality culture',
which in turn is strongly related to the construct of organizational culture, and
thus the challenge of sustainability. Indeed, already in 2006, in the EUA
Report “Quality culture in European universities: a bottom-up approach”, the
binomial quality-sustainability was defined as a driving force for innovation
and faculty development.
    The demographics for the participants involved is as follows:
- twenty (20) Master’s Degree Course in Primary Education faculty from
    various scientific fields participated on a voluntary basis. All of them
    structured their courses in HBLS mode, devoting between 10% and 30%
    of their teaching hours to online activities. The scientific fields most
    represented were M-PED/01-02-03-04, while other disciplinary fields


                                           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
  participated to a lesser extent (BIO/05, L-ART/06, MAT/01 and MAT/04,
  M-GGR/01, M-STO/02, M-PSI/04).
- The students were involved through convenience sampling, with 364
  participating on a voluntary basis (53.5% of the total enrolled for the
  academic year 2021-22). All the different years were involved, with higher
  participation for year I (22.6%), year II (29.5%) and year III (22%).
  Moreover, 57.7% of the students involved fully attended the proposed
  HBLS initiatives, while 39.3% attended partially and only 3% did not
  attend at all.

    Two semi-structured questionnaires were administered to faculty and
students alike at the end of each semester in the academic year 2021-2022.
The questionnaire administered online to the students (Chronbach’s α = . 83)
presented five dimensions:
(a) demographics (six multiple-choice items);
(b) perceptions of ICT integration in university HBLS courses (13 Likert
    items);
(c) perceptions of HBLS impact on instruction (12 Likert items and two open-
    ended items);
(d) perceptions of the organization of HBLS workshops (11 Likert items in
    Likert and two open-ended items);
(e) access to and ability to use ICT (17 Likert items and two open-ended
    items).

    The questionnaire for teacher educators (Chronbach’s α = . 98),
administered online, also presents five dimensions:
(a) demographics (four items in multiple or open-ended response);
(b) perceptions of ICT integration in university HBLS courses (15 Likert
    items);
(c) perceptions of HBLS impact on teaching (nine Likert items and one item
    in open-ended response);
(d) perceptions of the role of the teacher education in HBLS teaching (11
    Likert items and one item in open-ended response);
(e) type of teaching activities proposed and digital resources used (three items
    in multiple-ended response).

   Five-point Likert scales were used in both questionnaires, with scores of 1
= total disagreement; 5 = total agreement. In addition to the questionnaires,
two focus groups were realized for both students and faculty (one at the end of
each semester). Due to space constraints, we will not present these data in the
current manuscript.

                                           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
Results

    We report here on the results from the questionnaires at their second
administration (i.e. end of semester II, academic year 2021-2022) considering
what follows:
 For the students’ questionnaire we will discuss the data in the dimensions
    (b) perceptions of ICT integration in university HBLS courses; (c)
    perceptions of HBLS impact on instruction.
 For the faculty questionnaire we will report on dimensions (c) perception
    of HBLS impact on teaching; and (d) perceptions of the role of the teacher
    education in HBLS teaching.
    Student answers to (b), i.e. the perception of ICT integration in university
HBLS courses, were on average positive on the scale (between 4 and 5). This
is especially clear in item B7 about the encouragement of students’ active
production of materials linked to the curriculum; in item B12 about the
appreciation of the digital integration also in face-to-face activities, consistent
with those proposed at a distance; and finally in item B13 on the development
of students’ research skills on the web (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 - Student questionnaire: dimension (b) perceptions of ICT integration in university HBLS
courses – second questionnaire




B1. HBLS activities are useful for students to deepen and broaden their knowledge of study
topics.
B3. HBLS activities are useful for students to contextualise study topics from a vocational
perspective.
B5. HBLS activities enable students to work collaboratively.
B7. HBLS activities enable students to produce materials (teaching projects, term papers,
presentations...).
B12. It is important to use ICT also in face-to-face activities.
B13. Knowing how to explore the Web helps students find materials and information useful for
their learning.




                                             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
   Considering the students’ perceptions of the HBLS impact on teaching
organization (dimension c), at the second questionnaire administration,
average positive values emerged. Specifically, students perceived effective
HBLS organization in relation to providing: more flexible study times (item
C1); the possibility of carrying out exercises on the Moodle platform for exam
preparation (item C2); a better reconciliation of study and life times (work-life
balance, item C8); coherent teaching design between face-to-face and remote
activities (item C11). Moreover, they did not consider any support offered by
e-tutors as necessary (item C9 - Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Student questionnaire: dimension (c) perceptions of HBLS impact on instruction –
second questionnaire




C1. The HBLS didactic delivery allowed me a flexible organization of study time.
C2. HBLS teaching enabled me to carry out useful exercises in preparation for the examination.
C3. HBLS teaching has given me the opportunity to use different forms of assessment (in-
progress assessment).
C8. The organization of HBLS teaching enabled work life balance processes.
C9. In courses delivered in HBLS mode, I believe I would have benefited from the presence of
an e-tutor (technological and methodological expert supporting on-line activities).
C11. The HBLS teaching design made the activities offered in presence and at a distance
consistent.
C12. HBLS teaching methodologies facilitated my learning process.

    Similarly, teacher educators positively answered also to dimension (c)
perception of HBLS impact on teaching (mean values between 4 and 5) (Fig.
3). The HBLS structure seems to have fostered greater teacher focus on: the
design and organization of teaching activities (item C2); the use of active,
collaborative and reflective methodological approaches, through the use of the
platform's digital resources (item C4); the improvement of communication
with students in the delivery of the program (item C6); the development of
student autonomy through the assignment of productive tasks (item C8).


