University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

(USC Thesis Other)

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 1

BLENDED LEARNING: DEVELOPING FLEXIBILITY IN EDUCATION
THROUGH INTERNAL INNOVATION
by
Jennifer Panagos

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Dissertation Chair – Dr. Guilbert Hentschke
Committee Members - Dr. Katharine Strunk and Dr. Patricia Burch

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Jennifer Panagos
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincere gratitude goes first to the students, teachers and administrators at Ollie High
School (OHS) who met with me and helped me gain a deeper understanding of the online
programming at their high school. They answered my questions about the initial implementation
and the current incarnation of the online courses at OHS. I hope this research has demonstrated
their progress and has given them direction about how to continue their blended style of learning
in the future.
I also want to thank my committee – Drs. Strunk and Burch and, especially my chair, Dr.
Hentschke. These dedicated educators guided and assisted me to create an improved final
product. Their support, questions, critiques, and suggestions for additional research gave my
insights more depth. Dr. Hentschke has been extremely supportive and flexible during this
process and helped push my team and me to complete our project on time. His wisdom and
guidance have made my journey more manageable and have been critical to my success.
I also want to thank two other groups of supporters. First, my dissertation team. Our
discussions about writing, feedback about my work, and their supportive attitude as we moved
forward were invaluable to me during this process. They have all had an impact on this project.
Second, my team of close friends at USC: Tanaz, Cheli, Erin and Kyle. I would not have had as
much fun throughout this project and my time at USC without them. To have found friends who
can make me laugh through the rigor and hard work that goes into a program like this has been
incredible.
Finally, I thank my family. First, my in-laws, who have demonstrated their support
through their kind words and understanding about my lack of time and energy during the long
months of this project. Second, my parents, who have been incredibly supportive of my decision
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 3

to enroll in this program. I could not have completed this challenging task without their love
and support. Thank you to my aunt Patti Rizer for her help in fine-tuning this paper. And of
course my husband, who has allowed me to put other things on hold, was always kind when I
was tired, and expressed pride in each of my accomplishments along this journey. He is my
constant support, and I love him very much.
My hope is that this research will guide other high schools as they work to improve their
curriculum in the 21
st
century. Education will continue to evolve and change, and I hope this
research will demonstrate one lens through which to find the best combination of programs to
support their students during their high school years, as well as to prepare them for success in
college and beyond.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND GRAPHS 6

Abstract 7

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 8

Background of the Problem .........................................................................................................8

Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................................11

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................13

Importance of the Study.............................................................................................................14

Research Questions ....................................................................................................................15

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................16

Limitations and Assumptions.....................................................................................................17

Limitations ..........................................................................................................................17

Assumptions........................................................................................................................18

Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................................18

Summary ....................................................................................................................................20

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 21

Online Education........................................................................................................................22

Online Learning Models .....................................................................................................22

Effectiveness of Online Courses.........................................................................................23

Flexibility Through Online Programming ..........................................................................25

Transaction Cost Economics......................................................................................................26

Learning Management Systems and Innovation ........................................................................29

Organizational Framework and Goal Setting.............................................................................31

External and Internal Factors Affecting Use of Online Learning ..............................................35

Summary ....................................................................................................................................36

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 38

Purpose.......................................................................................................................................39

Population and Site Description.................................................................................................39

Research Hypothesis ..................................................................................................................42

Instrumentation Methods for Addressing Research Questions..................................................42

Research Question 1 ...........................................................................................................45

Research Question 2 ...........................................................................................................48

Research Question 3 and 4..................................................................................................49

Summary ....................................................................................................................................50

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 52

Adjusted Research Questions.....................................................................................................52

Participant Profiles.....................................................................................................................53

Research Question 1...................................................................................................................54

Development of the Online Program ..................................................................................54

Motivation and Benefits of Online Courses........................................................................55

Student Interest in Online Education ..................................................................................59

Research Question 2...................................................................................................................60

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 5

Enrollment and Interest in OHS Online Courses................................................................60

School-Wide Program Buy-in.............................................................................................62

By-Products of Online Courses ..........................................................................................65

Increased Use of Technology..............................................................................................66

Administrative Evaluation of Online Courses ....................................................................70

Research Question 3...................................................................................................................79

Cost .....................................................................................................................................79

Personal Experience and Knowledge..................................................................................80

Flexibility............................................................................................................................84

Summary ....................................................................................................................................86

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 87

Online Education........................................................................................................................87

Effectiveness of Content Delivery......................................................................................88

Value of Flexibility.............................................................................................................90

Transaction Cost Economics......................................................................................................92

Mutual Benefit ....................................................................................................................94

Governance .........................................................................................................................97

Organizational Framework.........................................................................................................99

Human Resources .............................................................................................................100

Structural...........................................................................................................................101

External and Internal Factors ...................................................................................................102

External.............................................................................................................................103

Internal ..............................................................................................................................104

Conclusion................................................................................................................................105

References 108

APPENDIX A 113

Teacher Interview Questions and Introduction Protocol .........................................................113

APPENDIX B 116

Administrative Interview Questions and Introduction Protocol ..............................................116

APPENDIX C 119

Survey for Teachers Who Do Not Teach an Online Course and Introduction Protocol..........119

APPENDIX D 123

Survey for Students Not Enrolled in Online Courses and Introduction Protocol ....................123

APPENDIX E 127

Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course(s) and Introduction Protocol.....127

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 6

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND GRAPHS
Graph 1. Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 54
Graph 2. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 55
Graph 3. Survey of Teachers That Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses 56
Graph 4. Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 57
Graph 5 & 6. Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 59
Graph 7. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 60
Graph 8. Survey of Teachers That Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses 61
Graph 9. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 62
Graph 10. Survey of Teachers That Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses 64
Graph 11. Survey of Teachers That Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses 65
Graph 12. Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 66
Graph 13. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 67
Graph 14. Survey of Teachers That Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses 72
Graph 15. Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 73
Graph 16. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 73
Graph 17 & 18. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 74
Graph 19. Survey of Teachers That Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses 77
Graph 20. Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 78
Graph 21. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 79
Graph 22. Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 80
Graph 23. Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in an Online Course 81
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 7

Abstract
This study uses the lens of transaction cost economics (TCE) to understand the decision-
making process and resources that need to exist within the hierarchy of a traditional public
school (TPS) to internally develop fully online learning courses.
The purpose of this study was to examine the decision-making process that occurred at
Ollie High School (name has been changed for anonymity) when an internally developed online
learning program was proposed and the effects this decision and program had on the school and
its community. The study researched questions about the motivation behind, and process used,
to implement and run an internally developed, rather than outsourced, fully online course at a
TPS, what cost and benefits were associated with this decision, and how effectiveness of this
program was assessed.
Interviews with the individuals who made the decisions to develop and implement the
online courses and surveys with students and teachers who did and did not participate in the
online courses were used within this qualitative case study. The presence of human actors with
knowledge and a desire to implement online courses emerged as a key contributor in the
inception of the online program.
Findings demonstrated recurring themes of flexibility for student schedules and teacher
content delivery as mutually beneficial attributes of the online classes. In addition to flexibility,
increased access to and use of educational resources by students and teachers was discussed as a
desired and achieved outcome of implementing internally developed online courses. These
desired outcomes, as well as the analysis of existing structures and protocols at OHS,
demonstrated that this type of programming is one that can be extended to other TPSs as a
sustaining educational innovation.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 8

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Online education is being used more and more as a tool in K-12 education to meet the
needs of an increasingly diversifying student body. According to the Center for Public
Education (Crouch, 2012), a study conducted stated, “soon there will be no majority racial or
ethnic group in the United States” (p. 1). Schools that have incorporated online educational
content used the content as a method for offering advanced courses to prepare students for
college, for allowing flexibility in scheduling, for making up a failed course, and for meeting the
educational needs of a specified group of students through additional support (Picciano, Seaman,
Shea, & Swan, 2011).
Using computer-based programming as a type of educational service is a sustaining
innovation for the educational sector because it allows schools to provide traditional content in a
format that brings in and allows new students and parents to access that content (Christensen,
2011). While there have been many studies conducted about online methods and how those
methods work to provide an effective education for students (Chou & Chou, 2011; Kachel,
Henry, & Keller, 2005; Macher & Richman, 2008; Staker, 2011; Tucker, 2007), not enough is
known about the process a school goes through to determine the correct type of program, the
method of implementing and monitoring the online courses, or the perceived or real costs and
benefits encountered for the school, the students and/or the parents.
Background of the Problem
With the increasing pressures to succeed from the high standards of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), and due to the increase in charter school competition, traditional public schools
must learn how to do more with what they have (Tucker, 2007) or continue to lose funds due to
student exodus. According to the 2002-2003 NCLB provision, if a TPS has not reached
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 9

adequate yearly performance (AYP) in the first or second year as established by the state, the
school is considered to be in corrective action. In corrective action, the school must make
specific support choices or restructure the school for increased student achievement. Specific
requirements or mandates from NCLB must be followed and parents must be notified by the
school of their status and given the choice to enroll their student in another school (USDE,
2002). NCLB accountability has made the concept of academic success for all students an even
greater pressure for public schools.
NCLB requires that by the 2013-2014 school year, every student will reach proficiency in
all core academic classes as measured by statewide testing (CDE, 2011). The measurements
used to score statewide testing scores are made public so that parents, students or community
members can access the information and use this data to compare their school with other schools
in their area. More parents are accessing this data to make a decision on which school will best
fit the needs of their student(s) and whether to attend their local TPS, a charter school or a
private school (Staker, 2011).
The most important factor parents use when choosing a school is academic performance
(Staker, 2011). Using the NCLB method of evaluating schools, standardized test scores and
graduation rates have the greatest impact on how academic performance is viewed. While there
are other factors that make up a “good” school, such as culture, staff, and instruction methods, it
is easier for parents to simply look online and access the statistics when making their decision.
The availability of information about school standing and testing results has opened a
market for new charter schools that claim to be able to meet the needs of students in areas where
schools are performing poorly through smaller class sizes and alternative methods of instruction,
discipline, and educational delivery of content (Carlson, Lavery, & Witte, 2010; Tucker, 2007;
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 10

Zimmer, Gill, Booker, Lavertu, & Witte, 2010). In the 10-year period between 1999 and 2009
the charter school enrollment grew by almost one and one half million students, from 0.3 to 1.6
million students (IES, 2012a).
With additional school choice for parents, the education system becomes more of a
privatized market as parents can decide which school best meets the needs of their students
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2007). The lack of established parameters for charter schools allows
them to reinvent their educational model by analyzing the educational delivery methods, finance,
governance and regulation, and educational purpose (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2007). To
maintain enrollment numbers and avoid falling deeper into low-performing school standing
established by NCLB, TPSs must find ways to compete and innovate alongside the charter
schools by analyzing the tools, programs, and content they are using to meet the educational
needs of students and parents.
Online learning programs can be valuable tools for TPSs by providing an innovative
resource that can meet the mandates and requirements of NCLB, while also meeting the
educational, emotional and physical needs of a diverse student body. At the high school level,
online programs such as blended learning can provide students with face-to-face time in a
traditional classroom while allowing students to access all material and content in alternate and
more convenient formats. Studies have found that students often perform equally well in
traditional, as in online learning contexts, but the determining factor for educational success
becomes the quality of the content (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010). Therefore,
in order to compete with charter schools academically and in innovative educational techniques,
TPSs must begin to look at online learning programs as a viable option by researching the
program that will best meet the needs of their particular student body.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 11

Statement of the Problem
In 2009 the number of high school students transitioning immediately to college was 68%
(IES, 2012b). However, of those students, less than 40% earn a 4-year degree in the culturally
traditional four years, and 56.4% after five years (DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Tran,
2011). These results raise the question of whether current methods of content delivery and the
current quality of the educational content offered in high schools is adequately preparing
graduates to access the content in college and develop the skills to be successful in the 21
st

century.
In traditional public schools, the most commonly used form of educational practice is
face-to-face classroom learning in which students enter a classroom daily to engage in content
delivery using the teacher as the primary source of information but may incorporate a range of
practices (Bakia, Shear, Toyama, & Lasseter, 2012). However, students who are successful in a
traditional high school setting may not find continued success as they reach college.
One study found that less than two-thirds of students with an A- grade average were
expected to earn a four-year degree in four years, and a C+ average dropping that down to only
9.7% earning a degree in four years (DeAngelo et al., 2011). These results may be due to the
changing format of many colleges and universities. In 2009 there was a 17% growth of students
at universities taking online courses; this growth equates to more than one in four students taking
at least one online course (Bakia et al., 2012).
Online education has become an increasingly necessary option for universities due to the
rate of students attending four-year universities increasing by 1.2% between 2008 and 2009
(Bakia et al., 2012). With increased numbers of students who are eligible to attend university
growing from 80.4% in 2011 to 87.5% in 2011, and the changing demographics of our
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 12

population (Crouch, 2012), high schools have begun to innovate to ensure that students who
want to pursue higher education are prepared to succeed in college and to compete in the global
market.
Besides using online education to prepare college-going students, these programs can
provide increased flexibility for the diverse needs of their students. High schools must look into
the possibility that attending school in the traditional 8am-to-3pm schedule may be less realistic
due to outside family or personal obligations or needs. Additionally, in K-12 public schools,
there has been a decrease in White and African American students, while there has been an
increase in Asian and Hispanic or Latino students (CDE, 2013b). This change means that
schools must assess whether the methods, programs and tools that are currently being used in the
classroom will continue to be effective to meet the needs of the changing student body.
When considering how to provide increased flexibility for students through the lens of
transaction cost economics (TCE), schools must decide whether to “make” a program internally
or “buy” a program from an outside vendor. The decision is based on whether the resources and
governance that exist within the hierarchy of their organizations are sufficient to develop a
resource that will meet the academic and personal needs of their student population (“make”),
and if these do not exist, they must look externally (“buy”) (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
Four conditions have led TPSs to look for internally created or externally created online
learning programs as a valuable resource:
1. financial restrictions from budget cuts to education,
2. NCLB requirements for student success,
3. the diverse needs of students, and
4. competition from charter schools.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 13

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to examine the decision-making process and effects
on the school and its community that come from the internal development of an online learning
program in a TPS. This case study focused on a single high school that piloted the first online
course for their respective school district and that is currently offering four online learning
courses in its third year of operation for the 2012-2013 school year (OUSD, 2013a).
Within the school and district, I collected data about the effect of teachers, teacher on
special assignment (TOSA), and student expertise or experiences with online learning programs
on the decision to insource. During the study I gathered data about:
1. evaluation of teachers and courses offered,
2. implementation of the learning management system (LMS), Moodle, used to manage the
course by teachers and through which students access the content (Despotovic-Zrakie,
Markovic, Bogdanovic, Barac, & Krco, 2012), and
3. the factors that lead to this school being used as the pilot program at OUSD.
Moodle is an acronym for Modular Object Oriented Developmental Learning
Environment. Moodle is a learning management system (LMS) that is currently used by teacher
teachers and students to access content, grade, communicate and collaborate by many
organizations including OUSD (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012, p. 326).
This study explored the process and presumptions that led to the school’s making the
decision to insource the LMS and curriculum design for the online learning program and the
perceived, or real, benefits that have come from using internal innovation.
Within this study I analyzed the online learning courses to determine whether a formal or
informal contract was developed internally to establish standards to develop rigorous curriculum,
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 14

coursework, evaluation, intervention, and differentiation of instruction to meet the needs of a
diverse group of students.
In addition, this study aimed to determine the role of evaluation in monitoring
effectiveness of the online program in meeting established goals for the online courses and
online programming at OHS as a whole. I analyzed the “contract” between teachers of online
courses and administration based on the perceptions of the administration, teachers, and TOSA.
I looked at how the program was developed and implemented while also gathering data on any
standards or expectations that had been previously established, specifically for the online
courses.
As an additional area of interest, I analyzed the effects on school culture, student and
parent satisfaction, and student success that may arise as a result of schedule flexibility and the
affect those factors have on the continuation of or enrollment in the program.
Throughout the study, my goal was to determine and assess the factors that existed at the
school site in terms of personnel, student and teacher need and knowledge base that led to the
decision to create this type of educational innovation internally. I also analyzed how, or if, these
factors led to the growth or adaptation of the innovation since its inception.
Finally, my research looked at the effect of school-wide perception of online education.
The goal of this exploration was to determine if student or teacher perception about the efficacy
and value of online education might have impacted the initial or continued success and school-
wide impact of the program.
Importance of the Study
By using available resources, internal innovations within TPSs can bypass some of the
budgetary constraints and hierarchical hurdles that make implementing a new programming
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 15

difficult. Internal innovation allows a school to develop something new without risking costs
incurred from purchasing resources from an outside vendor, as long as the technical and human
resources are available within the organization.
Innovation within the organization can not only save an organization money but through
the use of managerial hierarchies, internal innovation is “a vast improvement over the invisible
hand of the market…that exploited its capabilities…[and allows the organization] not only to
dominate their own industries but to diversity and attain positions of power” (Lamoreaux, Raff,
& Temin, 2002). This means that after a TPS has developed, run and found demonstrated
success with a program, it can use this innovation to bring positive publicity to the school.
This success can bring positive accolades from the community, bring students back to the
school, and become a moneymaking avenue for the school as the school markets its methods to
other districts. However, internal innovation can turn out to cost more than the purchase of
educational resources from an outside organization in money and time especially if the program
fails.
Research Questions
To determine if the decision-making process and effects on the school and its community
that come from the internal development of an online learning program in a TPS, I formulated
four research questions.
1. Who made the decision, and what was the stated motivation for the decision to innovate by
creating online learning courses?
2. What were the organizational transactional costs and benefits associated with the increase in
flexibility for student scheduling and the change in teacher scheduling that online courses
brought?
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 16

3. What cost and benefit factors were analyzed to determine effectiveness of the Moodle
program and internal curriculum development? Who was affected by these costs and
benefits?
4. Why did the high school choose to inhouse the innovation to develop online courses instead
of purchasing the resources from a private vendor? What factors did the school analyze to
make its decision, if any?
Hypotheses
The first hypothesis that motivated this study of sustaining internal innovation and online
learning was that the online courses were implemented to solve organizational problems of
meeting the diverse needs of high school students with limited resources. The use of internal
innovation to minimize cost related to transaction cost economics (TCE) in that a system, or
contract, was developed to regulate the operation and development of the online courses. This
internal control is used to minimize any costs that may otherwise have occurred due to unknowns
of new programming and staff associated with an outside vendor (Lamoreaux et al., 2002).
My belief was that the ability of an organization to implement such a program internally
was reliant upon the capacity of staff and resources present. The hierarchy that existed within
the school must have been one that promoted innovation and creativity, while also providing
support for new technology.
The second hypothesis about the reasoning used in the decision to internally innovate as
an alternative to outsourcing was related to the organizational structure that needed to exist at the
school. I believed that Ollie High School must have had faith in its staff and the district. OHS
needed to have faith in the staff’s ability to create and run effective online courses and the
district’s availability to support the development of the online programming. In turn, the staff
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 17

needed to have faith in the administration’s desire and ability to support the developed program
and select the “right” people to do so.
Limitations and Assumptions
After I finished my study at Ollie High School, I found that my access to some of the
information or documents that I had originally hoped to use in my research were not available, or
did not exist. Additionally, I conducted this student with certain beliefs about the participants
that took part in the study. In this section I discuss those limitations and assumptions.
Limitations
Although I would like to have had access to documentation that demonstrated how
effectiveness was being monitored, no documentation existed. The documentation I wanted to
find would have been items that evaluated student interest in and perception of effectiveness of
the “product” or education they received, and the evaluation methods used by administration to
evaluate the teachers of the online courses.
The study needed to rely instead on perceived impact and rationale behind the choice to
create online courses through internal innovation, through the use interviews and surveys to
ascertain insight into the impact of those decisions, and whether the goals of the program were
accomplished as set out in the development process.
Although a pilot observation was conducted to determine whether additional insight
about the school culture and program could be learned, I conducted most of the research as an
outsider to the program who was trying to gain insight through interviews and surveys.
Developing my position as an outsider, or etic, allowed the participants to maintain their role as
expert in the situation (Merriam, 2009).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 18

