0% found this document useful (0 votes)

23 views47 pages

2016 IHEQualitative BLAdoption Driversand Barriers

Uploaded by

sailing703

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

23 views47 pages

2016 IHEQualitative BLAdoption Driversand Barriers

Uploaded by

sailing703

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 47

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281638770

A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning

adoption in higher education

Article in The Internet and Higher Education · January 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003

CITATIONS READS

236 1,684

4 authors, including:

Charles R. Graham
Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
137 PUBLICATIONS 18,000 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles R. Graham on 30 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 1

This is a prepublication draft of the article to appear in:

Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A

qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended
learning adoption in higher education. Internet and Higher
Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003

A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to

blended learning adoption in higher education

Wendy W. Porter

Charles R. Graham

Robert G. Bodily

Daniel S. Sandberg

DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 2

Abstract

The authors previously proposed a framework for institutional BL adoption (Graham,

Woodfield, & Harrison, 2012), identifying three stages: (a) awareness/exploration, (b)

adoption/early implementation, and (c) mature implementation/growth. The framework also

identified key strategy, structure, and support issues universities may address at each stage. In

this paper, the authors applied that framework as well as Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations

theory to determine the degree to which institutional strategy, structure, and support measures

facilitate or impede BL adoption among higher education faculty. In addition, the authors

explored whether higher education faculty’s innovation adoption category affects which

measures facilitate or impede BL adoption. To achieve these objectives, the authors surveyed

214 faculty and interviewed 39 faculty at a school in the adoption/early implementation stage of

BL adoption. The authors published the survey results in a prior article. The current article

explores the results of the interviews.

Keywords: Blended learning; Hybrid learning; Faculty adoption; Institutional adoption; Higher

education policy

Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 3

1. Introduction

Increasing numbers of institutions of higher education are adopting blended learning

(BL) (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007). By 2004, 45.9% of undergraduate institutions had BL

offerings (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007). Within the last several years, scholars have

predicted that BL will become the “new traditional model” (Ross & Gage, 2006) or the “new

normal” in higher education course delivery (Norberg, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2011).

Those implementing BL must determine how to facilitate faculty adoption (Christo-

Baker, 2004). Faculty are the primary pedagogical decision-makers in their classrooms (Graham

& Robison, 2007). Despite faculty’s vital role in the success of a university’s BL

implementation efforts, “little has been published regarding faculty adoption of hybrid teaching”

(Kaleta, Skibba, & Joosten, 2007, p. 112).

Accordingly, we identified and explored factors that influence whether faculty members

choose to adopt BL. Specifically, we sought to provide those interested in implementing BL

with information concerning how their institutions’ decisions regarding BL implementation may

influence faculty adoption.

Graham, Woodfield, and Harrison (2012) provided an institutional BL adoption

framework that identified specific strategy, structure, and support issues that institutions

typically address when implementing BL. In addition, we employed Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of

innovations theory to address the disparate characteristics of potential faculty adopters.

Previously, we surveyed faculty members at Brigham Young University Idaho (BYU-I) to

investigate the degree to which institutional strategy, structure, and support decisions influenced

their willingness to adopt BL (Porter & Graham, 2015). For this study, we conducted follow-up

interviews with survey respondents to explore why faculty reported certain strategy, structure,
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 4

and support decisions would facilitate or impede their BL adoption. We focused our interviews

and analysis on two of Rogers’ innovation adoption categories—the early majority (EM) and the

late majority (LM) —due to their pivotal role in institutional BL adoption. Ultimately, we

addressed the following two research questions:

1. Why do certain institutional strategy, structure, and support decisions facilitate or

impede BL adoption among higher education faculty in the EM and the LM?

2. How does the innovation adoption status of higher education faculty members among

the EM and the LM affect why institutional strategy, structure, and support decisions

facilitate or impede their BL adoption?

2. Literature Review

In this literature review, we briefly define BL and provide an overview of faculty

adoption research. We also describe the two theoretical frameworks on which we based our

study, namely, Graham et al.’s (2012) framework for institutional adoption and implementation

of BL in higher education and Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations framework.

2.1 BL Definition

Although an increasing number of people are discussing BL, ambiguity remains

regarding how to define it (Graham, 2013). While a number of scholars agree that BL combines

face-to-face and online instruction, they disagree on a number of issues, including what is being

blended, whether to include a reduction of seat time in the definition, whether to specify the

amount of online and face-to-face instruction, and whether to address pedagogical quality in the

definition (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Graham, 2013; Picciano, 2009). In this paper, we will define

BL as the combination of face-to-face and online instruction (Graham, 2013).

2.2 Faculty Adoption Research

While a number of scholars have explored faculty adoption of technology, much less has

been published regarding faculty adoption of blended learning (Kaleta et al., 2007). Further,

relatively few researchers have examined the factors that facilitate or impede faculty adoption of

BL (Christo-Baker, 2004; Humbert, 2007). Scholars that have researched barriers to BL

adoption include Humbert (2007). He surveyed 37 faculty members in France to identify barriers

to their BL adoption. Faculty members reported concerns regarding decreasing the quality of

student interaction, the lack of time to prepare online content and activities, and the difficulty of

dealing with online interactions. In addition, Oh and Park (2009) surveyed 133 faculty members

in Korea to determine potential barriers to BL adoption. Those barriers included heavy

workloads, lack of motivation, and lack of financial support.

While relatively few studies examine faculty adoption of BL, a number of scholars have

examined factors that influence faculty adoption of various types of educational technology (;

Findik-Coskuncay & Ozkan, 2013; McCann, 2010; Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014; Ngimwa & Wilson,

2012; Swan, 2009; Zhou, & Xu, 2007). Some of these studies examined barriers and

facilitators of faculty technology adoption. Lin, Huang, and Chen (2014) surveyed and

interviewed Chinese language teachers to identify barriers to the adoption of information and

communication technology (ICT). Faculty reported that their greatest barriers included

insufficient support and insufficient time for developing technology-driven pedagogy and

activities. Beggs (2000) surveyed 348 U.S. faculty members regarding the extent to which

certain factors would impede or facilitate their technology adoption. Barriers that the highest

number of faculty rated as important to critically important included lack of time and lack of

equipment. The facilitators that the highest number of faculty rated as important to critically
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 6

important included improved student learning, advantage over traditional teaching, equipment

availability, increased student interest, and ease of use.

2.3 Institutional BL Adoption Framework

We based our study on Graham et al.’s (2012) framework for institutional adoption and

implementation of BL. Graham et al. used interview data from six institutions at various stages

of adoption/implementation to identify key markers related to institutional strategy, structure,

and support:

• Strategy includes issues regarding the overall design of BL (e.g., definition and

policies, forms of advocacy, degree of implementation, purposes for implementation).

• Structure encompasses issues relating to the technological, pedagogical, and

administrative framework facilitating the BL environment (e.g., governance, BL

models, scheduling, and evaluation).

• Support involves issues relating to the manner in which an institution facilitates

faculty implementation and maintenance of its BL design (e.g., technical support,

pedagogical support, and faculty incentives).

Evidences for these three areas of consideration were identified and differentiated across

three stages of institutional adoption/implementation:

• At Stage 1 (awareness/exploration) an institution has not yet adopted a strategy

regarding BL, but administrators are aware of and show limited support for individual

faculty exploring ways in which they may employ BL techniques in their classes.

• At Stage 2 (adoption/early implementation) an institution adopts a BL strategy and

experiments with new policies and practices to support its implementation.

• At Stage 3 (mature implementation/growth) an institution has well established BL

strategies, structure, and support that are integral to its operation.

2.4 Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations

We also based our study on Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations framework. Rogers

(2003) defined diffusion as “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain

channels over time among the members of a social system” (p. 5). As the innovation is

communicated, social system participants choose whether to adopt it. Rogers grouped

innovation adopters into five categories based on shared characteristics and values he had

identified: innovators, early adopters, the EM, the LM, and laggards (Rogers, 2003). Subsequent

scholars provided more detailed descriptions. Table 1 outlines characteristics of the five

categories of innovation adopters based on the descriptions of Geoghegan (1994), Humbert

(2007), Moore (2002), Rogers (2003), and Thackray, Good, and Howland (2010).

