Modelos de Maturidade para Avaliação do Ensino Híbrido: uma revisão de literatura

Martina Konzen Seibel


Proposta: Este artigo busca identificar, na literatura científica, modelos de maturidade capazes de avaliarem a capacidade de instituições de ensino ofertarem ensino híbrido.

Desenho/metodologia/abordagem: Empregou-se revisão sistemática de literatura baseada no modelo de cinco estágios propostos por Arksey & O'Malley (2005) buscou-se, na produção científica teórica e empírica artigos científicos, publicados entre 2013 e 2018 disponíveis nas bibliotecas digitais Scopus, IEEE Xplore e Science Direct e Finna.

Resultados: Não foi encontrado nenhum modelo de maturidade específico para a avaliação da capacidade de instituições de ensino superior ofertarem ensino híbrido de forma sistêmica. Em contrapartida, são elencados os principais modelos de maturidade encontrados associados à área de educação, em geral, e que podem ser adaptados e ajustados para avaliar a capacidade de oferta de ensino híbrido.

Limitações da investigação/implicações: estudo restringiu-se a buscas de artigos publicados entre 2013 e 2018 na língua inglesa disponíveis nas bibliotecas digitais Scopus, IEEE Xplore e Science Direct e Finna que apresentavam nos campos título, abstract e palavras-chave de seus motores de busca as seguintes palavras: “Maturity Model”, “Capability Maturity Model”, education, learning e e-learning.

Originalidade/valor: Este estudo chama a atenção por disponibilizar uma relação de modelos de maturidade que podem servir de base para a construção de novos modelos de maturidade para a área de educação.




Title: "Maturity Models for Hybrid Teaching Assessment: A Literature Review"


Purpose: This article seeks to identify, in the scientific literature, maturity models capable of evaluating the ability of educational institutions to offer hybrid education.

Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review based on the five-stage model proposed by Arksey & O'Malley (2005) was used. The theoretical and empirical scientific articles published between 2013 and 2018 available in libraries were searched. Scopus, IEEE Xplore and Science Direct and Finna.

Results: No specific maturity model was found to evaluate the ability of higher education institutions to offer hybrid education systemically. On the other hand, maturity models found associated with the area of education, in general, which can be adapted and adjusted to evaluate the ability to offer hybrid education are listed.

Limitations / Implications: Study was restricted to searches of articles published between 2013 and 2018 in English available in Scopus, IEEE Xplore and Science Direct and Finna digital libraries that presented in the title, abstract and keywords fields of their search engines. search for the following words: “Maturity Model”, “Capability Maturity Model”, education, learning and e-learning.
Originality / value: This study draws attention by providing a list of maturity models that can serve as a basis for the construction of new maturity models for education.


Keywords: Maturity Model. University education. Hybrid teaching. Systematic Literature Review.

Full Text:



Adams, B. S.; Cummins, M.; Davis, A.; Freeman, A.; Hall G. C. (2017) “NMC Horizon Report: Higher Education Edition”. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Al-araibi, A.A.M.; bin Mahrin, M.N.; Yusoff, R.C.M.; Chuprat, S.B. (2019). A model for technological aspect of e-learning readiness in higher education, in Education and Information Technologies, v. 24, n. 2, pp. 1395-1431.

Arksey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005). “Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework”, in International Journal of Social Research Methodology, v. 8 n. 1, pp. 19–32.

Bacich, L.; Neto, T.; Trevisani, F. M. “Personalização e tecnologia na educação”. In: Bacich, L.; Neto, T.; Trevisani, F. M. Ensino Híbrido: Personalização e Tecnologia na Educação. Bookman, 01/2015.

Backlund, F.; Chronéer, D. & Sundqvist, E. (2014), “Project Management Maturity Models – A Critical Review: A Case Study within Swedish Engineering and Construction Organizations”, in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 119, pp. 837–846.

Becker, J.; Knackstedt, R. & Pöppelbus, J. (2009), “Developing Maturity Models for IT Management”, in Business & Information Systems Engineering, v. 1, n. 3, pp. 213–222.

Bollin, A.; Reçi, E.; Szabó, C.; Szabóová, V.; Siebenhofer, R. Applying a maturity model during a software engineering course – How planning and task-solving processes influence the course performance, in Journal of Systems and Software, v. 144, pp. 397-408.

