This document presents a case study of implementing a blended learning (b-learning) approach in a computer networks course at a university in Portugal over nine years. B-learning combines online learning with face-to-face instruction to address challenges of traditional and online-only methods. The case study found that b-learning improved student learning outcomes and engagement. It also gained experience that could be applied to other growing fields. Future research is needed to further address challenges of ensuring consistency across learning environments and mitigating infrastructure problems in b-learning implementations.

1. 978-1-7281-3866-4/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
A b-Learning Case Study in Computer Networks
Secundino Lopes
(1) Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre,
Departamento de Tecnologia
Portalegre, Portugal
(2) COPELABS, Universidade
Lusófona de Humanidades e
Tecnologias,
Lisboa, Portugal
secundino.lopes@ipportalegre.pt
Sérgio Correia
(1) Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre,
Departamento de Tecnologia
Portalegre, Portugal
(2) COPELABS, Universidade
Lusófona de Humanidades e
Tecnologias,
Lisboa, Portugal
scorreia@ipportalegre.pt
Elsa Marcelino-Jesus
CTS, UNINOVA, Dep.º de Eng.ª
Eletrotécnica
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia,
FCT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Caparica, Portugal
ej@uninova.pt
Abstract—The way we teach and learn, what we teach and
who we teach has evolved greatly with the adaptation and
development of specific information technologies capable of
introducing innovation in the classic teaching and learning
process. However, it is important to understand the
applicability and impact of these solutions in different contexts,
in order to better structure their development. The purpose of
this article is to present a case study that resulted from the
exploration of a new pedagogical strategy that tries to combine
the virtues of face-to-face education with the opportunities of
on-line learning, in the computers network studies domain.
Quantitative results related to a period of nine years are
presented, as well as future developments.
Keywords— B-learning, Computer networks
I. INTRODUCTION
Higher education institutions are a space of knowledge
and human valorization which their goal is to contribute to
knowledge, to qualification and to the appreciation of all.
Information technology is an indispensable medium to fulfill
this mission, which its integration into teaching processes has
as well other significant influence as on the student's success
and their future integration in the labor market.
Universities are moving away from a faculty-centered
and lecture-based paradigm to a model where learners are the
focus, where faculty members become learning environment
designers, and where students are taught with critical
thinking skills [1]. Thus, the role of teachers in the new
schoolhouse is to serve their students with effective skills for
an intellectual growth and self-autonomy by instilling in
them an awareness of social issues, in a such way to push
students working toward for the good of the society.
According to [2], an important implication of this shift is the
need for a commitment to creating an ideal learning
environment for students and for employing new pedagogies
and technologies, where appropriate.
With the development of teaching technologies, people
are increasingly concerned about the effective ways to
“blend” technology into the curriculum in higher education
[3]. The increasing offer of digital media in the World Wide
Web allows the expansion of educational tools available for
teachers and students [4]. The reasons often mentioned to
justify this adoption is the flexibility in the use of time,
space, better management of resources (including faculty
facilities), improving the support for students who cannot
attend all classes, giving the same opportunities for students
independently to their different participation styles and
abilities for public exposure [5]. Yet, where blended courses
(also known as hybrid or mixed-mode courses) have
succeeded, they have most often done so when strategically
aligned with an institution’s mission and goals [6].
Institutions of higher education are under pressure to
integrate technology and move beyond on-campus classroom
approaches, aiming to reach a broader and larger student
population - often in a cost recovery format [7]. Classrooms
are full of students diversity demanding an higher quality of
teaching methods and approaches. Universities are mainly
responding to this demand with ‘outcomes based education’
solutions [8].
Distance education is already a pervasive element of
higher education and it continues to rapidly expand.
Research, however, suggests that online courses are not
suitable for all types of students and faculty [2]. Although
students are found to be generally satisfied with the use of
Virtual Learning Environments, however it is yet not known
what teaching and learning conditions better support their
use and lead to enhanced learning outcomes [9].
It is important to remember that the use of information
technology should not be used to promote the availability of
information simply through a more traditional approach. The
real and great challenge is to identify the gains that can be
obtained through the use of this technology through a
multimodal system. Hence the [10] assertion that technology
should not be incorporated without first discussing its
importance and, crucially, its relevance.
The challenge for the teacher is to examine closely their
course, its learning outcomes, their students, the assessment
structures and their own pedagogical ethos, and then to
choose how to use these tools in a way that is going to be
effective and will make best use of their time and skills [11].
Once the teacher start to do this, he may find himself asking
some fundamental questions about the ways in which their
students learn, and about their role as a teacher. How
effectively we teach depends, first, on what we think
teaching is.