Assumptions
Due to the research relying on interviews and surveys, this study held to the assumption
that participants were as honest as possible when answering questions. Additionally, the study
assumed that the internally created measurement tools that were used within the school to
monitor goal attainment by teachers and students participating in the online learning program
were both reliable and valid.
Definition of Key Terms
This section contains definitions of key terms that are used throughout this paper. This
can be used as a quick reference for these terms.
Accountability. Methods of measuring the meeting of established standards.
Asynchronous learning. Learning that occurs online when students are able to access
different content at different times within the same course.
Blended learning. A class that is taught using some face-to-face instruction or meeting
time, as well as through online access to content, coursework, and instructor.
Charter school. A public school that receives state funds, established to meet the needs
of a specific demographic of students. A charter school has the same general rules that apply to
traditional public schools but often have more flexibility in aspects such as selecting a student
body, coursework or curriculum and class size.
Course Management System (CMS) or Learning Management System (LMS). An
online-based resource that allows students and teachers to monitor progress and access content of
online or blended learning courses.
Governance. The method to monitor and regulate conflict and develop mutuality and
order.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 19

Incentives. Something that is used to increase motivation to perform.
Online courses. A course in which all instruction, grading, and learning happens
through the Internet.
Optimization/minimization. The desire within a contract to optimize profit or positive
TCE and minimize cost.
Parental choice. Parents are able to choose the school their student(s) will attend. This
choice is made using factors such as school demographics, academic performance, location, and
school atmosphere.
Prioritization. The ability to set an order to address items based on their importance.
Rent seeking. An organization or individual that purchases something and then tries to
lobby or negotiate with someone else to get an additional benefit from the use of this type of
program beyond what the organization is providing (changing the rules to benefit yourself).
Supply chain management. Transactions can be grouped based on having related
governance variations. Each of these parts of the transaction can potentially be produced
separately and then brought back together to create the final product. If these groups are
working efficiently, then TCE is positive.
Synchronous learning. Learning that occurs when teachers are providing the same
content to all students at the same time.
Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA). This is a term for a district employee who
has moved beyond the classroom but would not be considered an administrator. Staff members
with this title are often deans or teacher trainers in some format.
Traditional classroom. A classroom with four walls within a school that is taught using
face-to-face instruction.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 20

Traditional Public School (TPS). A school established within a school district based on
city boundaries regulated by the state and containing a union.
Utility maximization. Consumers, in this case parents and students, try to get the
greatest value out of their education based on what they are willing to spend. This “spending”
could relate to money or time.
Summary
With the increasing pressure within TPSs to compete with charter and private schools, as
well as the financial limitation to innovate, there is an increased need for TPSs to find ways to
incorporate technology to assist with continued growth and success. This study used TCE as a
framework with which to view the decision one school made on whether to develop internal
innovations or develop relationships with organizations that could provide the technological
resources. Through this lens, the decision to internally innovate was analyzed by looking at the
factors that led to the decision and what protocol had been established to evaluate effectiveness
financially and programmatically.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 21

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
With the lens of transaction cost economics (TCE) and the researched case study
focusing on online learning programs, the proceeding literature focused on related topics. These
topics include a review of literature about:
1. the different types of online education and their value,
2. TCE,
3. the use of learning management systems for innovation in a traditional public school (TPS),
4. organizational frameworks and goals that lead to decision-making, and
5. external and internal factors that affect the success of online learning as an educational
innovation in a TPS.
Each of these topics was reviewed to gain a better understanding of the decision-making
process that Ollie High School (OHS) went through to make the decision to internally develop
online courses.
By looking at past research, I developed the theoretical framework that framed my
research questions:
1. Who made the decision, and what was the stated motivation for the decision to innovate by
creating online learning courses?
2. What aspects of the online course aligned, or failed to align, with currently established goals
and overall culture within the school that enabled the program to succeed or fail?
3. What hierarchical structure(s) and other organizational factors were in place that allowed the
school to develop internal innovation?
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 22

4. Why did the high school choose to in-house the innovation to develop online courses instead
of purchasing the resources from a private vendor? What factors did the school analyze to
make its decision, if any?
By reviewing and analyzing past research, I created a theoretical lens by which to answer
the research questions and further develop my methods for answering those questions
(Cresswell, 2009).
Online Education
This section explores online learning models, effectiveness of online learning, and
flexibility in online learning. Using previous research conducted in these areas provides an
overview of online education and its benefits.
Online Learning Models
Online learning was analyzed as a cost-effective and educationally effective alternative to
face-to-face traditional classrooms. The limitations of each type of learning in higher education
has been studied but not as much research on such limitations has been conducted at the high
school level (Chou & Chou, 2011). However, this research on the limitation of online learning
programs in higher education can be extended to provide insight and implications to implement
online courses into K-12 schools.
One valuable aspect of the online programming researched was a discussion about how
using learning management systems (LMS) such as blackboard improved student achievement.
The research showed that the value of these LMSs is that they allowed students to actively
participate in monitoring their progress, while accessing content in differentiated and
individualized ways (Chou & Chou, 2011).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 23

Online courses have multiple models through which content can be delivered. Each
model is driven either by technology, the teacher, or by a mix of the two. The name ‘blended
learning’ is used for online models that allow students to have access to a teacher in a physical
setting at some level, while also accessing much of the content online (Staker, 2011). The two
models that most reflect the online courses at Ollie High School (OHS) are flex and online driver
(Staker, 2011).
A flex model is one in which most of the curriculum is delivered online, but teachers can
provide on-site support in person as needed in groups or as an individual. An online driver
model provides access to curriculum and teachers through an online platform with some optional
face-to-face interactions and brick-and-mortar components in that it is offered through a
traditional school (Staker, 2011).
Effectiveness of Online Courses
Access to equivalent curriculum and instructional approaches has been shown to have a
significant impact on determining whether an online course will be as effective as a face-to-face
course (Liu, Chen, Sun, Wible, & Kuo, 2009). Online courses or traditional face-to-face courses
are not seen as inherently superior to the other, but online courses can become more effective
because of the ability of the students to spend additional time with curriculum due to increased
access (CDE, 2013a).
Because online learning in traditional public schools is a new model, there are no
established procedures or protocols that make for an easy evaluation or comparison to
programming in a traditional classroom (Tucker, 2007). However, teachers in online learning
courses believe a fully online or a blended learning program requires a deeper evaluation of
questioning strategies and assessment. This belief stemmed from the need for these teachers to
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 24

support greater student participation, while also creating an environment for independent
learning that maintains rigor and higher level thinking (Tucker, 2007).
One study looked specifically at the Pennsylvania school system because it incorporated
multiple cyber charter schools. With multiple types of online resources available within schools
with similar resources and serving similar demographics of students, evaluation of the
effectiveness of the online resources was made easier (Macher & Richman, 2008). Evaluation of
the programming was done in the schools by assessing:
1. the quality of the cyber resources provided by dedicated online teachers,
2. whether lessons were designed to support on-site facilitators,
3. the ability of facilitators to develop engaging and user-friendly content,
4. the quality of the digital resources,
5. the effectiveness of blending online courses with existing classroom practices,
6. the sequence of the online lessons as compared to those within a brick-and-mortar
classroom,
7. the available LMS support, and
8. the degree of student tracking and monitoring at the schools.
The most important factor found for successful blended learning was the ability of
teachers on site to alter content and offer additional Internet-based content to reflect what was
happening in the traditional classroom (Liu et al., 2009).
This finding matches research done by Macher and Richman (2008) that found student
success in online learning courses to be most greatly affected by flexibility in content delivery.
The research found that students had greater educational achievement in an online class where
teachers are able to alter the delivery of educational content and materials to meet the standards
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 25

for the course and the school, while also meeting the needs of students at an individual level
(Macher & Richman, 2008).
Flexibility Through Online Programming
Online learning does not simply have to be seen as an alternative to a traditional brick-
and-mortar classroom, but can also be seen as a form of enrichment to traditional settings as well
(USDE, 2002). Online learning can create an individualized learning experience by giving
students time and space to process material at their own pace. As long as the teacher of the
course develops well-planned lessons that scaffold for long-term effects, student development in
online courses has been found to be equally effective to traditional brick-and-mortar courses
(Kachel et al., 2005).
The creation of online education through internal innovation lends itself to greater
flexibility in adaptivity for traditional public schools (Lamoreaux et al., 2002). If the
organization chose to outsource online courses, then the technology would be adapted only by
the outsourced organization and only if that organization saw a great gap in its offerings. By
creating the course within the school, any need to adapt or change to improve the quality of the
course may be done as the need arises (Despotovic-Zrakie et al., 2012). This type of flexibility
allows for greater individualization of educational materials for students enrolled in the online
courses.
The only product or service that the school would rely on externally would be access to
the LMS chosen because of its ability to meet the specified needs of teachers and students. The
chosen LMS offers the online teachers and students access to educational content online in
various formats and may also be extended to all teachers and students in the school, depending
on the terms of the contract or server space (Tucker, 2007).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 26

Insourcing an online program allows teachers to personally develop and monitor their
own courses while gaining insight into individual student ability, course structure, content
coverage and its delivery (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012). The teacher may create assessments
that give concrete feedback about each student’s level of understanding for each goal or content
standard. Once the teacher establishes the ability levels and learning styles of each student as an
individual, teachers can offer additional resources through the LMS to support students who are
struggling or enhance lessons to develop mastery in other students (Tadelis & Williamson,
2012). Differentiating lessons and providing electronic resources to meet individual student
needs at the teacher’s convenience offer a flexibility and rigor that is often more difficult in a
traditional classroom when a teacher is trying to teach all students at the same time.
As schools begin to make the decision of how to incorporate online education
programming, they will consider the internal and external factors that could affect the success of
the students and teachers, analyzing the transaction cost of each decision.
Transaction Cost Economics
If a school decides to purchase services or products to help the school improve, it will
develop a contract with an outside vendor. The contract is the basic unit of measurement within
transaction cost economics (Williamson, 2008).
This contract is developed with both parties acknowledging that the relationship is not a
one-time interaction for a good exchanged. This program or service will be used throughout the
year to improve educational achievement within the school. With this longevity of use in mind,
the contract develops governance, alternatives, desired effect(s) and regulations that will attempt
to manage any difficulty, hazards or disturbance that may occur (Williamson, 2010). The
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 27

contract therefore infuses order as an attempt to mitigate any conflicts that may arise due to
human failure to realize mutual gain for all parties involved (Macher & Richman, 2008).
Transaction cost may be measured qualitatively in response to satisfaction with the
product or quantitatively through the educational or monetary impact. According to Williamson
(2010), the key to minimizing transaction costs is to keep the contract simple — get it “right” the
first time and make the parameters and governance model realistic. Once a school is able to
analyze the costs associated with the possible educational resources and innovations available,
the school can make an informed decision about how to maximize educational achievement with
the funds and other resources at their disposal (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
The development of governance within the contract is necessary because of the uncertain
effects of human actors within the exchange of an on-going product or service (Macher &
Richman, 2008; Williamson, 2010). These structures need to establish contingencies that allow
the product, service or governance structure to adapt as issues arise. It is with these anticipated
safeguards that the transaction cost will remain positive for all parties.
One issue that may arise within the governance is the “principal-agent problem”. This
problem occurs when the individuals who have been chosen to participate in developing the
internal innovation, or those who have volunteered to participate, do not follow the directives of
leadership in the school (Lamoreaux et al., 2002). This lack of cohesiveness between
leadership and worker within the hierarchy often occurs because the directive does not meet the
personal interests or ideas of the participants (Lamoreaux et al., 2002).
The discrepancy between participant and leadership could stem from lack of progress or
success from previous experiences, disagreements about the type or development of curriculum
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 28

to be used, or alternate views about the “best” learning or course management system (LMS or
CMS) that will be used.
Another issue that may arise is the presence of imperfect information (Lamoreaux et al.,
2002) about the ability of the teachers and staff to carry out the internal innovation. If the
administration does not understand the amount of time and money that it will take to train the
participants (teachers and students), then it could cost more than was accounted for when the
“contract” for the online programming was first developed.
The factors discussed above, those of governance, cost, flexibility, trust in and ability of
human resources, and educational goals are factors that must be addressed in a TCE contract and
when deciding between internal and external innovation. This decision is a difficult one because
schools must make the decision with the challenge of improving educational outcomes while
facing difficult budgetary constraints (Bakia et al., 2012).
In TCE this is called the make-versus-buy decision. This decision is made by an
organization by analyzing the tradeoffs between the benefits and costs of developing a contract
with an outside organization (buy) instead of developing a method for addressing the need at a
similar cost within the school itself (make) (Williamson, 2008). One factor that may affect this
decision is that when an organization decides to create an internal contract, or insource, the
contract or governance may be less structured. While rules, standards, goals and expectations
will exist within internal innovation because a transaction still occurs, since there usually is not a
traditional contract to establish that if “x is provided by y organization, then the product z will
be produced,” it may be more difficult to monitor effectiveness (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
Internal innovation is often motivated by the cost effectiveness and the ability to maintain
full control of a product or service (Williamson, 2010). Control of curriculum development
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 29

allows a school that is just beginning to implement online education programs to innovate
quickly through vertical integration within an existing hierarchy (Williamson, 2010). While this
does remove the assurances of a program that has shown success in other areas, there is no
guarantee that those successes will replicate in a new setting. If the school can use free platforms
to try to innovate, the cost is minimal if the program does not prove successful (Macher &
Richman, 2008).
If the organization can determine that it has the capabilities and factors necessary to
maintain such resources internally in a cost-effective manner, then it will make sense to
vertically integrate, rather than seek an outside organization with which to develop a contract for
delivery of the service. Although a school may not need to develop a contract with an outside
vendor to create the curriculum for its online courses, the school will still need to use learning
management or course management systems as a forum for students and teachers to place and
access content and interact to develop a virtual classroom.
Learning Management Systems and Innovation
To participate in any sort of long-distance, online-based learning, an organization needs
to adopt a learning management system. A learning management system, or LMS, is used to
support teachers and students during the learning process. A teacher may use an LMS “to
develop web-based course notes and quizzes, to communicate with students and to monitor and
grade student progress” (Despotovic-Zrakie, et al., 2012, pg. 326). The students in an online
learning environment will use the LMS to access course content provided by the teacher, as well
as to communicate and collaborate with the teacher and other students. Any school that is
interested in developing online programming must choose an LMS that best meets the needs of
its courses by determining how the interface will occur.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 30

The interface in this case is how the students and teachers will be able to interact within
the LMS and how this will facilitate learning and interaction (Christensen, 2011). A typical
LMS will be modular, in that as long as it meets the specified criteria of what the school is
looking for in terms of student and teacher needs, then the LMS may be developed separately
from the online course itself (Christensen, 2011). This type of flexibility allows for improved
customization of each course created and can allow the course to change over time to allow for
improvement. Therefore, Christensen (2011) would call using an LMS within an online
classroom a sustaining innovation, in that it will allow a school to move forward with
performance improvement ideas that will improve at the trajectory set forth by the school’s
goals.
Traditional public schools (TPSs) have had to adapt over the years as the goals of
education have changed. A school went from a place to learn about democracy, and was often
for the elite, to becoming a federal mandate for all youth under the age of 18 (Moe, Hanson,
Jiang, & Pampoulov, 2012). Continued innovation in TPSs is needed to maintain the trajectory
of success necessary to meet the needs of students in terms of flexibility in time, to better prepare
them for college, and to prepare them with 21
st
century skills.
The ever-changing market of education and the growth in educational products has
increased the number of free products that a school may access to incorporate technology into its
school and/or classroom. These free products have taken the form of platforms to access
content, curriculum, and grade monitoring through Learning Management Systems (LMSs) and
Course Management Systems (CMSs) (Chou & Chou, 2011). These platforms are considered as
options for the organization based on their impact on content delivery methods within the school
and the cost-saving benefits of using them (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005). To further assist
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 31

an organization in deciding which types of online programming to use and whether to make or
buy, the school should analyze the values of its staff, administration and students to find the best
fit for all stakeholders.
Organizational Framework and Goal Setting
The decision to create online courses through internal innovation may be made by
weighing the values, ethics, capital and human resources at the school and the value that an
online program would add for the school’s stakeholders.
Bolman and Deal (2003) provide four frames to help organizations make decisions by
analyzing and ordering the factors that are most important to them. These frames are structural,
human resources, political and symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 2003). An organization does not need
to choose a single frame but can use multiple frames to assess the implementation of new
products, such as online education. The school can weigh the impact this type of decision will
have on organizational structure, school staff, or the image, ethics and leadership of the
organization, and which change is valued most.
The structural lens is important to this type of decision because it emphasizes
responsibilities, rules, policies and procedures as they relate to the established goals of the
program (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This frame is similar to the governance needs of a contract
developed within transaction cost economics. An organization must analyze its ability to
establish the roles and other aspects within the structural frame. Through this analysis the
organization will be able to decide whether it is capable of developing an internal contract to
monitor and run its program or if it needs to buy a program and allow an outside organization to
help develop these structural roles (Williamson, 2010).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 32

However, analyzing the structural frame may not be enough to guarantee success if there
is not support and encouragement for all parties to continue in their work. The human resources
frame asks that an organization see the psychological work that goes into any decision or process
and make decisions based on the emotional well-being of those involved (Bolman & Deal,
2003).
It is easy to simply establish roles and present procedures, rules and policies for how to
accomplish each goal. However, carrying out these procedures and policies can be difficult
when implementing new programming or products such as online learning, as will belief in the
value of this type of learning. The organization must realize that the teachers will need support
and positive reinforcement as the school takes this new path (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Additionally, students will need to be supported, even though much of the teaching takes
place online. Teachers must understand that students are undertaking an entirely new learning
process and will often need face-to-face support initially and continued monitoring to find
success. Therefore, the human resources frame will be a valuable frame to analyze when
determining if the organization has the ability to meet the emotional and physical needs of the
staff.
The symbolic and political lenses could also be used to make a decision of whether to
make or buy. If the organization determines the value of internally developing an online
education could improve the image of the school, then that innovation has symbolic and political
value to the school (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Simply by creating a course that breaks from
traditional models can add value symbolically by demonstrating that the school is willing to
innovate. To the public, the change may be seen as new and exciting as online programming is a
growing trend in higher education and U.S. policy reform (Selwyn, Gorard, & Williams, 2001).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 33