Carvalho, J. V.; Pereira, R. H. & Rocha, A. (2018), “Maturity models of education information systems and technologies: a systematic literature review”, in: 2018 13th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). IEEE, pp. 1-7.

Chitra, S.; Kwok, R. C. W.; Wong, C. C. K. & Cheung, T. C. H. (2015), “Education Cloud Maturity Code”, in PACIS. p. 114.

Christensen, C. M.; Horn, M. B.; Staker, H. (2012) “Classifying K-12 Blended Learning”. Disponível em: Acesso em: 25 abril 2019.

Clarke, M & Horton R. (2001), “Bringing it all together: Lancet-Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews”, in Lancet., jun 2; pp. 357:1728.

Cook D.J; Mulrow C. D & Haynes R. B. (1997), “Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions”, in Ann Intern Med, vol. 126, n. 5, pp.376-80.

Crosby, P. (1979), Quality is Free, McGraw-Hill.

Cunningham, U. (2014). “Teaching the disembodied: othering and activity systems in a blended synchronous learning situation”. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6). 2014. Disponível em: . Acessado em 01 fev. 2017.

de Bruin, T. et al., (2005), “Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model”, in Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), p. 8–19.

Demir, C. & Kocabaş, I. (2010), “Project management maturity model (PMMM) in educational organizations”, in Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 9, p. 1641-1645.

Duarte, D. & Martins, P.V. (2013). A Maturity Model for Higher Education Institutions, in Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 25-45.

Espinoza-Guzmán, J. & Zermeño, M.G.G. (2017). Maturity Model for E-Learning Classroom, Bimodal and Virtual Courses in Higher Education: A Preliminary Study, in International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, v. 12, n. 1, 13p.

Etges, A.P.B.; Cortimiglia, M.N. (2017). A systematic review of risk management in innovation-oriented firms, in Journal of Risk Research, no prelo.

Garnham, C.; Kaleta, R. “Introduction to hybrid courses”. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6) [Online]. 2002. Disponível em: Acessado em: jan 2018.

Garrison, D. R.; Vaughan, N. D. “Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies”. Internet and Higher Education, v. 18, p. 24–28, 2013.

Guitart, I.; Conesa, J. & Casas, J. (2016) “A Preliminary Study about the Analytic Maturity of Educational Organizations”, in: Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCoS), 2016 International Conference on IEEE, pp. 345-350.

Jia, G.; Chen, Y.; Xue, X.; Chen, J.; Cao, J.& Tang, K. (2011), “Program management organization maturity integrated model for mega construction programs in China”, in International Journal of Project Management, v. 29, n. 7, pp. 834-845.

Haukijärvi, I. (2014), “E-learning Maturity Model–Process-oriented assessment and improvement of e-learning in a Finnish University of Applied Sciences”, in IFIP Conference on Information Technology in Educational Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 76-93.

Henriksen, D.; Mishra, P.; Greenhow, C.; Cain, W.; Roseth, C. “A tale of two courses: innovation in the hybrid/online” Doctoral program at Michigan State University. TechTrends, 58(4), p. 45-53. 2014. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 03 mai 2018.

Horstmeyer, A. (2018). How VUCA is changing the learning landscape – and how curiosity can help, in Development and Learning in Organizations, v. 33, n. 1, pp. 5-8.

Kuznets, S. (1965). Economic Growth and Structure. Heinemann Educational Books, London, UK. 1965.

Lee, D.; Gu, J.-W.; Jung, H.-W. (2019). “Process maturity models: Classification by application sectors and validities studies, in Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, v.31, n. 4, e2161.

Maier, A. M.; Moultrie, J. & Clarkson, P. J. (2012), “Assessing organizational capabilities: Reviewing and guiding the development of maturity grids”, in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, v. 59, n. 1, pp. 138–159.

Margulieux, L. E.; Mccracken, W. M.; Catrambone, R. “A taxonomy to define courses that mix face-to-face and online learning”. Educational Research Review, v. 19, p. 104–118, 2016.

Marshall, S. (2013), “Using the e-learning maturity model to identify good practice in e-learning”, in: ASCILITE-Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, p. 546-556.

Martínez-Argüelles, M.; Castán, J.; Juan, A. “How do students measure service quality in e-learning? A case study regarding an internet-based university”. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(2), 151–159. 2010

Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and personality. Harper, New York.

