2. development context, as well as the results obtained for the
nine-year period. In the conclusions some challenges are
presented in terms of future research.
II. ELECTRONIC-LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
The great majority of institutions have a virtual learning
environment of some kind. This may also be known as a
learning management system or a course management
system, or be part of a broader integration of web services
and information systems usually known as a managed
learning environment [11].
Electronic-learning (e-learning), or âtechnology enhanced
learningâ describes the use of technology to support and
enhance learning practice. Models of e-learning describe
where technology plays a specific role in supporting
knowledge acquisition. These can be described both at the
level of pedagogical principles and at the level of detailed
practice in implementing those principles [12]. A model of e-
learning would need to demonstrate on what pedagogic
principles the added value of the âeâ was operating. [12]. In
practice, the teachers rarely start consciously from theoretical
models of learning, but they are useful as their ask itself
some of the questions they try to answer or expand upon, and
they may find that some have utility as their move from
abstract consideration towards a practical solution [11]. E-
learning rarely works where it is regarded as simply a value-
added extension of the main part of the course [11].
Biggs [8] describes the task of good pedagogical design
as one of ensuring that there are absolutely no
inconsistencies between the curriculum taught, the teaching
methods used, the learning environment choosed, and the
assessment procedures adopted. To achieve complete
consistency, the teachers need to examine very carefully
what assumptions there are making at each stage and to align
those. Thus, they need to start with carefully defined
intended learning outcomes, then need to choose learning
and teaching activities that stand a good chance of allowing
the students to achieve that learning, then need to design
assessment tasks which will genuinely test whether the
outcomes have been reached [12].
However, e-learning is not always appropriate to be
implemented in all curricula. Some curricula are more
appropriate to be learned by traditional learning, but others
are appropriate to be learned by e-learning, depending of
their purposes. [13]. The drawbacks of e-learning including
reduced real interactions and high drop-out rates due to
frustration can be covered by the advantages of traditional
learning, so studentsâ learning quality and performance can
be enhanced [14].
Blended (B) e-learning keeps the advantages of both
traditional learning (instructor-oriented) and e-learning
(learner-oriented) [14]. Blended courses, are courses in
which both traditional classroom and online methods are
employed to deliver instructional content and interaction [6].
Its implementation faces several challenges including student
engagement [15], how to enhance feedback and assessment
and ensure consistency across platforms and learning
environments [16], and how to mitigate against infrastructure
problems [11]. The implementation of b-learning methods,
that is a combination of online learning and face-to-face
instruction has enhanced student learning, engagement and
performance, enabling the educator to more readily address
some of the challenges noted above whilst providing an
environment that allows for deeper learning and
consolidation [9]. B-learning options provide opportunities
for benefit/cost tradeoffs relevant to studentsâ individual
circumstances and preferences, and may particularly interest
institutions reaching out to non-traditional learners in local
communities where they are well known and trusted [17].
B-learning is an important building block of the new
schoolhouse that offers students both flexibility and
convenience, important characteristics for working adults
who decide to pursue postsecondary degrees. According to
[18], b-learning is a hybrid of traditional face-to-face and
online learning so that instruction occurs both in the
classroom and online, and where the online component
becomes a natural extension of traditional classroom
learning. Blended learning is thus a flexible approach to
course design that supports the blending of different times
and places for learning, offering some of the conveniences of
fully online courses without the complete loss of face-to-face
contact. The result is potentially a more robust educational
experience than either traditional or fully online learning can
offer [2]. It is, in effect, a compromise position that avoids
the excess of either a purely online or a purely face-to-face
model of training [19].
Blended-teaching (b-teaching) methods may be helping
to create the appropriate space of learning for some students
[19]. The authors [20] present three challenges to
implementing in b-learning: (1) b-learning adjusts to the
essential learning methods and overall learning environment,
but teachers lack the necessary theoretical preparation and
experimental experience to take full advantage of these
changes; (2) b-learning resources have to be integrated with
learning activities (especially in normal classrooms) and
embedded into online curriculum resources; and (3) getting
students to adopt or use learning strategies that are different
from what they are used to in the traditional didactic, lecture-
based classroom.