Politically, the school may gain greater prestige than other schools within the district by
being the first to take on this type of programming. Becoming an innovator within the city or
district gives the school greater power in its ability to compete for students as parents and
students make the decision of which school to attend (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Each of these
lenses provides the organization valuable insight into what will be most important to it as the
organization makes the decision of whether to make or buy.
Once the decision is made about whether the tools and resources can be developed
internally or must be purchased externally, the organization must take the steps to build the
knowledge, skills, and motivation that are necessary for accomplishing these goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). It is important for the school to look for any gaps that exist within the knowledge,
skills, and motivation within those creating and implementing the online courses and determine
what it will take to fill those gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
If the school feels that these gaps cannot be filled internally, then the school could make
the decision to outsource the program to avoid making a mistake that will cost the organization
time and money and develop a contract with a company that can address the identified gaps.
If the program is developed internally from an existing model, the school must be careful
not to assume that the results achieved at another site with the program will automatically be
replicated at their site (Clark & Estes, 2008; Tadelis & Williamson, 2012). Whether developed
internally or externally, goals and procedures must be established that address the identified gaps
and how those aspects will be evaluated as the program develops and continues.
Once the necessary staff has the skills and knowledge to implement the program, the key
to continued success is motivation. This motivation will be found initially within individuals
who are already excited about the program. By getting these individuals on board with the
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 34

program, motivation will build as they demonstrate excitement and success (Collins, 2001).
Through the proposal and interview process with these motivated individuals, the administration
helps the teachers develop goals with what Clark and Estes (2008) call the three C’s of effective
goal making.
For goals to create motivation amongst the teaching staff, those goals must be concrete,
challenging, and current (Clark & Estes, 2008). Goals set with these standards will help teachers
maintain motivation as they work towards established goals, making the active choice to persist
and put in the mental effort necessary to be successful. This process develops a program culture
with clear “core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 108),
which will continue to be learned and developed as additional staff begin to participate.
In addition to ensuring the motivation of teachers who volunteer to participate in the
program, the school must begin to get buy-in from the rest of the faculty to ensure the school
culture effectively supports the new programming (Clark & Estes, 2008). All staff should be
trained in the technology used and shown that anyone may have the opportunity to participate to
avoid problems that could arise internally due to feelings of exclusivity.
For the culture of the school to truly change, all teachers must support the online courses
and be excited about the opportunities these classes offer to the school’s student body. It is only
with this type of buy-in that the program will experience longevity (Collins, 2001). Buy-in and
motivated teachers will also encourage new teachers to think about creating their own online
courses and may work to help the school avoid the social loafing (Clark & Estes, 2008) that
occurs when some teachers feel they can avoid doing something when they believe that others
will participate and pick up the slack. OHS must create a culture that is excited about innovation
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 35

and develop goals that allow all members of staff and faculty to work toward integration and
creation of new technology (Collins, 2001).
External and Internal Factors Affecting Use of Online Learning
Although buy-in, teacher motivation, goal setting, and establishing procedures and roles
will help the new program function successfully, a school will still encounter problems that
contain internal and external factors that will impact success. By developing internal innovation,
an organization risks the unknowns that occur from a potentially untested model (Williamson,
2008).
If the program being used is new and unknown to the potential users, it can lead to low
student perception regarding the quality of the course and uncertainty about whether students
will be successful in this type of course (Lamoreaux et al., 2002). Lack of trust in the unknown
is an external factor affecting the success of the program. Students and teachers currently have
an idea of how traditional face-to-face instruction is conducted, how they will perform in that
setting, and how they will gain the skills necessary to access material presented in this way.
However, they do not necessarily have the same level of understanding about new technology-
based online courses. It is not until the courses have been run multiple times that this external
factor can be reduced.
Self-efficacy with technology may also affect the external success of online learning
(Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2006-2010). In traditional classrooms, most assessments occur
when pen or pencil is put to paper. While this generation of students has more access to
technology than previous generations, their use is not usually educational based (Jones,
Ramanau, Cross, & Healing, 2009). A change in how education is presented and assessed may
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 36

intimidate some students and some teachers due to a low self-efficacy about the individual’s
ability to use this medium for this purpose (Denler et al., 2006-2010).
Low self-efficacy in using technology or new teaching strategies is an external factor that
could affect success. However, this situation may be addressed through school training that
assesses the gap in knowledge and finds a way to address the need (Clark & Estes, 2008). For
example, the school may offer face-to-face training sessions about how to use the new online
program until it is clear that the student, teacher or even the parent feels confident enough to
continue working online without the support. While support will still be necessary occasionally,
this need may be addressed with minimal additional time.
When developing online programming internally, issues such as student motivation, use
of assessments and feedback, and clear goal setting and feedback for students must be addressed
(Liu et al., 2009). In the traditional classroom, when the student is physically in front of the
teacher, it is much easier to notice when the student is not paying attention or doing his work. In
an online environment, a teacher must pay special attention to determine if the student has
participated in discussions and completed assessments as directed (Despotovic-Zrakie et al.,
2012). Therefore, developing internal protocols and tools that teachers can use to monitor
student motivation and involvement will be necessary for student success in the online forum.
Whether internal or external, the school must find ways to address factors that may affect success
of the program.
Summary
The research reviewed above demonstrates the rise of online programming within the K-
12 school settings. The online programs may be fully online or blended learning that
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 37

incorporates some meetings face-to-face and courses that supplement curriculum from face-to-
face courses with online learning materials (Staker, 2011).
With the current options available for potential online courses, and with an eye towards
transaction cost economics (TCE), schools must make decisions about whether to use free
learning or course management systems and develop curriculum internally, or to purchase tested
online programs. This decision may be made using the four frames from Bolman and Deal
(2003) and by performing a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) of the available resources at the
school. Using these tools, a school may determine if it has the necessary resources or tools to
develop a program internally with minimal costs or whether the program must be purchased
externally.
Whether the decision is made to make or buy the online programming, the school must
continue to evaluate and monitor success through goal setting and motivation of staff and
students. From these studies, it is clear that online education programming for K-12 students is a
growing industry, but it is not yet clear which factors, resources, structures, and goals will be
most useful in developing a sustaining internal innovation.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 38

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
As parental choice weighs in on educational decisions for students and standards for
educational achievement increase due to No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the traditional public
school (TPS) system needs to become more flexible and innovative. If TPSs do not learn to
compete in the educational market that includes innovative charter schools offering free
education and private schools that can provide greater resources, they will not be able to
maintain current enrollment. As a result of this competition, school funding and educational
achievement will be impacted and therefore their ability to meet the high expectations of NCLB.
Using the lens of transaction cost economics (TCE), this study analyzed the decisions
made in a high school serving 9
th
to 12
th
grade students to internally develop online courses that
allowed students to access content outside of a traditional brick-and-mortar classroom (Tadelis &
Williamson, 2012). I used qualitative case study techniques such as interviews to gain
perspective on how each factor from conceptual to implementation worked together to create the
current manifestation of the program (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative research was an appropriate
method for this study because of its use of asking questions about process to better understand a
phenomenon (Patton, 2002).
The use of interviews and surveys with the individuals who made the decisions to
develop and implement the online courses through the learning management system (LMS)
Moodle and the teachers and students within and beyond the online courses helped build validity
within the research (Merriam, 2009). My dissertation group, my dissertation chair and I
analyzed a pilot interview with two teachers and a teacher on special assignment to develop
questions and protocol for the study that best addressed the research questions (Maxwell, 2013).
We developed these protocols and questions to determine which factors allowed internal
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 39

innovation to be possible, whether this type of innovation was economically effective, and if it
served its purpose based on the goals of the organization and the goals established for the
program at its inception. Based on this purpose, several research questions were addressed.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to discover the themes that arose when discussing with
participants, administration, teachers, and the program creators why online courses were
developed internally, how the specific program(s) used and model was chosen, how the school
supported it, and what benefits were hoped for and seen to be gained for the school, teachers, and
students in participating in the online course programming. To address this purpose, the
following research questions were answered:
1. Who makes the decision, and what was the stated motivation for the decision to innovate by
creating online learning courses?
2. What aspects of the online course aligned, or failed to align, with currently established goals
and overall culture within the school that enabled the program to succeed or fail?
3. What hierarchical structure(s) and other organizational factors were in place that allowed the
school to develop internal innovation?
4. Why did the high school choose to in-house the innovation to develop online courses instead
of purchasing the resources from a private vendor? What factors did the school analyze to
make its decision, if any?
Population and Site Description
This case study analyzed the factors that were in place in the hierarchy of a high school
that developed an online course using Moodle as the Learning Management System (LMS) at
Ollie High School (OHS) in Ollie, California (school name has been changed for anonymity).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 40

At the time of the research OHS was one of five high schools and one of 33 total schools
ranging from elementary to adult education in the Ollie Unified School District (OUSD) (OUSD,
2013b). The 2,187 students at OHS were predominately Hispanic or Latino and Asian students
with 30.8% and 27.9% respectively. White students made up 29.3% and Black, mixed race
Filipino and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander made up the rest of the student body
(Partnership, 2011). Of these students, 7.1% were considered to be English Learners (EL), and
there was a 29.8 per pupil ratio with 87 total teachers, 3 administrators and 10 pupil services staff
(Partnership, 2011). The teaching staff had a majority of White teachers at 60.9%, with 16.1%
Asian, 10.3% Latino, and American Indian, Filipino, Black, mixed race or none reported making
up the rest of the population (Partnership, 2011).
OHS was the first high school in the district to pilot an online learning course using
Moodle. In the upcoming 2013-2014 school year, each high school in the district was expected
to follow the model at OHS to implement an online-based course. When the research was
conducted, OHS offered three English courses and one Advance Placement Psychology course
online (OUSD, 2013a). The English courses consisted of one 11
th
grade course, one 12
th
grade
course, and one make-up English course for students who had fallen behind. The students who
had fallen behind were able to enroll during their junior or senior year.
The only outside source that was used in the online learning program at OHS was
Moodle. The platform was the LMS that allows students to access the course materials, connect
with the teacher, and communicate with other students in the class (Chou & Chou, 2011).
Teachers used an LMS to develop web-based course notes and quizzes to communicate with
students and to monitor and grade student progress. Students used the LMS for “learning,
communication and collaboration” (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012, p. 326). Additionally, this type
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 41

of platform allowed users to come from heterogeneous groups, allowing the education system
that used these programs to innovate in using the program to meet the varying needs,
characteristics, expectations, preferences and knowledge bases of the students who used the
program (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
At OHS, all 11
th
and 12
th
grade students had open access to the online learning courses;
this access meant that any student who was interested in the course was able to enroll. Beyond
simply providing flexibility, the online courses offered students an opportunity to develop new
learning skills that could help them be successful in college, since the number of colleges that
use LMS or CMS is rapidly increasing (Chou & Chou, 2011).
The one requirement at OHS for students who enrolled in an online course is that they
still maintained a schedule that allowed for four hours of traditional face-to-face classes.
Maintaining a minimum number of hours on campus was necessary for the school to continue
receiving funding for these students through the calculation of Average Daily Attendance
(ADA), which is the primary form of funding for most schools and ensures that the students
maintain their progress towards graduation requirements of 220 credits (CDE, 2013a).
For this study I focused on the more than 200 students, 4 faculty members, 2 teachers on
special assignment (TOSA), and the 4 administrators at Ollie High School (OHS) in Ollie,
California that participate in the online learning courses. The interviews with teachers, TOSAs
and administrators who run and monitor the online program provided insight into the
perspectives of those closest to the program to further understand the decision to develop the
program and the Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) aspect of the decision-making process. I
focused on these individuals to gain a deep and rich understanding in order to answer my
research questions; this process is called purposeful sampling (Cresswell, 2009).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 42

Research Hypothesis
Based on my review of literature and studies that have been conducted on different types
of online programs in K-12 schools and post-secondary education, the hypothesis of this study
was that the structures and factors that led to developing internally created online courses were
not unusual for many 9-12 public high schools and that the chosen method of innovation
minimized transaction costs for the organization. With this hypothesis of common structures and
factors, it can then be believed that this type of programming can be developed in many TPSs
with a minimal cost of development. Furthermore, this type of programming should be
considered as a viable option when dealing with flexibility of scheduling for students,
competition with charter and private schools, and as an additional method for developing college
readiness and 21
st
century skills.
Instrumentation Methods for Addressing Research Questions
I conducted a pilot interview with two teachers of the online learning courses at OHS and
the TOSA who initiated using Moodle for the online learning programs throughout the Ollie
Unified School District (OUSD). Through this focus group typesetting, I was able to delineate
which questions would be more appropriate to ask groups of teachers about the focus,
implementation and evaluation of the online courses, as compared to those questions that would
address similar topics with administrators or individuals who oversaw the maintenance of the
online program (Maxwell, 2013).
The interview questions used may be found in Appendix A and B. The questions were
separated into teacher (Appendix A) and administrator (Appendix B) interview questions. I had
originally thought about conducting a focus group with students, but the results from the
interviews and surveys was sufficient, and additional student interviews would have not resulted
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 43

in enough further data to warrant the method. The questions used in those interviews were semi-
structured and open-ended in that while there were specific questions and data that needed to be
gathered, the exact order, wording and content of those questions were allowed to change based
on the need to respond to the situation and gain deeper insight into the perspective of the
respondent (Merriam, 2009).
Each interview was recorded to ensure that all content was retained to allow for analysis
of themes at a later time (Merriam, 2009). The members of the pilot interview and each
interview and survey were allowed to stay anonymous during the process. The setting for the
interviews was informal. For OHS staff members the interviews were conducted at their school
site, and the district personnel interviews were conducted at the district office, in a location of
their choosing to allow the participants to feel most comfortable (Merriam, 2009).
At the beginning of each interview or survey, I told each participant that the study was
being conducted because of the desire to learn about the steps that were taken to establish the
programming that was currently in place for the online classes (see the introduction to each
Appendix for the exact introduction). My research and methodology was approved through the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) process to ensure protecting the rights of subjects. However,
prior to beginning the study, I had received an exempt review status due to the questions asked
not containing personal identifiers.
As the study continued, it was clear that each member interviewed and those who
responded to the survey wanted to remain anonymous. As a result, for the rights of the human
subjects, the school name has been changed to a pseudonym. After conducting the pilot
interview, the individual interviews in the study provided more depth and diversity in recorded
data gathered for this qualitative study (Weiss, 1994).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 44

After the interviews, I reviewed the field notes to better recall visual and physical aspects
of the interview that may have been important for the research (Maxwell, 2013). This data was
transcribed through rev.com, an online transcribing resource from the original recordings created
using Garageband. Those transcriptions were then analyzed using open coding to find categories
or themes discovered through data gathered while working with participants (Merriam, 2009).
This type of coding lent itself to using inductive logic in that I was able to develop grounded
theory after data was been gathered using the information gained from the point of view of the
participants (Cresswell, 2009).
Before the start of each semi-structured interview, participants were informed that they
could skip any questions they did not feel comfortable answering and that their identity would
remain anonymous. They were also informed that some of the proposed questions, which they
were each allowed to see ahead of time, may shift as the interview progressed in order to gain a
deeper understanding of the case (Merriam, 2009). Participants remained anonymous because
the study needed to gather data on perspectives of a program only and not details that might be
found through a public data base about staff, students or staff such as the California Department
of Education website or a partner of that site, Ed-data.
Each interview lasted between 25 to 45 minutes and was used as a type of formative
assessment of processes and implementation for the online program and the decision-making
process (Patton, 2002). No participants chose to withdraw or pull out halfway through, despite
voluntary participation and being allowed to do so.
The final aspect of any interview was to ask if any of the participants would be willing to
participate in follow-up interviews that could offer additional insight as research continued and
discoveries were made that may have needed clarification (Weiss, 1994). Some of the
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 45

interviewees were used as “gatekeepers” that were able to provide additional resources in the
form of documents or individuals that were able to offer additional insight into the study
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The questions used can be found in Appendix A and B.
Data from the interviews, surveys and documents were compared and reviewed to
identify patterns or trends that helped to answer the research questions. By comparing multiple
types of data, additional validity and reliability were added to the results through triangulation
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Documents were used to uncover valuable data that may have
accidentally been left out of the interviews or surveys with participants and might have offered
additional validity (Merriam, 2009). The documents I had hoped to find were established
proposals, goals and established protocols that might apply to the online learning program at
OHS. However, the only documents I found were surveys published by the administrative
TOSA about online resources and interests of current OUSD students.
The surveys were presented to students, as well as those teachers who do not teach online
courses. Surveys were used for these participants since this was a larger group of people, and it
would have been difficult to access given the time constraints of the study. The surveys were
presented and analyzed using survey monkey as a tool. I was able to gain access to these
individuals with the help of administration and staff introductions during staff meetings or
through teachers posting the surveys for students to complete.
Research Question 1
To answer Research Question 1, I conducted interviews with administration, teachers on
special assignment (see Appendix B), and current teachers (see appendix A) of an online course
at Ollie High School. The question to be addressed was “What factors led to creating online
learning courses being offered at the high school, including recognizing the needs for such a
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 46

program, goals of the program, research of the internal hierarchy of the program and school
culture?”
Methods, Instrumentation, Data Collection and Analysis. The interviews and surveys
used to gain insight about this research question were scheduled through a personal contact who
helped me gain access to the teachers and district administrator who were part of the online
program at OHS. I scheduled the meetings at times and in settings that were most convenient for
the participants to address the topics and questions that are represented in Appendix A and B.
I conducted individual interviews with two teachers of online courses to gather greater
details from participants with the most experience. The online programming at OHS at the time
of this research contained only three courses taught by three different teachers. The two teachers
whom I chose to conduct interviews with were able to give the most insight because they had
been involved with the online program the longest.
I was able to gain access to these teachers through an individual with whom I am
connected through the USC program who works at the school. This individual contacted the
teachers and asked if they would be willing to talk to me. When they agreed, I sent a joint e-mail
through my contact to the teachers who were willing to participate to set up times and locations
to conduct the interviews.
After these interviews were finished, I asked these individuals if they knew anyone else
who could provide additional insight to the study or if there is data to support what was
discussed, creating a snowball effect for gaining access to additional individuals or data
(Merriam, 2009). However, they primarily referenced each other or the other administrators I
had already planned to interview, so I was not able to gain any additional participants in this
way.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 47

I had hoped to complete these initial interviews over the summer; however, due to travel
and teaching schedules I was not able to complete the interviews until October. After I analyzed
the data received, I was able to contact the teachers, administrators and TOSA by e-mail for
clarification on a few points and for additional help in conducting the student surveys.
The interviews were recorded and transcribed for textual analysis to identify key themes
and perspectives. These documents were valuable in determining the factors that existed, and
any other protocols that have since established, to support the development and continued
success of the online learning program at OHS. The data I gathered provided insight about the
perspective of members of the OHS staff, as well as the OUSD about the steps that were taken to
establish the programming that was currently in place for the online classes.
I recorded the interviews and focus groups using Garageband, which is a digital recording
program on my Apple computer. Once I recorded the interviews and focus groups sessions, I
transferred them to MP4 format. I then sent them to the website rev.com for transcription, and I
analyzed and coded the text to help search for common themes within each interview in this
qualitative research.
The software used allowed me to efficiently manage and analyze the content, while
supporting rigorous and lengthy interview sessions to answer the questions. The advantage of
using a device for data recording is that it allows the researcher the freedom to listen and ask
follow-up questions with the knowledge that large amounts of qualitative data will be gathered
without fear of missing something that is being said during the focus group or interview
(Merriam, 2009). Recording interviews and focus group sessions also increased the validity of
the researcher because data was transcribed with direct quotations, which allowed me to focus on
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 48

the analysis of the exact recording and transcriptions instead of notes from memory of
information presented at the interview.
Research Question 2
To answer Research Question 2, I conducted interviews with site and district
administration (Appendix B) and current teachers (Appendix A) of online courses at Ollie High
School. I also conducted a survey of staff who did not teach an online course as well as students
who were enrolled and students who were not enrolled in an online course. The question to be
addressed was “What are the organizational transactional costs and benefits associated with the
increase in flexibility for student scheduling and the change in teacher scheduling that blended
learning programming brings?”
Methods, Instrumentation, Data Collection and Analysis. I conducted interviews as
discussed in the previous section. However, I used additional surveys of teachers and students
who did not participate in online learning courses to gain greater understanding of the question
and gain additional perspective. Surveys were analyzed using a Likert-style questioning to
identify trends in responses to questions and possible statistical analysis of the responses (Fink,
2013).
Conducting the interview sessions to answer this question used the same reasoning and
methodology as I used to answer Research Question 1. I conducted the surveys by asking for
assistance from administration in accessing faculty. At a staff meeting, I presented my study and
my interest in learning more about the online program and courses and how they have impacted
the school, staff, students and parents. All teachers who did not teach an online class were asked
to complete an anonymous survey (Appendix C) to gain feedback from different perspectives on
the online program.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 49

