Sponsor Videos

ProctorU
bluehost
Grand Canyon University

Respondus

 
Adapt Courseware
 

Conference News

Twitter LinkedIn FaceBook YouTube GooglePlus www.instagram.com/onlinelearningconsortium

Visit our Social Networking Page to find out how to become an OLC NinjaOLCC Ninja

 

Save the Date for next year: July 7-8, 2015
@ Sheraton Denver Downtown, Denver, CO

Check out the Conference Wrap-up pages

Did you miss the Conference? You can still purchase access to more than 40 recorded presentations to view at your convenience for one full year.

Missed the 11th Annual Blended Learning Conference and Workshop? No problem – you can still gain access to over 40 recorded presentations to view at your convenience for one full year. Get your virtual package here.

Download or Update the OLC Conferences Mobile App! Don't forget to click "refresh" to get the most current conference information!

Are you going to #blend14?

New for 2014! Technology Test Kitchen - BYOD to learn, explore, and share knowledge within this lab environment

Technology Test Kitchen

 

Full Program Now Posted

Blended Effective Practice Award Winners Announced

Best-in-Track Award Winners Announced - Read the Press Release

Mark Milliron, Civitas Learning, to deliver Keynote Address

Plan to Attend the Unconference Sessions
#unblend14

Unconference Session

Get the inside scoop on the event from key presenters, sponsors and OLC executives in these interviews.

 

Checkout last year's conference

Sign up for Conference Updates
 

Save the Dates

22st Annual OLC International Conference
November 16-18, 2016 | Orlando, Florida | Walt Disney World Swan/Dolphin Resort

OLC Innovate 2016 - Innovations in Blended and Online Learning
April 20-22, 2016 | New Orleans, LA | Sheraton New Orleans Hotel

Institutional Drivers and Barriers to Faculty Adoption of Blended Learning in Higher Education

#Twitter: 
#blended20915
Presenter(s)
Wendy Woodfield Porter (Brigham Young University, USA)
Charles R. Graham (Brigham Young University, USA)
Lynne Anderson (Brigham Young University Idaho, USA)
Jacob Adams (Brigham Young University Idaho, USA)
Additional Authors
Sidney Palmer (Brigham Young University Idaho, USA)
Micah Murdock (Brigham Young University Idaho, USA)
Session Information
July 9, 2014 - 9:10am
Track: 
Institutional Leadership and Strategy
Areas of Special Interest: 
Institutional Initiatives
Major Emphasis of Presentation: 
Research and Evaluation
Institutional Level: 
Multiple Levels
Audience Level: 
All
Session Type: 
Information Session
Location: 
Plaza Court 3
Session Duration: 
50 Minutes
Session: 
Information Session 4
Abstract

Learn what institutional decisions would encourage or deter faculty from adopting blended learning.

Extended Abstract

While many studies have investigated blended learning ("BL") effectiveness at the course level, very few studies provide guidance for implementation of BL at the institutional level (Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison, 2013). A key requirement for an institution's successful BL implementation is adoption among its faculty (Christo-Baker, 2004; Graham & Robison, 2007). Accordingly, we determined how administrators' decisions regarding BL implementation could influence faculty adoption.

Specifically, we investigated the following:

  1. What institutional strategy, structure, and support measures facilitate BL adoption among higher education faculty?
  2. What institutional strategy, structure, and support measures impede BL adoption among higher education faculty?


We recognized that faculty have disparate characteristics (Humbert, 2007), so we specifically examined how influential institutional decisions would be among certain categories of faculty adopters. We classified faculty using Rogers' (2003) five categories of innovation adopters, and focused on two particular categories, the "early majority" and "late majority." We focused on these two categories of faculty BL adopters because they make up the majority of the faculty and generally base their innovation adoption decisions on external factors such as administrative decisions (Geoghegan, 1994; Rogers, 2003).

To gather data, we received survey responses from 219 professors at BYU-Idaho's faculty (39.9% response rate). We used the survey to identify the innovation adoption category to which respondents belonged and to identified the degree to which specific strategy, structure, and support issues would impact faculty members' adoption decisions (categories based on the framework from Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison, 2013). We then conducted follow-up interviews with 55 of those identified as members of the early and late majority to determine why the measures faculty members identified in the survey would impact their decision to adopt BL to the degree they indicated.

During the presentation, we will share findings from the survey and interviews. These findings will include which administrative implementation efforts faculty indicated would most influence their decision whether to adopt BL. We will also share the reasons behind why those efforts would be so influential. In addition, we plan to compare the responses of the early and the late majority of adopters, so universities can better tailor their BL implementation approach to the disparate types of innovation adopters on their campuses.

Presentation Content, Format, Materials, and Audience Engagement:
We will first present the study outlined above using PowerPoint slides, handouts, and web links. We will then engage the audience by allowing them to select which specific strategy, structure, and support issues they would like to further explore through group discussion. As questions arise, we will share the results of our study and invite audience members to share responses based on their experience.

References

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.

Geoghegan, W. (1994). Whatever happened to instructional technology? Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association, Baltimore, MD.

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. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18(3), 4-14. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003

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.

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