Related to the adaptation of information technology to
the traditional teaching processes, and with its requirement
for all participants, students and teachers, this article presents
a case study of adaptation of a blended-learning (b-learning)
solution in a course of higher education in Portugal, for the
specific domain of computer networks. It is a pedagogical
experience to improve the final results of students in this
field, as well as gain sufficient experience to apply to other
domains in growth, namely in the programming of computer
networks. After the context and theoretical foundation
presented in the Introduction, the article presents in section II
the main requirements and challenges of implementing b-
learning solutions. Section III presents the case study, its

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 ‘technology enhanced
learning’ 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 ‘e’ 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 students’ 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 students’ 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 student’s 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

3. clear definition of the objectives, taking into account the
learning contexts, helps the right selection of learning
strategies, learning methods, contents, web tools, assessment
methods and consequently leads to an effective and more
permanent learning. The design of learning objectives is one
of the most demanding phases in the instruction process [4].
With this in mind, and to support improved student
involvement, motivation, and learning we have carried out
the exploration of a new pedagogical strategy that tries to
combine the virtues of face-to-face education with the
opportunities of on-line learning, in the computers network
studies domain. This case study, presents a nine years’
experience of the exploration of a new pedagogical strategy
that rehearsal the validation of combining the virtues of face-
to-face education with the opportunities of on-line learning,
in this case b-learning.
The development context of the case study is made up of
the course of Computers Engineering of the Polytechnic of
Portalegre, more concretely in the field of the Computer
Network. In the Computers Engineering course, the scientific
area of Electronics, Computers and Telecommunications
(ECT), with a total of 37,5 European Course Credit Transfer
System (ECTS), which includes the development of
knowledge and skills in the fields of Computer Networks,
Digital Systems, Computer Architecture, Industrial
Informatics, and Security. We speak of knowledge domains
of great technical exigency and in constant adaptation to the
professional requirements. Their integration with the
business environment can bring a number of advantages to
the quality of teaching and to the preparation of students for
the labor market.
This course has two curricular units, Computer Network I
and Computer Network II. The first curricular unit
(Computer Network I) are taught in the second year of the
course and is divided in two modules, CCNA 1 (Introduction
to Networks (ITN)) and CCNA 2 (Routing and Switching
Essentials (RSE)). The second curricular unit (Computer
Network II) is taught in the third year of the course and is
composed by the CCNA 3 (Scaling Networks (SN)) and
CCNA 4 (Connecting Networks (CN)) modules, as
represented in Figure 1.
For the Computer Networks domain, the course
curriculum presents two curricular units, each one with the
duration of 60 hours of face-to-face teaching and 7,5 ECTS,
designated Network Computers I and Network Computers II.
Computers Engineering
1º Year 2º Year 3º Year
Computer Networks I Computer Networks II
CCNA1 - Introduction to Networks (ITN)
CCNA2 - Routing and Switching Essentials (RSE)
CCNA3 - Scaling Networks (SN)
CCNA4 - Connecting Networks (CN)
... ...
Fig. 1. Computer Engineering Courses of "Instituto Politécnico de
Portalegre" based on certification Cisco Course
There are two units oriented to the development of the
following competencies: (a) know the communications
operation; (b) identify the services and equipment used in
communications; (c) use network protocol models to explain
the communication layers; (d) know the application layer
protocols in detail in the OSI and TCP/IP models; (e) design,
calculate and implement subnetworks; (f) to know the
Ethernet protocol in detail, and to configure Ethernet
networks through the installation and use of various physical
means of communication, routing and switching equipment;
(g) configure the main functionalities of a router associated
with local network performance; (h) know and configure
different types of routing protocols; (i) mastering the
switching concepts; and (j) know and configure WAN
technologies.
The two curricular units began their activity, according to
traditional teaching methods based on face-to-face teaching,
and through curricular contents developed by the teachers
and made available to the students in the local content
management web platform, to take the first steps. It was
verified in the first years of teaching that (1) the teaching
process was too limited to face-to-face teaching, with little
dynamics and little participation (2) the realization of
practical works was limited to the space of the classroom, in
which they were installed and available all network devices
(without remote access) and (3) the students only had
knowledge of the results of the evaluation through the
expected evaluation moments, usually concentrated at the
end of the semester. Traditional teaching methodologies
were thus not able to cope with the dynamic environment of
skills required by the job market at the networking level.
The first results regarding the quality of the teaching
process evidenced the urgent need to promote changes in the
functioning model of the teaching process in these two
curricular units. It was therefore necessary to promote the
introduction of dynamic teaching tools, which complement
and consolidate face-to-face teaching, capable of increasing
students' motivation and dedication, and consequently the
final results obtained.