To gain access to student participants, I asked teachers to allow me access to their
classroom to ask for students who were interested in answering questions about their school and
the online courses effect on the campus. However, due to scheduling constraints, the access to
the student classroom was done through teacher support. I did not go in face-to-face to a
classroom to talk to the students about the study, but they were given the details in the study
introduction to the survey.
I analyzed the interview data in the same method as the first research question with data
recordings and transcription analysis. The online surveys were analyzed based on rankings,
common themes in answers, and in written responses. There were surveys for teachers outside
of the online program (Appendix C), students who have never taken an online course (Appendix
D), and students who have taken an online course (Appendix E). By analyzing data from this
broad range of participants, it helped to verify perspectives of those within the program
compared with those who had never participated in an online course to determine if what was
perceived to be an impact, cost or benefit of the program was seen the same by all members of
the OHS community.
Research Question 3 and 4
To answer Research Questions 3 and 4, I conducted interviews with administration,
teachers on special assignment (district administration), and current teachers of online courses at
Ollie High School, while also gathering data through document analysis.
Research Question 3 questions the cost and benefit factors that would be analyzed to
determine effectiveness of the Moodle program and internal curriculum development and who
would be affected by these costs and benefits.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 50

Research Question 4 queries the decision to inhouse the online course innovation rather
than outsource and the factors that were analyzed to make that decision.
Methods, Instrumentation, Data Collection and Analysis. Interviews with
administrators, teachers in the program and administrators at the site and district were conducted
using the same methods as previously described. The same process used to answer Research
Question 1 was used for Research Questions 3 and 4 when conducting the interviews. Analysis
for Questions 3 and 4 was conducted in the same manner as Question 1. One additional factor
that was part of answering these two research questions was document gathering and analysis.
Document analysis allowed me to uncover meaning that could develop a deeper
understanding of information presented in interviews, focus groups or surveys (Merriam, 2009).
The authenticity and accuracy of each document would be necessary to establish a valid
connection to the research.
I analyzed this authenticity by establishing the origins for the document, the reasons for
being written, the author of the document and the context (Merriam, 2009). Determining each of
these aspects of the document helped to uncover any bias that might have existed in the
document and ensured proper analysis as it related to the research questions. I could gain access
to only one document. This document was a technology survey conducted by the district
administrator.
Summary
Each research question was measured with similar methods and protocols, in that each
involved interviews. However, to gain greater insight into Questions 2, 3 and 4, surveys and
artifacts were used to reinforce themes and perspectives gained from interviews.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 51

This type of triangulation of data allowed the research to remain unbiased as the data was
checked and conclusions were compared through each type of data (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009). Each of these items served to determine the factors that led to the overall decision to
insource online courses, the methods used to evaluate the teaching and content of each course,
and the costs and benefits that offering online courses offered the students, teachers,
administrators, school site, and district as seen through the perspectives of each individual
research participant.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 52

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

Beginning in April 2013 and ending in December 2013, over the course of the spring,
summer and fall terms, I met with and interviewed 3 administrators, 2 instructors, and conducted
surveys of more than 100 students within the Ollie Unified School District (OUSD). This
chapter presents the data gathered from the 5 individual interviews and 3 surveys. The 5
interviews were conducted with 2 instructors of fully online courses at Ollie High School (OHS),
2 administrators at OHS, and 1 OUSD district personnel involved with the online learning
course. The 3 surveys were conducted voluntarily from teachers who did not teach fully online
courses (40 respondents), students currently enrolled in online courses (45 respondents), and
students not currently enrolled in online courses (56 respondents). The participants in each
chose to remain anonymous.
Adjusted Research Questions
In Chapter 1, I introduced four research questions that I believed would lead to
the deepest understanding of the transaction costs associated with the online programming at
OHS. However, after conducting my research and analyzing the research and survey questions, I
found that the answers for two of the initially posed research questions were addressed within the
other. As a result of this discovery, Questions 2 and 3 were slightly reworked into a single
research question.
Both questions were trying to discover the transaction costs and benefits that came from
the online program. Question 2 was originally posed as “What are the organizational
transactional costs and benefits associated with the increase in flexibility for student scheduling
and the change in teacher scheduling that online courses bring?” This question was found to be
too specific to get at the heart of the question. Question 3, originally posed as “What cost and
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 53

benefit factors will be analyzed in order to determine effectiveness of the Moodle program and
internal curriculum development, and who is affected by these costs and benefits?” This
question was closer to the heart of what Question 2 was asking but left out the overarching
concept of this research: transaction cost economics.
As a result, Research Questions 2 and 3 were combined into one question: “What
transactional cost and benefit factors will be analyzed for the organization and individuals within
the organization in order to determine effectiveness of the Moodle program and internal
curriculum development?” Below is the final organization for the three research questions.
Research Questions
1. Who made the decision and what was the stated motivation for the decision to innovate by
creating online learning courses?
2. What transaction cost and benefit factors will be analyzed for the organization and
individuals within the organization in order to determine effectiveness of the Moodle
program and internal curriculum development?
3. Why did the high school choose inhouse innovation for the development of online courses
instead of purchasing the resources from a private vendor? What factors did the school
analyze in order to make their decision if any?
Participant Profiles
Each of the three administrators who were interviewed had been involved with OHS
since the inception of the first fully online course. The principal, who left the school in October
of 2013 (after I had conducted my interview), began the year of the first fully online program. I
will refer to him as Steve. The other administrator, whom I will refer to as Layla, has worked at
OHS for 13 years, 5 of which were as a math teacher. The district administrator, whom I will
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 54

refer to as Oscar, had never worked at OHS but had been in the district for over 13 years. He
had been at the district since 2008 and managed the online learning platform.
Of the two teachers interviewed, one had just started her fourth year at OHS and was in
her second year of teaching a fully online course. I will refer to her as Sandy. The other teacher,
whom I will refer to as Gail, had been at OHS for over 10 years, had been teaching a fully online
course for four years, but had been involved with the online learning program since 2008/2009,
and was the first teacher to teach a fully online course anywhere in the district.
Research Question 1
Who made the decision and what was the stated motivation for the decision to innovate by
creating online learning courses?
Development of the Online Program
Each person interviewed gave the impression that the course was the product of Oscar’s
knowledge and current work with online learning platforms. Gail’s desire to work with this
program within the high school, and the fact that Steve was a new administrator within the
school and district, were also factors that were considered and played a part in the inception of
the online courses. Oscar and Gail remembered the first time they connected about the potential
for an online class occurring after Gail complained that her some of her students’ e-mails were
sent directly to spam when they tried to submit work. Gail remembered one e-mail address in
particular that had gotten blocked: Chino_pimp. It was from this conversation that Oscar was
able to explain to Gail about the new LMS that the district was using. It was using the Moodle
platform and was referred to as eOUSD.
The first fully online course at OHS was an English course for juniors that began in the
2009-2010 school year. Gail approached Steve with the proposal to teach this English course as
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 55

the first option because she did not want to “ruffle any feathers” by taking a class of seniors
away from teachers who preferred to work with that age group. She also had an extensive
knowledge base in this area because she had completed her master’s degree in American
Literature and had just completed an online summer school credit recovery course that had
“found success.” Gail believed that if she had proposed this idea at another unnamed school in
the district, it “would have said absolutely no at that time.” Steve and Layla said they approved
the program because they trusted Gail’s and Oscar’s ability and desire to pilot this program at
OHS and saw the benefits this program would have to students. Sandy also stated that she
believed the online courses were implemented at OHS because Gail was already using eOUHS,
and the program “evolved out of her excitement” for a fully online course.
Motivation and Benefits of Online Courses
Each person interviewed and surveyed mentioned schedule flexibility as a motivator for
implementing fully online courses. Steve spoke of the desire of OHS students to take an extra
class, or “not wanting to wake up early, or wanting to leave early”. Oscar said the classes were
“geared towards athletes and kids with jobs”. Confirming this desire for flexibility was a survey
of students who were currently enrolled in at least one fully online course. Of the students
surveyed that were currently in an online course, 54.7% said that getting out of school early or
waking up later was the reason they enrolled in a fully online course.
Another benefit that none of the teachers or administrators mentioned was that 15.2% of
the students said that they chose to enroll in a fully online course because they did not enjoy a
traditional face-to-face classroom setting. See *Graph1 for the full results of the survey
question, “Why did you choose to enroll in an online course?”
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 56

*Graph 1: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)

For the respondents of students not enrolled in an online course, there was a similar result
for reasons that they would enroll in an online course. Of the 56 student respondents, 44.7% said
they would be motivated to enroll so that they could get out of school early or wake up later.
However, unlike the students currently enrolled in online courses, 48.9% of students who were
not taking online courses would enroll to gain additional credits. See *Graph 2 for full results
from the survey question “What would motivate you to choose to enroll in an online course?
(Choose the one that is most important.)”
Why did you choose to enroll in an online course?
(Choose the one that is most important.)
Additional credits
Waking up later
Getting out school early
Did not enjoy a traditional classroom
Just wanted to try something different
4.7%
11.6%
39.5%
16.3%
27.9%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 57

*Graph 2: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)

Of teachers of non-online courses surveyed, 15% felt that getting out of school early or
coming later was one of the greatest benefits of a fully online course for OHS students. The
number one benefit that teachers felt that students would receive by being enrolled in a fully
online course was “skills to be successful in college,” which received 23%. This belief matches
the motivations for creating the courses stated by Layla. She stated that online courses and
technology would be “necessary for college” and these courses provided 21
st
century and
college-ready skills.
A similar belief about the prevalence of online education in college was held by
administration. In the interview with Steve, he discussed that the number of courses that were
either fully online or used online resources at the college level had been increasing at the college
level. He believed that the online courses at Ollie High School would help his students’
transition smoothly into this type of coursework.
A close second and third response in the teacher survey of “What do you feel is the
greatest benefit(s) that students get out of online courses?” were “additional credits” and “time
What would motivate you to choose to enroll in an online course?
(Choose the one that is most important.)
Additional credits
Waking up later
Getting out school early
Did not enjoy a traditional classroom
Just wanted to try something different
48.9%
8.5%
36.2%
0%
6.4%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 58

management skills,” which received 21.5% and 20% of the choices respectively. *Graph 3
summarizes these findings from teachers who did not teach a fully online course.

*Graph 3: Survey of Teachers Who Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses (40 teachers)

When asked the follow-up question, “Now that you are enrolled in an online course, rank
the following in order from greatest (1) to least (5) for the benefits that you believe you are
receiving (or have received) from taking an online course at [OHS]” the answers changed. For
benefits they received after enrolling in a fully online course, “receiving additional credits” was
number 1 with an average ranking of 3.88 out of 5, “creative thinking skills” was number 2 with
an average ranking of 3.18 out of 5, and “skills to be successful in college” was number 3, with
an average ranking of 3.06 out of 5. *Graph 4 gives the full results of this survey question.
What do you feel is the greatest benefit(s) that students get out of online
courses? (Select all that apply.)
Additional credits
Waking up later
Getting out of school early
Skills to be successful in college
Time-management skills
Time spent away from a traditional high school
with their peers
Unsure
21.5%
2.6%
12.4%
23%
20%
12.3%
8.2%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 59

*Graph 4: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)

Student Interest in Online Education
While no administrator or teacher interviewed mentioned the results of this survey, Oscar
provided me with the results gained from a “student technology survey” that had been conducted
through eOUSD since the 2010-2011 school year. Two questions from this survey in particular
may have provided motivation to implement online courses at OHS. The first question asked
students whether they would “participate in a test class that used only a digital textbook”; 81%
said they would in 2010.
The second question revealed that 66% of the 950 respondents said they would be
interested in taking a fully online class if it was available at OUSD. This survey was also
conducted to gain data about student access to technology. Of the 950 respondents in the 2010-
2011 school year, 33% had a cell phone with a web browser, 96% had a computer with Internet
access, 83% had a family laptop and 54% said their parents would support the use of a laptop for
educational purposes.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Skills to be
successful in
college
Creative thinking
skills
Schedule flexibility
Time-management
skills
Additional Credits
Now that you are enrolled in an online course, rank the following in order from
greatest (1) to least (5) for the benefits that you believe you are receiving (or have
received) from taking on online course at Ollie High School.
AVERAGE RATING
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 60

In summary, OHS became the school site for the pilot fully online course because of the
interest from Gail at that site. The motivation for moving forward with Gail’s proposal was
support and access that Oscar provided, flexibility in scheduling for students, and the
development of 21
st
century skills that would help students enrolled in these courses be
successful in college. Since the inception of the first on line course at OHS, Oscar said that each
high school in the district now offers at least one fully online course, with OHS leading the way
with three.
Research Question 2
What transaction cost and benefit factors were analyzed for the organization, and by which
individuals within the organization, in order to determine effectiveness of the Moodle program
and internal curriculum development?
To analyze cost and benefit factors, one area to assess was whether the reasons behind the
initial implementation of the fully online courses had been realized and to what extent they had
been realized. As discussed within the findings of Research Question 1, the reasons referenced
by teachers and administrators involved in the implementation were related to flexibility in
schedule and skills gained for college or careers (21
st
century skills).
Enrollment and Interest in OHS Online Courses
Steve said that to determine whether OHS should continue the fully online courses, “We
always have to see if there will be teacher interest or student interest, but so far we have not had
a problem with either.” The strong level of interest seemed to be demonstrated to Steve and
Layla because although there was no formal posting or advertising of the online courses, they
had never had an issue with enrollment numbers or availability of teachers. The only time Steve
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 61

mentioned “publicity” was when he spoke about his “Monday memos” to teachers that went out
by e-mail and discussed any important school news.
Confirmation of this interest also came from the survey of students enrolled in a fully
online course. Of these students, 79.5% said they would be likely or very likely to recommend
an online course to other students, and 84.8% said they were either very satisfied or satisfied
with the online course at OHS. However, of students not currently enrolled in an online course,
only 51.1% were very satisfied or satisfied with the online courses that were currently offered at
OHS. See *Graphs 5, 6 and 7 for full results from these survey questions. Each of these
questions could be used by administration to evaluate the current programming.

*Graph 5: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)

*Graph 6: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)
Would you recommend taking an online course to other students at
OHS? (Select the one that best applies.)
Very likely
Likely
Somewhat likely
Unlikely
How satisfied are you with the online course(s) at OHS?
(Select the one that best applies.)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Unsatisfied
31.1%
42.2%
26.7%
0%
31.8%
52.3%
15.9%
0%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 62

*Graph 7: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)
School-Wide Program Buy-in
While Steve and Layla saw continued interest in the program, each person interviewed
referenced a lack of buy-in, or disbelief in, the value of the program amongst staff as a whole.
Layla said that “buy-in has not occurred for all teachers, some of whom might believe or don’t
understand that rigor can exist in fully online courses or that students won’t be motivated to work
unless they see the teacher daily.” Gail reiterated that sentiment: “Teacher buy-in often stems
from skepticism about rigor and what teaching means.” She goes on to say:
Some teachers ask: ‘Well, you know, what if the kids are using their book to find
answers?’ My response to this is always that in English it is important to return to the
text when working on answers, so this would be a good thing…There is a lot of
resistance and a lot of push back and a lot of fear and a lot of, um, discomfort about this
type of programming. But within the people who are interested and receptive, it’s really
exciting….but on a larger level, by department, by school, um there’s, there’s just a lot of
resistance.

When Sandy was asked about full school site support for the fully online classes, she
stated that responses ranged form “it’s great” to strong resistance. She saw the OHS campus in
this way:
How satisfied are you with the courses available to be taken online
course(s) at OHS? (Select the one that best applies,)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Unsatisfied
12.8%
38.3%
36.2%
12.8%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 63

I feel that teachers that do not teach online courses or even utilize [eOUSD] much just do
what they do and we [teachers of online courses] do what we do. Even little things like
when to meet with online courses on back-to-school night, or when counselors have
information during the school day to present in English classes has not been worked out
yet. It often seems that the fully online courses are kind of an afterthought…the online
teachers live in our own little online bubble and we, we are super inspired and, but I don’t
know that that’s gotten to the whole campus as far as solely online learning.

From an administrative perspective, Layla said:
There will always be some old timers who like their methods best, but I have been
impressed with the level of rigor. Students are doing just as well in online as brick-and-
mortar classes looking at grades, CSTs and AP scores.

In the survey of teachers who had never taught a fully online course, when asked how
likely they would be to teach an online course at OHS 33.3%, they said they would not be likely
to teach an online course, and 38.5% said they would be only somewhat likely to teach one.
Only 20.5% of the teachers surveyed said they would be very likely to teach an online course.
Of the reasons given, multiple responses referenced that the subject area they taught
made developing an online course difficult. The most common response was that face-to-face
interactions were either valuable to the teacher as part of why they enjoyed teaching, or they
believed it to be necessary for student development. However, when students were asked
whether a lack of face-to-face interaction impacted their decision to not enroll in the online
courses, 46.9% said only some impact. See *Graph 8 and 9 for the full results of these survey
questions.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 64

*Graph 8: Survey of Teachers Who Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses (40 teachers)

*Graph 9: Survey of Students Not Enrolled in a Fully Online Course (56 students)

Seeing this response in this survey question, I looked at the answer to another question
that asked the teachers whether they believed that all students could be successful in an online
course. The responses were that 70% of teachers of non-online courses said, “No, not all
students can be successful" and 7.5% were unsure. A common write-in response to this question
was again the need for teacher face-to-face time with students.
Oscar felt that counselors might be the hardest set of stakeholders to buy-in to the online
program at the school site. His belief came from conversations he had with other districts that
How likely would you be to teach an online course at OHS?
(Select the one that best applies.)
Very likely
Likely
Somewhat likely
Not likely
How does the fact that you may not interact face-to-face with teachers
or students in an online course affect your decision to enroll or not?
Does not impact my decision
Some impact on my decision
Big impact on my decision
I would not enroll in an online course because
of this
20.5%
7.7%
38.5%
33.3%
18.4%
46.9%
18.4%
16.3%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 65

started similar programs. At this other school, which Oscar did not name, he was told, “The
courses didn’t fill because the counselors told the students that they weren’t ‘well-suited’ for an
online course.” However, he did admit that this could just be speculation and that he believed
this was not as much of a problem at OHS because the “administration talked to counseling
before the classes went live to get them on board.”
By-Products of Online Courses
Although the responses from the surveys and interviews pointed to a lack of buy-in with
the fully online courses, there was a belief that there had been an increase in conversations about
the use of technology and Internet-based tools in education. Gail says that she “tries to have
conversations with whoever I can about how to use it to benefit” their teaching on a daily basis.
Sandy made a similar comment about her role in starting conversations about the use of online
resources:
The current online teachers [at OHS] take the initiative to talk to their departments or
people they know about ‘cool’ things they were able to do with [eOUSD] to try to get
other people into it and excited. My role is more of an advocate for these kinds of online
platforms to increase learning in the classroom um and you know just philosophically I
think pen to paper is on its way out. I mean, you know, not that it’s on its way out. I
shouldn’t say that. Uh, but I think there are so many great things that you can do using
technology.

