Evaluación de la reacción de alumnos y docentes en un modelo mixto de aprendizaje para Educación Superior


Si bien en la educación presencial uno de los factores clave del éxito es el desempeño del docente dentro del salón de clase, es evidente que dentro de la educación en línea el papel del docente será distinto a su papel tradicional. Por ello, deben revalorarse los factores que garantizarán la calidad en este nuevo tipo de oferta educativa. En este estudio se muestran los resultados obtenidos de un análisis de caso de educación mixta (blended learning) para educación superior, y se enlistan los factores de éxito resultantes, así como algunas barreras para la adecuada implantación.

Palabras clave

Aprendizaje híbrido, aprendizaje en línea, calidad, evalua-ción de la calidad, factores clave del éxito, educación su-perior, educación a distancia, diseño instruccional, Mood-le, objeto de aprendizaje, barreras organizacionales, es-tándares

Texto completo:



  • Adobe. (2006). Adobe Breeze Solutions: Adobe. Fecha de consulta: 20/07/06

  • Akeroyd, J. (2005). Information management and e-learning - Some perspectives. Aslib Proceedings, 57(2), 157-167.


  • Allen, M. (2003). Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., & Vi-nes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-235.


  • AMIPCI. (2005). Hábitos de los Usuarios de Internet en México 2005. Fecha de consulta: 20/05/2006, en

  • Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabas-ca: Athabasca University.

  • Anido, L., & Llamas, M. (2001). A contribu-tion to the e-learning standardization. Paper presented at the Standardization and Inno-vation in Information Technology, 2001 2nd IEEE Conference.

  • Ball, R. (2003). Libraries and distance edu-cation - a German view. Libri, 53(2), 71-81.


  • Bennet, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods. Annual Review of Political Science(9), 455-476.


  • Berggren, A., Burgos, D., Fontana, J. M., Hinkelman, D., & Hung, V. (2005). Practi-cal and pedagogical issues for teacher adoption of IMS learning desing standards in Moodle LMS. Journal of Interactive Me-dia in Education(2), 1-24.

  • Bermejo, S. (2005). Cooperative electronic learning in virtual laboratories through fo-rums. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(1), 140-149.


  • Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review of Psychology(55), 803-832.


  • Bork, A., & Ju, G.-F. N. (2005). Elearning versus Alearning. Paper presented at the Advanced Learning Technologies, 2005. ICALT 2005. Fifth IEEE International Con-ference on.

  • Carman, J. M. (2002). Blended learning de-sign: five key ingredients. KnowledgeNet, 1-11.

  • Clark, D. (2003). The psychology of learn-ing. EPIC Group.

  • Coman, P. G. (2002). Critical success fac-tors for eLearning delivery. Paper presented at the Computers in Education, 2002. Pro-ceedings. International Conference on.

  • Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 501-512.


  • Cook, D. A., & Dupras, D. M. (2004). A Practical Guide To Developing Effective Web-based Learning. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(6), 698-707.


  • Currier, S., & Campbell, L. M. (2002). Learning technologies critical success fac-tors for eLearning implementation: educa-tional technology interoperability stand-ards. Paper presented at the Computers in Education, 2002. Proceedings. International Conference on.

  • Davies, A., Ramsay, J., Lindfield, H., & Couperthwaite, J. (2005). A blended ap-proach to learning: added value and les-sons learnt from students' use of computer-based materials for neurological analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 839-849.


  • De Vries, J., & Bersin, J. (2004). Rapid eLearning: What works. Market, tools, techniques and best practices form building e-learning programs in weeks. Fecha de consulta, 20/07/06 en

  • Dougiamas, M. (2006). Moodle (Versión 1.5.3): Moodle Organization. Fecha de consulta: 20/07/06

  • Elissavet, G. & Economides, A. A. (2003). An Evaluation Instrument for Hypermedia Courseware. Journal of Educational Tech-nology and Society, 6(2), 31-44.

  • Forman, D. (2002). Cultural change for the e-world. Paper presented at the Computers in Education, 2002. Proceedings. Interna-tional Conference on.

  • Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociolo-gy of Education, 77(2), 148-171.