                                             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
Finally, an interesting finding emerges from the faculty’s perception of the
overall improvement in students' final exam results (item C9).
Fig. 3 Faculty questionnaire: (c) perceptions of HBLS impact on instruction – second
questionnaire




C1. HBLS didactics allowed me to innovate teaching methodologies.
C2. The delivery of teaching in HBLS mode required precise planning to give coherence to the
activities to be carried out in presence and at a distance (synchronous and asynchronous mode).
C4. The HBLS mode enabled the use of collaborative tools on the platform.
C6. The setting up of a communication space on the platform was useful in providing students
with methodological guidance for tackling the required tasks.
C7. The HBLS mode made it possible to organize activities in such a way that students could
develop autonomous learning processes.
C8. The HBLS mode enabled students to develop original products.
C9. The HBLS mode enabled an improvement in learning outcomes.

   Finally, lecturers’ questionnaire dimension (d) refers to their perception on
their role determined by the HBLS mode (dimension d) (Fig. 4). Findings
were particularly homogeneous and toward the upper end of the scale for all
the items involved.

Fig. 4 Faculty questionnaire: dimension (d) perception of the teachers' role in HBLS teaching –
second questionnaire




                                             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
D1. In the didactic design of an HBLS course, it is necessary for the teacher to integrate
disciplinary knowledge with methodological-technological knowledge to give coherence to the
activities.
D2. In the didactic design of an HBLS course, the teacher facilitates the personalization of
students' learning by making the time-space of their engagement flexible.
D5. For teaching activities delivered asynchronously, it is important that the lecturer stimulates
students' autonomous production (preparation of materials, production of projects, videos, etc.).
D6. For teaching activities delivered synchronously (Zoom), it is important for the teacher to
use technological resources to promote student involvement (Padlet, Wooclap, surveys, etc.).
D8. In HBLS teaching the teacher is facilitated in the use of diversified modes of formative
assessment (projects, reports, tests, presentations, peer assessment).
D11. HBLS teaching in workshop mode facilitates the development of professionalizing
competences.



Discussion and Conclusion

    Overall, the analysis of the student and faculty questionnaires showed a
good appreciation of the quality of the HBLS experience. They agreed on the
effective use of digital resources and environments for flexible teaching and
learning times and spaces (face-to-face and distance). In addition, teacher
educators reflected on the impact of HBLS modalities in their own teaching
actions and the transformation of their own role in the educational process.
The HBLS modality possibly fostered in the faculty a greater propensity to
assume the role of facilitators rather than knowledge providers. Particularly
interesting was the clearly perceived link between the HBLS modality and the
need to revise their instructional design from a learner-centered and active
learning perspective.
    The students also perceived a good quality level in the teaching activities
offered in HBLS mode. The technology integration in university courses and
the HBLS organization seems to have enabled better performance in the
learning process and in the final results.
    The two groups of participants also aligned in terms of their perception of
the educational sustainability offered by HBLS. The potential offered by
technology integration was clearly perceived, in more design-organizational
terms (for faculty), and in work-life balance ones (for students). Considering
the findings of this case study, some elements emerge as positive components
of the case study:
1) Faculty training on HBLS instructional design, methodologies and
    technologies for teaching;
2) Intensive communication with students to prepare them for the
    transformative experience through plenary meetings held before the start
    of the project;

                                               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
3) Good technological and infrastructural endowment offered by the
   University.

    These considerations are in line with what has been stated by the research
already cited, which calls for a rethinking of all elements of the teaching
organization, considering the type of technologies in use, the specific teaching
methodologies and the teacher's role within an HBLS perspective. Only
through a systemic and comprehensive design is it possible to concretely
realize didactic innovation by putting learning at the center (see e.g. Boelens
et al., 2017; Bruggeman et al., 2021).


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Sara Tabone and Dr Eugenio Di Rauso, tutors
supporting the organization of the innovative HBLS project.
Authorship: O. Trevisan: Research questions and instruments; Discussion and
conclusion; M. De Rossi: Hybrid Blended Solutions for Teacher training; The
case study; results.


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.
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.
Bell, M. (2020). The fundamentals of teaching: A five-step model to put the research
   evidence into practice. Routledge. Doi: 10.4324/9780429342318.
Boelens, R., De Wever, B., Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended
   learning: systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1-18.
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., & Marzano, A. (2020). Progettare per un miglioramento basato su
   evidenze. Quale metodologia?. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa-IJEduR,
   24, 67-83. Doi: 10.7346/SIRD-012020-P67.
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence based
   guidelines to manage cognitive load. Pfeiffer & Wiley. Doi: 10.1002/pfi.4930450920.

                                            36
                                  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
De Rossi M., Fedeli M. (eds.) (2022). Costruire percorsi di faculty development.
   Pensamultimedia.
De Rossi, M., & Trevisan, O. (2022). 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.
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.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to
   achievement. Routledge. Doi: 10.4324/9780203887332.
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.
Manca, S., & Delfino, M. (2021). Adapting educational practices in emergency
   remote education: Continuity and change from a student perspective. British
   Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1394-1413.
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.
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.
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.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding
   the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in
   education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology
   Research & Development, 65(3), 577. Doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9492-z.
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. (2022). 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.
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.
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.




                                            37
                                  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