Clearly, b-learning cannot be regarded simply as a type
of technology-intensive activity that replaces the functions of
classroom instruction. Instead, those effectively
incorporating b-learning must think about how it might
enhance, extend, or transform the classroom learning
experience, not simply replace it [20].
It is important for the students to be proactive and
conducting active learning. By implementing b-learning, not
only do the learners collect and memorize information but
they also must know how to analyze, synthesize and process
the information obtained effectively [21]. The students
maturity has a fundamental role here, since this learning
process will undoubtedly be much more demanding. A
course in the b-learning format can offer various perspectives
and approaches with different objectives and with the
possible and sufficient flexibility to be able to adapt to
different students profile. Therefore, it is necessary that
students have a maturity degree that allows them to be
autonomous and organized. The studentâs motivation is a
major factor of success [22].
III. THE CASE STUDY
Every change of educational model, even when it occurs
gradually, requires a special reflection and experimentation
to make sure that maximum benefit is obtained. [5]. The
4. assessment tools. In this way we gain great flexibility and
adaptability to the learning context of each student. At the
same time, the program allowed the training and certification
of two teachers (essential condition for the opening of
courses), and access to specific simulation and learning
software.
TABLE I. CCNA ROUTING & SWITCHING CURRICULUM
CCNA Routing & Switching curriculum
Module Course Hours ECTS
CCNA1
Introduction to Networks
(ITN)
60 ± 3,75
CCNA2
Routing and Switching
Essentials (RSE)
60 ± 3,75
CCNA3 Scaling Networks (SN) 60 ± 3,75
CCNA4 Connecting Networks (CN) 60 ± 3,75
Total 240 15
However, it was necessary to consider and decide which
model to implement for the CISCO Networking Academy in
its relationship with the two curricular units of computer
networks. Or would it be implemented, a model in which the
CISCO Networking Academy would work in parallel to the
Computer Engineering course (a solution implemented by
most national higher education institutions), or a model in
which the CISCO Networking Academy became integrated
into the two curricular units networking. In the first model
the teacher continues to be responsible for the entire teaching
process, with teaching and certification happening as
separate processes and paths. The student has an increased
difficulty to achieve the desired certification. In the second
model, the teacher, after obtaining the appropriate
professional certification, shares responsibility for the
teaching process with the CISCO Networking Academy,
adopting the proposed contents and teaching and evaluation
methodologies. Teaching and certification are a single
process and route, thus facilitating the student's learning
process.
TABLE II. NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO OBTAINED
CERTIFICATION
Computer Networks I
(a)
Computer Networks II
(b)
CCNA1 CCNA2 CCNA3 CCNA4
2009/2010 19/24 13/20 8/13 5/13
2010/2011 10/10 6/10 9/13 8/13
2011/2012 7/7 6/7 7/8 6/8
2012/2013 8/8 8/8 9/9 9/9
2013/2014 3/5 1/3 3/3 3/3
2014/2015 6/8 6/8 5/7 3/7
2015/2016 7/7 4/4 5/5 4/5
2016/2017 16/18 15/17 14/15 8/14
2017/2018 10/11 9/11 7/13 7/13
Total 86/98 68/88 67/86 53/85
% 88% 77% 78% 65%
(a) 1Âș semester, (b) 2Âș semester
Although it is a more risky solution, in the presented case
study the second model was implemented, with some
improvements in the methodologies of evaluation.
CISCO Academy offers a wide variety of courses,
including courses in networking, security, IoT & Data
Analytics, IT and Operative Systems and Programming. In
the field of networking the CCNA Routing & Switching
course, composed of four sequential modules, presented in
Table I, was chosen, considering the specific objectives for
each of the modules.