  • Gagné, R. M. (1997). The Conditions of Learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

  • Hall, T. B. (2002). Curriculum development critical success factors for eLearning im-plementation. Paper presented at the Com-puters in Education, 2002. Proceedings. In-ternational Conference on.

  • Henry. (2001). E-learning technology, con-tent and services. Education + Training, 3(4), 249±255.

  • Hosie, P., & Schibeci, R. (2005). Checklist and context-bound evaluations of online learning in higher education. British Jour-nal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 881-895.


  • INEGI. (2005). Usuarios de Internet por lugares de acceso, 2001 a 2005. Fecha de consulta: 20/07/06, en

  • ITC. (1998). ITC's Definition of Distance Education. Fecha de consulta: 01/04/06, en

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology(50), 537-567.


  • KTU. Moodle Teacher's Manual 1.5.3. Fe-cha de consulta: 22/07/06, en

  • Latchem, C. (2005). Failure—the key to un-derstanding success. British Journal of Ed-ucational Technology, 36(4), 665–667.


  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.


  • Liu, C., & Lee, J. (2005). Prompting concep-tual understanding with computer-mediated peer discourse and knowledge acquisition techniques. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 821-837.


  • Luan, W. S., Fung, N. S., Nawawi, M., & Hong, T. S. (2005). Experienced and inex-perienced Internet users among pre-service teachers: Their use and attitudes toward the Internet. Educational Technology & Socie-ty, 8(1), 90-103.

  • McPherson, M. (2002). Organisational criti-cal success factors for managing eLearning implementation. Paper presented at the Computers in Education, 2002. Proceed-ings. International Conference on.

  • McPherson, M. (2005). Developing innova-tion in e-learning: lessons to be learned. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2005(36), 585 -586.


  • McVay, J. G., Snyder, K. D., & Graetz, K. A. (2005). Evolution of a laptop university: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 513-524.


  • Millwood, R., & Terrell, I. (2005). Over-view: New technology, learning and as-sessment in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 195-204.


  • Miniwatts International, L. (2005, Noviembre 9 2005). INTERNET USAGE STATISTICS - The Big Picture World Inter-net Users and Population Stats. Fecha de consulta: 18/11/06 2005, en

  • O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A Compari-son of Reading Paper and On-Line Docu-ments. Fecha de consulta: 15/07/07, en

  • Questionnaire Module. (2006). Fecha de consulta: 20/07/06, en

  • Questionnaire. Cuestionario phpESP. (2006). Fecha de consulta: 20/07/06, en

  • Reforma. (2005, 29 de julio 2005). Reprueba México en e-aprendizaje. Reforma, p. 1.

  • Schillit, B. N., Golovchinsky, G., & Price, M. N. (1998). Beyond Paper: Supporting Active Reading with Free Form Digital Ink Annotations. Proceedings CHI 98, April, 249-256.

  • SGC. (1999). Statgraphics Plus for Windows (Versión 4.0): Statistical Graphics Corp.

  • Tourangeau, R. (2004). SURVEY RE-SEARCH AND SOCIETAL CHANGE. An-nual Review of Psychology(55), 775-801.

  • Wang, M. Y., & Hwang, M. J. (2004). The e-learning library: only a warehouse of learn-ing resources? Electronic Library, 22(5), 408-415.


  • Wautier, J. L., Vileyn, F., & Lefrere, J. J. (2005). Electronic learning: interactive learning in medicine. Transfusion Clinique Et Biologique, 12(2), 150-152.


  • Wiley, D. A.Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. Fecha de con-sulta: 20 oct 05 2005, en

  • Williams, P., Nicholas, D., & Gunter, B. (2005). E-learning: what the literature tells us about distance education - An overview. Aslib Proceedings, 57(2), 109-122.


  • Wopereis, I. G. J. H., Kirschner, P. A., Paas, A., Stoyanov, S., & Hendriks, M. (2005). Failure and success factors of educational ICT projects: a group concept mapping ap-proach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 681–684.


  • Zenger, J. T., & Walker, T. J. (2000). Impact of the internet on entomology teaching and research. Annual Review of Entomology (45), 747-767


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

Copyright (c)