[Insert Table 1 Approximately Here]

Moore (2002) recommended focusing adoption efforts on one category of adopters at a

time, beginning with innovators. He also advised leveraging one group of adopters’ successful

implementation to facilitate implementation by the next set of adopters. Moore identified a

“chasm” advocates would encounter when they transitioned from recruiting innovators and early

adopters to recruiting members of the EM. According to Moore, crossing that chasm requires

implementers to recognize how the needs of the innovators and early adopters differ from the

needs of the EM. Moore also noted that recruiters rarely facilitate adoption among the LM as

effectively as they could despite the large quantity of adopters in this group.
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 8

We employed these two theoretical frameworks to investigate the impact of institutional

strategy, structure, and support decisions on BL adoption. Specifically, we used Rogers’ (2003)

and subsequent scholars’ descriptions of innovation adoption categories to classify research

participants (Geoghegan, 1994; Humbert, 2007; Moore, 2002; Rogers, 2003; Thackray et al.,

2010). We used Graham et al.’s (2012) institutional BL adoption framework to identify

specific strategy, structure, and support issues institutions would likely address while

implementing BL. Using these classifications and issues, we investigated the extent to which the

framework’s institutional strategy, structure, and support decisions influence BL adoption.

3. Method

3.1 Research Context

To investigate the impact of institutional strategy, structure, and support measures on BL

adoption among the early and LM, we conducted a survey and interviews of faculty at BYU-I.

We selected BYU-I because we had previously classified it as a university that had entered the

BL adoption and early implementation stage (Graham et al., 2013).

BYU-I is a private four-year university located in Rexburg, Idaho with approximately

15,000 students (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010). In 2009,

BYU-I began its “Pathway” program, offering college preparation courses in a BL format in the

United States and other countries. Within the last few years, BYU-I has transitioned a number of

its entry-level and evening courses into a BL format. It has also provided training to newly hired

faculty and made instructional developers and academic technology representatives available to

any faculty members who would like assistance redesigning their courses into a blended format

(Graham et al., 2013). BYU-I refers to BL as “hybrid” teaching. A few years ago, the institution

published a statement defining hybrid courses and outlining some best practices for their
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 9

adoption. BYU-I defines BL as the combination of face-to-face and online learning with a

reduction in class time (Graham et al., 2013).

3.2 Data Collection

During December 2013 and January 2014, we conducted an online survey of full- and

part-time BYU-I instructors. We excluded employees hired exclusively for teaching online, as

they were largely part-time instructors living at a distance from campus who were not expected

to teach in a blended format. Ultimately, 226 professors began the survey, and 214 professors

(approximately 39% of BYU-I faculty) completed it. We designed the survey to determine (a)

the appropriate innovation adoption category for each faculty member and (b) the factors that

impacted faculty decisions to adopt BL. To determine the innovation adoption categories of

respondents, we compared participants’ self-categorizations with their reported adoption of

various online technologies. The two did not align for the majority of respondents, and we

ultimately determined we would assign adoption categories based on respondents’ reported

adoption of online technologies. We previously published a full description and analysis of our

method for designating faculty members’ innovation adoption category as well as the results of

the survey (Porter & Graham, 2015). A copy of the survey is included as Appendix A.

In early 2014, we conducted 30–50 minute semi-structured interviews with a stratified

sample of survey respondents to identify why they reported certain strategy, structure, and

support decisions would impact their decision to adopt BL. Case studies such as this are

appropriate when a researcher seeks to study a hypothesis regarding a class of people by

examining a specific case from that class (Merriam, 1998). We based the interview protocol on

Graham et al.’s (2012) framework for institutional adoption and implementation of BL in higher

education. We engaged in peer debriefing and sought feedback regarding questions’ content and

format (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The interview protocol is included as Appendix B.

We drew our stratified sample of interviewees from among the members of the EM and

LM. We focused on the EM and the LM because the purpose of this study is to provide

institutional administrators and others interested in BL adoption with information regarding how

to facilitate adoption among their faculty. By definition, innovators and early adopters generally

implement technologies such as BL early and on their own initiative (Geoghegan, 1994; Rogers,

2003). Thus, they are unlikely to require institutional assistance or influence to adopt BL.

Institutions are also unlikely to influence laggards to adopt BL since they resist adopting new

innovations even after necessity prompts it (Humbert, 2007; Rogers, 2003).

We selected potential interviewees by identifying respondents whose self-categorization

aligned with or was within one category of the category we assigned based on their reported

adoption efforts (see Porter & Graham, 2015). We did this to increase the likelihood that

participants’ interview responses would align with their actions. We first e-mailed all survey

respondents whose self-categorization matched their reported adoption efforts and invited them

to participate in an interview. We then continued inviting groups of survey respondents whose

self-categorization aligned within one category to participate in an interview until we felt

satisfied with the quantity of potential interviews. We took field notes for and recorded 39 semi-

structured interviews, 17 EM and 22 LM interviews. During the interviews, we asked the

questions indicated in our interview protocol, prompting interviewees to provide further details

until we felt we had sufficiently exhausted each line of inquiry.

3.3 Data Analysis

After completing the interviews, we analyzed and compared the data contained in the

field notes for each interviewee. As interviewees responded, they identified whether the

institutional strategy, structure, and decisions we asked them about would influence their BL

adoption decision. They also identified the reasons why institutional decisions would or would

not impact whether they adopted BL. Accordingly, we analyzed and compared interviewees’

responses regarding whether and why institutional strategy, structure, and support decisions

would affect their BL adoption. We identified themes in those responses and recorded the

number of interviewees who identified each theme.

Before reporting these findings, we created a list of the themes we identified and had

three researchers review over 20% of the interviews. The researchers independently classified

and recorded the themes the interviewees addressed and compared their results. The

classifications aligned for 90.3% of the themes.

We sought to ensure the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of

our research in alignment with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) recommendations. To sustain

credibility, we engaged in peer debriefing by obtaining feedback regarding our method, analysis,

and conclusions from colleagues. We also conducted progressive subjectivity checks by

identifying and addressing any biases and preferences during data analysis. To promote

transferability—the readers’ ability to apply findings from one context to other contexts or

settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)—we provided a rich context for our results with institutional

and population data. To establish dependability, we maintained an audit trail while collecting

data, interpreting findings, and reporting results. We also designated our rational for selecting

survey and interview participants. To sustain confirmability, we compared our findings with
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 12

other research that have classified innovation adopters and investigated factors that influence

faculty members’ decisions to adopt an innovation like BL (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

4. Findings and Discussion

After collecting and analyzing our data, we recorded our findings and conclusions

regarding how strategy, structure, and support themes influenced faculty members’ BL adoption

decision. We also provided interviewees’ demographics to provide a context for our findings

and conclusions.

4.1 Demographics of Interviewees

Survey respondents at BYU-I provided their demographic information, including their

age, number of years teaching in higher education, number of years teaching at BYU-I, faculty

status, and whether they teach an online course. Table 2 details interviewees’ demographics.

[Insert Table 2 Approximately Here]

Nearly all interviewees were full-time faculty members and reported they had not taught an

online course. Notably, members of the LM taught longer on average than the EM, and no

interviewee from the LM had taught for fewer than 3 years.

4.2 Strategy

We identified themes that interviewees reported most frequently to explain why

administrative strategy decisions would influence them to the level reported in the survey. We

organized our findings and our discussion in the following categories: institutional purpose for

adopting BL, the identity of BL advocates, and the availability of BL definitions and policies.

4.2.1 Purpose

Eleven interviewees explained that alignment of purpose would be influential if that

purpose was helping students. As one interviewee stated, “I only want to do things if it’s for the

best of the students.” In contrast with those who found alignment of purpose influential, 16

interviewees explained that institutional purpose would not influence them because they were

influenced by their own purposes, they planned on following the administration anyway, or

because institutional purpose was not persuasive generally. As one interviewee ultimately

explained, “You’re always convinced for your own reasons.” Another interviewee noted that

“I’ll do what I’m supposed to do” whether or not purposes align. A third interviewee explained

that “just because your reason doesn’t align with mine doesn’t mean I won’t do it.” Accordingly,

we concluded that alignment of purpose may not influence some faculty members. However,

since other faculty members indicated they would be influenced by the institution’s purpose,

especially if that involved helping students, institutional BL implementers may consider

highlighting BL’s student benefits of BL adoption.

4.2.2 Advocacy

We asked interviewees which of the following BL advocates they would find persuasive

and why: university administrators, department administrators, or faculty members. At least 31

interviewees reported that administrative advocates would not influence their BL adoption

decision for a number of reasons. Twenty-two interviewees expressed concern that

administrators would not base their advocacy on first-hand experience with BL. One interviewee

stated that “ideas, in theory, are awesome, but in practicality, it just doesn’t work.” Other

interviewees were concerned that administrators “may have other motives” or that

administrators’ position of authority made their BL advocacy seem like they are “trying to force

something down on me.”

Similarly, at least 20 interviewees outlined various reasons that departmental advocates

would not be influential. Eleven expressed concern that department leaders would not base their

advocacy on first-hand experience. One interviewee explained that “I don’t want somebody

coming to me who hasn’t been in the trench telling me . . . how to ease into the trench.” Others

expressed concern that department leaders would act as administrative spokespeople or that

department leaders’ motives and loyalties may be disparate from their own. For example, one

interview noted he would feel department leaders “were passing information from above.”

Another indicated, “Some of their interests and loyalties may be different from my own concerns

for my classroom.”

In contrast, at least 34 interviewees identified reasons faculty advocates would influence

their adoption decision. Of those, 31 explained that other faculty members, as fellow teachers,

are in a similar situation. For example, interviewees stated that faculty advocates “are in the

same place as I am” or that “they’ve been there; they’ve done that.” The other three interviewees

assumed faculty advocates would have similar motivations. As one interviewee stated, “I would

assume my fellow faculty member . . . wouldn’t be driven by an agenda that threatened the

integrity of our teaching.” An additional nine interviewees noted that they would also be

influenced if they knew and/or trusted the faculty member or if the faculty member belonged to

their department.

We concluded that most EM and LM interviewees’ preferred faculty advocates over

department and university advocates because faculty members had first-hand teaching and/or BL

implementation experience. Interviewees explained that hearing from someone with first-hand
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 15

experience provided a number of benefits. For example, such advocates could provide “recent,

personal experience,” “give more specific details,” “tell what works and what doesn’t,” and

“share [BL’s] strengths and weaknesses.” Accordingly, universities that previously facilitated

BL adoption among their earliest adopters may consider recruiting them to advocate for BL.

Since earlier adopters are more likely to advocate for BL adoption if they had a positive

experience implementing BL, institutions may consider fostering positive BL adoption

experiences among their earliest adopters.

We also concluded that interviewees focused on advocates’ motives and that some felt

skeptical of administrators’ and department leaders’ purposes for advocating BL’s adoption.

Interviewees’ responses to another question—whether the institution’s purpose for adopting BL

would be influential—may provide insights regarding administrators and department leaders’

perceived motives. For example, some faculty speculated that their leaders may have financial

motives for adopting BL such as “saving money” and trying to “generate more classroom space.”

We noted interviewees’ preference for advocates whom they knew and/or who were

members of their department and concluded that departments may provide an effective setting

for advocacy. Reasons interviewees preferred faculty advocates from their own department

included whether the advocates’ experience applying BL would directly transfer to their own

classroom. As one interviewee asked, “does computer science translate to what I’m doing here?”

Accordingly, administrators could facilitate BL advocacy at the department level, allowing

colleagues to provide content-specific BL adoption strategies. In addition, faculty members

who recruit colleagues in their department could offer continued encouragement and informal

pedagogical and technical support.

4.2.3 Definition/Policy

At least 17 of the interviewees felt it would be influential if their university defined the

degree of technology integration they expect you to achieve. They explained this would be

influential in a general sense or specifically because of the guidance and expectations it would

provide or the uniformity it would facilitate. For example, one interviewee simply stated, “If

there weren't guidelines, I probably wouldn't do it.” Another interviewee explained that it would

“be frustrating to have absolutely no guidance, not knowing what direction things are supposed

to be going.” A third interviewee added, “There needs to be some kind of cement that holds the

students’ experience across the departments fairly constant.”

In addition, at least 10 other interviewees noted that guidelines would be influential if

administrators set broad parameters and gave faculty flexibility to determine course-level

policies. As one faculty member explained, “there has to be some standardization in terms of

definition, and also you can leave it open in terms of how faculty would approach it.” At least

11 interviewees explained that university guidelines would not be influential, for example,

because they would prefer administrators not direct policy decisions for their courses. One

interviewee noted, “I’d rather not deal with the administration if I can avoid it.” Accordingly,

we concluded administrators could consider setting guidelines for BL adopters to establish

expectations regarding its implementation in order to facilitate uniformity and provide adequate

guidance. At the same time, administrators may consider allowing faculty the flexibility to

determine their course-level approach.

4.3 Structure

We identified themes that interviewees reported most frequently to explain why

administrative structure decisions would influence them to the level reported in the survey. We
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 17

organized our findings and our discussion in the following categories: infrastructure, evaluation,

professional development, governance, and schedule.

4.3.1 Infrastructure

At least 33 or 84.6% of interviewees indicated that the establishment of an adequate

infrastructure would be influential. Ten interviewees explained that students need infrastructure

that consistently works. One interviewee explained, “If a student has a bad experience or

difficulty with the technology, it can squelch their interest and excitement for the content of the

course.” Another interviewee explained, “When people are sitting down ready to do something,

they just want the access to be there. Seven interviewees indicated infrastructure was influential

for them because course work and engagement stop when infrastructure fails during class or

when students are completing assigned work. One interviewee explained that infrastructure is

key during class in order “to transition between mediums, keep the students’ attention, and work

with big files and large numbers of students.” Another interviewee recalled a disastrous time

when “the night before the final, [the learning management system] was not working.” Other

interviewees generally expressed the influence of infrastructure or listed specific items (e.g.,

video, audio, learning management system) for which they would require adequate

infrastructure.

In contrast, 5 interviewees expressed a willingness to wait for or work around slow

internet. For example, an interviewee noted, “I don’t know the difference when people talk

about computer speed . . . I think ‘you wait around for your computer to do stuff.’ That’s just not

a big deal to me.” We concluded that although there may be a minority of faculty who are not

necessarily bothered by slow internet speeds and technical failures, adequate infrastructure will

likely influence EM and LM faculty like few other administrative decisions can. Thus,
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 18

institutional BL implementers may consider whether they have sufficient bandwidth and internet

speed to accommodate the increased internet usage corresponding with BL adoption.

4.3.2 Evaluation

Twenty interviewees noted that research and/or evaluation data is persuasive or

somewhat persuasive. As one interviewee stated, “Assuming it’s good data, it’s a good study, it

would be persuasive.” Another interviewee explained that “I spent the first 15 years of my

professional career in education, so doing research, reading research . . . means a lot to me.”

Another six interviewees conditioned the level of influence on whether the evaluation data

showed a benefit for their students. For example, one interviewee stated, “if you show me, if

you do this, your students will learn and retain more, and you can prove it, I’ll do it.”

In contrast to the level of influence interview participants reported for evaluation data,

Porter, Graham, Spring, and Welch’s (2014) study of 11 institutions adopting BL noted that none

of the institutions formally evaluated BL implementation. We concluded that those adopting BL

in the future may consider gathering evaluation data for potential EM and LM adopters. We

considered whether evaluation data could be gathered from the classrooms of innovators and

early adopters already implementing BL and hypothesized that such data, if positive, may

increase adoption among potential EM/LM adopters.

4.3.3 Professional development

Thirteen interviewees reported the availability of one-on-one professional development

would be impactful because it could be tailored to their needs. One interviewee explained that

“you have particular questions and specific needs to address.” In addition, four interviewees

identified the human interaction as influential, reporting that “it helps to talk to people” or that “I

know that I learn better face-to-face.” Three other interviewees indicated they would be more
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 19

likely to ask questions in a one-one-one setting. Specifically, an interviewee commented, “One-

on-one you’re much less hesitant to ask questions. . . . [in a group setting], you feel like you may

be vulnerable, you may ask a stupid question.” Three other interviewees assumed one-on-one

assistance would take place while they were actually creating their BL course, and one noted,

“I’d rather get the support as needed.”

Twenty-four interviewees reported that such a setting would be beneficial because they

learn from what others share in a group setting. Ten of those interviewees specified that they

would learn from others’ questions or concerns. One interviewee explained that “hearing other

people’s concerns or issues . . . would be really important.” Three other interviewees noted they

enjoyed real-time feedback and responses. As one faculty member stated, “[I]t would be

important to have that type of instantaneous feedback.” Another three interviewees suggested

using a face-to-face group setting for initial information, then switching to another format. For

example, one interviewee outlined, “Initially, [I would want] a face-to-face group format, but . . .

when it came down to I’ve got to change this course from face-to-face to hybrid, then I’d want it

to be individual.” In contrast, five interviewees expressed concern that a group format may not

be sufficiently tailored, or, as an interviewee stated, “may not fit what you really need yourself.”

At least 21 interviewees indicated the availability of online training would not be

influential.

Nine interviewees expressed concern regarding the lack of face-to-face interaction. Interviewees

made comments such as “I can't see the people, and I can’t interact with them” or “it’s just nicer

to be able to talk to real people.” Another five interviewees reported apprehension that they

would have a limited ability to receive the feedback they needed. One interviewee explained, “If

you’ve got an issue that you’d like to have addressed, it might be more difficult to get at least a
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 20

fairly rapid answer to your question.” Another interviewee noted concern that when asking a

question “All the body language is gone . . . if I had a piece of paper, I could sketch something

out. . . .” Four other interviewees made general statements regarding online training such as “I

don’t see how that would benefit me.” In contrast, 6 interviewees indicated they would be

influenced by the flexibility online training offered. One interviewee highlighted the flexible

timing of the training: “I could get [training] at my own time, at my own leisure, when I wanted

it, how I wanted it.” Another interviewee focused on the flexible rate of training: “[I would

have] the flexibility to move at my own speed and move quickly through the information that

maybe I feel like I’ve got.”

In sum, we concluded that professional development providers may consider using

multiple delivery methods to address faculty preferences. For example, as a few interviewees

noted, trainers could provide initial, general BL training in a group setting. Professional

development providers could also make instructional designers available to faculty as trainers

and/or support to provide more tailored assistance while they are implementing BL. In addition,

providers could make information and resources available online, so faculty members could

access it at on their own schedule and progress at their own rate. Notably, complaints about

online training directly related to the themes outlined regarding one-on-one and group training

(e.g., the value of face-to-face interaction, the importance of receiving prompt feedback and

responses, the need for tailored instruction).

4.3.4 Governance

During interviews, we were able to determine who participants preferred to make policy

decisions and why they expressed that preference. At least 12 interviewees preferred faculty as

the policy makers for general reasons or because faculty were the ones implementing BL. One
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 21

interviewee explained that “if a faculty member is going to expend time, resources, and

knowledge to create and mold and do all of the work, I think that they ought to have a say in who

owns it and how it gets used.” Five other interviewees wanted administrators to create policy for

the sake of uniformity. As one interviewee noted, “There’s got to be some uniform agreement.”

Seven interviewees preferred some combination of the three groups to make policy. For

example, one interviewee outlined that “some of the bigger policies need to be under the

administration umbrella, but I would want to retain at the faculty . . . level the choices that flesh

that out.” Other interviewees noted, “There has to be buy-in at all levels” and “ideally [policies]

should come from all three really. Everybody should be able to get together.”

We concluded that BL implementers should consider reviewing this data in conjunction

with the data gathered regarding the publication of administrative BL policies and definitions. In

response to that question, interviewees emphasized the importance of administrators creating

uniform policy and providing clear expectations. In contrast, here interviewees focused more on

faculty input regarding ownership and use of materials. We concluded that administrators may

address interviewees’ responses to both questions by setting forth broad guidelines that provide

clear, uniform expectations after seeking faculty input and buy-in at all levels.

4.3.5 Schedule

Twenty-one interviewees noted that while it would not be influential, it would be

beneficial. Interviewees explained “it helps students to understand that this course is going to be

different than that course,” which is beneficial because, for example, “some students are going to

work well in that format; they’re going to enjoy the hybrid style.” Nine interviewees made

general statements about the lack of influence scheduling designations would have or noted that

BL designations don’t need to be in the course catalog. Their reasons for this included that the
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 22

BL courses weren’t that different or teachers could explain the format in other ways. One

teacher explained that “if you feel like the courses are pretty equivalent, I don’t know why you’d

need to make separate designations for them.” Another teacher recalled a time when he

announced the class was in a BL format on the first day: “My department head had not put it in

the catalog as a hybrid, so the students all showed up that day, and I said . . . this is the way this

is going to be.” In contrast, six interviewees explained that scheduling designations would be

influential to make students aware of the course’s format. For example, one participant noted, “I

like that just because [students] know what to expect,” and another commented, “I think it’s the

right thing to do in terms of advertising fairly.” We concluded that even though placing a

designation for BL classes in the catalog may not be as influential as other administrative

decisions, instructors may likely appreciate the notice it provides to their students. We

concluded that such notice could provide students with information that would be helpful to

choose the class format that works best for them and that this would only have a secondary

influence on faculty adoption.

4.4 Support

We identified themes that interviewees reported most frequently to explain why

administrative support decisions would influence them to the level reported in the survey. We

organized our findings and our discussion in the following categories: technological support,

pedagogical support, and incentives, including course load reductions, financial stipends, and

tenure/promotion consideration.

4.4.1 Technological support

Fourteen interviewees made general statements that technical support would be

influential or that technological functionality was important to them. For example, one
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 23

interviewee forthrightly declared, “technical support has to be there.” Another instructor who

used Google Hangouts noted, “If students can’t get on to meet together . . . or if they can’t get on

because the management system is down, that’s a big problem.” Eleven interviewees

acknowledged their feelings of technological inadequacy with statements such as “I’m not a

computer person.” Four other interviewees were concerned about wasting time trying to resolve

technical issues. As one interviewee explained, “If you run into those situations and you don’t

have any help . . . you’re probably going to spend a lot of time doing things that. . . don’t benefit

the class” In contrast seven faculty members felt technologically capable enough that technical

support would not influence their BL adoption decision. One interviewee noted, “I’m familiar

with computers; I can do it.”

We anticipated that technological support may be influential for EM and LM participants.

Theorists have described the EM as more conservative in adopting new technologies and the LM

as comparatively less technologically savvy (Moore, 2002; Geoghegan, 1994). The importance

of technical functionality, interviewees’ expressions of inadequacy, and the need for support to

save time aligned with theorists’ descriptions. We concluded that BL implementers seeking to

recruit members of the EM and LM may consider making potential EM and LM adopters aware

of support resources and scaling their technical support efforts to facilitate addressing BL issues.

4.4.2 Pedagogical support

Eight interviewees indicated that pedagogical support would be useful when designing

the online component of BL. For example, one interviewee explained, “I wouldn’t mind having

a second set of eyes on my course design just in terms of how well I’ve translated things from

the classroom format to an online format.” Another interviewee indicated how nice it would be

“to see examples.” Seven other interviewees made general statement about the influence of
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 24

pedagogical support such as “it has been very helpful” or “having someone come in would be

fantastic.” In contrast, 10 interviewees felt the availability of pedagogical support would not be

influential because they had sufficient pedagogical experience. For example, one interviewee

noted, “I’m a teacher, and that’s a way of teaching.” Another said, “I teach chemistry and it’s

pretty straightforward what you need to do for chemistry.” One interviewee “had a lot of

experience adapting pedagogy.” Another “did a PhD program in instructional design”

We noted that the experience faculty cited as the basis for their confidence included

classroom teaching, knowledge of their subject matter, instructional design experience, and an

instructional design degree. While a degree and experience in instructional design may likely

qualify interviewees to adopt BL to at least the same extent as those providing support, we

wondered whether other credentials would as readily facilitate effective BL adoption. For

example, classroom teaching experience or subject matter knowledge may facilitate quality face-

to-face sessions, but we wondered how they would facilitate creating effective online instruction

or making the best use of face-to-face time versus time online. As eight interviewees

recognized, designing the online component of BL will likely require assistance. We concluded

that administrators and those providing professional development may need to help some EM

and LM BL adopters realize that they need to know how to effectively create and integrate

technology-based learning in a way that compliments what they do face-to-face.

4.4.3 Course load reductions

Interviewees influenced by course load reductions focused their explanations on the

importance of time. Fourteen interviewees specifically identified the need for more time to

adopt BL or for other pursuits. For example, one interviewee noted, “that would give me more

time to implement and understand better what I want to do to make [BL] successful.” Another
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 25

interviewee commented, “That can open up additional opportunities for developing other

materials or getting involved in other research projects and things like that.” Eleven

interviewees noted that a course load reduction would be influential because they valued their

time or needed additional time. These interviewees made comments such as “time is the big

factor for just about anything” or “there’s just always a feeling of being extremely busy and

having a hard time getting to things that you want to get to.” In contrast, three interviewees

indicated they were not influenced by a reduction in course load because they enjoy teaching.

As one interviewee stated, “I love teaching; I don’t want a load reduction.”

4.4.4 Financial stipends

At least nine interviewees indicated stipends would be influential in general or because it

would provide compensation of the extra work required. One interviewee explained, “There’s an

added workload to make that transition . . . so the added financial incentive or course reduction

provides compensation for that.” Five interviewees likewise indicated stipends would be

influential, but they conditioned it on the amount of the stipend. As one interviewee stated, “I'm

56, and people my age, you have to pay them an awful lot.”

In contrast, 14 interviewees indicated stipends would not be influential because they

needed time more than they needed money, they felt they had sufficient money, or that money

was not motivating. For example, one interviewee commented that “even if it was a great

stipend . . . I don’t feel like I have the time.” Those that did not find money motivating made

comments such as “I could use more money, but it’s not my motivator” or “I didn’t become a

teacher because of the money.”

4.4.5 Tenure/Promotion

Twenty-six interviewees explained that tenure consideration would not be influential

because they already have the equivalent of tenure—what BYU-I terms Continuing Faculty Status

(CFS)—or that they were not concerned about receiving it. Interviewees commented, “I have

CFS already” or “I don’t feel that worried about CFS.” Another three interviewees hypothesized

that BL adoption would be only one among multiple factors considered during the CFS process.

As one interviewee noted, “It just seems to me like that would be one element in a CFS binder.”

Based on the interview data, we concluded that course load reductions would be the most

influential incentive for EM and LM participants. We found it interesting that interview

participants considered load reductions more influential than financial stipends since Porter et al.

(2014) noted in a prior study of institutions adopting BL that financial stipends were the most

commonly offered incentive. Course load reductions may have been more popular at BYU-I due

to the relatively high teaching load there. It may also be because “most faculty, faced with the

demands of research, teaching, and service, view the time devoted to technology as time not

spent on more pressing tasks” (Surry & Land, 2000, p. 151). Consequently, when administrators

moderate the demands of teaching with a course load reduction, we hypothesized that it may

provide the time necessary for BL adoption among some faculty members.

The relative lack of influence tenure/promotion had on EM and LM participants was

likewise notable. Explanations for this reaction may include interviewees’ current status at the

university, demographics, and/or BYU-I’s distinct tenure/CFS process. In addition, many

interviewees reported already having CFS. This aligned with our expectations since BYU-I

generally makes CFS determinations within the first three years, and the average interviewee had

taught at BYU-I for 10 years. Interviewees also reported not feeling concerned about receiving

CFS. This is likely because BYU-I’s CFS process is viewed less as evaluation, remediation, or
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 27

possible dismissal and more as a professional development opportunity in which faculty receive

support, feedback, and guidance to successfully integrate them into the university. Accordingly,

we concluded that implementers may consider examining their faculty members’ attitudes

toward financial stipends, course load reductions, and tenure/promotion consideration to

determine whether those would influence faculty at their individual institutions.

4.5 EM and LM Distinctions

As we analyzed our data, we noted that while EM and LM interviewees identified similar

quantities of most themes, there were several disparities in EM and LM responses. In Table 3

we identified instances in which there was at least a 20% difference in the number of EM and

LM interviewees who identified a particular strategy, structure, or support theme.

[Insert Table 3 Approximately Here]

4.5.1 Strategy

Twenty or approximately 90% of the LM noted that faculty members would be

influential because they are in a similar situation. Members of the LM were also more likely to

question their superiors’ motives. Four members of the LM indicated that department leaders

had different motives than they did, and five members of the LM repeated this assertion

regarding administrators. In contrast, four members of the EM reported that departmental

leaders would be influential because they had developed a personal relationship or a sense of

trust with them, only one member of the EM questioned administrators’ motives, and none of the

EM questioned department leaders’ motives. We concluded that those attempting to recruit

members of the LM may consider focusing more heavily on faculty advocacy than on
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 28

departmental or administrative advocacy. We made the same conclusion regarding members of

the EM since many of them indicated faculty advocates would be influential. However, we also

noted that they may be less likely than the LM to question the motives of administrators,

especially their own departmental administrators.

Interviewees, especially the LM, indicated it would be influential if administrators

published BL guidelines because it would facilitate uniformity or hold “the students’ experience

across the departments fairly constant.” Accordingly, we concluded that administrators seeking

to recruit the LM may consider publishing a BL definition and other BL guidelines university-

wide.

4.5.2 Structure

While both the EM and the LM emphasized the importance of technological

infrastructure, the EM focused more on the potential interference of technical issues’ with course

work than the LM did. Potential explanations may include the fact that, on average, the EM

adopted more technology more quickly than did the LM. Consequently, they were more likely to

have experiences where technology interrupted course work and engagement. LMs’

comparatively lower degree of experience may also help explain why they were more focused

than EMs on the reliability of the infrastructure. LMs may not have felt the same level of

confidence to work with or around technical issues as they arose. We concluded that though EM

and LMs expressed their concerns in distinct manners, their concerns centered on the stability

and speed of the Internet. Accordingly, we concluded that institutional BL implementers may

consider increasing and maintaining their bandwidth and internet speed to accommodate

increased on-campus internet usage by BL adopters.

In addition to solid infrastructure, members of the EM and LM felt strongly about the

importance of evaluation data based on sound methods. Over half of the EM interviewed

confirmed the influential nature of such data. This corresponds with Rogers’ (2003)

characterization of the EM as those who only adopt new innovations when they have compelling

evidence of its value. Accordingly, administrators seeking to overcome the chasm between early

adopters and the EM may consider providing evaluation data demonstrating the value of BL.

Also, they may consider gathering such data from the classrooms of innovators and early

adopters already implementing BL.

Interviewees also noted the importance of effective professional development. EM and

LM interviewees’ responses were most disparate regarding online training with more members

of the LM expressing concern regarding the lack of face-to-face interaction. Nineteen members

of the LM indicated a preference for face-to-face training in order to hear others’ experiences,

ideas, and questions as well as receive quick feedback and answers. One member of the LM

explained that “if I don’t know what questions to ask, if I go to a classroom, there’s other people

that ask questions” We hypothesized that LM interviewees may feel less confident with

technology and more accustomed to face-to-face interaction. That would align with

Geoghegan’s (1994) description of the LM as those less comfortable with technology. To assist

the LM, we concluded that those offering online professional development may consider

providing group or one-on-one training sessions. This training could feature faculty members

who have already adopted BL sharing their experiences, addressing questions, and providing

real-time feedback.

4.5.3 Support

In general, there was not a substantial difference between EM and LM interviewees’

responses regarding BL support decisions. Relatively similar percentages of EM and LM

interviewees identified specific themes regarding technical support, pedagogical support, and

incentives. For example, 29.4% of the EM and 27.3% of the LM interviewees expressed a

feeling of technological inadequacy. In addition, 29.4% of the EM and 31.8% of the LM were

not concerned about getting tenure. The largest discrepancy between EM and LM interviewees

related to course load reductions. Specifically, 5.9% of EM interviewees and 27.3% of LM

interviewees indicated course load reductions would be influential because “time is important.”

However, similar percentages of EM and LM interviewees indicated time would be important;

they simply may not have used those words or parallel expressions. Specifically, 64.7% of the

EM and 64.1% of the LM indicated course load reductions would be influential because they

needed time in order to adopt BL, they needed time for other matters, they needed more time in

general, or time is important.

5. Conclusion

In this article, the authors applied Graham et al.’s (2012) previously published

institutional adoption framework as well as Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory to

determine why faculty in the early and LM predicted that specific institutional strategy, structure,

and support measures would or would not influence their BL adoption decision. As a result of

this study, we hope universities will consider identifying and addressing the needs of the

members of the early and LM. Institutions seeking to bridge the adoption chasm between early

adopters and the EM may consider whether they have scaled their infrastructure and technical

support to address the needs of all potential adopters as well as having evaluation data available.

Institutions may consider recruiting existing BL adopters from among the innovators and early
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 31

adopters to produce such data and to assist with advocacy and professional development efforts.

If possible, advocates may belong to the same department as the members of the EM they are

recruiting. Universities may consider offering load reductions to allow the EM time to prepare

and implement their BL courses.

Universities may continue these efforts when recruiting the LM while keeping in mind

the importance they may likely place on consistently functioning infrastructure, group training,

sufficient technological support, and clear BL guidelines. Universities may also be aware that

members of the LM may more frequently question BL advocates’ motives for adopting BL and

may adopt out of a sense of necessity.

Future research could include interviews with innovators, early adopters, and/or laggards

regarding their rationales for indicating particular decisions as facilitating or impeding their BL

adoption. Future research could also focus on students’ experience with BL, including how

universities could facilitate and support their adoption efforts. In addition, researchers could

examine whether consideration of BL adoption efforts during tenure and promotion would be

more influential for faculty who have not yet received tenure or at a university with a different

tenure process than BYU-I. Researchers may also consider analyzing whether faculty would be

more influenced by evaluation data originated within their department or institution. Future

research could also conduct analogous surveys and interviews at universities at a later stage of

BL adoption or expand the study to part-time faculty.

References

Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Sloan

Consortium report.

Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended

education in the United States. Proceedings of The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from

http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/ files/Blending_In.pdf

Beggs, T.A. (2000, April). Influences and barriers to the adoption of instructional technology.

Paper presented at Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference, Murfreesboro, TN:

Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference.

Christo-Baker, E. (2004). Distance education leadership in higher education institutions:

Explored within theoretical frameworks of organizational change and diffusion of

innovations theory. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World

Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004 (pp.

251-256). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved October 13, 2013 from

http://www.editlib.org/p/12940.

Findik, C., & Ozkan, S. (2013). A model for instructors’ adoption of learning management

systems: Empirical validation in higher education context. Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology, 12(2), 13-25.

Garrison, D.R., & Vaughan, N.D. (2007). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,

principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Geoghegan, W. (1994). Whatever happened to instructional technology? Paper presented at the

22nd Annual Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association,

Baltimore, MD.
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 33

Graham, C.R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M.G. Moore (Ed.),

Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.

Graham, C.R., & Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformational potential of blended

learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher

education. In A. G. Picciano & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research

Perspectives (pp. 83–110).

Graham, C.R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J.B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption

and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher

Education, 18, 4–14.

Humbert, M. (2007). Adoption of blended learning by faculty: an exploratory analysis. In M. K.

McCuddy (Ed.), The challenges of educating people to lead in a challenging world (pp.

423–436). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid

courses. In A.G. Picciano & C.D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research

Perspectives (pp. 111–143). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Lin, C, Huang, C., & Chen, C. (2014). Barriers to the adoption of ICT in teaching Chinese as a

foreign language in US universities. ReCALL, 26(1), 100-116.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCann, A.L. (2010). Factors affecting the adoption of an e-assessment system. Evaluation in

Higher Education, 35(7), 799-818.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.)

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, G.A. (2002). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling disruptive products to

mainstream customers. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Mtebe, J.S., & Raisamo, R. (2014). Challenges and instructors’ intention to adopt and use open

educational resources in higher education in Tanzania. International Review of Research

in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 249-271.

Ngimwa, P., & Wilson, T. (2012). An empirical investigation of the emergent issues around

OER adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(4), 398-413.

Norberg, A., Dziuban, C.D., & Moskal, P.D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On

the Horizon, 19(3), 207-216. doi:10.1108/10748121111163913

Oh, E. & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educational

Technology & Society, 12(3), 327–342.

Picciano, A.G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model, Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 13(1), 7-18.

Porter, W.W., Graham, C.R. (2015). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of

blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology.

doi:10.1111/bjet.12269

Porter, W.W., Graham, C.R., Spring, K.A., & Welch, K.R. (2014). Blended learning in higher

education: Institutional adoption and implementation, Computers & Education, 75, 185–

195.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free press.

Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and

our customers in higher education. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of

blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155-168). San Francisco, CA:

Pfeiffer.

Surry, D. & Land, S. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use

technology. Innovations in Education & Training International, 37(2), 145-153.

Swan, G. (2009). Examining barriers in faculty adoption of an e-portfolio system. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 627-644.

Thackray, L., Good, J., & Howland, K. (2010). Learning and teaching in virtual worlds:

Boundaries, challenges and opportunities. In Researching learning in virtual worlds (pp.

139-158). London, England: Springer.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010). The Carnegie classification

of institutions of higher education. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org.

Zhou, G., & Xu, J. (2007). Adoption of educational technology: How does gender matter?

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 140-153.

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Characteristics of Rogers’ Five Categories of Innovation Adopters

Category Characteristics
Innovators They are the very first to adopt a new innovation.
They represent approximately 2.5% of the adopters.
They aggressively pursue new technology products and may make a purchase
simply to explore a technology’s features.
They have substantial technical expertise and maintain connections with
sources of innovations.
Early adopters They are next to adopt new innovations.
They represent approximately 13.5% of adopters.
They have a level of technical expertise and investigate new technologies;
however, they adopt innovations with greater discretion than innovators.
Because of their discretion, early adopters serve as examples and opinion
leaders for others contemplating adoption.
Early majority They adopt at varying times after the early adopters but before the average
(EM) adopter.
They represent approximately 34% of adopters.
They are fairly comfortable with technology, but they only adopt new
innovations when they have compelling evidence of its value and solid
recommendations from other adopters.
Late majority They adopt innovations after the EM.
(LM) They represent approximately 34% of adopters.
They are typically less comfortable with technology than the EM and require
support.
They adopt an innovation only when peer pressure and necessity compel it.
Laggards They are the last to adopt an innovation.
They represent approximately 16% of adopters.
They express aversion to technology and resist adopting new innovations even
after necessity prompts adoption.

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Interviewees

Overall Early Majority Late Majority

n=37 n=17 n=22
*Age Range 34-61 years 34-59 years old 35-61 years old
old
Average (SD) 48.3 years old 48.1 years old 48.8 years old
(7.7) (8.1) (6.0)
Years Teaching Range 0-30 years 0-30 years 3-29 years
at University Average (SD) 13.9 years 12.4 years 15.6 years
Level (7.3) (9.2) (6.0)
Years Teaching Range 0-30 years 0-30 years 1-24 years
at BYU-I Average (SD) 10.2 years 8.7 years 11.2 years
(7.0 years) (8.2 years) (5.9 years)
Faculty Status Full-time faculty (%) 38 (97.4%) 17 (100%) 21 (95.7%)
Part-time/adjunct 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
(%)
Other (%) 1 (2.6%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%)
**Teach Fully Yes (%) 1 (2.6%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.5%)
Online Course No (%) 37 (94.9%) 16 (100%) 21 (95.5%)

*The n value decreased for this question because 1 member of the early majority and 1 member of the late
majority chose not to disclose their age.
** The n value decreased for this question because 1 member of the late majority elected not to answer.

Table 3

Strategy, Structure, and Support Themes Interviewees Identified for Which There Was at Least

a 20% Difference between EM and LM Participants' Responses

Theme EM LM
n=17 n=22
# (%) # (%)
Strategy
Advocacy (Departmental Leadership): I know and/or respect my 4(23.5%) 0(0.0%)
department leaders

Advocacy (Faculty): Faculty are in a similar situation 11(64.7%) 20(90.9%)

Policy: University guidelines facilitate uniformity 0(0.0%) 5(22.7%)

Structure
Infrastructure: Students need solid infrastructure that consistently 2(11.8%) 8(36.4%)
works

Infrastructure: Course work and engagement stop when 5(29.4%) 2(9.1%)

infrastructure fails

Evaluation: Research/data is persuasive 10(58.8%) 7(31.8%)

Professional Development (Online): Lack of face-to-face 2(11.8%) 7(31.8%)

interaction
Support
Incentives (course load reduction): Time is important 1(5.9%) 6(27.3%)

Appendix A
Survey

Demographics

1. How many years have you taught at the university level? [Allows for 1 decimal place]

2. How many years have you taught at BYU-I?

3. What year were you born?

4. Which of the following BEST describes your current status at the university?

a. Full-time faculty

b. Part-time/adjunct instructor

c. Other _________

5. Do you teach any fully online courses?

Identify Category of Innovation Adopter

Please answer the following questions for your campus courses only (not your fully online

courses).

1. Please indicate which of the following you provide online for ANY of your classes

(excluding fully online classes)? [option to select yes/no for each – follow-up/indented

questions given following “yes” responses]

a. Course syllabus

b. Other learning resources primarily used in class and made available online (e.g.,

PowerPoint presentations shown in class, handouts)

c. Online quizzes

i. Approximately how long ago did you begin placing quizzes online?
Article Source: Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO BLENDED LEARNING ADOPTION 40

d. Online exams

i. Approximately how long ago did you begin placing exams online?

e. Learning outcomes

i. Do you track any of your learning outcomes online?

f. Online discussions

i. Approximately how long ago did you begin placing discussions online?

g. Online collaborative projects (e.g., Google Docs, Google Hangouts)

i. Approximately how long ago did you begin using online collaborative

projects?

h. Live online class lecture (e.g., Adobe Connect, Google Hangouts)

i. Approximately how long ago did you begin using live online class

lectures?

i. Online learning resources used primarily for online instruction (e.g., videos,

simulations, websites)

i. Approximately how long ago did you begin using such learning resources?

j. Other (Please describe)_______________________________________

2. Have you reduced the time or frequency you meet in class because you placed a portion

of you course online?

i. Yes, I reduced overall class time by at least 50%

ii. Yes, I have reduced overall class time by approximately 25-49%

iii. Yes, I have reduced overall class time by approximately 1-24%

iv. No, I have not reduced the time or frequency I meet in class

3. What BEST describes your typical reaction to new technologies?

a. I am constantly adopting multiple new technologies. I adopt well before anyone

else, sometimes even before a new technology is publicly available.

b. I actively investigate new technologies and adopt the best ones. I am generally

one of the first to adopt a new technology, and my peers adopt based on my

recommendation/example.

c. I wait to adopt until I have compelling evidence of the technology’s value and

recommendations from my peers. I am not among the first to adopt, but I am

generally in the first half of those adopting a technology.

d. I am not necessarily opposed to new technologies, but I am cautious and will only

adopt when it becomes necessary to do so.

e. I recognize that new technologies have value to my colleagues, but I feel strongly

about using traditional resources. I will continue using my current resources,

even when pressured to adopt a new technology.

Identify Factors that Influence Adoption Decision and the Extent of Influence

Please indicate the level of influence each of the following would have on your decision to place

a portion of your course online (e.g., placing quizzes, exams, discussions, lectures, learning

resources online):

o Significant influence

o Moderate influence

o Minor influence

o No influence

1. Financial stipends for those who commit to place a portion of their course online

2. Temporary course load reductions for those who commit to place a portion of their course

online

3. Valuing whether you placed a portion of your course online during tenure/promotion

determinations

4. The availability of technical support for those placing a portion of their course online

5. The availability of pedagogical support for those placing a portion of their course online

(e.g., the ongoing ability to consult with an instructional developer regarding course

design/delivery)

6. The availability of one-on-one professional development/training for those for those

placing a portion of their course online

7. The availability of professional development/training presented in a face-to-face group

setting for those for those placing a portion of their course online

8. The availability of online professional development/training for those for those placing a

portion of their course online

9. The availability of evaluation data on the effectiveness of placing a portion of a course

online

10. Whether faculty, departments, or the institution make policy decisions regarding online

course materials (e.g., intellectual property rights)

11. Whether your institution’s course catalog identifies classes with substantial materials

and/or activities online

12. The ability to quickly upload and download media/materials on campus

13. Whether your university identifies policies and guidelines regarding placing course

materials online (e.g., administrators publish examples of different ways to appropriately

combine face-to-face and online instruction)

14. Whether other faculty members share their success with placing a portion of their courses

online

15. Whether department leadership encourages placing a portion of your course online

16. Whether institutional administrators encourage placing a portion of your course online

17. Whether the institution’s reason for promoting technology integration aligns with your

own

Final Questions

What was/would be your reaction to being asked to place a portion of your course online?

What are the greatest challenges you have experienced or would anticipate in placing a portion

of your course online?

If you have placed a portion of your course online, do you feel the value added to your course(s)

outweighed the challenges you experienced? Please explain.

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Introduction:

You took a survey in which you were asked to rate the level of influence a number of factors

would have on you decision to place a portion of your course online (e.g., placing quizzes,

exams, discussions, lectures, learning resources online). The purpose of this interview is to

determine why those factors would influence your decision to the level you indicated. A copy of

your survey responses will be available to you during the interview.

Questions:

1. Why would financial stipends for those who commit to place a portion of their course

online influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey?

2. Why would temporary course load reductions for those who commit to place a portion of

their course online influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey?

3. Why would valuing whether you placed a portion of your course online during

tenure/promotion determinations influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the

survey?

4. Why would the availability of technical support for those placing a portion of their course

online influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey?

5. Why would the availability of pedagogical support for those placing a portion of their

course online (e.g., the ongoing ability to consult with an instructional designer regarding

course design/delivery) influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey?

6. Why would the availability of one-on-one professional development/training for those

placing a portion of their course online influence your opinion to the level you indicated

in the survey?

7. Why would the availability of professional development/training presented in a face-to-

face group setting for those placing a portion of their course online influence your

opinion to the level you indicated in the survey?

8. Why would the availability of online professional development/training for those placing

a portion of their course online influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the

survey?

9. Why would the availability of evaluation data on the effectiveness of placing a portion of

a course online influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey?

10. Why would it influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey if faculty,

departments, or the institution make policy decisions regarding online course materials

(e.g., intellectual property rights)?

11. Why would it influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey if your

institution’s course catalog identifies classes with substantial materials and/or activities

online?

12. Why would the ability to quickly upload and download media/materials on campus

influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey?

13. Why would it influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey if your

university identifies policies and guidelines regarding placing course materials online

(e.g., administrators publish examples of different ways to appropriately combine face-to-

face and online instruction)?

14. Why would it influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey if other

faculty members share their success with placing a portion of their courses online?

15. Why would it influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey if

department leadership encourages placing a portion of your course online?

16. Why would it influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey if

institutional administrators encourage placing a portion of your course online?

17. Why would it influence your opinion to the level you indicated in the survey if the

institution’s reason for promoting technology integration aligns with your own?

18. Is there anything else that would influence your decision to place a portion of your course

online?

View publication stats

Setting a Sustainable Trajectory: A Pedagogical Theory for Christian Worldview Formation
From Everand
Setting a Sustainable Trajectory: A Pedagogical Theory for Christian Worldview Formation
Rob Lindemann
No ratings yet
Antwi-Boampong-Bokolo2021 Article TowardsAnInstitutionalBlendedL
No ratings yet
Antwi-Boampong-Bokolo2021 Article TowardsAnInstitutionalBlendedL
20 pages
Examining Blended Learning Adoption Towards Improving Learning Performance in Institutions of Higher Education
No ratings yet
Examining Blended Learning Adoption Towards Improving Learning Performance in Institutions of Higher Education
35 pages
Visions of Blended Learning Identifying The Challenges and Opportunities in Shaping Institutional Approaches To Blended Learning in Higher Education
No ratings yet
Visions of Blended Learning Identifying The Challenges and Opportunities in Shaping Institutional Approaches To Blended Learning in Higher Education
16 pages
15How challenging_ Barriers for teachers in institutional implementation of blended learning
No ratings yet
15How challenging_ Barriers for teachers in institutional implementation of blended learning
19 pages
Investigating The Institutional Blended Learning Adoption Framework in Higher Education
No ratings yet
Investigating The Institutional Blended Learning Adoption Framework in Higher Education
25 pages
Blended Learning The New Normal and Emerging Technologies PDF
No ratings yet
Blended Learning The New Normal and Emerging Technologies PDF
16 pages
DziubanEtal (2018) BlendedLearningTheNewNormalAndEmergingTechnologies
No ratings yet
DziubanEtal (2018) BlendedLearningTheNewNormalAndEmergingTechnologies
17 pages
challenges of BL in higher education
No ratings yet
challenges of BL in higher education
16 pages
Blended Learning Moving Beyond The Thread
No ratings yet
Blended Learning Moving Beyond The Thread
18 pages
RRL
No ratings yet
RRL
1 page
Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning
No ratings yet
Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning
22 pages
Identification of Factors Influencing Educators Perception of Blended Learning and Triggering Adoption Decisions
No ratings yet
Identification of Factors Influencing Educators Perception of Blended Learning and Triggering Adoption Decisions
19 pages
Blended Learning22222
No ratings yet
Blended Learning22222
13 pages
Technology Integration in Blended Learning
No ratings yet
Technology Integration in Blended Learning
8 pages
Blended Learning in Algeria Assessing Students’
No ratings yet
Blended Learning in Algeria Assessing Students’
27 pages
Black Boys II Black Men: An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
From Everand
Black Boys II Black Men: An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Dr. Cynthia D. Smith
No ratings yet
Blended Learning: Uncovering Its Transformative Potential in Higher Education
No ratings yet
Blended Learning: Uncovering Its Transformative Potential in Higher Education
12 pages
Faculty Development and Student Learning: Assessing the Connections
From Everand
Faculty Development and Student Learning: Assessing the Connections
William Condon
4/5 (1)
BL BHS 1
No ratings yet
BL BHS 1
17 pages
E-learning Future Trends in Higher Education in the 2020s and Beyond
No ratings yet
E-learning Future Trends in Higher Education in the 2020s and Beyond
16 pages
bibha-srivastava-4-2-1
No ratings yet
bibha-srivastava-4-2-1
7 pages
Internet and Higher Education: Patsy Moskal, Charles Dziuban, Joel Hartman
No ratings yet
Internet and Higher Education: Patsy Moskal, Charles Dziuban, Joel Hartman
9 pages
Students' Voices Regarding Homework (Third Edition)
From Everand
Students' Voices Regarding Homework (Third Edition)
Gladys R. Landing-Corretjer Ed.D
No ratings yet
Assigemnt 2 627
No ratings yet
Assigemnt 2 627
14 pages
Anyone can do PhD
From Everand
Anyone can do PhD
Dr. Raghu Korrapati
No ratings yet
J Iheduc 2016 05 001
No ratings yet
J Iheduc 2016 05 001
45 pages
Exploring The Role of Blended Learning For Teaching and Learning Effectiveness in Institutions of Higher Learning: An Empirical Investigation
No ratings yet
Exploring The Role of Blended Learning For Teaching and Learning Effectiveness in Institutions of Higher Learning: An Empirical Investigation
34 pages
Improvement by Design: The Promise of Better Schools
From Everand
Improvement by Design: The Promise of Better Schools
David K. Cohen
No ratings yet
Synthesis-Paper
No ratings yet
Synthesis-Paper
12 pages
Retention, Persistence, and Writing Programs
From Everand
Retention, Persistence, and Writing Programs
Todd Ruecker
No ratings yet
Previewpdf
No ratings yet
Previewpdf
60 pages
Students Blended Learning Course Experience Scale BLCES development and validation
No ratings yet
Students Blended Learning Course Experience Scale BLCES development and validation
12 pages
Research Paper
No ratings yet
Research Paper
13 pages
Article 2
No ratings yet
Article 2
23 pages
Blended Learning
No ratings yet
Blended Learning
9 pages
Blended Learning Models
No ratings yet
Blended Learning Models
8 pages
An Examination of Blended Learning in HE (2003-2022) From Scopus Database
No ratings yet
An Examination of Blended Learning in HE (2003-2022) From Scopus Database
20 pages
s10639 019 09886 3 PDF
No ratings yet
s10639 019 09886 3 PDF
24 pages
The Intersections and Delineations: A Policy Analysis of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
From Everand
The Intersections and Delineations: A Policy Analysis of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Nicolette Doughty
No ratings yet
Current Status and Trends of Blended Learning in H
No ratings yet
Current Status and Trends of Blended Learning in H
9 pages
RRL AND RRS
No ratings yet
RRL AND RRS
7 pages
Blended_Learning_in_Higher_Education_Faculty_Persp (1)
No ratings yet
Blended_Learning_in_Higher_Education_Faculty_Persp (1)
21 pages
The Truth About Homework from the Students' Perspective
From Everand
The Truth About Homework from the Students' Perspective
Gladys R. Landing-Corretjer, Ed.D
No ratings yet
W3Q1 Module Assessment - Conceptual Theoretical Framework
No ratings yet
W3Q1 Module Assessment - Conceptual Theoretical Framework
6 pages
Attendance Grade Link
From Everand
Attendance Grade Link
Sienna Vance
No ratings yet
Embedding Equality and Diversity into the Curriculum – a literature review
From Everand
Embedding Equality and Diversity into the Curriculum – a literature review
Nabeel Zaidi
No ratings yet
Castro-Rodriguez Et Al. (2021)
No ratings yet
Castro-Rodriguez Et Al. (2021)
15 pages
PRBM 331741 A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews On Blended Learnin
No ratings yet
PRBM 331741 A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews On Blended Learnin
17 pages
Quality Measurement of Blended Learning Model in Higher Education
No ratings yet
Quality Measurement of Blended Learning Model in Higher Education
17 pages
English
No ratings yet
English
8 pages
Blended Course
No ratings yet
Blended Course
16 pages
Leadership for Tomorrow: Beyond the school improvement horizon
From Everand
Leadership for Tomorrow: Beyond the school improvement horizon
Malcolm Groves
No ratings yet
Negin Mirriahi
No ratings yet
Negin Mirriahi
1 page
The Nexus: How Best Practices Provide an Answer to the Student Achievement Conundrum
From Everand
The Nexus: How Best Practices Provide an Answer to the Student Achievement Conundrum
Janis Jablecki
No ratings yet
Cde12 Strategy Echo360-V
No ratings yet
Cde12 Strategy Echo360-V
8 pages
The Internet and Higher Education
No ratings yet
The Internet and Higher Education
11 pages
Zhang 2020 (Blended Learning)
No ratings yet
Zhang 2020 (Blended Learning)
14 pages
Analyzing the Efficiency of Blended Learning in Higher Education
No ratings yet
Analyzing the Efficiency of Blended Learning in Higher Education
10 pages
Education_Paper provides deeper info about it
No ratings yet
Education_Paper provides deeper info about it
1 page
Context-Based Science Education by Newspaper Story Problems: A Study On Motivation and Learning Effects
No ratings yet
Context-Based Science Education by Newspaper Story Problems: A Study On Motivation and Learning Effects
17 pages
LAC - Across
No ratings yet
LAC - Across
4 pages
San Isidro High School of Tambulig Inc.: Pagadian Diocesan Schools
No ratings yet
San Isidro High School of Tambulig Inc.: Pagadian Diocesan Schools
6 pages
Situation Analysis of Children With Disabilities in Myanmar 2016
No ratings yet
Situation Analysis of Children With Disabilities in Myanmar 2016
138 pages
Educator Iste Standards-2
No ratings yet
Educator Iste Standards-2
1 page
ECCD FIRST ASSESSMENT-CONSO 2024-2025-K-TAPEENG
No ratings yet
ECCD FIRST ASSESSMENT-CONSO 2024-2025-K-TAPEENG
33 pages
Week 3-Lesson-Plan-Math-Grade 5
No ratings yet
Week 3-Lesson-Plan-Math-Grade 5
2 pages
16 Chapter 08 PDF
No ratings yet
16 Chapter 08 PDF
33 pages
The Profile of Students' Academic Hardiness: A Descriptive Study
No ratings yet
The Profile of Students' Academic Hardiness: A Descriptive Study
5 pages
De Thi Hoc Ki 1 Mon Tieng Anh Lop 4 de 2
No ratings yet
De Thi Hoc Ki 1 Mon Tieng Anh Lop 4 de 2
5 pages
Research Churbanes
No ratings yet
Research Churbanes
6 pages
Various Constructivism Approach
No ratings yet
Various Constructivism Approach
16 pages
Class Orientation PPT Grades 1_final
No ratings yet
Class Orientation PPT Grades 1_final
25 pages
Lesson Plan From Oznur
No ratings yet
Lesson Plan From Oznur
2 pages
Homework TA12
No ratings yet
Homework TA12
5 pages
Assignment 2 Essay
100% (2)
Assignment 2 Essay
7 pages
CHP 14 Second Language Acquisition
No ratings yet
CHP 14 Second Language Acquisition
5 pages
Sampaloc National High School
No ratings yet
Sampaloc National High School
3 pages
5c - Group 3 - Science Process Skills
No ratings yet
5c - Group 3 - Science Process Skills
14 pages
Keats
No ratings yet
Keats
5 pages
2017 Brigada Eskwela With A Heart Accomplishment Report
100% (4)
2017 Brigada Eskwela With A Heart Accomplishment Report
9 pages
SBM Checklist
50% (8)
SBM Checklist
14 pages
My Reflection (CEFR)
100% (1)
My Reflection (CEFR)
2 pages
Annotated Bibliography
No ratings yet
Annotated Bibliography
6 pages
Lesson Plan 18 & 19 Long Report Format Merged
No ratings yet
Lesson Plan 18 & 19 Long Report Format Merged
4 pages
Competency-Based Training and Assessment
No ratings yet
Competency-Based Training and Assessment
19 pages
Arts Handouts
No ratings yet
Arts Handouts
4 pages
Fernando Ma. Guerrero Elementary School: Block Plan
No ratings yet
Fernando Ma. Guerrero Elementary School: Block Plan
5 pages
ELE Teaching Multigrade Class
100% (1)
ELE Teaching Multigrade Class
2 pages
Bol Ict
No ratings yet
Bol Ict
3 pages