You are here:

What really matters for faculty to develop and implement hybrid/blended courses?
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Dowling College, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This study identifies factors that influence the adoption of hybrid courses by 128 faculty in Private colleges and universities in New York. Four factors were included: technology, pedagogy, institutional policies, and faculty-centered issues. We found all have a degree of influence on faculty members' decisions to develop and implement hybrid courses. The major items of influence were technology (reliability of technology, technical support, hardware/software availability, and connectivity issues were higher than 70% influential), pedagogy (nature of course content and course objectives were higher than 65%), faculty-centered issues (control of curriculum were higher than 60%), and finally, Institutional policy, were “my institution provides technical support for computer equipment used in hybrid course” ranged higher than 60% of influence. The Less influential were the faculty-centered issues, with a lowest in promotion and tenure item (only 23% of level of influence).

Citation

Morote, E.S., Wittmann, H. & Kelly, T. (2007). What really matters for faculty to develop and implement hybrid/blended courses?. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1085-1089). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Arabasz, P., Parani, J., & Fawcett, D. (2003). Supporting e-learning in higher education. ECAR, 3, 1-91.
  2. Beggs, T.A. (2000). Influences and Barriers to the Adoption of Instructional Technology. Retrieved June 14, 2005, from http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/beggs/beggs.htm
  3. Gould, T. (2003). Hybrid classes: Maximizing institutional resources and student learning. Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference, 54-59. Retrieved February 18, 2005, from http://fits.depauw.edu/ascue/Proceedings/2003/p54.pdf
  4. Graham, C.R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow – Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology: Vol. 1. (pp. 253-259) Hershey PA:
  5. Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: good practice a hybrid approach to online learning offers important lessons for institutions entering the online arena. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 1, 18-23. Retrieved February 14, 2005, from http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=EQM0313
  6. Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quaterly Review of Distance Education 4 (3), 227-233. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from Academic Search Elite.
  7. Taradi, S., Taradi, M., Radie, K., & Pokrajac (2005). Blended problem-based learning with web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-based physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 35-39. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://www.distance-educator.com/dnews/Article12984.phtml
  8. Wittmann, H. (2006). Faculty Perceptions, Conceptions and Misconceptions, of Factors Contributing to the Adoption of Hybrid Education at Independent Institutions of Higher Education in New York. (Dissertation, Dowling College) (UMI No 3215283)

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.