One by-product of these conversations within departments about online education was a
shift in pedagogy about teaching. Each person interviewed made reference to online education
shifting the idea of the “sage on the stage.” Here is an excerpt from my interview with Gail that
summarizes the change in pedagogy:
As an English teacher, there is a feeling that the teacher is the keeper of the
knowledge…and [the teacher is] going to parse out how much knowledge I am going to
give you…and I’m going to hold back at times and then I‘m going to reveal to you of
this, you know, grand piece of information. This method feels safe because then teachers
know where the discussion will go. But when it is opened up to students finding
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 66

information in their own time off the Internet, the teacher could feel ‘stupid’ because they
are not knowledgeable about the topic that is brought up by the student.

Oscar described this change in teaching methodology as a movement from the teacher as the
leader to the teacher as the “facilitator and participant.”
Increased Use of Technology
These conversations led by teachers of fully online courses have possibly had an effect on
the teaching techniques and technology usage of face-to-face-only teachers. In the survey of
teachers who do not teach fully online courses, when asked how often they use eOUSD or other
Internet-based tools to enhance lessons, 44.8% said either very often or often. Additionally,
when asked how often they use those same programs to allow students to access content or the
teacher outside of the classroom, 57.5% said they did so very often or often. Only 10%
answered that they never used or allowed students to use technology or Internet resources within
or beyond their classroom. So, although an increase in the discussion of and work with online
tools among all teachers to improve education was not a stated motivation to implement fully
online courses, it appears to be a by-product of implementing fully online courses at OHS. See
*Graph 10 and 11 for the full results to these questions.

*Graph 10: Survey of Teachers Who Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses (40 teachers)

How often do you use Moodle or other Internet-based programs to
enhance lessons or student’s learning during the school day?
Very often
Often
Somewhat often
Not often
Never
23.7%

21.1%

21.1%

23.7%

10.5%

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 67

*Graph 11: Survey of Teachers Who Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses (40 teachers)

These results from the teacher survey were confirmed in the results from the student
surveys. A total of 46.9% of the students not enrolled in an online course said their teacher used
technology in the classroom very often, and 44.9% said it was used often. Only 8.2% said
technology was used somewhat often, and 0% of students surveyed said that technology was
never used.
In a second question that asked students to rate how well their teachers used Moodle,
42.9% said they did very well, and 51% said they did well. And again, 0% said that their teacher
did not use Moodle at all.
Developing 21
st
century skills for students was a stated motivation for implementing fully
online courses at OHS. Steve stated he believed through the use of eOUSD and fully online
courses, “Even if [students] encounter slightly different LMSs, they will feel more confident that
they can figure it out because they have been introduced to this type of learning.” Layla said, “I
find it amazing how many students don’t know how to conduct a search and how to identify
viable resources and I think these classes are teaching them this.” Gail said she has seen an
improvement over the four years she has been teaching fully online courses. In the first year or
How often do you use Moodle or other Internet-based programs
to allow students to access content, homework,
or gain access to you outside of the classroom?
Very often
Often
Somewhat often
Not often
Never
40%

17.5%

12.5%

20%

10%

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 68

two of the program, she said that students “needed to be trained over the summer in using
[eOUSD/Moodle]…but now the program is being implemented in most classes even starting in
elementary.” As a result, she has found her current students “more adept” at using the
technology than the students from four years ago. Therefore, both administration and teachers of
the online courses at OHS believe that this motivation has occurred since the inception of the
online courses.
Confirming these beliefs from administration and teachers are results from the students at
OHS. When asked about the most difficult aspect of an online course, only 3% of students
currently enrolled in an online course and 0% of those not enrolled said that using Moodle was
the hardest aspect of being enrolled in a fully online course. Remembering to complete
assignments was chosen as the hardest part of being enrolled in an online course by 68.7% of
students currently enrolled and 48.9% of students not currently enrolled in an online course (see
*Graph 12 and 13 for full results).

*Graph 12: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)

What is the hardest part of being enrolled in an online course?
(Select the choice that best applies.)
Time-management
Not seeing the teacher in person
Internet access
Using Moodle and other technical
aspects
Remembering to complete
assignments
27.3%
9.1%
0%
2.3%
61.4%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 69

*Graph 13: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)

These results demonstrated that students gained 21
st
century skills in the form of ease
with technology and online programming. However, there were mixed results from non-online
teachers about whether they believed these skills gained from offering a fully online course at
OHS have become more necessary for preparing students to be successful in college. Only
27.5% said very necessary, 17.5% said necessary, and 12.5% said unnecessary. A majority of
respondents (42.5%) said that online courses are only somewhat necessary to prepare students
for college.
These findings validate Gail’s idea, that she has seen improved interest in the ideas
behind the online programming over the years based on the conversations that she has had with
other teachers. Because the program has remained a constant at Ollie High School, continued
exposure to online programming and resources has produced more acceptance and use amongst
students and staff. The acceptance of the online courses was not a stable attribute, in that while
people were not on board initially, that has changed as the program continued year after year.
The continued exposure, according to Gail, has led to teachers asking additional questions about
What do you believe is, or what have you heard is, the hardest part of being
enrolled in an online course? (Select the one that best applies.)
Time-management
Not seeing the teacher in person
Internet access
Using Moodle and other technical aspects
Remembering to complete assignments
I Don't Know
21.3%
23.4%
2.1%
0%
48.9%
4.3%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 70

the courses and how to use online resources within their classes and beyond the classroom. It is
possible that initial buy-in was impeded due to a fear of using the new tool or the fear of change
in what is comfortable. This means that acceptance was not a built-in state that could be
determined at the program’s inception, but that as individuals learned more about the innovation,
acceptance or interest had grown.
It is unclear whether this change in acceptance was an anticipated result of continued
work with the fully online courses, or whether it was a by-product of a desire to maintain the
alternative programming for the students.
Administrative Evaluation of Online Courses
Steve states that “as [the fully online courses] continue, we will continue to analyze the
data from the course to evaluate whether to offer more or less courses based on success and
student and teacher interest.” The data used for this analysis was vague. Steve mentioned that
the school would look at student interest levels, state-testing results, and pass rates for students
enrolled in these courses. This evaluation demonstrated that the administration was looking at
the need for online courses as a policy priority versus a market demand issue.
This focus on the policy-makers meant that the online courses did not necessarily stem
from the needs of students, but rather from the interests and priorities of the administration and
teaching staff. The policy and interests of the school drove the decision-making, and the
administration and teachers involved in the program had to rely on a belief or hope that other
teachers and students would want to get involved. Once the program was implemented, the
school could then potentially analyze the program and move forward or not based on what was
discovered.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 71

Student Selection Criteria. Steve, Layla and Oscar each stated that the test results and
pass rates for the fully online courses are similar to those from the face-to-face courses. Based
on their positive tone and smiles when bringing up this data, these results demonstrated to them
that the courses were seen as successful. As discussed previously, there is confirmation from
students that they have been gaining skills they feel will help them with college (*Graph 3) and a
belief from teachers that students will gain 21
st
century skills when enrolled in a fully online
course (*Graph 2). So the data from teachers not teaching fully online courses that the skills
gained from online courses are not necessary for college do not seem to impact the belief that the
program is successful administratively.
Another element to take into account when assessing the value of any course is the level
of rigor. One aspect to analyze when looking at rigor is the criteria for student enrollment in the
courses. Sandy and Gail discussed the role of the counselors in determining student placement in
a fully online course. Sandy said that counselors meet with students to determine if the course is
a “good fit”, and Gail said that CST results are often a good indicator. Gail said, “if [the student
is] scoring far below basic, they’re not going to do well in this online class. It’s too hard. And
that’s not politically correct for me to say, but that’s just the reality of it.”
Layla, Gail and Sandy mentioned the importance of administrative support when it comes
to student placement because of the need to reassess a student’s placement shortly after enrolling
in a fully online course. Sandy and Gail said that within a few weeks they could tell whether a
student would “be successful” in their course, and at that point they could go to an administrator
to discuss relocating that student to a face-to-face course. Layla said that the “official stance is
that once a student is enrolled in an online course, the student must remain in that course—
similar to the policy for AP courses.” However, Sandy also said, “Students can be moved if the
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 72

teacher or student feel it is too much for them.” Gail and Layla used the phrase “early in the
year” when discussing these moves, and Layla said that it is not in the school’s or student’s best
interest to keep them in a situation that would “set them up to fail.”
Students currently enrolled in online courses and those not enrolled had similar results
when asked if they believed that all students could be successful in an online course. Of the 45
online and 56 non-online student respondents, 43.8% of those not enrolled and 52.9% of those
currently enrolled believed that all students could be successful. The most common write-in
response for why students would not be successful was “laziness” or willingness to “put in the
time” to get the work done on their own. These two responses and other responses seemed to
focus on the need for discipline to be enrolled in the courses.
Teacher and Course Evaluation. After finding the students who would be a “good fit”
for the online courses, another aspect to look at when evaluating rigor is administrative
evaluation of the course. In the survey of teachers who do not teach fully online courses, the
teachers were asked if they believed that the online courses were as rigorous as face-to-face
courses. Based on the responses, less than half (42.5%) believed that the classes are just as
rigorous, 25% said they were not as rigorous, 12.5% said they were more rigorous and 20% were
unsure. Of the reasons given for being more rigorous, the reasons were not based on the teacher
or the content itself but rather that they were more rigorous because there was less teacher
contact and therefore “more individual student responsibility.” Reasons listed for the answer
"less rigor" were the ability to “cheat,” the limited ability of teachers to go beyond much
remembering and understanding when questioning students, and the lack of teamwork and
cooperative learning lessening student success.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 73

Another discussion surrounding rigor was the amount of time and energy it took a teacher
of a fully online course to put together lessons, analyze student work, and interact with students.
Sandy said that in her first year it took her 2-3 hours a night to develop the course, organize
content and give student feedback on discussion boards and assignments. Since then, she says
the work has decreased to more like an hour a day. Gail said:
And we don't, we don't have teachers here that I know of that have the idea that teaching
online is easier. I, I don't, I do not hear that from…I hear the opposite like, ‘Oh, gosh. I
never want to teach online, like having to check my email all the time. I never want to
have to do all that,’ so there's more of that where I know at some schools, they think,
‘Oh, well, oh, just you know, teaching online would be so easy. You just like do this and
you don't ever have to grade anything’.

So Gail’s belief is that non-online teachers understand that teaching online is not a way to get out
of work and is just as time consuming if not more than a face-to-face class.
A final aspect of the fully online courses to analyze when looking at the cost or benefits
to the school from the implementation of online courses is the formal evaluation by
administration of the teachers. Part of the administrative evaluation was initially finding the
right teachers to be involved. Layla discussed her use of the eOUSD forum to give teachers
assignments to complete on the site to demonstrate their familiarity and ability to use the LMS.
From this, and their ability to access any teacher’s eOUSD site, Steve and Layla knew the
teachers who had the ability necessary to develop an online course. Gail described one
experience she had with a teacher who had expressed interest to administration about teaching a
fully online course:
I went and spoke to the person and said, ‘So, I hear you’re going to be offering this online
class next year’…and the person said, ‘Yeah, I probably need to come and talk to you
about, you know, how to use [eOUSD]’…And I did say to [Layla], I said, ‘Well, that was
kind of alarming, to have somebody who’s not using it in their face-to-face classes at all,
to then go from not using an online learning platform with your kids to teaching fully
online…I don’t think that’s going to work well because it’s just too much’…I mean, I
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 74

have a lot of practice for a couple of years before I did a fully online class, just to get
used to the system and to get a read on kids. How are kids using it? What are the
problems kids run into? What are their tricky things they do? You know, and how you,
do you want to let them think they’re being tricky but you know…So I think they’re
pretty good about recognizing that for some people, it’s not a good fit.

When Oscar was asked whether he was able to provide any criteria for what a teacher
should have or be able to do in terms of an educational or technical knowledge based, he said, “I
wish…I have no say in the decision whatsoever.” Oscar is the individual that conducted his
master’s thesis on this type of online education and supported Gail as she began the first online
courses and continues to support teachers of online courses and all teachers using eOUSD. One
item he hopes is part of the criteria and that he discusses in any training he holds is that teachers
should not “shoehorn the face-to-face traditional classroom model into the online sphere.”
After this initial informal evaluation of whether the teacher is a good fit for a fully online
course, the yearly teacher evaluation seemed to be similarly informal. Melissa stated that she
“knows that admin can go in whenever they want to look at my course, but I do not know how
often they do so.” There is no stated requirement for attending training on eOUSD and other
online tools. Melissa said that she signed up for trainings on her own and receives support from
the district when she needs it. She goes on to say that:
I was evaluated last year, but the form that was used was catered to a face-to-face class so
it didn’t quite fit, you know, teachers ‘engaging’ with students…I think there needs to be
some tweaking to that form…which I believe Layla is doing.

Steve mentioned that teachers conduct surveys of their own students to get feedback about the
course, but he did not have access to this data for me and did not say specifically how he used
this data to evaluate the course or the teacher.
Teachers of non-online courses also saw a lack of formal evaluation. When asked
whether they believed online courses were monitored as rigorously by administration as face-to-
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 75

face courses, only 10.3% believed they were monitored just as rigorously. A total of 28.5%
believed they were not monitored as rigorously as face-to-face courses. When explaining the
reasons for these beliefs, teachers pointed to their ability to see how many times administration
had accessed their general eOUSD accounts and the autonomy they believed exists in the online
course program. See *Graph 14 for the full results of this survey.

*Graph 14: Survey of Teachers Who Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses (40 teachers)

Fiscal Cost and Community Feedback. Fiscal cost and community feedback are the
final two aspects of the online programming within OHS discussed with the study participants.
Sandy and Oscar knew something about the cost of the program, but it did not seem that there
was much focus on community feedback when OHS assessed the benefit of the fully online
courses.
Sandy did say that she has “heard positive feedback from the parents that have heard of
the program.” Oscar said he had not heard “any parent push-back about the online
courses…[but] for the most part the community probably has no clue that those classes are
offered.” Confirmation of the lack of community knowledge can be seen in the student survey
response to the question about how the availability of online courses impacted the parents or the
Do you believe that the online courses are monitored as rigorously by
administration as face-to-face courses? (Select the one that best applies.)
Just as rigorous
Not as rigorous
More rigorous
Unsure
10.3%
38.5%
2.6%
48.7%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 76

students in online courses to enroll at OHS. Of the 45 online and 56 non-online student survey
respondents, 58.8% of students enrolled and 55.1% of those not enrolled said the availability of
online courses had little to no impact on their decision to enroll at OHS. Only 1.47% of those
currently enrolled and surprisingly a larger percentage, 6.1% of those not enrolled, said the
online courses had a huge impact on their enrollment at OHS. See *Graph 15 and 16 for the full
results from this survey.

*Graph 15: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)

*Graph 16: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)

How much do you think the availability of online courses impacts parents or
students when deciding whether to attend OHS or another high school?
(Select the one that best applies.)
Huge impact Little impact
No impact Unsure
How important was the availability of an online course when you made the
decision to enroll at OHS? (Select the one that best applies.)
Very important
Important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Had no impact on my decision
6.1%
18.4%
20.4%
20.4%
34.7%
17.8% 46.7%
6.7% 28.9%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 77

Although the students enrolled in the online courses did not believe the availability of
online courses impacted enrollment decisions, 100% of the students not enrolled in the courses
knew they were available. However, of these 50 students who were not enrolled in an online
course but were aware of the availability of these courses, 52% said they would not be likely to
enroll in any of the online classes offered. Only 24% said they would be very likely or likely to
enroll in an online course at OHS. Additionally, only 10.2% of students not enrolled in an online
course would recommend taking an online course at OHS. See *Graph 17 and 18 for full results
on the question. So the community feedback did not seem to be a factor in analyzing the value
of the online courses at OHS; the school had built awareness of the program in general.

*Graph 17: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)

*Graph 18: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)
How likely would you be to enroll in an online class?
Very likely Likely
Somewhat likely Not likely
Would you recommend taking an online course to other students at
OHS? (Select the one that best applies.)
Very likely Likely
Somewhat likely Unlikely
10.2%
22.4%
40.8% 26.5%
8%
16%
24%
52%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 78

The only discussion of cost came from Gail and Oscar. Gail briefly mentioned that the
cost of an online program would be Oscar’s salary. Oscar discussed additional costs to OHS to
run the online courses including additional programs used within the LMS and server space, as
well as his salary. The discussion of cost will be pursued further in Research Question 3.
In summary, when looking at the cost and benefit to be analyzed by the school and
district for program effectiveness, there were aspects that stemmed from the initial stated
motivation for implementing the program and by-products of introducing this type of innovation.
The school looked at the interest for teachers and students, including buy-in from teachers and
the community. The school was looking at the 21
st
century skills gained for high school students
by enrolling in a fully online course. Administrators also monitored the students and teachers
who wanted to pursue this programming through test data and technical skills, while also
performing some evaluation of the teaching and rigor of the course.
While the benefits for students in a fully online course were not evaluated in a systematic
fashion by teacher or administration, the success rate of students in these programs was
compared against students in face-to-face classes to ensure that the program was not detrimental
to overall success. Additionally, there had been some by-products of implementing online
courses to overall teacher use of technology through eOUSD.
The final research question addresses specifically the implementation of the online
courses as an internal rather than external innovation, the reasoning behind this decision and the
cost or benefits that have occurred as a result.

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 79

Research Question 3
Why did the high school choose to inhouse the innovation for the development of online courses
instead of purchasing the resources from a private vendor? What factors did the school analyze
in order to make their decision if any?
Based on the responses from the interviews and surveys, the reasons that OHS chose to
inhouse the innovation to develop online courses by using Moodle, calling it eOUSD were:
1. the cost,
2. the personal experiences and existing knowledge of online tools, and
3. the freedom and flexibility it allowed teachers.
Cost
When both Gail and Sandy were asked why Moodle was chosen as the LMS, they both
mentioned that it was free software. Gail then pointed out that since the LMS was free, the cost
is then just Oscar’s salary. She said the cost would be significantly more in her opinion if
Oscar’s salary had to be added to “the cost of Blackboard or Haiku”. Oscar had more detailed
information about how even the cost of his salary and the server space could be offset by no
longer outsourcing AP testing and removing Edusoft. As a result of these items being insourced
through additional server space, the school and district would no longer need to pay for the
scanners that “many teachers faked using anyway” to record the results from these tests.
The value of Moodle itself over other free or cheap LMSs was not known. Gail believed
that one reason Moodle was chosen was that Oscar was conducting his master’s thesis on it. Of
the non-online teachers surveyed, 67.5% were unsure whether Moodle was the best program to
use for the online program (see *Graph 19 for the full results of this survey question). Overall
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 80

then, it seems that personal experience more than anything else weighed in to the choosing of the
Moodle LMS to be used to create the online forum eOUSD.