Although the total number of working hours (240 hours)
required for the completion of the four modules exceeds that
for the two curricular units (of only 120 hours), the option
for a b-learning solution allowed students to develop outside
of the classroom, the development of practical laboratories to
consolidate the theoretical contents presented by the teacher
in the classroom. The best way to learn about networking is
to do it. Through the use of the innovative network
configuration simulation tool, it was possible for students to
have all the necessary network equipment (routers, swicths,
firewalls, etc.) on their personal computers in the
development of their configuration skills.
The number of students has never been constant during
the 9 years of application of this pedagogical solution. It was
always dependent on the total number of students placed
annually in higher education and in the course, plus the
ERASMUS students, plus the external professionals who
punctually enrolled in the course, given the value of this
certification in the labor market.
6. - Front. Educ. Conf. FIE, pp. S1C-1-S1C-6, 2010.
[6] C. D. Dziuban, J. L. Hartman, T. B. Cavanagh, and P. D. Moskal,
âBlended Courses as Drivers of Institutional Transformation,â in
Blended Learning across Disciplines: Models for
Implementation, IGI Global, Ed. IGI Global, 2011, pp. 17â37.
[7] H. Kanuka and L. Rourke, âUsing blended learning strategies to
address teaching development needs : How does Canada
compare ?,â Can. J. High. Educ., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 19â35, 2013.
[8] J. Biggs and C. Tang, âTeaching for Quality Learning at
University - What the Student Does,â Clin. Infect. Dis., vol. 23,
no. 4, p. 389, 2011.
[9] C. Herodotou et al., âBlended and online learning: a comparative
study of virtual microscopy in Higher Education,â Interact.
Learn. Environ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1â16, 2018.
[10] N. Jones and J. O. Shea, âChallenging hierarchies : The impact of
e-learning Challenging hierarchies : The impact of e-learning,â
Higher Education, no. May, pp. 379â395, 2014.
[11] H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, and S. Marshall, Understanding student
learning. 2009.
[12] T. Mayes and S. de Freitas, âReview of e-learning theories,
frameworks and models. London: Joint Information Systems
Committee.,â Jt. Inf. Syst. Comm., no. September, pp. 0â43,
2004.
[13] D. U. BOLLIGER and T. MARTINDALE, âKey Factors for
Determining Student Satisfaction in Online Courses,â Int. J. E-
Learning, no. March, pp. 61â67, 2004.
[14] C. C. Chang, K. M. Shu, C. Liang, J. S. Tseng, and Y. S. Hsu, âIs
blended e-learning as measured by an achievement test and self-
assessment better than traditional classroom learning for
vocational high school students?,â Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance
Learn., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 213â231, 2014.
[15] C. Dale, âA Wolf in Sheepsâ Clothing? An Analysis or Student
Engagement with Virtual Learning Environments,â J. Hosp. Leis.
Sport Tour., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 100â108, 2007.
[16] R. Allen and S. Bentley, âFeedback mechanisms: efficient and
effective use of technology or a waste of time and effort?,â Imp.
Coll., 2012.
[17] C. R. Graham, âCurrent Research in Blended Learning,â in
Handbook of Distance Education, NY: Routledge, Ed. New
York, 2019, pp. 173â188.
[18] B. Collis and J. Moonen, âFlexible Learning in a Digital World,â
Open Learn. J. Open, Distance e-Learning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp.
217â230, 2002.
[19] M. OLIVER and K. TRIGWELL, âCan âBlended Learningâ Be
Redeemed?,â E-Learning, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 17, 2005.
[20] R. Huang and Y. Zhou, âDESIGNING BLENDED LEARNING
FOCUSED ON KNOWLEDGE CATEGORY AND LEARNING
ACTIVITIES Case Studies from Beijing Normal University,â in
The Handbook of Blended Learning, 2005, pp. 296â310.
[21] N. T. Dung and D. Fatmawati, âGENERAL INFORMATICS
TEACHING WITH B-LEARNING TEACHING MODELI,â
Indones. J. Biol. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 85â94, 2018.
[22] E. Albrecht, F. Gumz, and J. Grabowski, âExperiences in
Introducing Blended Learning in an Introductory Programming
Course,â pp. 93â101, 2018.