Michaelis, Dicionário; Michaelis. (2014), Dicionário de português online.

Moskal, P.; Dziuban, C.& Hartman, J. (2013), “Blended learning: a dangerous idea?”, in Internet and Higher Education, v. 18, pp. 15-23.

Norberg, A. “Blended learning and new education logistics in Northern Sweden”. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies. p. 327-330. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. 2012.

Nolan, R.L. (1979), “Managing the crisis in data processing”, in Harvard Bus. Rev. 57, 115–126.

Oliveira, L.S. de, Echeveste, M.E., Cortimiglia, M.N. (2018). Critical success factors for open innovation implementation, in Journal of Organizational Change Management, v. 31, pp. 1283-1294.

Osguthorpe, R. T.; Graham, C. R. “Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions”. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–234. 2003.

Petersen, K. et al. (2008), “Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering”, in: EASE, v. 8. pp. 68-77.

Petersen, K.; Vakkalanka, S. & Kuzniarz, L. (2015), “Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update”, in Information and Software Technology, v. 64, pp. 1-18.

Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2009), “Systematic reviews in the social sciences”, in A practical guide, 8.[Dr.].

Pigosso, D. C. A.; Rozenfeld, H. & Mcaloone, T. C. (2013), “Ecodesign maturity model: A management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies”, in Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 59, pp. 160–173.

Pöppelbus, J. & Röglinger, M. (2011), “What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management”, in Ecis, paper 28.

Pullen,W. (2007), “A public sector HPT maturity model, Perform”, in Improv. 46, pp. 9–15.

Roeglinger, M.; Poeppelbuss, J. & Becker, J. (2012), “Maturity models in business process management”, in Business Process Management Journal, v. 18, n. 2, p. 328–346.

Roseth, C.; Akcaoglu, M.; Zellener, A. “Blending synchronous F2F and computer-supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar”. TechTrends, 57(3), p. 54-59. 2013. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 20 jan. 2018.

Santos-Neto, J.B.S. dos, & Costa, A.P.C.S. (2019), “Enterprise maturity models: a systematic literature review”, in Enterprise Information Systems, v. 13, n. 2, pp. 1-51.

Serdyukov, P. (2017). “Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?”, in Journal of Research in Innovative Teching & Learning, v. 10, n. 1, pp. 4-33.

Silva, E. R. “O Ensino Híbrido no Contexto das Escolas Públicas Brasileiras: Contribuições e Desafios”. Revista Porto das Letras, v. 3, n. 1, 2017.

Smith, K. (2012). Lessons learnt from literature on the diffusion of innovative learning and teaching practices in higher education, in Innovations in Education and Teaching International, v. 49, n. 2, pp. 173-182.

Souza, T. M.; Chagas, A. M.; Anjos, R. C. A. A. “Ensino híbrido: Alternativa de personalização da aprendizagem”. Revista Com Censo: Estudos Educacionais do Distrito Federal, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 1, p. 59-66, mar. 2019. ISSN 2359-2494. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 25 abr. 2019.

Storm, I. et al. (2014), “Measuring stages of health in all policies on a local level: The applicability of a maturity model”, in Health Policy, v. 114, n. 2-3, p. 183-191.

Tarhan, A.; Turetken, O. & Reijers, H. A. (2016), “Business process maturity models: A systematic literature review”, in Information and Software Technology, v. 75, p. 122-134.

Tori, R. (2009), “Cursos híbridos ou blended learning”, in: LITTO, F.M.; FORMIGA. M. (Org.). Educação a Distância: o estado da arte. São Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 121-128.

UNESCO. (2009), World Conference on Higher Education: the new dynamics of higher education and research for societal change and development. Paris: UNESCO.

Valente, J.A. (2014), “Blended learning e as mudanças no ensino superior: a proposta da sala de aula invertida”, in Educ. rev., Curitiba, n. spe 4, pp. 79-97.

Wendler, R. (2012), “The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study”, in Information and software technology, v. 54, n. 12, pp. 1317-1339.

White, B.A., Longenecker, H.E., Leidig, P.M., & Yarbrough, D.M. (2003). Applicability of CMMI to the IS curriculum: a panel discussion. In Information Systems Education Conference (ISECON 2003), pp. 1-5.

Copyright (c)

ISSN: 2183-5594