*Graph 19: Survey of Teachers Who Do Not Teach Fully Online Courses (40 teachers)

Personal Experience and Knowledge
The personal experiences of Gail and Oscar weighed into the decision to move forward
with the online program by OHS administration and for the inhouse development of online
courses. Not only was Oscar doing a master’s thesis on online learning and Moodle in particular,
but also Gail first implemented online aspects to her AP course.
Gail’s first online course was a blended learning course with “motivated” AP students. It
was from this experience that Gail received feedback from these students about “what did and
did not work,” and this feedback is what got her excited about developing further online
learning. The first fully online course was a “credit recovery” course, which Gail did not see as
an “ideal” group of students. However, after finding “success” in the student pass rate in this
course, she went forward from there by talking to Oscar about what it would take to implement a
fully online course during the regular school day.
In the student survey from students in an online course, the students were asked about
how online courses compared with face-to-face courses in terms of feedback on progress. This
Do you believe Moodle is the best method through which to
implement online courses at OHS?
Yes No Unsure
30% 2.5%
67.5%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 81

question asks about teacher ability to use the platform as well as the quality of the course for
student progress. Only 14.7% of students said the feedback they received from teachers was
worse or less than that which they received in a traditional classroom. All other respondents said
the feedback was either the same or better in an online classroom. See *Graph 20 for the full
results from this survey question.

*Graph 20: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)

Oscar was already working with credit recovery classes run through Moodle by teachers
at the school sites in OUSD. He considered these “the lowest common denominator [of online
courses]. It’s not taught…students jump through hoops.” He believes the reason for this is not
that the teacher is bad but because they receive “sweat shop pay to generate…and maintain…for
a $500 stipend for a semester course. It should probably be $2500 a class—that would probably
make it worth it.” According to Oscar, it was because of this pay inequity that he was more
Do you feel you receive adequate feedback on your
participation and assignments in the online course
as compared to similar assignments in a traditional classroom?
The feedback I receive is must better/more than
that which I would get in a traditional classroom
The feedback I receive is a little better/more than
that which I would get in a traditional classroom
The feedback I receive is the same as that which I
would get in a traditional classroom
The feedback I receive is a little worse/less than
that which I would get in a traditional classroom
The feedback I receive is a lot worse/less as that
which I would get in a traditional classroom
15.6%
35.6%
25.6%
13.3%
0%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 82

interested in seeing what type of online course could be created by OUSD staff with the proper
support financial motivation.
When the idea was brought to Steve, the OHS principal, he credited the creation of the
online courses to the desire and experience of Gail and Oscar and his experience of seeing “more
and more high schools implementing these models and want[ing] to see how they would work at
our high school. [Gail] approached me and we have watched the program grow.”
It is unclear what data was used to assess whether Moodle would be the best program for
the students within OUSD. There is some data available that addressed student access to
personal technology, which could have been a factor in choosing a free LMS-like Moodle. In the
“Student Technology Survey,” conducted each year since 2010, the percentage of students with
cell phones with web browsers that would be necessary to access eOUSD increased from 33% to
59%. The percentage of students who would like to use a cell phone for school also increased
from 28% to 41%. In my survey of OHS students not currently enrolled in an online course,
55.1% of students said they used the Internet every day to gain access to course content,
homework or other course materials for their classes. Of the remaining students, 42.9% said they
used it every week for this purpose, 2% said every month, and 0% said never. Further, 37.5%
said they used eOUSD and Moodle specifically for this purpose every day, and 50% used
eOUSD multiple times a week to gain access to current classes (see *Graph 21).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 83

*Graph 21: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)

When looking at how prepared students were for an online course, only 9.1% of students
currently enrolled in online courses and 2% of those not enrolled felt they were unprepared to
take a fully online course at OHS. A total of 72.4% of students not enrolled and 52.9% of those
currently enrolled in online courses said they were either very prepared or prepared to take a
fully online course. These percentages could be slightly skewed based on how the question was
asked. Only with the student not currently enrolled was the term “technical knowledge” used. In
the question for students who were currently enrolled, the question asked only if they were
prepared for the course. This result could speak to the higher percentage of students who are
currently enrolled stating they felt unprepared and the higher percentage of those not enrolled
said they were prepared to take a fully online course. See *Graph 22 and 23 for the full results
from this survey question.
How often do you access eOUSD, specifically,
to gain additional resources and information for your current classes?
Every Day
Multiple times a week
Once a week
Every other week
A few times a month
37.5%
50.0%
4.2%
6.3%
2.1%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 84

*Graph 22: Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (45 students)

*Graph 23: Survey of Students Not Currently Enrolled in Online Courses (56 students)
Flexibility
The teachers of the online courses felt there is great benefit to their students that the
program has been created internally. Sandy described her experience with Moodle and the
development of her class:
I feel like it gives me the freedom to create what I think is most meaningful for the
students…so it’s very easy for me to customize my online class to exactly what I want.
Um, the challenge is that it’s all on me to create exactly what I want. Um, so it’s a little
bit more, I think, time. But I can do follow-up lectures when I get results from an
assessment and see that students didn’t fully understand the material and I can fine-tune
the material from year to year.

Do you feel the school adequately prepared you to take a course
that was completely Internet based? (Select the one that best applies.)
Very prepared
Prepared
Somewhat prepared
Unprepared
Do you believe you have enough technical knowledge to be successful in
accessing and participating in an online course? (Select the choice that best
applies.
Very prepared Prepared
Somewhat prepared Unprepared
26.5%
46.9%
24.5%
2.0%
13.3%
35.6%
44.4%
6.7%
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 85

Gail went on to talk about her experience over the four years she had been teaching fully online
courses:
I think that what we’re doing is far more interactive than what I’ve seen with some of the
packaged curriculum in that students interact with each other and students interact with
me… There’s the feedback element. I think they have a better sense that there’s a
human on the other end. It’s not just all automatically graded and you know, just move
through at your own pace.

Gail also liked that she was able to incorporate current events on the fly, which she did not
believe a pre-packaged outsourced curriculum would most likely not be able to do.
An additional bonus of using a free LMS was that all staff can use the tools within
Moodle, hosted on eOUSD, and incorporate these tools to create blended learning elements into
their class content. As previously discussed in *Graphs 8 and 9, over 60% of teachers were
using the eOUSD LMS within the school day and beyond. District personnel could then monitor
the “quality” of the content of the face-to-face and fully online courses. Oscar described this
process:
It’s not as though we’re going in [daily] and doing a quality assurance and then flagging
something that we see might not meet certain standards or might not be appropriate. But
with online courses that are run by us we have that ability which…in terms of
transparency, is something that most face-to-face…don’t have unless a third-party goes
and stands in the room while class is at session.

In this excerpt from the interview Oscar was commenting on the fact that he, or any
administrator, could have daily access to the content of any classes that used eOUSD without
needing to physically step into a classroom. Oscar believed this flexibility offered additional
resources for teachers, administration and students, but they were not optimally used at each site.
He went on to explain that the monitoring could also extend beyond instructional content by
administration and into monitoring by teachers of content that students accessed or posted
personally while using eOUSD. This feature saved the teacher and school time to not “have to
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 86

go through a third-party vendor” to monitor school-appropriate and plagiarized content within an
online class.
Gail described her preference for using Moodle to develop online courses internally:
I’ve seen some of the packaged curriculums. Our adult school uses it, and they wanted
me to look at some of their curriculum they had. And the nice thing about purchasing it
is usually the purchased curriculum has…all the standards are covered, it’s kept…it
typically is very linear and it’s got, you know, it goes right straight through and you know
you can look at any particular unit or package or lesson or whatever and you can see this
is standard, you know, whatever it’s, it’s covered, so that’s nice that it’s done already for
somebody to purchase it. …[However], I’m not super familiar with a lot of the packaged
curriculums, so I’m sure there’s some who’s better but I like to be able to adapt what I
want to use, that’s the first thing.

Oscar also discussed his experiences with other programs and, having kids of his own, said that
another value of the eOUSD LMS was that it also “supports parents in monitoring student work.”
Summary
In summary, the motivation to inhouse the fully online courses at OHS instead of
purchasing resources from a private vendor stemmed from the ability and experience of the
teacher and district administrator that suggested the program initially. It was their understanding
of how Moodle worked, the benefit of a free LMS, their experience with credit recovery and
blended learning through eOUSD that gave the OHS principal the confidence to allow them to
move forward with the program.
Since then, the teachers involved in the program found value for themselves and their
students from the flexibility that an internally developed online program allows in terms of
program quality monitoring and adaptation to meet students’ needs. No member of the
implementation group felt anything would be missing and seemed to find more positives than
negatives to this type of innovation.

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 87

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the decision-making
process and real or perceived effects of the internal development of a fully online course
program at a traditional public high school through the lens of transaction cost economics.
Teacher, student and administrative perceptions and beliefs about the program implemented at
Ollie High School were analyzed through surveys and interviews. The aim was for this study to
shed light onto a process and innovation that could be used to meet the needs of students at other
TPSs throughout the country.
To accomplish these goals, the motivation and decision-making process were discussed
to determine who was responsible for OHS choosing to create online programming. Then the
real and perceived costs and benefits to students and teachers were addressed. Finally, the topic
of inhouse innovation versus outsourcing was examined to gain a better understanding of how
transaction cost economics played in the decision-making process.
Findings addressing student, teacher, and administrator perceptions of the above topics
are discussed below. This discussion includes a comparison of the findings to existing research
as they relate to:
1. online education,
2. transaction cost economics,
3. the organizational framework, and
4. internal and external factors that could affect the online programming.
Online Education
The use of Internet-based educational tools have allowed traditional public schools to
make decisions that will improve educational outcomes while facing difficult budgetary
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 88

constraints (Bakia et al., 2012). At OHS the use of online education took the form of an
internally created online course program using a free Learning Management System (LMS).
There were two aspects to discuss when determining if the program that was chosen, Moodle,
was the right choice for OHS: effectiveness of content delivery and flexibility for students and
teachers.
Effectiveness of Content Delivery
Research has found that online courses can be just as effective as face-to-face courses if
the students enrolled in the online courses have access to equivalent curriculum and instruction
(Liu et al., 2009). This research, along with availability of technically able individuals on the
site, may explain why OSH chose to use staff within their school and district to create their
online courses.
The first online course evolved from the desire of a teacher who had already been using
the resources for her AP English course and an administrator TOSA (teacher on special
assignment) at the district who had written his thesis on Moodle as an effective LMS. These
individuals provided the backbone for the program and were given a high level of trust because
of their knowledge of Moodle in particular and the use of online tools to support learning.
The initial development of the online course was described as trial-and-error in terms of
the types of content, assessments, and tools to put online. However, the value of Moodle as the
LMS, versus using a different LMS, has never been analyzed. The main reason Moodle was
used was because of the technical skills of the TOSA using this particular LMS. What has been
discussed and observed was that this LMS, and internal innovation of online courses has allowed
the teachers to scaffold lessons and provide individualized learning experiences to the students
through the resources provided at their school. When the Moodle tools are used effectively for
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 89

this purpose, the educational outcomes for students can have the same effect as face-to-face
classrooms using the same tools (Kachel et al., 2005).
These educational results demonstrates that it is not Moodle itself that is making the
difference in effective content delivery, as compared to an alternate LMS, but rather the teachers
and TOSA using the LMS have made the difference. It is possible that any LMS could have had
similar results at this site with the same technical knowledge
Evaluation and comparison of online learning models against other models or against
traditional brick-and-mortar classes in TPSs is not easy because models like the one at OHS are
new. Teachers and administration may not have the tools to evaluate the courses or the LMS for
effectiveness. For example, in my research 67.5% of teachers were unsure whether Moodle was
the most effective learning management system for the online courses. Therefore, the evaluation
used is often based on interpretation by students, teachers, administration and other stakeholders
of the value that the course can offer for things such as greater student participation, independent
learning, access, and diversity of strategies used by teachers (Tucker, 2007).
At OHS this evaluation took the form of grades and standardized testing results that
demonstrated similar results to face-to-face classrooms. Along with educational results, online
access of Moodle was evaluated based on student and teacher access of the program. Of the 56
non-online student survey responses, 87.5% of these students claimed to access Moodle either
every day or multiple times a week. When the teachers were asked how often they used Moodle
to enhance a lesson in the classroom or beyond, over 50% responded very often or often. This
high rate of use demonstrates that OHS had built student and teacher use of this particular LMS
of all students, not just those enrolled in an online course. This use may not have been as high
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 90

prior to the fully online courses being developed, but that is not a question that I asked in my
research.
This high number of students accessing Moodle demonstrates a factor that may have had
significant impact on the decision to develop online courses at OHS. Many students and teachers
were already using the program in some form, and therefore had the technical skills to do so.
Administration can see this high percentage of use by students as demonstration that teachers are
using the program, and that it is seen as valuable to both sets of stakeholders because they return
to the LMS often.
Additionally, students responded that their teachers were using the LMS regularly, and
93.9% of students said they used the system well or very well to enhance the classroom
experience. This result demonstrated that online resources were seen as valuable to the
educational experiences of students and teachers at OHS, but was not necessarily specific to
Moodle.
Value of Flexibility
The flexibility that LMSs provided were that they allowed students and teachers to
monitor progress and participate in discussions in ways and at times that were convenient for
them (Chou & Chou, 2011). The online program at OHS would be considered an online driver
model because it provided access to the curriculum and teachers through an online platform, but
since the teachers at the school teach and monitor the course, they could access students during
the school day if necessary and vice versa (Staker, 2011).
A majority of students who participated in the surveys stated the biggest motivation for
them to enroll in the online courses was for schedule flexibility. This flexibility was either to
come to school later or to get out earlier. However, with the students still enrolled in at least four
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 91

other face-to-face courses, counselors or the online teachers themselves could seek the students
out during the day to discuss any issues they had with their online course work. This access
helped teachers monitor students who were new to online learning and reminded them there was
a real person evaluating their work and progress.
Research also pointed out the most valuable tool a teacher of an online course had was
the flexibility to adapt content. By using Moodle as the LMS for the course, teachers at OHS
could modify the delivery of content and the materials to meet course and school standards and
meet the needs of the students in the course (Despotovic-Zrakie et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2009;
Macher & Richman, 2008). However, again, there was only specificity to Moodle as the best
tool for this because it has worked for the stakeholders so far, not because it had been analyzed
against other LMSs for quality or effectiveness.
The teachers at OHS discussed the need to develop lessons based on student needs.
Some teachers who did not teach online courses expressed doubt that a teacher could do this
without face-to-face interactions. However, in the interviews with Gail and Sandy, they spoke
about the extensive work they did in modifying their respective courses.
Instructors could add additional resources after the results of an assessment if a student
demonstrated that they had not mastered the concept. Student feedback could be provided based
on online discussion forums or based on work that was submitted, and additional resources could
be given to students on an individual basis to support lacking skills. Each of these tools was a
tool that face-to-face teachers would use to differentiate education within a traditional brick-and-
mortar classroom, and each could be used within the LMS used at OHS.
If the course had been outsourced, the administration and teachers involved in developing
the courses feared there would be less of this individualized differentiation to support student
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 92

success. Insourcing an online program allowed teachers to personally develop and monitor their
own courses while gaining insight into individual student ability, course structure, content
coverage and its delivery (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
The final benefit of flexibility was to the school as a whole. Using a free LMS and
teachers within the TPS allowed the organization to meet the needs of the students at a minimal
cost due to the LMS itself and factors present within the organization.
As previously discussed, OHS and its district had already been using Moodle for teachers
to post content from their traditional face-to-face classes. Students had also been given access to
the LMS from elementary through high school. As a result, the “cost” would be seen as low
because the system was already in place and would therefore not result in much additional fiscal
cost. Additionally, any stakeholders interested in the getting involved in a fully online course
had been using the program and would need minimal training in use, resulting in a low time
“cost”. Christensen (2011) calls this a sustaining innovation in that it allows the school to keep
up with the progress in education, while not changing the school’s current activities, goals or
trajectory. This discussion of cost leads into the overarching lens through which this program
was analyzed: transaction cost economics.
Transaction Cost Economics
Transaction cost economics (TCE) is the lens through which the cost and benefits of the
online courses at OHS were analyzed. Using this lens, the first item that needed to be addressed
was the contract that was established to create the online programming because this is the basic
unit of measurement within TCE (Williamson, 2008). Within TCE the contract considers how
governance can help to achieve the desired effects. The desired effects will be achieved if the
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 93

contract has managed to account for, and minimize, any hazards or disturbances to achieve
mutual benefits for all parties involved (Williamson, 2010).
At OHS, since the school decided to use internal innovation, the contract was more
informal than an outsourced contract. This informality may be seen in the answers to questions
about how the program was developed, how teachers were chosen and monitored within the
program, and even what factors were analyzed for success. This program developed because a
teacher and a district administrator expressed interest in developing it. They were not given any
parameters in which the course(s) needed to exist. As the program grew to include additional
courses, teachers were chosen based on their expressed interest. There was no formal
application, just a meeting with the teacher and a school administrator to determine
“appropriateness” of the placement.
This process demonstrated the school had no formal criteria for job descriptions or
written expectations for the online courses. Therefore, it can be assumed that whatever teaching
criteria existed within the contract signed when they became a teacher within the district would
be the only official criteria a teacher needed. However, both administration and the teachers
within the program discussed that a teacher’s knowledge of, and current use of, eOUSD was
taken into account if a teacher expressed interest in teaching an online course. This factor,
informally, became the largest indicator of whether a teacher would be given permission to
conduct an online course and was used to mitigate any conflicts that could have arisen due to
human failure (Macher & Richman, 2008).
These criteria may be seen as the governance within the “contract” that was attempting to
minimize any hazards to the program and would be used to achieve the desired effects.
Although the desired effects for the online courses were not specified, just as the requirements
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 94

for becoming a teacher were not specified, it can be seen in responses from teachers and
administration that success of the program was seen in student success within the course. This
success took the form of standardized testing results and grades students achieved matching the
levels of students enrolled in traditional face-to-face classes. Since this success was achieved,
according to the interviewees, the program was seen as mutually beneficial to the school and the
students.
Mutual Benefit
The benefits to the students, at the most basic level, were seen to be academic success
that at least matches the results that would have been achieved in a face-to-face class. However,
based on the interviews and surveys, there were other benefits to creating online courses to both
students and teachers at OHS.
One of the benefits to the school and district was the cost of running the online program
internally. In TCE, analyzing the cost and benefits of whether to pay on outside vendor or
internally develop a program is called the “make-versus-buy” decision (Williamson, 2008).
However, after conducting my research this case seems to be more of a make or not make
decision. The only cost discussed for the internally developed program at OHS was the salary of
the district administrator who monitored the LMS and supported the staff and the cost of the
server space necessary for the resources that would be needed for the courses. An additional
important factor in this decision was the interest and the ability of the administrator and the
teacher, as well as the current use of Moodle within the district. It is highly possible that if these
two individuals had not expressed the interest, or approached the administration about the
program, and if the LMS was not already in use within OUSD, online classes would not exist.
After taking into account that for the most parts any “costs” were already sunk costs, the school
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 95

was able to make an informed decision about how to maximize educational achievement by
utilizing these funds and resources (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
For students, one benefit to enrolling in an online course was the ability to either come in
later to school or leave earlier. In the interviews and surveys, each person mentioned these
benefits as a value for students who may be involved with sports, have a job, need extra space for
a course, or for any other reason that would make them find value in being able to arrive at or
leave the campus at a different time. This value did not seem to have any discussed cost to the
school or to the teachers.
Additional benefits to the students, which were an expressed motivation for
administration in implementing online programming, were 21
st
century skills. These skills are
seen as those tools that can increase the likelihood of a student being successful in the current
educational and professional market. The benefits listed by teachers and students were time
management skills. Many students when explaining why they may not be successful in an online
course and what was most difficult about taking an online course discussed these benefits.
Since the course was fully online, there was no daily reminder from a teacher to complete
assignments, as there would be in a traditional face-to-face course. Although an online instructor
may put a reminder on Moodle for students to complete the work, if students did not log in, they
would not see that reminder. This factor was a reason given by some teachers who do not teach
an online course for why students would not be prepared for these courses. So, although being
able to access content at times and in locations that were convenient for the student, this aspect
of the online programming could be seen as a cost and benefit, in that the student may have not
been fully prepared for this level of personal responsibility.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 96