In theory it was considered that the use of a b-learning
solution would promote the improvement of the quality and
demand of the teaching process, thus improving the
motivation and participation of the students, and indirectly
the final results of the teaching process at various levels.
Considering some solutions, the program of the of the
Cisco Systems, Inc. namely the program of the Cisco
Networking Academies, in frank expansion at national and
international level, has positioned itself as the best solution,
able to reorient the computer networks study. Given that the
networking area is essentially laboratory practice, the
proposed teaching methodology was considered as very
adequate to motivate the student to become actively involved
in their own learning process. It has been found that the
proposed and constantly updated laboratory component is as
close as possible to the labor market requirements of
professionals in the networking field.
The adhesion to this program, allowed among other
benefits, the use of the online content platform, with all the
necessary functionalities to be considered as b-learning. At
the teacher's disposal was high-quality technical-scientific
didactic material developed by networking experts,
collaboration tools, hands-on labs, and knowledge

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) 1º semester, (b) 2º 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.

5. TABLE III. AVERAGE GRADES OF THE CLASS
Computer
Networks I
Computer
Networks II
CCNA1 CCNA2 CCNA3 CCNA4
2009/2010 72.83 68.28 72.66 63.03
2010/2011 86.93 71.15 75.38 69.49
2011/2012 83.83 79.82 81.68 77.62
2012/2013 88.40 83.25 82.76 80.30
2013/2014 54.10 33.65 86.49 87.86
2014/2015 80.74 73.22 80.72 62.05
2015/2016 81.48 85.07 84.89 80.26
2016/2017 82.62 73.65 85.05 76.08
2017/2018 79.45 76.80 69.41 72.05
 78,93 71,65 79,89 74,30
2 9,75 14,41 5,67 7,99
The students who, during this period, accepted the
challenge of obtaining certification of developed
competences and tested the proposed pedagogical
innovation, have never had previous experiences in b-
learning, as well as had little experience in the use of the
English language. Table II shows the number of students
who were able to obtain certification, within the group of
students enrolled in each course unit. Students who dropped
out of one of the modules and did not take any evaluation
time were not considered in this score. They are students
who will join the class of the next school year.
From the data presented in the previous Table, and
regardless of the fluctuation of the total number of students,
the percentage of students who achieved certification in each
of the modules was always high. However, the percentage of
students who obtain certification is higher when the module
in question corresponds to the beginning of the semester,
where students have more useful working time. The modules
that coincide with the end of the semester (CCNA2 and
CCNA4), the percentage of students achieving certification
is slightly lower. This result can be due to the competition of
the other curricular units of the course on the useful time of
the students.
In the previous table, the final average of the final
evaluation obtained in each of the four modules is presented,
considering the students enrolled and presented in the
previous table. In both curricular units it was possible to
obtain an average evaluation of more than 70/100 values,
which we can consider as an excellent result, and which
positively differentiates these two curricular units.
Where  represents the mean value of the grades and 2
the standard deviation. As it can be seen from the data,
results presents a stable distribution, with the exception of
the year 2013/14, that is justified with the low number of
students registered on the class (see Table II).
IV. CONCLUSIONS
It is necessary to understand that b-learning goes beyond
a simple educational approach because, when all the
institutional elements are involved, they transform this issue
into a systemic issue that affects and is affected by the entire
educational community. B-learning, by its "mixed" nature,
implies the need to identify at each moment, student,
objective, problem, and context, what is the best and most
appropriate solution, accordingly to the methodologies and
approaches of face-to-face teaching, or online teaching, to
prepare students with the skills that enable them to be
successful in their future professional activity.
It is essential that students, during their formative process
in higher education, come into contact with these
technologies, enabling them to achieve higher levels of
efficacy, and be able to join e-learning courses in the future
and learn this way autonomously.
Thus, the presented case study constitutes a successful
case in the interconnection of higher education and CISCO
company, which is a leader in the world of communications,
that in last years has working together with institutions, like
ours. Contributing to developed the b-learning platform in
the sense of corresponding to the requirements in the various
implementation and use contexts. The results of this
interconnection have been extremely positive not only for
students, but also for teachers and CISCO company. Being
the CISCO company studying their adaptation in other fields,
such as, security, Network Programmability Training, and
Industrial Computing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The present work was carried out at "Instítuto Politécnico
de Portalegre" in the context of a Computer Engineering
course and Cisco Networking Academy. The authors are
grateful for all the administrative and technical support
necessary for the success of this work. The authors
acknowledge the project ERASMUS Plus: Higher Education
– International Capacity Building - ACACIA – Project
reference number – 561754-EPP-1-2015-1-CO-EPKA2-
CBHE-JP, (http://acacia.digital). The work has also been
promoted under the project CARELINK, AAL-CALL-2016-
049 funded by AAL JP, and co-funded by the European
Commission and National Funding Authorities of Ireland,
Belgium, Portugal and Switzerland.