Another benefit that was listed by students currently enrolled in an online course was
creative thinking skills. These skills can also be seen as 21
st
century skills educationally and
professionally. This generation of students has greater access to a vast amount of resources to
support their educational achievement. Within an online course students can take time to
respond to any question asked and any assignment and use the resources they can find online.
This challenges students to be more creative as they see how their classmates respond to
discussion questions and when they get feedback from their teachers.
These skills can also transfer to the professional world because students have gained
skills that will help them develop innovative and creative ways to answer questions and find
those answers. However, some of the teachers who do not teach online courses think these are
skills that students in online courses will miss. Many teachers still found great value in students’
ability to think on their feet, which is more prevalent in a face-to-face classroom. Additionally,
these teachers felt that a student’s ability to interact with people face-to-face was valuable in
developing skills for working in groups and problem solving.
Although some teachers saw a cost to students missing time in a face-to-face classroom,
the school mitigated this cost. Each student enrolled in an online course still must be enrolled in
four face-to-face classes at the school. So, while students enrolled in an online course have one
or two fewer classes with face-to-face interaction, the skills that would be gained in this
environment can still be part of the student’s experience during high school.
A final benefit to the organization has been a bi-product of implementing new and
innovative programming within a traditional school. Although administration and teachers
within the online program believe that not all teachers are prepared to teach a fully online class,
this factor did not stopped them from discussing the benefits of online resources. As a result of
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 97

these conversations from teachers and administration, there seemed to be an increase in the
number of teachers using the resources available to all teachers through Moodle on eOUSD.
Both teachers and students surveyed discussed they used the resources weekly, if not daily, to
enhance a lesson or to give students access to resources beyond the classroom.
From these discussions, it can be seen that the benefits to implementing online learning at
OHS have been mutually beneficial to all stakeholders.
Governance
The final aspect of the informal “contract” I will address is established governance. As
discussed above, certain individuals were seen as more capable of working within and
developing online courses. Developing an online course internally, or implementing any new
programming into existing structures, is called vertical integration. While horizontal
(outsourced) services require that new governance must be developed and integrated into an
existing hierarchy at a school, vertical integration allows the school to more easily manage and
maintain control of the new product and how it is delivered to students by using structures and
governance already in place (Williamson, 2010).
This type of integration is desirable to many organizations because it allows for the fluid
exchange of ideas between “principals” and “agents” about how to improve or change the
product to ensure mutual benefit (Macher & Richman, 2008; Williamson, 2010). The structure
and protocols for these exchanges have already been built in to the existing hierarchy, and with
the informal contract can change as is needed for the success of the program.
Within the existing school hierarchy, a teacher was able to develop a single course to
pilot online programming at OHS with the technical support from an administrator at the district.
Throughout the first year, these two individuals (Gail and Oscar) monitored student progress,
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 98

looked for new resources to enhance the course, and adapted the course to meet student needs.
After the pilot year, Gail and Oscar were able to provide feedback to the administration about the
course and how they saw it moving forward.
Although student grades and testing scores were used to monitor student success in the
course, the feedback from Gail and Oscar was the only form of evaluation the administration at
OHS used to evaluate the teaching. That was three years ago, during the 2010-2011 school year,
and there is still not an established evaluation form for the online course. Administration uses
the evaluation form that is used for face-to-face courses to evaluate the online courses.
This evaluation method may be one reason some of the staff do not teach an online
course and are unsure whether the courses are monitored as rigorously as face-to-face courses.
In TCE this is called the “principal-agent problem” (Lamoreaux et al., 2002). Although a
teacher and a district administrator were the individuals who implemented the online
programming, the administration at OHS would be considered the principal because they are the
ones that would choose to continue the program and determine which teachers are allowed to
teach an online course. As a result of administration’s not having clear methods of evaluation, or
established selection criteria for teacher participants, there was a lack of cohesiveness between
the leadership and the workers who were being asked to support this new program.
Additionally, teachers of face-to-face courses may not have been given any data to
demonstrate to them that the online courses were achieving the desired results, or they may not
have seen the value in the desired results. As discussed before, the desired results were student
success and gaining 21
st
century skills. This situation is called imperfect information
(Lamoreaux et al., 2002) and can result in the directive or implementation of new programming
not meeting the personal interests or ideas of the participants. It does not seem to be clear to all
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 99

participants at OHS that online learning is truly necessary for student success in college and
beyond.
Even though there was some discordance between the beliefs of the whole staff and
administration regarding online programming, the teachers who were currently teaching the
courses believed in established motivation. These individuals are the true “agents” for the
courses and as such are the most important actors to monitor the governance of the program.
Perhaps more fundamentally, the online teachers are the true agents of this innovation, and the
school and district administration are the principals. And therefore, the non-online teachers have
no principal or agent role in this scenario. They are not part of the “transaction” at all. The
resulting interest or participation of the non-online teachers is then just a bi-product of the
contract developed for the online programming.
Within the lens of TCE, the contract developed to establish governance and create mutual
benefits to all stakeholders at OHS was informal. This informality allowed the program to
evolve and adapt to the needs of the teachers and students at the school. The lack of formality
demonstrated a high level of trust from the administration in the ability of the teachers and
students at their school. In TCE terms, this means there existed shared and aligned values
between the principal and the agent. This relationship point to the values of OHS and can help
explain why the organization chose to develop the program internally, or at all.
Organizational Framework
The values I mentioned in the last section may be analyzed using Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) four frames for organizational development. These frames are structural, human
resources, political and symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 2003). I discussed each frame in detail in the
literature review. After analyzing the data from my study, I found that OHS put the most value
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 100

in human resources and structural frame. By looking at these two frames, the decision-making
process for implementing an internally created online program makes more sense.
Human Resources
The human resources frame evaluates a decision from a psychological perspective.
Through this lens, a decision is made by taking into account the emotional well-being of those
involved in implementing or carrying out the decision (Bolman & Deal, 2003). When looking
at the human resources aspect of a decision, the “principal” decision maker sees that having the
correct structure to implement a program only may not guarantee success. The “agents”
involved in carrying out the program must be supported and encouraged to improve the
likelihood of success.
These values may be seen in the decision-making process at OHS through the lack of a
formal contract, the trust in the teacher and TOSA that developed the course, and evaluation
system for the online courses. At the early stage of a new program, the administration chose
teachers they thought had a strong ability to work with technology. It can be assumed these
teachers also had strong evaluations in their face-to-face classes, but this strength was not
discussed in any interviews. As a result of this informality, the teachers experienced a level of
trust that would encourage them to work hard to develop courses in which students gained the
desired 21
st
century skills and find academic success.
Additionally, in the interviews and from the survey questions, it can be seen that
community feedback about the courses was not a factor to keep the online classes. Students
responded they would be likely to enroll in online courses, but the decision to enroll at OHS had
very little to do with the existence of these programs. This result shows the political frame
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 101

discussed by Bolman and Deal (2003) was not used, or the value online courses had to student
decisions to enroll at OHS would have had much greater value to the organization.
Political and symbolic frames may come into play as the online courses continue and
become more structured in content and evaluation. These frames may also play a more
significant role if I was to expand my research to the growth of the online programming
throughout the district. In my interviews with the teachers and administrators, some of them
discussed that OUSD was asking each high school to have at least one fully online course
available to students for the 2014-2015 school year. If my research were to continue, I would
need additional interviews with district administrators that put this plan in motion, and the
administrators at the other high schools to ask their perspective on why online classes were
valuable to their students.
However, for the scope of my research based on the early stages of the online courses, the
human resources frame had the largest impact on OHS choosing to develop online classes by
demonstrating trust in those involved.
Structural
Even though demonstrating trust in the human resources at OHS was important, the
administration also demonstrated trust in the structure currently in existence. With the
governance of the online courses being so informal, administration must have had faith that the
support for online programming and standards for teaching were currently strong. However, the
school needs to continue to look for any gaps that might exist in knowledge, skills, or motivation
within the current hierarchy and create reinforcements for improving in those areas (Bolman &
Deal, 2003; Clark & Estes, 2008).
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 102

The structural frame relates to the governance within TCE and the cost the organization
could incur as a result of lacking structure. Based on the discussion from interviews and surveys,
the students maintained academic success in the online classes. The teachers at OHS saw an
increase in student and teacher technical use of eOUSD. Additionally, the teachers of the online
courses had the opportunity to attend training for personal knowledge and skills and to lead
training within their departments to increase motivation, knowledge and skills of all staff.
Administration challenged the staff at OHS to continue and increase their use of
technological resources. This result would not be possible if the administration did not also
believe they had the supports in place to help build the capacity necessary to accomplish these
goals. As a result of the trust in the structural frame and by beginning to fill the gaps in
knowledge, skills, and motivation, the online programming found success. This success, as
determined by the school site, included improving the use of technology by all staff for
enhancing the educational experience of OHS students.
External and Internal Factors
The final aspects of the TCE cost and benefit analysis I will discuss are the external and
internal factors that may affect the online programming. These are aspects of the acting agents,
teachers, and participants of the programming who could affect the success. These items are
often delineating in a formal contract in order to address any contingencies an outside vendor
may need to provide support for if they arise. However, with OHS developing the online courses
internally, these are aspects of the cost-and-benefit analysis the administration and teachers must
address themselves as the need arises.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 103

External
One external factor that is difficult to assess until the program is running is the
effectiveness of the chosen system. OHS chose to use Moodle based on Oscar’s
recommendation. With internal innovation, the agents must assess how the chosen LMS will
facilitate learning and interaction to ensure academic success (Christensen, 2011). If the chosen
program is not user friendly or is very different from other more familiar LMSs, then student and
teacher perception of the quality of the course can affect motivation and success (Lamoreaux et
al., 2002). Additionally, the ease of use of the LMS may affect student and teacher self-
efficacy and intimidate them when using the LMS (Denler et al., 2006-2010).
While students did have some difficultly with the online courses, none of the stated
difficulties surrounded the use of the technology. Even students who were not enrolled in the
course and had therefore never seen the exact program felt the technical knowledge needed to
access and use Moodle would not pose any difficulty for them.
Some teachers felt an online course would be difficult for some students to manage due
to the technology. However, this did not seem to be the case because of the use of Moodle in
particular but simply a lack of faith in the teachers’ overall technical knowledge. OHS and the
district tried to support teachers who found difficulty accessing technology.
Both the school and the district offered training on use of Moodle to teachers who were
interested in attending. It was discussed that much of this training was outside regular work
hours and was therefore less appealing to attend. However, the support was available.
One reason that this support was available was that Moodle was already in use within the
district, and so trainings were already built in to district schedules to improve use. Although the
fully online classes would be considered a new avenue of use for Moodle in OUSD, participation
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 104

in this program was optional. It can be hypothesized that teachers and students would not choose
to get involved if they felt they lacked the skills necessary to participate. Therefore the district
would not need to incur significant additional time or cost for training beyond what was already
in place for all staff and students, but support would be available as needed.
This demonstrates how OHS and OUSD evaluated the contingencies of online
programming and worked to develop solutions for potential problems as they arose to minimize
negative costs to the organization.
Internal
Schoolwide buy-in was the most discussed internal factor that could have caused negative
costs to the organization. A lack of buy-in could affect success because motivation to improve
or continue could decrease if only a few people were excited about the program (Collins, 2001).
If people on site had negative impressions of the online courses, these impressions could also
have been detrimental to student interest if other teachers expressed negative views of these
courses.
In multiple interviews it was expressed that teachers involved in online programming felt
isolated. There was discussion that while there was success in the online courses, many other
teachers did not see the value in the classes, and therefore they did not pay much attention to the
courses. Additionally, teachers who did not teach an online course viewed the course as less
rigorous for students and teachers. There was concern that students were not being asked to
access their higher order thinking skills, and teachers were not evaluated as often or as critically
as non-online teachers.
These views may stem from a lack of clear core values, goals, beliefs, emotions and
processes (Clark and Estes, 2008). If the non-online teachers did not have core beliefs or values
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 105

that matched the goals of the online programming, then they would not have seen the value in
what these courses had to offer. It is only when the school can achieve this level of cohesive
beliefs that the program will experience longevity (Collins, 2001).
With that being said, however, there were results that have demonstrated there may be
more buy-in from the entire staff than is realized. Although many face-to-face teachers
expressed they find the most value in face-to-face interactions with their students, there is high
use of technology. Based on the results from surveys of students in non-online courses and non-
online teachers, teachers are using the resources on eOUSD and other Internet-based sources to
enhance their lessons and offer students additional resources beyond the classroom.
So although there was an expressed lack of buy-in with the benefits for online courses,
the regular use of technology by teachers at the site demonstrated a possible change in pedagogy.
This change seemed to be happening without the teachers even realizing it and could in the
future lead to more support of the online programming simply from the prevalence in using
online resources.
Conclusion
This study revealed several results consistent with existing research. The selection of an
appropriate LMS made the transition into online learning easier for teachers and students.
Furthermore, the greatest value of online learning for students was flexibility of scheduling, and
to teachers the greatest value was flexibility in course development. This result shows why
selecting internally developed online courses at OHS made sense. The course could be integrated
into the student’s schedule at the beginning or the end of the day, and teachers could use an LMS
they were already familiar with to adapt their course for greatest student success.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 106

Another reason the online programming made sense to develop internally was the
minimal cost. A few teachers were able to develop fully online courses with the support of
administration and district personnel making the financial, time and personnel costs minimal.
The Learning Management System was already in place (sunk cost), teachers and students were
already familiar with the LMS so would need little or no training (sunk cost), class sizes would
not change for other teachers so there would be no disruption in current programming (sunk
cost), no additional teachers would be needed to teach the courses (sunk cost), and any additional
cost from additional trainings or necessary server space could be offset by finding innovative
ways to use the LMS (mutual benefit).
This minimal cost allowed the decision rights to remain in the hands of administration
without the need for school-wide buy-in due to a minimal impact on staff or students outside the
online program. If the start of the innovation had been more expensive in personnel, time, or
fiscal cost, this initiative could have been impeded. The low, or even sunk, cost allowed the
development of fully online courses taught, developed and implemented internally to remain a
non-disruptive innovation for Ollie High School.
Through the lens of transaction cost economics, the cost and benefits of developing this
course internally were analyzed for mutual benefit. Where benefit is received, however, can
vary based on the stage of development or the organizational values. For OHS those benefits
came from placing trust in the structures and human resources that were already in place within
the organization. The governance that resulted was informal but allowed for a natural
progression towards technology use that led to regular technology use by many students and staff
members.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 107

As a result of this informal program development, the internal development of online
courses at OHS found success. The success to OHS was determined by equivalent levels of
student academic success with face-to-face classes and continued interest by students and staff
members to be involved with the classes. Research demonstrates that online courses and using
LMSs are becoming more prevalent in higher education.
With this model in mind, other high schools can use the experiences from OHS to
develop online courses of their own. One aspect of OHS’s program necessary to any other
school’s implementation of internally developed online courses was the technology. The
technology was not only already in place through the use of Moodle through the k-12 district, but
the level of knowledge Oscar had about use of and support to individuals using Moodle was vital
to the inception and running of the online classes.
The support provided by Oscar was constant throughout the inception and development
of the online courses and thereby enhanced the motivation and self-efficacy of the teachers
involved. Although the frames or goals for an internally developed online program may vary
depending on the school’s values, the structures and individual knowledge that existed within
OHS could be duplicated at other sites to increase student access to fully online education at any
public high school.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 108

References
Bakia, M., Shear, L., Toyama, Y., & Lasseter, A. (2012). Understnading the implications of
Online Learning for Educaitonal Productivity. In C. f. T. i. Learning & S. International
(Eds.): U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Technology.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carlson, D., Lavery, L., & Witte, J. (2010). Charter School Authorizers and Student
Achievement. Economics of Education Review, 254-267.
CDE. (2011). 2010-11 Leuzinger+High School Reporting Form for UMIRS Data. Retrieved
2012, from California Department of Education
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Expulsion/ExpReports/SchoolExpRe.aspx?cYear=2010-
11&cChoice=SchExp1a&cCounty=19&cDistrict=1964352--
Centinela%2BValle&cNumber=1935048&cName=Leuzinger%2BHigh
CDE. (2013a). High School Graduation Requirements. Retrieved March 9, 2013, from
California Department of Education http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrgen.asp
CDE. (2013b). State of California Education Profile. Washington, D.C.: Educational Data
Partnership: CDE, EdSource, and FSMAT.
Chou, A., & Chou, D. (2011). Course Management Systems and Blended Leraning: An
Innovative Learning Approach. Journal of Innovative Education, 9(3).
Christensen, C. (2011). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innvation Will Change the Way the
World Learns: McGraw Hill.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning Research into Results: A guide to Selecting the Right
Performance Solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 109

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don't.
New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Cresswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Crouch, R. (2012). The United States of Education: The Changing Demographics of the United
States and their Schools. In S. B. Zakariya (Ed.): Center for Public Education.
DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing College:
Assessing Graduation Rates at Four-Year Institutions. Los Angeles, CA: Higher
Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006-2010). Social Cognitive Theory. Psychology of
Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia. Retrieved from www.education.com website:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Despotovic-Zrakie, M., Markovic, A., Bogdanovic, Z., Barac, B., & Krco, S. (2012). Providing
Adaptivity in Moodle LMS Courses. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 326-338.
Fink, A. (2013). How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide (5 ed.): Sage Publications Inc.
Gupta, A., Herath, K., & Mikouiza, N. (2005). Outsourcing in higher education: an empirical
examination. International Journal of Educational Managment, 19(5), 396-412.
Hentschke, G., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Conclusion: K-12 Education in a Broader Privatization
Context. Educaitonal Policy, 21(1), 297-307.
IES. (2012a). Fast Facts: Charter Schools. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from Institute of
Education Sciences http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=30
IES. (2012b). Immediate Transition to College. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from National Center
for Educational Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_trc.asp
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 110

iNACOL. (2011). The Online Learning Definitions Project. Vienna, VA: International
Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2009). Net Generation of Digital Natives: Is
There a Distinct New Generation Entering University? Computers and Education, 54,
722-732.
Kachel, D., Henry, N., & Keller, C. (2005). Making it Real Online: Distance Learning for High
School Students. Knowledge Quest, 34(1), 14-17.
Lamoreaux, N. R., Raff, D., & Temin, P. (2002). Beyond Markets and Hierarchies: Toward a
New Synthesis of American Business History. NBER Working Paper, 9020, 1-63.
Liu, I.-F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C.-H. (2009). Extending the TAM Model
to Explore the Factors that Affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community.
Computers and Education, 54, 600-610.
Macher, J., & Richman, B. (2008). Transaction Cost Economics: An Assessment of Empriical
Reserach in Social Sciences. Business and Politics, 10(1).
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach 3rd 3d.: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-
Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning
Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 111

Moe, M. T., Hanson, M. P., Jiang, L., & Pampoulov, L. (2012). American Revolution 2.0: How
Education Innovation is Going to Revitalize America and Transform the U.S. Economy:
GSV Asset Management, LLC.
OUSD. (2013a). Guidance Plan and Course Selections. In O. H. School (Ed.). Ollie, CA.
OUSD. (2013b). Ollie Unified School District Retrieved March 1, 2013, 2013
Partnership, E. D. (2011). School Profile. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from California
Department of Education http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataC
lassic/profile.asp?Tab=1&level=07&reportnumber=16&county=19&district=64352&sch
ool=1935048
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.): SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2011). Examining the Extent and Nature of
Online Learning in American K-12 Education: The Research Initiatives of Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 127-135.
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., & Williams, S. (2001). Digital Divide or Digital Opportunity? The Role
of Technology in Overcoming Social Exclusion in U.S. Education. Educational Policy,
15, 258-277.
Staker, H. (2011). The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning: Profiles of emerging models: Innosight
Institute.
Tadelis, S., & Williamson, O. (2012). Transaction Cost Economics. Handbook of Organizational
Economics.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 112

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight "Big-Tent" Criteria for Excellent Qualitative
Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
Tucker, B. (2007). Laboratories of Reform: Virtual High Schools and Innovation in Public
Education. Washington, D. C.: Education Sector.
USDE. (2002). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from U.S. Department of
Education http://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/choice03/edlite-slide29.html
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview
Studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Williamson, O. (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction Cost Economics and Supply Chain
Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(2), 5-16.
Williamson, O. (2010). Transaction Cost Economics: The Natural Progression. Journal of
Retailing, 86(3), 215-226.
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., & Witte, J. (2010). Examining Charter Student
Achievement Effects Across Seven States. Economics of Education Review, 213-224.