REFERENCES
[1] R. B. Barr and J. Tagg, “A New Paradigm for Undergraduate
Education,” Change, no. December 1995, pp. 1–19, 1995.
[2] A. P. Rovai and H. M. Jordan, “Blended Learning and Sense of
Community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully
online graduate courses,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn.,
vol. 5, no. 2, 2004.
[3] Y. Huang, X. Han, and Y. Wang, “Learning ‘B-Learning’
through ‘B-Learning’: A Practice Model for Teachers’
Professional Development,” Proc. - 6th Int. Conf. Educ. Innov.
Through Technol. EITT 2017, vol. 2018-March, pp. 41–46, 2018.
[4] P. Peres, L. Oliveira, A. Jesus, and A. Silva, “Designing learning
paths: Contributions to the organization of b-learning initiatives,”
Iber. Conf. Inf. Syst. Technol. Cist., 2017.
[5] I. Pereira and A. D. Figueiredo, “Promoting motivation and
participation in higher education: A b-learning experience,” Proc.

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,
“Blended Courses as Drivers of Institutional Transformation,” in
Blended Learning across Disciplines: Models for
Implementation, IGI Global, Ed. IGI Global, 2011, pp. 17–37.
[7] H. Kanuka and L. Rourke, “Using blended learning strategies to
address teaching development needs : How does Canada
compare ?,” Can. J. High. Educ., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 19–35, 2013.
[8] J. Biggs and C. Tang, “Teaching for Quality Learning at
University - What the Student Does,” Clin. Infect. Dis., vol. 23,
no. 4, p. 389, 2011.
[9] C. Herodotou et al., “Blended and online learning: a comparative
study of virtual microscopy in Higher Education,” Interact.
Learn. Environ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–16, 2018.
[10] N. Jones and J. O. Shea, “Challenging hierarchies : The impact of
e-learning Challenging hierarchies : The impact of e-learning,”
Higher Education, no. May, pp. 379–395, 2014.
[11] H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, and S. Marshall, Understanding student
learning. 2009.
[12] T. Mayes and S. de Freitas, “Review of e-learning theories,
frameworks and models. London: Joint Information Systems
Committee.,” Jt. Inf. Syst. Comm., no. September, pp. 0–43,
2004.
[13] D. U. BOLLIGER and T. MARTINDALE, “Key Factors for
Determining Student Satisfaction in Online Courses,” Int. J. E-
Learning, no. March, pp. 61–67, 2004.
[14] C. C. Chang, K. M. Shu, C. Liang, J. S. Tseng, and Y. S. Hsu, “Is
blended e-learning as measured by an achievement test and self-
assessment better than traditional classroom learning for
vocational high school students?,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance
Learn., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 213–231, 2014.
[15] C. Dale, “A Wolf in Sheeps’ Clothing? An Analysis or Student
Engagement with Virtual Learning Environments,” J. Hosp. Leis.
Sport Tour., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 100–108, 2007.
[16] R. Allen and S. Bentley, “Feedback mechanisms: efficient and
effective use of technology or a waste of time and effort?,” Imp.
Coll., 2012.
[17] C. R. Graham, “Current Research in Blended Learning,” in
Handbook of Distance Education, NY: Routledge, Ed. New
York, 2019, pp. 173–188.
[18] B. Collis and J. Moonen, “Flexible Learning in a Digital World,”
Open Learn. J. Open, Distance e-Learning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp.
217–230, 2002.
[19] M. OLIVER and K. TRIGWELL, “Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be
Redeemed?,” E-Learning, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 17, 2005.
[20] R. Huang and Y. Zhou, “DESIGNING BLENDED LEARNING
FOCUSED ON KNOWLEDGE CATEGORY AND LEARNING
ACTIVITIES Case Studies from Beijing Normal University,” in
The Handbook of Blended Learning, 2005, pp. 296–310.
[21] N. T. Dung and D. Fatmawati, “GENERAL INFORMATICS
TEACHING WITH B-LEARNING TEACHING MODELI,”
Indones. J. Biol. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 85–94, 2018.
[22] E. Albrecht, F. Gumz, and J. Grabowski, “Experiences in
Introducing Blended Learning in an Introductory Programming
Course,” pp. 93–101, 2018.