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 113

APPENDIX A
Teacher Interview Questions and Introduction Protocol
My name is Jennifer Panagos, and I am a University of Southern California (USC)
educational doctoral candidate. I am conducting research to complete my dissertation and thank
you for your interest in participating in my study.
I am conducting this study to learn about the steps that were taken to develop online
courses at OHS. Among other information, I am trying to find out the initial implementation and
perceived or real benefits of these courses. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be
asked to participate in a 30-45 minute interview. You do not have to answer any questions you
don’t want to. If you do not want to be recorded, I will take handwritten notes only.
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. The data will be stored on a password-protected computer in my home for three
years after the study has been completed; then it will be destroyed.
The members of the research team and USC’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Jennifer Panagos email at panagos@usc.edu or phone at (510) 541-0371 or
Faculty Advisor Dr. Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu or phone at (213) 740-3491.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 114

Questions
1. Please introduce yourself and explain your role with the online courses offered at Ollie High
School. How long have you been involved in online learning?
2. What steps did you need to take to become a teacher of an online course? And why did you
choose to teach this type of course?
3. Do you know the steps that were taken to implement the use of Moodle and online courses
at OHS and why this LMS was chosen over any other type of platform or tool?
4. What are the benefits and challenges (if any) with developing curriculum internally rather
than purchasing a platform that provides a management system and curriculum together?
5. Why do you think that OHS was used as a pilot site for online learning courses over other
schools in the district? Were there people, protocols or needs present that made it more
feasible to occur at OHS versus another school in the district?
6. Are there challenges to getting full school site or district support of the online courses?
Why?
7. What are the criteria for students before they enter an online course? What are the
requirements for remaining in an online course? Your answer may relate to time,
knowledge, or resources available. How are these requirements assessed or measured?
8. What are the criteria for teachers before they enter and while they are teaching an online
course? How are these criteria measured or assessed? Have these criteria changed since the
program first started?
9. Were you trained on the use of the Moodle program? If so, who conducted the training,
what did that training look like and how often did it occur? Did all teachers have the
opportunity to train or only teachers who teach online courses?
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 115

10. Was there a desired or has there been a cultural change as a product of the availability of
online courses for students or for the campus? Have the cultural changes been positive or
negative?

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 116

APPENDIX B
Administrative Interview Questions and Introduction Protocol
My name is Jennifer Panagos. I am a University of Southern California (USC)
educational doctoral candidate. I am conducting research to complete my dissertation and thank
you for your interest in participating in my study.
I am conducting this study to learn about the steps that were taken to develop online
courses at OHS. Among other information, I am trying to find out the initial implementation and
perceived or real benefits of these courses. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be
asked to participate in a 30-45 minute recorded interview. You do not have to answer any
questions you don’t want to. If you do not want to be recorded, I will take handwritten notes
only.
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. The data will be stored on a password-protected computer in my home for three
years. After the study has been completed, I will destroy the data. The members of the research
team and USC’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Jennifer Panagos email at panagos@usc.edu or phone at (510) 541-0371 or
Faculty Advisor Dr. Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu or phone at (213) 740-3491.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 117

Questions
1. Please introduce yourself, state your current position, and describe your role in the original
implementation or current implementation of the online learning program at Ollie High
School.
2. What is or was the goal of this program for students and teachers? Did the goal address a
need that was not previously being met?
3. What led to the decision to implement e-learning programs at Ollie High School (or any
high schools) in Ollie?
4. Were any other programs or learning management systems offered as alternatives, and why
were they not used?
5. Were online learning programs an obvious next step in developing courses for the district,
or was it challenging to get people to buy-in to this type of programming?
6. Did administration and teachers all buy-in to the programming? If so, how long did this
take?
7. What are the requirements for teachers and/or schools that want to get involved with and
teach an e-learning course and how are they assessed? Was or is training available for
teachers, and what type of training is available?
8. How is the course monitored for effectiveness or addressing standards? Does the course
change in response to monitoring?
9. What type of assessment is done on the program as a whole throughout the district? How
has the assessment shaped changes in the course, if any?
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 118

10. Are there other potential drawbacks or benefits you see developing from this type of
programming? What are the drawbacks or benefits for students, the school, the
administrators and the teachers in the future?
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 119

APPENDIX C
Survey for Teachers Who Do Not Teach an Online Course and Introduction Protocol
My name is Jennifer Panagos. I am a University of Southern California educational
doctoral candidate. I am conducting research to complete my dissertation and thank you for your
interest in participating in my study.
I am conducting this study to learn about the steps that were taken to develop online
courses at OHS. Among other information, I am trying to find out why students choose to take
or not take online courses. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate
in a 10-15 minute survey using Survey Monkey. You do not have to answer any questions you
don’t want to.
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. The data will be stored on a password-protected computer in my home for three
years. After the study has been completed, the data will be destroyed.
The members of the research team and USC’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Jennifer Panagos email at panagos@usc.edu or phone at (510) 541-0371 or
Faculty Advisor Dr. Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu or phone at (213) 740-3491
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 120

Questions
1. How likely would you be to teach an online course at OHS? (Select the choice that best
applies to you.)
Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Not likely
Explain: __________________________________________________________________
2. How do you compare the amount of time that is spent by online teachers as compared to
teachers of face-to-face courses in grading or providing feedback on assessments or
participation? (Select the one choice that best applies to you.)
The same time A little less time A lot less time
A lot more time A little more time Unsure
3. Do you believe that Moodle is the best program through which to implement online courses
at OHS?
No Yes Unsure
If no, what program would you have chosen and why? _____________________________
4. How often do you use Moodle or other Internet-based programs to enhance lessons or
student’s learning during the school day?
Very often Often Somewhat often Not often Never
5. How often do you use Moodle or other Internet-based programs to allow students to access
content, homework, or gain access to you outside of the classroom?
Very often Often Somewhat often Not often Never
6. What do you feel is the greatest benefit(s) that students gain from online courses? (Select all
choices that apply.)
Additional credits Waking up later Getting out of school early
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 121

Skills to be successful in college Time-management skills
Time spent away from a traditional high school with their peers
Other: __________________________________________________________________
7. Do you believe online courses are as rigorous as the face-to-face courses? (Select the choice
that best applies.)
Just as rigorous Not as rigorous More rigorous Unsure
If you selected not as rigorous or more rigorous, why do you believe that?
__________________________________________________________________________
8. Do you believe online courses are monitored as rigorously by administration as face-to-face
courses? (Select the choice that best applies.)
Just as rigorous Not as rigorous More rigorous Unsure
If you selected not as rigorous or more rigorous, why do you believe that?
_________________________________________________________________________
9. Do you believe that all students can be successful in an online course? (Select the choice
that best applies.)
Yes No Unsure
If no, please explain: ________________________________________________________
10. Was/is training available to prepare teachers to use Moodle? (Select the choice that best
applies.)
Yes, all teachers should be able to use Moodle.
Most teachers should feel confident with Moodle after the training.
There was no training provided; it was up to the teachers to learn how to use the program.
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 122

11. If OHS provided additional training on Moodle and the necessary technology, how would
that impact your decision to teach an online course? (Select the choice that best applies.)
Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Not likely
12. What are the benefits to the school for allowing flexibility in scheduling for students?
(Select all that apply.)
More student/parent interest in the school Greater innovation from staff
Greater student satisfaction Publicity due to innovation None
Other: ____________________________________________________________________
13. What are the benefits to the students in offering flexibility in scheduling? (Select all that
apply.)
More time to help their family Fewer tardies Time-management skills
Students are able to get jobs/internships Students can take college courses
None Other: _______________________________________________
14. Do you believe that online courses are becoming more necessary for preparing students to
be successful who plan to attend college? (Select the choice that best applies.)
Very necessary Necessary Somewhat necessary Unnecessary
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 123

APPENDIX D

Survey for Students Not Enrolled in Online Courses and Introduction Protocol
My name is Jennifer Panagos, and I am a USC educational doctoral candidate. I am
conducting research to complete my dissertation and thank you for your interest in participating
in my study.
I am conducting this study to learn about the steps that were taken to develop online
courses at OHS. Among other information, I am trying to find out why students choose to take
or not take online courses. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate
in a 10-15 minute survey using Survey Monkey. You do not have to answer any questions you
don’t want to.
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. The data will be stored on a password-protected computer in my home for three
years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. The members of the research team
and USC’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Jennifer Panagos email at panagos@usc.edu or phone at (510) 541-0371 or
Faculty Advisor Dr. Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu or phone at (213) 740-3491
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 124

Questions
1. Do you know that OHS offers online classes? (Select one.)
Yes No
2. How likely are you to enroll in an online class?
Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Not likely
Please explain: _____________________________________________________________
3. Why would you choose to enroll in an online course? (Choose the one answer that is most
important to you.)
Obtain additional credits Wake up later Get out of school early
Do not enjoy a traditional classroom Want to try something different
4. What do you believe or what have you heard is the hardest part of being enrolled in an
online course? (Select the answer that best applies to you.)
Time-management Not seeing the teacher in person Internet access
Using Moodle and other technical aspects Remembering to complete assignments
5. How important was the availability of an online course when you made the decision to
enroll at OHS? (Select the answer that best applies to you.)
Very important Important Somewhat important
Not very important Had no impact on my decision
6. Do you believe that you have enough technical knowledge to be successful in accessing and
participating in an online course? (Select the answer that best applies to you.)
Very prepared Prepared Somewhat prepared Unprepared
7. Does taking students and teachers out of the classroom by allowing them to take or teach
online courses change the feel of the school campus?
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 125

Yes No Unsure
Explain: __________________________________________________________________
8. How often do your teachers use technology in the classroom? (Select the choice that best
applies to you.)
Very often Often Somewhat often Never
9. Overall, how well would you say your teachers use the online resources of Moodle or the
school website to provide you access to course content, homework, or other course
materials?
Very well Well Not very well Not used at all
10. How often do you access the Internet to gain additional access to course content, homework
or other course materials for your classes?
Every day Every week Every month Never
11. Would you recommend taking an online course to other students at OHS? (Select the answer
that best applies to you.)
Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Unlikely
12. Do you believe all students can be successful in an online course? (Circle only one choice.)
Yes No
If no, please explain: _______________________________________________________
13. How does the fact that you may not interact face-to-face with teachers or students in an
online course affect your decision to enroll or not?
Does not impact my decision Some impact on my decision
Big impact on my decision I would not enroll in an online course because of this factor.

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 126

14. How satisfied are you with the courses available to be taken online course(s) at OHS?
(Select the answer that best applies to you.)
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Unsatisfied
If less than very satisfied, please explain: ________________________________________
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 127

APPENDIX E
Survey of Students Currently Enrolled in an Online Course(s) and Introduction Protocol
My name is Jennifer Panagos, and I am a USC educational doctoral candidate. I am
conducting research to complete my dissertation and thank you for your interest in participating
in my study.
I am conducting this study to learn about the steps that were taken to develop online
courses at OHS. Among other information, I am trying to find out why students choose to take
or not take online courses. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate
in a 10-15 minute survey using Survey Monkey. You do not have to answer any questions you
don’t want to.
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. The data will be stored on a password-protected computer in my home for three
years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. The members of the research team
and USC’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Jennifer Panagos email at panagos@usc.edu or phone at (510) 541-0371 or
Faculty Advisor Dr. Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu or phone at (213) 740-3491
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 128

Questions
1. How many online courses have you taken (include any that you are currently enrolled in)?
6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Why did you choose to enroll in an online course? (Choose the one answer that is most
important.)
Additional credits Wake up later Get out school early
Do not enjoy a traditional classroom Want to try something different
Please explain why this factor is so important to you: _______________________________
3. Now that you are enrolled in an online course, rank the following in order from greatest (1)
to least (5) for the benefits you believe you are receiving (or have received) from taking on
online course at Ollie High School.
___Skills to be successful in college ___Creative thinking skills
___Schedule flexibility ___Time-management skills ___Additional credits
Please explain why you ranked these choices in this way and if there is anything else that
you feel you gain from being in the program: ____________________________________
4. What is the hardest part of being enrolled in an online course? (Select the choice that best
applies to you.)
Time-management Not seeing the teacher in person Internet access
Using Moodle and other technical aspects Remembering to complete assignments
5. How important was the availability of an online course when you made the decision to
enroll at OHS? (Select the choice that best applies to you.)
Very important Important Somewhat important
Not very important Had no impact on my decision
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 129

6. Do you feel you have adequate access to your teacher to be successful in the course? (Select
the choice that best applies to you.)
The teacher is available as much as I need him/her to be successful in the course.
The teacher is available most of the time that I need him/her to be successful in the course.
The teacher is not available enough for me to be successful in the course.
7. Do you feel you receive adequate feedback on your participation and assignments in the
online course as compared with similar assignments in a traditional classroom?
The feedback I receive is much better/more than that which I would get in a traditional
classroom.
The feedback I receive is a little better/more than that which I would get in a traditional
classroom.
The feedback I receive is the same as that which I would get in a traditional classroom.
The feedback I receive is a little worse/less than that which I would get in a traditional
classroom.
The feedback I receive is a lot worse/less as that which I would get in a traditional
classroom.
8. Do you feel the school adequately prepared you to take a course that was completely
Internet based? (Select the answer that best applies to you.)
Very prepared Prepared Somewhat prepared Unprepared
9. If there were face-to-face tutoring sessions for the course, would you be likely to attend?
(Select the one that best applies.)
Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Unlikely
Please explain your answer: ___________________________________________________
INTERNAL INNOVATION IN BLENDED LEARNING 130

10. How much do you think the availability of online courses impacts parents or students when
deciding whether to attend OHS or another high school? (Select the choice that best applies
to you.)
Huge impact Little impact No impact Unsure
11. Would you recommend taking an online course to other students at OHS? (Select the answer
that best applies to you.)
Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Unlikely
12. Do you believe all students can be successful in an online course? (Circle one answer.)
Yes No
If no, please explain: _______________________________________________________
13. How does the time you spend on the online course compare with the time you spend on your
traditional face-to-face courses at OHS? (Select the answer that best applies to you.)
Same amount of time Less time More time Unsure
14. How satisfied are you with the online course(s) at OHS? (Select the answer that best applies
to you.)
Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Unsatisfied
If less than very satisfied, please explain: ________________________________________
15. What is your current grade in the online course in which you are enrolled?
A B C D F

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study uses the lens of transaction cost economics (TCE) to understand the decision‐making process and resources that need to exist within the hierarchy of a traditional public school (TPS) to internally develop fully online learning courses. ❧ The purpose of this study was to examine the decision‐making process that occurred at Ollie High School (name has been changed for anonymity) when an internally developed online learning program was proposed and the effects this decision and program had on the school and its community. The study researched questions about the motivation behind, and process used, to implement and run an internally developed, rather than outsourced, fully online course at a TPS, what cost and benefits were associated with this decision, and how effectiveness of this program was assessed. ❧ Interviews with the individuals who made the decisions to develop and implement the online courses and surveys with students and teachers who did and did not participate in the online courses were used within this qualitative case study. The presence of human actors with knowledge and a desire to implement online courses emerged as a key contributor in the inception of the online program. ❧ Findings demonstrated recurring themes of flexibility for student schedules and teacher content delivery as mutually beneficial attributes of the online classes. In addition to flexibility, increased access to and use of educational resources by students and teachers was discussed as a desired and achieved outcome of implementing internally developed online courses. These desired outcomes, as well as the analysis of existing structures and protocols at OHS, demonstrated that this type of programming is one that can be extended to other TPSs as a sustaining educational innovation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A study of online project-based learning with Gambassa: crossroads of informal contracting and cloud management systems

PDF

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

Special education outsourcing: district privatization of therapeutic day schools for students with severe emotional disabilities

PDF

Teen parents: outsourcing childcare to keep them connected and engaged in school

PDF

Contracting for special education: a case study of a charter school contract for special education

PDF

Buy or build? A transaction cost economics view of university student record processing services

PDF

Contracting for performance: examining the relationship between LAUSD and ALEKS using transaction cost economics

PDF

Blended learning in a credit recovery program: emerging insights and issues

PDF

The local politics of education governance: power and influence among school boards, superintendents, and teachers' unions

PDF

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting

PDF

Perceptions of TESOL teacher education: strengths, weaknesses, characteristics, and effective components

PDF

The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

PDF

The process secondary administrators use to implement twenty‐first century learning skills in secondary schools

PDF

Navigating a way out of program improvement: a case study analysis

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

A qualitative study on Hawaii's use of Race to the Top funding on extended learning time in a Zone of School Innovation

Asset Metadata

Creator Panagos, Jennifer (author)

Core Title Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/08/2014

Defense Date 03/25/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag blended learning,internal innovation,OAI-PMH Harvest,Transaction Cost Economics

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Burch, Patricia E. (committee member), Strunk, Katharine O. (committee member)

Creator Email drjgally@gmail.com,jgally@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-433545

Unique identifier UC11287150

Identifier etd-PanagosJen-2635.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-433545 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PanagosJen-2635.pdf

Dmrecord 433545

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Panagos, Jennifer

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA