University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A qualitative study of educators’ attitudes towards blended learning institutional adoption

(USC Thesis Other)

A qualitative study of educators’ attitudes towards blended learning institutional adoption

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 1

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS BLENDED
LEARNING INSTITUTIONAL ADOPTION
by
Juniko Moody

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

August 2018

Copyright 2017 Juniko Moody
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 2

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Troy Lincoln Moody, who devoted his life to
education and wanted to achieve a doctoral degree but was unable to.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge everyone who supported me during this program. I express my
sincerest gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores. As my dissertation chair you
provided expert advice and encouragement both throughout the dissertation research and writing
process and in support of my career activities. I thank my committee members, Dr. Eric Canny,
Dr. Ekaterina Moore, and Dr. Sandra Kaplan, for their guidance and for serving on my
committee. Dr. Eric Canny was especially helpful with targeted suggestions for my dissertation
as an instructor and committee member.
I would like to acknowledge all my professors especially Dr. Monique Datta, Dr. Raquel
Torres Retana, Dr. Mirasol Espanola, Dr. Sarah Lillo, and Dr. Kenneth Yates for your
constructive feedback and wonderful explanations of complex concepts and procedures. Your
positive attitudes were an inspiration to me. Dr. Masako Nunn deserves special recognition as
my sensei who inspired this dissertation topic and supported the data gathering and analysis
process. Thank you to the Rossier School of Education OCL administration and staff. Anna
Chiang, Cory Reano, and Jasmine Nichols put friendly faces on a remote program and provided
an on-campus feeling and support group. To my classmates of Cohort 4, I wish you all the best
and am grateful for the knowledge and comradery shared with me during our program. You are
an admirable and accomplished group of people.
To my family and friends, I wish to acknowledge Beatrice Moody, Candace Bradfield,
Martha, Michael, and Uriah Maimone, Jennifer Royal, Mitsuko, Sarah and Laura Clines, Sean
and Sherry Phillips, Dr. Victoria Ruffin, and Dr. Herman and Maureen DeBose. I am very
appreciative to you for sharing your homes and hearts with me during my travels to and from
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 4

Los Angeles. Thank you for encouraging phone calls and for sharing this achievement with me.
You have been guiding lights in my life.
Lastly, I thank my loving husband Mark whose sacrifice and personal assistance provided
the means to complete this program while his enduring devotion provided the strength to persist.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 5

ABSTRACT
This study addresses the problem of practice concerning the lack of sufficient empirical
data in the use of blended learning (BL) for postsecondary foreign language instruction. Less
commonly taught language (LCTL) instruction was targeted because the higher attrition rates
serve as an innovation motivation and possibly serve a future purpose as a BL efficacy
performance indicator. The literature review documented the importance and challenges of
postsecondary foreign language education in the U.S., technological and corporate innovations in
foreign language instruction, and the importance of educators’ attitudes towards institution-wide
BL adoption towards sufficient data gathering. Using two state language departments, a small
sample of LCTL faculty stakeholders were interviewed for a qualitative study about instructor
attitudes towards BL adoption. Their attitudes were evaluated to support future research towards
institution-wide adoption and implementation of BL following the Graham, Woodfield, &
Harrison (2012) three stage BL adoption framework.
For this study, the focus was on stakeholders’ readiness for stage 1 Awareness and
Exploration only. Research questions were based on the Clark and Este’s (2008) Gap Analysis
framework designed to identify stakeholders’ key knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. The research questions included (1) What are educators’ knowledge and motivation
related to the adoption of blended learning? and (2) What is the interaction between
organizational culture and context and educators’ knowledge and motivation?
The qualitative design was triangulated by an organizational scan, interviews, and
documents. Findings were that stage 1 BL adoption was not applicable at this time due to the
need for improved communication between the university and faculty and the need to engage
faculty in policy and innovation. Recommendations were grouped by knowledge, motivation,
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 6

and organizational influences with corresponding internal and external outcomes, critical
behaviors, drivers, course metrics and evaluations.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction to Problem of Practice .............................................................................................. 11
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................................ 12
Importance of Addressing the Problem ........................................................................................ 14
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................... 15
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................. 15
Stakeholder Group of Focus ......................................................................................................... 16
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 16
The Importance and Challenges of Foreign Language Education in Higher Education .......... 18
Technological Innovations and Corporate Trends .................................................................... 22
The Importance of Understanding Educators’ Attitudes towards BL ...................................... 26
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................................................... 27
Knowledge Influences .............................................................................................................. 28
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 35
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................................... 39
Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 42
Overarching Study Structure..................................................................................................... 42
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................................... 44
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 46
Preliminary Organizational Scan .............................................................................................. 48
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 48
Documents and Artifacts........................................................................................................... 50
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 50
Organizational Scan .................................................................................................................. 52
RQ1: What are the educators’ knowledge and motivation related to the adoption of blended
learning? .................................................................................................................................... 52
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 8

RQ2: What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and educators’
knowledge and motivation? ...................................................................................................... 65
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 74
Solutions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 76
Knowledge ................................................................................................................................ 77
Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 83
Organization .............................................................................................................................. 93
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 103
Stage 1 BL Adoption .............................................................................................................. 103
Beyond Blended Learning ...................................................................................................... 104
References ................................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix A: Protocol Preliminary Scan..................................................................................... 117
Appendix B: Participating Educators with Sampling Criteria for Interview .............................. 122
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 124
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 129
Appendix E: Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 131
Appendix F: Ethics ..................................................................................................................... 133
Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ................................................... 135
Appendix H: Level 1 Tier 2 Survey ............................................................................................ 153
Appendix I: Level 1 and 2 Checklist .......................................................................................... 155
Appendix J: Level 1-4 Tier 2 Survey (Delayed After Training) ................................................ 156

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
Table 2………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Table 3………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
Table 4………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Table 5………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
Table 6………………………………………………………………………………………… 71
Table 7………………………………………………………………………………………… 78
Table 8………………………………………………………………………………………… 87
Table 9…………………………………………………………………………………………. 97
Table 10……………………………………………………………………………………… 137
Table 11……………………………………………………………………………………… 138
Table 12……………………………………………………………………………………… 139
Table 13a…………………………………………………………………………………….. 144
Table 13b…………………………………………………………………………………….. 145
Table 14a…………………………………………………………………………………….. 146
Table 14b…………………………………………………………………………………….. 146

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1……………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Figure 2……………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
Figure 3…………………………………………………………………………………….... 150

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 11

Introduction to Problem of Practice
Although blended learning is not new, its influence on less commonly taught language
(LCTL) learning (e.g., Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, and Russian) and these educators’
attitudes towards BL adoption lacks research. LCTL languages are defined by the U.S.
Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) list and include 78 world
languages (FY 2012 Consultation with Federal Agencies on Areas of National Need (PDF),
2012). There is list overlap among several targeted languages and multiple federal agencies, such
as the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), which received more educational urgency after 9/11.
These DOD languages are called “critical languages” and targeted as crucial to U.S. politics,
security, and economy (Critical Languages | nsepgov,” n.d.; DOE, 2016; U.S. Department of
Defense, 2005). To clarify the terminology which is often used interchangeably, some critical
languages overlap with LCTLs but for this study, LCTL instruction was the focus as defined by
the OPE list. It is also important to note that multiple federal agencies such as agriculture,
commerce, energy, and housing and urban development consider many LCTLs as vital areas of
postsecondary education national need (FY 2012 Consultation with Federal Agencies on Areas
of National Need (PDF), 2012). This national imperative would seem to justify increased
innovative instructional strategies, such as blended learning (BL), to support languages that are
very difficult for English speaking Westerners to learn and master.
However, although there is overwhelming national and international interest, impressive
transformational promises from corporate proponents, and limited general education studies
supporting both learning effectiveness and learner or teacher satisfaction, there remains little
significant empirical evidence of BL efficacy (Graham & Robison, 2007). A variety of reasons
exist for the missing evidence but foremost is the lack of widespread postsecondary institutional
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 12

implementation resulting in insufficient statistical data (Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison, 2012).
Without increased institutional participation, BL efficacy will remain inconclusive due to
scattered application by diverse players (Halverson, Graham, Spring, & Drysdale, 2012).
At the K-12 level, case studies have shown BL to have a positive effect on graduation
rates (Powell, Watson, Staley, Parick, Horn, Fetzer, Hibbard, Oglesby, & Verma, 2015). In the
Powell, et al. (2015) report, isolated school districts, such as Spokane Public School, reported an
increase in graduation rates of 23% since BL adoption and implementation in 2008. However,
scant evidence exists in higher education. While postsecondary LCTL students tend to have
higher attrition rates and lower graduation rates, it remains uncertain if blended learning could
improve LCTL learning outcomes without the supportive statistical data that widespread
institutional adoption could provide.
Organizational Context and Mission
Two International Language Departments (ILDs) of the Pacific State University (PSU),
are pseudonyms for departments and a university system that offer courses and degrees in many
languages. The two ILDs were located at PSU East and PSU South. The ILDs’ mission is to
teach students to understand, speak, read and write a selected language; to promote an
understanding and appreciation of world civilizations and their literatures; and to prepare
students for jobs in a variety of professions such as international trade, librarian, interpreter,
translator, foreign service officer, foreign trade specialist, diplomacy, intelligence, teaching and
law enforcement. Located in two different major metropolitan areas, the ILDs offer varying
degrees and languages such as BA degrees in Arabic, French, and Spanish with an MA degree in
Spanish. Students may also minor in Arabic, Japanese, French, German, or Spanish. Other
languages offered include American sign language, Cahuilla, Chinese, Korean, Luiseño, Nahuatl,
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 13

Portuguese, and Serrano. Certificates are available variously in Spanish, French/English
translation and California Native American languages. Some certificates are suitable for a
teaching credential program.
The ILD at PSU East is comprised of approximately 200 enrolled students in a foreign
language major, 10 full-time and 20 part-time faculty members, and 2 staff members. The
diversity of the students, faculty, and staff reflect that of the PSU system. PSU is one of the
nation’s largest four-year public state university systems, comprised of roughly 20 campuses
with a few off-campus centers. This system has the most ethnically, economically, and
academically diverse student body in the U.S. and is renowned for the teaching and job
preparation of graduates with a longitudinal public database of student outcomes. The system
educates approximately 500,000 students per year and employs more than 50,000 faculty and
staff. System-wide, over half of graduates are first-generation college students (having parents
without a bachelor’s degree) and first-time freshmen. Most of the students served are also low-
income.
The student body of PSU East consisted of 80% first generation students in 2016.
Currently 1 in 8 students graduate in 4 years. The special needs of students who are first
generation, first time freshmen, and low-income has affected and continues to adversely affect
persistence, attrition, and ultimately graduation rates. Currently, there is a university-wide
strategic plan that includes increasing all campus graduation rates by 2025 and improvement of
faculty development. In alignment, individual campuses have created various strategic plans with
differing completion dates. For example, PSU East has a strategic plan period from 2015 to 2020
while PSU South has two periods of 2013 to 2018 and 2018 to 2023.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 14

Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important for the ILDs to adopt a blended learning systematic method to monitor,
track, and enhance study habits that contribute to improved graduation rates. For ILDs to be
compliant with the university-wide goal of improving graduation rates by 2025, a method to
monitor and track existing student study behavior must exist. Additionally, since the majority of
students are first generation college students, the ILD must also address the special needs of their
student body to align with campus goals. Petty (2014) and Próspero and Vohra-Gupta (2007)
discussed the special challenges first generation students face in reduced motivation to maintain
persistence. Self-efficacy and persistence have been found to be strong indicators of higher GPA
scores which, in turn, affect graduation rates (Olani, 2009). Soria and Stebleton (2012)
compared first generation with non-first-generation students and found that first generation
students had decreased interaction with faculty, other students, and class activities which resulted
in lowered persistence and retention. Because internet use has the capacity to allow social
interaction 24 hours a day, Vaughan (2010) highlighted blended learning strategy to encourage
student interaction and engagement. Additionally, a growing body of evidence points towards the
use of blended learning strategies for student personalization (Kumari, 2016). The chancellor
acknowledged a system-wide problem with persistence, attrition, and graduation rates in 2014
and stressed a mandate to improve within 5 years. Without blended learning institutional
adoption, the ILDs will lack a vital, modern technological strategy to meet chancellor
compliance.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 15

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to examine educators’ attitudes towards a needs analysis in
the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the
organizational performance goal using BL innovation. The analysis began by generating a
list of interview questions and then moved to examine these systematically to focus on actual
or validated needs. While a complete needs’ analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes, the stakeholder of focus in this analysis was educators.
For this study, “educators” was comprised of foreign language faculty. This study’s
purpose was in alignment with the university-wide initiative involving innovation adoption
and implementation to raise graduation rates and improve faculty development. The method
for BL adoption and implementation was provided by Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison
(2012) and Porter & Graham (2016) which required an eco-system centered approach. This
approach involves three stages of BL adoption and implementation: (1) awareness and
exploration; (2) adoption/early implementation; and (3) mature implementation/growth.
As such, the following questions guided this study:
1. What are educators’ knowledge and motivation related to the adoption of blended
learning?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context, and educators’
knowledge and motivation for meeting the goal of adopting blended learning?
Organizational Performance Goal
By Summer 2019, one International Language Department (ILD) will enter stage one of
blended learning adoption as defined by Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison (2012). The purpose of
stage one is to informally explore and advocate to individual faculty and to clarify educators’
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 16

needs for the adoption of blended learning. A secondary purpose of stage one is to collect
volunteer faculty and staff to steer the stage one activities. Prior to stage one, interviews directed
towards faculty were analyzed for findings and recommendations. The goal was established by
innovative faculty and will be evaluated by a review of the interview results.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders (i.e., administrators, instructors, and students)
contribute to the achievement of the overall organizational goal of initiating stage one of the
innovation, the stakeholders of focus were the ILD educators. Research exists regarding student
attitudes towards blended learning but there is a scarcity of research involving faculty. Therefore,
educators were the focus of study. The organizational goal was new to the departments;
therefore, the gap in performance is 100%.
Review of the Literature
Since the stakeholders for this study are educators in higher education foreign language
departments, this section covers general research on the importance of and obstacles to foreign
language learning in the U.S. and Europe. For the International Language Departments (ILDs) to
align with the Pacific State University (PSU) strategic plan to expand online and hybrid teaching
as part of an initiative to increase graduation rates and improve faculty development, it is first
necessary to contrast commonly taught language (CTL) and less commonly taught language
(LCTL) instruction needs. Blended learning (BL) and LCTL instruction was the focus of
educators’ attitudes because the purpose of this study was to address a lack of research in this
area. Research will not be forthcoming until wide-spread institutional adoption exists for
increased data collection. Institutional adoption will not take place until there is an understanding
of how LCTL educators’ attitudes contribute to adoption of blended learning. Therefore, this
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 17

section reviews the importance and challenges of foreign language instruction in higher
education, with an emphasis on LCTLs. Next, technological innovations spearheaded by
corporate trends towards improved foreign language instruction and andragogy with an emphasis
on BL is discussed. Finally, foreign language teacher attitudes, preparation and professional
development is covered regarding technology use such as BL, language software, and
instructional design.
Because the adoption of BL specifically for LCTL instruction is a rarely studied
innovation there is a lack of conclusive information on its implementation and outcomes. Thus,
many studies conclude by recommending further research. Without a developed national policy
towards foreign language education, the U.S. is missing studies concentrating on second
language pedagogical improvement using technological innovation. Most research in this area is
carried out in Europe and Asia where second, third, or even fourth language acquisition is a
national priority. Contrasting with Europe and Asia, the U.S. puts its LCTL foreign language
educators in a paradoxical position by simultaneously mandating LCTL instruction as a national
priority but neglecting national support in funding, curriculum, pedagogical innovation or
professional development. Although Title VI/Fulbright-Hays has served as the nation's primary
Federal supporter of language education via grants, fellowships and through national language
resource and training centers, at the time of this dissertation writing, budgets were cut by 43% in
2011 and have not been replenished (Letter from the Coalition for International Education
Concerning Title VI and Fulbright-Hays Funding, 2018). It is for this reason that it is important
to understand LCTL educators’ attitudes towards adopting technological innovation given the
ambiguity of their situation.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 18

The Importance and Challenges of Foreign Language Education in Higher Education
Despite U.S. government mandates linking the urgency of LCTL education to national
educational needs and security, U.S. students start foreign language learning too late and/or don’t
persist long enough to reach fluency (Stein-Smith, 2015). Even government calls to action for
better economic competition; foreign language speaking advantages such as increased job and
career opportunities; increased cognitive ability; and college admissions advantages; the U.S.
continues to be mostly monolingual.
Twenty-five percent of U.S. nationals speak another language compared to fifty-six
percent of Europeans, Resistance towards second language acquisition or learning is due to the
perception of English as the global lingua franca. This resistance has resulted in insufficient
foreign language student enrollment and lack of qualified foreign language teachers in the U.S.
The absence of a clear national language policy prevents more participation in foreign language
learning and persistence.
However, growing economic international forces focus attention on the monolingual state
of the U.S. and other English-speaking countries which are marked by reduced international job
opportunities. Therefore, a cohesive advocacy for a foreign language campaign among English
speaking countries and cultures was recommended to recruit and motivate language students
(Stein-Smith, 2015). The U.S. tried to advocate for foreign language learning in schools with
insufficient results therefore Stein-Smith (2015) recommended an ongoing scholarly
conversation about foreign language advocacy.
The U.S. Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities
funded a three-year grant for an eleven-member task force to publish The Standards for Foreign
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 19

Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century for K-16 classrooms, which was published in
1996 (Glisan, 2012). More than a decade later most of the proposed areas had not been
researched or outcomes had not been empirically evaluated (Glisan, 2012).
The Standards were lacking outcome definitions and clear assessments which became an
area for further research. There were also poor outcomes research in oral communication,
community practice, cultures, and language instruction over an extended period. The Standards
proposed that one non-specific language, aside from English, be studied but duration was not
specified and they had no defined goals for post-secondary education. European attempts to
advocate for advanced foreign language learning have been more successful.
There are significant differences between the way some foreign languages are selected as
courses to be taught and learned. U.S. categories of foreign languages consist of commonly
taught languages (CTL), less commonly taught languages (LCTL), and critical languages (CL).
Commonly taught languages are Western European languages including, but not limited to,
English, Spanish, French, and German. “Less commonly taught languages” is a term based in
U.S. educational policy. It refers to languages taught with less frequency in formal academic
settings in contrast to frequently taught languages like Spanish. The reasons that LCTLs are
taught with less frequency include lack of academic infrastructure, lack of financial support, and
difficulty in learning (Gor & Vatz, 2009).
Critical languages, while a subset of LCTLs, differ from them because they are defined
primarily by the U.S. Department of Defense and refer to languages belonging to countries
where the U.S. has political, security, or economic interests (Brown, 2009). Critical languages
are critical because of a connection to national security. Since both LCTLs and critical languages
are infrequently taught in K-12 levels and both types of languages tend to suffer from a scarcity
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 20

of qualified teachers, these categories of languages are typically only available at the
postsecondary levels of major universities and liberal arts colleges and often supported by
federal funding (Gor & Vatz, 2009).
The National Security Education Program (NSEP) had identified 60 exotic languages
crucial to U.S. national security and develops foreign language and cultural skills for the U.S.
government workforce (NSEP, n.d.). So LCTLs and critical languages face special challenges to
students due to lack of K-12 foreign language policy and preparation. Postsecondary students,
while ambitious despite missed preparation, face the struggle of a late start to learning a difficult
language. Differences among students also affect their persistence to achieve fluency.
Per Brown, (2009) a study of 1,227 Spanish, French or German post-secondary and 275
Eastern language students were given questionnaires to determine differences in motivation and
personality. The Brown (2009) study results were that LCTL students who were heritage
students or were exposed to the second language at home, were older, more traveled, and more
experienced in language learning than CTL students. LCTL heritage students’ motivation had
more to do with personal reasons than school credit and were more confident due to hearing the
second language spoken at home. Consequently, heritage LCTL students had better learning
outcomes than the CTL non-heritage students, even though the CTL had lower difficulty levels
than the LCTLs. If non-heritage students have lowered learning outcomes in CTLs, non-heritage
students face even greater obstacles in learning LCTLs or critical languages due to the difficulty
of the language and insufficient K-12 preparation which results in higher attrition rates (Damron
& Forsyth, 2012).
LCTL or critical Eastern languages are difficult for English speakers who are non-
heritage students and thus they have lower enrollment and higher attrition than Western
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 21

languages (Ueno, 2005). In a qualitative study of non-heritage student learner motivation, 58
postsecondary LCTL (Chinese, Japanese, Russian) students were given questionnaires in two
stages separated by four months. After four months, some students had discontinued study
(Ueno, 2005). Non-heritage LCTL students tended to drop out of language study from year one
to year two.
Conclusions from the study were that perceived success was crucial to intrinsic
motivation and a non-threatening environment prevented anxiety (Ueno, 2005). The special
challenges of non-heritage students caused greater difficulty in their motivation. Due to U.S.
imperatives regarding critical languages, non-heritage student engagement in foreign language
learning became a topic of interest to government, commercial, and educational entities, found
by Jackson & Malone (2008), with a corresponding variety of perspectives and approaches to
solutions (Lowendahl, 2013).
Currently, there is a U.S. Federal initiative to increase the number of U.S. citizens with
foreign language and international skills. Spearheaded by the National Security Education
Program (NSEP), critical languages of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and
Latin America are targeted for competency skills to serve U.S. security and economic
competitiveness (About NSEP nsepgov, n.d.). NSEP is assisted in its commitment by strategic
partnerships with non-government organizations (NGO) and educational communities. One such
NGO is the American Councils for International Education (ACIE) (About American Councils,
n.d.). It has received funding from several U.S. Federal departments, such as the State
Department and Department of Education, along with multiple charitable donations. The ACIE is
emblematic of the type of strategic partnerships utilized to address the nation’s lack of
international skills. However, as of the date of this dissertation writing, many authorized
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 22

programs are no longer operational (About OPE - International and Foreign Language
Education, 2018). So although some coalitions between the Federal government, NGOs, and
educational organizations (Language Requirement Task Force, 2017) may be committed to
increasing national foreign language skills, the challenge of convincing the U.S. populace looms
large due to Federal and institutional mixed messages regarding support of LCTL education.
Even though, there is slight increased attention and acknowledgment of the U.S. foreign
language deficit in the 21st century compared to the previous century. Ultimately language
capacity will not improve until there is full national engagement (Brecht, 2015). Per Brecht
(2015), confidence in foreign language investment’s ROI must precede widespread language
learning efforts. This is due to the number of years and vast amounts of money and resources
needed to attain competency for the nations’ students.
Technological Innovations and Corporate Trends
A review of U.S. government perspectives was covered in the previous section to
establish urgency and objectives. This section addresses the pedagogical and technological
approaches to foreign language learning solutions. To present an overview of advances in foreign
language teaching we must first understand the history of technology and language teaching.
From the historical perspective, we then need to look at today’s international educational and
corporate models to identify the gap in current academic instruction.
Technological trends in education merged in the 19th and 20th centuries to form blended
learning (BL). Although it was applicable for multiple disciplines, language learning emerged as
one area which promised significant benefits in learning outcomes. One obstacle to fulfilling
learning outcome promises, though, was missing empirical evidence due to lack of academic
institution-wide implementation and assessment.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 23

U.S. foreign language education had utilized distance and computer technology in
instruction as far back as the early 20th century, hence language educators advocated multiple
technological advancements towards more effective student outcomes (Blake, 2011). Online
language learning (OLL) and computer-assisted language learning (CALL) evolved as modern
distance and technological instruction. New online tools, environments, and activities with a
special interest in social learning generated academic interest in online methods to increase
student interest, motivation, and persistence outside the classroom (Blake, 2011). Meta-analysis
of technology-supported pedagogy showed some positive effects on foreign language learning,
but when focused on blended learning, results were contradictory (Grgurović, Chapelle, &
Shelley, 2013). Even ardent proponents of generalized use of blended learning (non-foreign
language specific) admitted that standard methodology for outcomes assessment does not exist
because BL use is widely diverse in models and modalities (Laumakis, Graham, & Dziuban,
2009). Ways to get past confounding research results relying on satisfaction self-reportage or
unrelated proficiency testing consist of (1) design and employ rigorous research designs tailored
to specific blended learning models or (2) assess student learning outcomes in blended learning
based on individualized student course design or big data collected from massive open online
courses (MOOCs) (Nguyen, 2015).
Regardless which path is chosen, more research on BL related to LCTL language
instruction is still required. However, lack of conclusive research results or scholarly consensus
has not slowed international interest in BL for foreign language instruction and examination of
current trends may shed light on successful learning outcomes that improve student motivation,
persistence, attrition, and finally, graduation rates. A survey of articles from each of the seven
regions; Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, North America and Oceania;
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 24

(based on the United Nations’ composition of regions) attempted to discover the state of blended
learning globally (Spring, Graham, & Hadlock, 2016). Surveys and interviews of volunteer
participants outside of the U.S. and Canada were included in the study. Common patterns in
adoption, reasons for blending, access, and hopes for the future were found to be generally
positive. Researchers and practitioners mostly agree on the potential benefit of blended learning
to students and that the blended learning community needs to expand. The article recommended
that international administrators support faculty and provide structure for wide spread
implementation to occur. Blended learning practitioners outside of the U.S. were found to have
common experiences and these could be used for further research and to assist the U.S. in
building a national framework that could provide practical, concrete elements for rigorous
research design (Spring et al., 2016). Again, institutionalized adoption and implementation was
recommended to create standardized practice and research.
Disrupting the academic need to create standardized practice and research were corporate
and commercial competitors (Lowendahl, 2013). Academic institutions that faced ongoing
budget depletions were forced to acknowledge foreign language learning platforms, software,
and MOOCs created for profit. Not only were these new competitors attracting students with
innovative technology, but they were also using innovative business practices, like monetization
and subscriptions, to create revenue. Livemocha, an online social language learning platform,
had been so successful, academic institutions started partnering with them, adding yet still
another revenue source to Livemocha (Lowendahl, 2013). In 2013 Livemocha was acquired by
Rosetta Stone and then shut down three years later, but it was survived by other competitors such
as Babble and Duolingo so the business model continued (Editor, 2016).
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 25

Corporations supported online in-house training strategies as the most cost effective,
convenient, and effective way to educate employees (Strother, 2002). Although more research is
required to assess and validate learning, a survey of 500 training managers revealed that 60% had
an e-learning initiative, 86% were converting traditional face-to-face sessions to e-learning, and
78% were developing or improving electronic support (Strother, 2002). International blended
learning efforts, commercial online practices, and corporate e-Learning cost saving strategies
seemed to converge on providing more learner autonomy.
The National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs (NASILP) is North
America’s oldest professional organization specifically devoted to fostering the study of less
commonly taught languages (LCTLs) and critical languages through self-instructional principles
developed for an academic setting (Dunkel, Brill, & Kohl, 2003). It recognized the special
challenges of learning LCTLs and critical languages and advocated student self-motivated online
instruction. It correlated one institution’s low attrition rates to three factors: courses are
established per student demand; they are supported by a supplementary fee paid by each student;
and all students are instructed on self-motivated learning policy regarding student responsibilities
(Dunkel et al., 2003). NASILP recognized the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of
language learning technology to create online material strictly for evaluation so it created
guidelines for institutions to use in implementation of technology for the teaching of LCTLs.
This impacted decisions made by institutions throughout the United States to provide instruction
in LCTLs using online methods and advocating institutional implementation of online instruction
(Dunkel et al., 2003).

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 26

The Importance of Understanding Educators’ Attitudes towards BL
Due to the infrequency of academic institutions to implement BL within foreign language
departments, there is a scarcity of studies regarding the implementation and assessment of BL for
LCTL instruction. It is a vicious circle that academic institutions will not adopt and implement BL
without sufficient data, but sufficient data collection is reliant upon academic institutional adoption
and implementation. Therefore, many studies call for further research into pedagogical strategies
and learning outcome assessments requiring increased academic institutional adoption of new
technology.
Despite all the independent blended learning proponents and appeals for student self-
instruction or autonomy, not enough empirical data exists on effectiveness for these strategies
(Haley, Steeley, & Salahshoor, 2013). There were many studies proclaiming positive learning
outcomes from a student-centered viewpoint, however evidence of effectiveness from an
ecosystem perspective does not exist (Drysdale, Graham, Halverson & Spring, 2013). A study of
dissertations on blended learning found areas lacking research and the primary gap in research is
institutional implementation which influences all other analysis. There is little examination of the
perceptions, experiences, and outcomes for administration, faculty, and the institution because
application happens in a scattered fashion without widespread institutional implementation.
Therefore, institutional implementation is needed before conclusive frameworks, implementation
strategies, and subsequent evaluation can occur (Davis, 2016).
Before institutional implementation can take place, adoption by administration and faculty
must be secured (Graham, et al., 2012). Adoption and implementation of BL within a department
is not a simple matter of establishing computer workstations and internet connectivity. The
ecosystem approach involves a concerted effort between administration, faculty, and staff
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 27

(Drysdale, et al., 2013). Therefore, these stakeholder attitudes towards BL adoption is particularly
important. Prior to adoption an examination of attitudes, perceptions, experiences, and outcomes
for faculty and administration should be performed because prior research neglected faculty
perspectives (Porter & Graham, 2016). This can potentially provide information towards
professional development and incentives (Graham et al., 2012).
In addition, examining faculty attitudes can be especially effective in successful adoption
of blended learning by gathering information on institutional direction and policy, acquiring
commitment, and creating an advocate task force or steering committee (Garrison & Kanuka,
2004). Faculty attitudes and perceptions are crucial to BL adoption because student-centered
andragogy is increasingly technological and requires high commitment over a long period.
Instructional design is an example of a systematic planning process customized for specific
instructional activities to produce positive learning outcomes (Cheng, 2015). By learning and
adhering to an instructional design process, teachers should note that they are instrumental in
maintaining student perceived success leading to motivation and retention in addition to
maintaining a non-threatening environment, attention, and positive feedback (Ueno, 2005).
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Using the Clark and Este’s (2008) model provided a foundation to build a framework on
improvement of organizational performance. The model provided tools and methods to create
targeted performance solutions based on scientific research and needs analysis. It promised to
convert scientific research into practical and cost-efficient performance outcomes in any
organization.
There are three bases of needs analysis: knowledge, motivation, or organizational
obstacles. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested performing needs or gap analysis via interviews,
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 28

active listening, focus groups and surveys. Practitioners should look for needs analysis in all
three areas: knowledge, motivation, and organization as each area requires different approaches
that will possibly result in different solutions. The area of needs analysis are specific to each
organization.
Knowledge Influences
After identifying the gap in performance, there are eight key points reflecting most recent
findings in knowledge and skill research (Clark & Estes, 2008). These should be used as
guidelines in selecting improvement tools. Highlights from the key points are: information, job
aids, training, and education result in different benefits so should be used in different
circumstances; expert trainers are sometimes wrong, so use trial-and-revise cycles; and ensure
that knowledge and skill learned in training transfer to the job (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Educators’ Knowledge Influences. A component of BL is the learning management
software (LMS). One popular free, publicly available LMS is Moodle which is a learning
platform that allows for asynchronous instructor and student interactivity. One faculty member
of a university teaching a beginner course in Japanese language wants to adopt and implement
BL using the Moodle platform. The purpose is to collect data regarding student study time
towards improved learning outcomes and course completion. This purpose is in alignment with
the university system strategic plan to expand online and hybrid teaching as part of an initiative
to increase graduation rates. This instructor has no history of using BL for this class and,
therefore the adaption of new learning technology is based on scant studies demonstrating BL
efficacy and improved student outcomes, specifically increased student motivation and study
time (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). To integrate the supplemental Moodle resources into the
existing course pedagogy instructor knowledge assessment and training is needed to design
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 29

content as well as learn best practices in blended learning strategies. This is an example of the
type of faculty knowledge required for BL adoption and implementation.
To assess the extent to which an instructor currently knows how to support students using
new online technology and integrating it into a traditional classroom setting will require
assessing current knowledge and skills. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested using needs analysis to
determine if people know how to achieve specific performance goals. In this case, the specific
performance goal is integration of new online material for motivating students to increase study
time. Gap analysis would include a comparison between student study behavior prior to blended
learning and afterwards with inferences to teacher ability to motivate students regarding
increased study time.
Literature covered in this section focused on aspects of knowledge and skills that enable
teachers to integrate online material and to learn blended learning best practices towards
improved student outcomes. Also included in the knowledge and skills literature is conceptual
and procedural knowledge as defined by Krathwohl (2009). Conceptual knowledge addresses the
theory or model of blended learning while procedural knowledge addresses technological
specific techniques and methods; and criteria for determining appropriate use.
Conceptual Knowledge Influences. Conceptual knowledge is an understanding of the
theory of BL. The theory of blended learning stems from political educational demands for
universities to: serve larger, more diverse populations; facilitate lifelong learning; and to
effectively use technology-based practices in all curriculum (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). It is
important for faculty to understand blended learning model types, the theory of blended learning,
intended benefits, and how it can affect student motivation and study habits (Prokhorets,
Plekhanova, & Scherbinina, 2015). Although definitions regarding the use of technology in
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 30

education vary, for this paper the definition of blended, or hybrid learning, is the use of
asynchronous Internet-accessed technology with face-to-face traditional classroom teaching
(Blake, 2011). Instructors need to understand how student age, autonomy, and reasons for
technology use are factors which can be used to select one of three main models: blended, web-
based, and online or distance learning (Prokhorets et al., 2015).
The three models represent increasing levels of student autonomy: BL requires the least
amount and distance learning requires the highest amount. The middle model, Web-based, is
primarily used for administrative convenience (e.g., emails and school announcements) and for
student learning style accommodation (e.g., mixing lower performing and higher performing
students). It is important for instructors to understand the difference between the three models so
that they may use blended learning effectively.
Also, part of BL conceptual knowledge is terminology such as virtual community of
inquiry, student autonomy, and cognitive load. Of all the potential advantages, the creation of an
online community of inquiry and increased learner autonomy directly address political
educational demands to serve a more diverse population and facilitate lifelong learning.
Additionally, these two advantages strongly influence student motivation and study habits
(Prokhorets et al., 2015).
By using an Internet tool, teachers create a virtual community of inquiry, thereby
modeling this to students and empowering them to create their own inquiry communities for
lifelong learning. In addition to the concept of inquiry communities, concepts of social cognitive
theory and self-efficacy are also central to blended learning. Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2009)
note that within social cognitive theory people learn vicariously or by observation, and thus, self-
efficacy and performance are increased. Mayer (2011), Krathwohl, (2009), and Rueda, (2011)
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 31

also supported the efficacy of vicarious learning by explaining that observing organization and
rehearsal of behavior takes place prior to implementation or enactment of behavior. To create a
virtual inquiry community, teachers need to understand the concept of educational experience
and how social, cognitive, and teaching presence are used online to create group cohesion, initial
inquiry that leads to resolution, facilitation, and direct instruction (Garrison, 2007). Social
cognitive frameworks encourage speaking practice within a safe environment so that virtual
social contexts can assist developing cognitive skills online (Brooke, 2013; Johnson & Marsh,
2014).
Faculty need to conceptually understand how a social cognitive framework differs from,
yet compliments, autonomy. Autonomy is crucial to foreign language learners because learning a
second language requires both metacognitive and cognitive practices (Brooke, 2013).
Metacognition is the ability to monitor one’s own thinking (Baker, 2009) and teachers can assist
their students’ metacognitive practice by providing a variety of explanatory and review resources
(Brooke, 2013). Autonomy is closely related and encouraged by offering multiple online
resources, so beyond the teachers modeling inquiry communities, understanding social cognitive
theory and self-efficacy are also important.
Cognitive load theory differentiates different types of mental activity per efficacy
towards long term memory. Extraneous cognitive load interferes with learning while germane
cognitive load contributes to learning. Increasing germane cognitive load is best achieved by
decreasing extraneous load to avoid overloading short term and working memory so that long
term memory is optimized (Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, 2006). Online organization
using an LMS streamlines course material lesson by lesson and allows customized activities and
drills for students of various proficiency levels (Meurant, 2006). However, teachers need to have
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 32

conceptual knowledge about designing LMS content to increase germane or effective cognitive
load because it is influenced by instructional design (Paas, Renkl, Sweller, 2003; & Pappas,
2014).
Combined, the concepts of community of inquiry, autonomy, and cognitive load create an
effective learning environment conducive to enhancing student self-regulation and motivation
through low-risk or low anxiety speaking activities with other students. Teachers need to
understand the social cognitive concepts and advantages behind creating virtual opportunities for
students to experiment, practice, and drill in a low-risk environment (Bruland, 2013) that also
encourages self-efficacy for autonomous, individualized learning. (Brooke, 2013; Pajares, 2006).
Procedural Knowledge Influences. An integrated curriculum for teachers that
acknowledges pedagogical design capacity (PDC) using the Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) framework addressed a specialized procedural form of teacher knowledge
(Graham, Borup, & Smith, 2012). This knowledge base combined pedagogy with design tasks
integrating technological tools for the purpose of crafting virtual educational experience
(Garrison, 2007). To create online content, teachers must know the technology needed to design
blended learning environments along with best practices in online instructional design (Garrison
& Vaughan, 2008).
While there is currently no standardization in BL design, there are general guides. Three
models dictate instructional design: the supplemental model, the replacement model, and the
emporium model (Caraivan, 2011). The supplemental model is based on the structure of a
traditional course combined with technology to supplement classroom activities, lessons, and
practice. In this model, technology does not change the course structure; face-to-face meetings
are still where most of the information is disseminated. Procedural knowledge in designing
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 33

supplemental online course material requires the teacher to be able to create a live event, design,
upload, and link online content to the LMS, use LMS assessment tools (e.g., student activity logs
and student task completion logs), and create engaging activities (e.g., flashcards, games,
quizzes, and videos) (Caraivan, 2011).
Challenges to training teachers in blended learning instructional design include a lack of
standardized teacher technology training as well as the inability of a new generation of digital
native teachers to apply their digital experience to the way they teach (Makri, Papanikolaou,
Tsakiri, & Karkanis, 2014). If new information is connected to prior knowledge it is stored more
quickly and remembered more accurately (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). However, regarding
Web 2.0 tools (or web social sharing tools), there is little research on how teachers can
understand the wide range of technological tools to match curriculum learning requirements
(Makri et al., 2014). Matching past experiences, technology tools, and learning outcomes is a
complex process, and therefore merely adding technology tool training to existing teacher
training is insufficient.
Table 1 shows the organizational mission, global goal, educators’ goal, and
knowledge influences identified in this literature review.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 34

Table 1
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of the International Language Departments (ILDs) is to teach students to
understand, speak, read and write a selected language; to promote an understanding of world
civilizations and an appreciation of their literatures; and to prepare students for jobs in a
variety of professions (e.g., international trade, librarian, interpreter, translator, foreign service
officer, foreign trade specialist, diplomacy, intelligence, teaching and law enforcement).
Organizational Global Goal
One International Language Department (ILD) will enter stage one of the innovation to
implement blended learning by Summer 2019.
Educators’ Goal
By September 2018, faculty participated in a study prior to stage one of the innovation.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative
(factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Faculty need to know how to
engage in communities of practice
to support one another.
Procedural Participation rates and reflection
papers:
Teachers will join existing
communities of practice and
write reflections about their
participation experiences
specifically related to supporting
each other.
Faulty need to understand how to
create personalized materials for
students.
Procedural Teachers will submit blended
learning content in an LMS that
supplements one face-to-face
class session.
Faculty need to know current
blended learning concepts to
improve student outcomes.
Conceptual Reflection:
Teachers will paraphrase the
benefits of blended learning and
how it can benefit student
motivation and study habits.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 35

Motivation Influences
The motivation performance gap has three main factors: active choice, persistence, and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Expectancy and control are the root motives of human
behavior. Confronting beliefs about cultural and personal differences; and about efficacy and
control can improve motivation. This means changing the environment to support people in
addressing motivational performance gaps and guiding them towards value shared outcomes and
goals. There are different types of incentives that have advantages and disadvantages.
Educators’ Motivational Influences. Whether teachers design effective blended
learning content depends on how motivated they are to learn BL conceptual and procedural
knowledge. Motivation is a key factor to the success of the educators’ goal because it points to
the beliefs teachers have that they can affect student outcomes. Motivation also affects task and
goal active choice (starting), persistence (continuation), and mental effort (Rueda, 2011).
Therefore, it is important teachers choose to apply effort towards increasing their own motivation
to affect student motivation in the form of study time or independent practice, and that they have
confidence in learning and implementing blended learning technology (Oh & Park, 2009). The
following is an explanation of attributions and self-efficacy as motivation factors. Attributions
regard teachers’ effort to influence students’ motivation and study time rather than their ability.
Self-efficacy or confidence means teachers can acquire procedural knowledge in blended
learning instructional design.
Motivation Attributions. Anderman and Anderman (2009) explained Weiner’s model
of attributions and that an individual’s perception of an event being controllable or
uncontrollable affects motivation. If a person believes that success or failure is due to ability,
then that is uncontrollable and may lead to de-motivation. Conversely, if a person believes that
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 36

success or failure is due to effort, then that is a controllable factor and may subsequently lead to
increased motivation. Similarly, teachers can communicate to students how they can use the
controllability dimension of effort in utilizing the supplemental blended learning material to
increase motivation and study time for improved outcomes.
Effort and positive emotions are connected and can lead to increased motivation when
students focus on mastery goals instead of grades (Daniels, Stupnisky, Pekrun, Haynes, Perry, &
Newall, 2009). Effort towards mastery goals has been linked to positive emotions such as joy of
learning, pride, and hope. All three are dominant components of intrinsic motivation which aid
in learning persistence. These positive emotions have been found to combat negative emotions
such as anxiety, anger, shame, hopelessness, and boredom which can lead to increased
motivation (Pekrun, 2011; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011). Faculty need to
give feedback that support mastery goals, strategies, effort, and self-control to positively
influence motivation (Pintrich, 2003).
In a blended learning context, information can be communicated in various ways. For
example, teachers can communicate information to students using the blended learning platform
and encourage interaction, thus creating a community of inquiry through which students share
information with each other. This can be accomplished by introducing the students to the LMS
platform, creating online profiles, engaging in introductory conversation about course
expectations, and following up with information about the course syllabus and activities (Makri
et al., 2014). Teachers can also communicate attributional information by developing teaching
presence through facilitating online discourse, reinforcing student contributions, initiating
inquiries, and guiding students to resolutions (Makri et al., 2014). Both approaches involve
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 37

teacher and student effort towards successful integration between the face-to-face sessions and
the blended learning resources.
Motivation Self-efficacy. Pajares (2006) defined self-efficacy as negative or positive
self-perceptions that determine how people motivate themselves, how they maintain persistence
towards a goal, and how vulnerable they are to setbacks. These control self-regulation practices
that individuals use every day to correct their thinking and actions. Self-efficacy, therefore, is
confidence that an individual’s actions will have positive and productive results.
Individuals form self-efficacy beliefs from four sources of past experiences: mastery
experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and physiological reactions. Past perceived
successful experiences increase self-efficacy, conversely past perceived failure experiences
decrease self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). However, past negative experiences can be overcome
using social cognitive theory self-regulatory practices which include goal setting, self-
observation, self-judgement, and self-reaction (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009).
Teachers need to feel confident that they can address all the complex tasks of being
instructional designers. Drawing from past perceived successful experiences regarding technical
tool implementation, as well as using self-regulatory practices to connect technical tools to
curriculum and student outcomes, teachers can communicate the same self-efficacy and self-
regulatory practices to students in blended learning LMS utilization. Teachers can engage
students in using the LMS for goal setting. Ways to transfer self-efficacy learning to students
include: how to set initial benchmarks for themselves (e.g., using online pretests or quizzes);
how to use the LMS to study for a midterm; or how to create a community to practice
conversational tasks (Bandura, 2006; Bandura & Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2014; Yeşilyurt, Ulaş, & Akan, 2016).
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 38

Table 2 shows the organizational mission, global goal, educators’ goal, motivational
influences, motivational types, and motivational influence assessments identified in the
paragraphs above.
Table 2

Motivational Influence, Motivational Types, and Motivational Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of the International Language Department (ILD) is to teach students to understand,
speak, read and write a selected language; to promote an understanding of world civilizations and
an appreciation of their literatures; and to prepare students for jobs in a variety of professions
(e.g., international trade, librarian, interpreter, translator, foreign service officer, foreign trade
specialist, diplomacy, intelligence, teaching and law enforcement).
Organizational Global Goal
One International Language Department (ILD) will enter stage one of the innovation to
implement blended learning by Summer 2019.
Educators’ Goal
By September 2018, faculty participated in a study prior to stage one of the innovation.
Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Attributions:
Faculty need to feel that positive
outcomes are due to their own effort
in acquiring blended learning skills
and strategies.
Written questionnaire item examples include:
“Student achievement is strongly influenced by the
amount of effort I put into LMS instruction and
encouragement” (strongly disagree- strongly agree)
Interview items:
“What are some of the causes that result in learners’
success in your class using blended learning?”
“Do I recognize anxiety towards new technology in
myself.”
“How can I use effort towards mastery goals to
overcome learning anxiety in myself and my students.”
Self-Efficacy:
Faculty need confidence to implement
blended learning strategies.
Written questionnaire item: “I feel confident about my
ability to design and create original and innovative LMS
resources for our L2 learners.”
(strongly disagree- strongly agree)
Interview item:
“How do you feel about your confidence to work
individually and collaboratively with others to design
customized and innovative LMS content?”
Goal Orientation:
Faculty need to demonstrate
collaborative qualities towards
creating communities of practice.
Report: Teachers will compile and deliver collaborative
dialogues with other teachers in a community of
practice.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 39

Organizational Influences
Organizational gaps exist due to inadequate processes or materials and can obstruct
performance even if knowledge and motivation are adequate. Organizational culture is also a
very strong influence although it is difficult to diagnose or prove (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Alignment of organizational culture and performance solutions are crucial to successful change
processes. Additionally, all stakeholders must support the change process.
Educators’ Organizational Influences. According to Schein (2010) understanding
organizational culture is key to effective leadership. The connection between culture and
leadership is strongest in organizations and tends to be complex, fluid, and multifaceted
involving macro and micro cultures that represent visible artifacts, espoused beliefs and values,
and unconscious assumptions. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) separated invisible mental
schema from visible cultural event artifacts using cultural models and cultural settings. While
cultural models involve behavior and attitudes that are so familiar as to be unnoticed and
invisible to group members, cultural settings are distinct activities agreed upon for a specific
purpose by two or more people (e.g., a parent helping a child with homework, a faculty meeting,
or student presentations). For this study, cultural settings include departmental initiatives, policy,
and professional development activities. The presence or absence of such tangible directives,
events, and activities is indicative of organizational culture.
Adopting and implementing a BL approach to education requires coordinated analysis
and effort. In higher education, most BL implementation is enacted on a per class, individual
faculty, or course level without institutional involvement or policy. Scattered adoption and
implementation inhibits accurate data collection, research, evaluation, and effective
improvements (Graham, et al., 2012). Institutional adoption and implementation would provide a
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 40

duplicable process towards standardized data measurement, assessments, and improvements
(Graham et al., 2012).
Rogers (2003) outlined five stages to implement innovation that included, identifying
organizational challenges that create a need for innovation; identifying an innovation that
addresses the organizational challenge(s); modifying the innovation to fit the organization;
creating a relationship between the organization and the innovation; and making the innovation a
normal part of organizational activity. Graham et al. (2012) incorporated Rogers’ (2003) five
stages into three broad categories (strategy, structure, and support) which were then
differentiated into three stages of adoption moving from initial interest in BL to mature
institutionalization. The three stages consist of (1) institutional awareness and exploration with
limited support for faculty, (2) institutional adoption of BL strategy with new policies towards
strategy of implementation and support, and (3) mature institutional establishment of BL
strategies, structure, and support integrated into university operations. For this study, the focus
was on stage 1 involving exploration into faculty attitudes, organizational challenges creating a
need for innovation, alignment of organizational challenges to BL benefits, and organizational
structure regarding pedagogical and administrative framework supporting a BL environment.
As learning institutions, schools play a role in continual organizational learning which
requires effective policy towards professional development. BL adoption and implementation
necessitates a higher level of commitment to professional development therefore an examination
of existing policy towards faculty and administrative professional development is needed
(VanDerLinden, 2014). Minimally, policy should provide sufficient time for faculty and staff to
pursue added knowledge even if training is not institutionally provided. The creation of a faculty
development group or steering committee would serve to advocate both professional
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 41

development and BL adoption initiatives and analysis (VanDerLinden, 2014). Current studies
call for further research into institutional policy, professional development, and adoption of BL
as it constitutes an ecosystem between faculty, administration, and students (Graham et al.,
2012). Existing data ignores faculty and administration in relationship to student experiences in
BL (Drysdale, Graham, & Spring, 2013).
A strategy towards BL adoption and implementation should involve examination of
knowledge, motivation and organizational needs. International BL research results reveal shared
rationales and experiences among practitioners as they grow BL communities and collaboration
which piqued more U.S. interest (Spring, Graham, & Hadlock, 2016). International educational
and economic competition continue to spur inquiry into BL, therefore a policy towards adoption
is needed as implementation is generally driven by faculty members or administrators
worldwide, with administrative support being most crucial for adoption (Spring et al., 2016).
Stage 1 of BL adoption represents a period of inquiry, definition formation, need
analysis, pedagogy and assessment development, advocacy, community collaboration,
technological system selection, and institutional model identification to begin a dialogue towards
continual organizational learning and capacity building (Graham, et al., 2012). Institutional
alignment can be a further outcome of stage 1 as the organization develops a working definition
of BL that integrates departmental values and curriculum. Stage 1 identifies innovative advocates
and early adopters within the faculty and staff allowing them to engage other professionals in a
community of practice that may have advantages beyond BL.
Table 3 shows the organizational mission, global goal, educators’ goal, organizational
influences and organizational influence assessments identified in this literature review.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 42

Table 3

Organizational Influence, Organizational Types, and Organizational Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of the International Language Department (ILD) is to teach students to understand,
speak, read and write a selected language; to promote an understanding of world civilizations and an
appreciation of their literatures; and to prepare students for jobs in a variety of professions (e.g.,
international trade, librarian, interpreter, translator, foreign service officer, foreign trade specialist,
diplomacy, intelligence, teaching and law enforcement).
Organizational Global Goal
The International Language Department (ILD) will enter stage one of the innovation to implement
blended learning by Summer 2019.
Educators’ Goal
By September 2018, faculty will participate in a study prior to stage one of the innovation.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs a specific plan for
BL professional development.
Interview questions reviewing past professional
development effort and outcomes; in-depth questions
about current and future plans involving professional
development.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs a strategy for
implementing blended learning
implementation.
Interview questions that measure resistance or
adoption to change. Resistance or adoption to
change they have observed about blended learning or
new technology implementation.
Cultural Setting Influence 3:
The organization needs to implement the
first stage of blended learning adaption.
Interview questions about positive or negative
attitudes affecting advocacy in stage one
implementation.

Interactive Conceptual Framework
Overarching Study Structure
This study consists of two parts: the methodological framework and the theoretical
framework consisting of Clark & Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences (KMO). As the theoretical framework was explained in the previous section, this
section focuses on the methodological framework. The methodological framework is based in
technological innovation adoption and implementation involving attitude analysis. Further detail
on attitude analysis lead to the methodological framework which is based on cognitive learning
theory, transformational learning, and a technological acceptance model. A technological
acceptance approach to attitude analysis is the basis of inquiry methodology. As interview
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 43

questions were designed in alignment with technological acceptance theory, open-coding of key
words, phrases, and themes evolved during this stage. Open-coding aided in categorization of the
theoretical framework consisting of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Figure 1 shows the two parts of the study structure.
Figure 1
Overarching Study Structure

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 44

Methodological Framework
The methodological framework is supported by innovation adoption and implementation
strategies. A key theory is diffusion of innovation by Rogers (2003, 1995) and is the basis for
many studies regarding innovation adoption, especially technological adoption. It consists of five
stages of adoption and implementation with co-variants of prior conditions useful for stakeholder
and organizational assessment. In blended learning Graham et al. (2012) modified Rogers’
diffusion of innovation to create three institutional adoption and implementation stages for the
Institutional Adoption and Implementation framework. For this study the focus was on stage 1:
awareness and exploration. Similarity and overlap exist in Rogers’ first two stages (i.e.,
knowledge and persuasion) and Graham’s et al., (2012) first stage (i.e., awareness and
exploration) because both involve advocacy that is initiated by early adapters.
Critical to institutional innovation adoption and implementation is the theory of reasoned
action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1969). TRA is an accepted theory of attitude that attempts to
predict individual behavior through the relationship between pre-existing attitudes and
behavioral intention. Individual attitude analysis is an important factor of technological
innovation adoption and implementation. Individual attitude analysis is supported by a
methodological framework constructed with learning theories and a technology acceptance
model.
Based on TRA is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) developed by Davis (1989).
TAM was originally designed to predict intention to use technology based on two user
acceptance determinants: an individual’s perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness
(PU) of the new technology. Developed to fill a shortage in measurement for key determinants of
computer user acceptance, TAM was refined and validated. It was widely used and was a proven
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 45

tool for explaining technology acceptance. Currently, it has been used most often in IT and
business. Per Davis, (1989) both PU and PEU are strongly correlated to attitude which in turn
affects intention to use technology.
Because TAM has been a business and IT user acceptance tool, there are few studies
utilizing TAM for foreign language faculty attitudes towards blended learning, so inclusion of an
additional variable is necessary for more detailed explanation and functionality. The added
variable, utility value, is a component of expectancy value theory and states that learners must
develop positive values towards new knowledge that has strong usefulness (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 2006). Utility value is also connected to goals and can reflect extrinsic
reasons for learning new skills that enables future goals. This variable is associated to both the
KMO theoretical framework (motivational influences) and the TAM model (perceived
usefulness PU). Utility value is covered in more detail in the Findings and Solutions and
Recommendations sections.
Figure 2 illustrates the methodological framework.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 46

Figure 2
Methodological Framework Detail

TAM diagram by Nippie - Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14457270

Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study sought to explore faculty perceptions towards adopting and implementing
blended learning strategies in their courses. It looked at the contextual environment of higher
education to discover what teachers thought about using blended learning technology.
Qualitative research is fundamentally a constructivist philosophical approach that uses inquiry to
explore a social or human problem holistically in a natural setting (Creswell, 2008).
Constructivists suppose that there are multiple social realities instead of a single view.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 47

Qualitative research is most often used to describe how individuals experience and interact with
their social worlds (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and this study sought to record attitudes and
experiences towards new technology.
Although there are a variety of qualitative methods, this study used some elements of
grounded theory. Grounded theory is most appropriate where theory is inadequate or non-
existent (Creswell, Hanson, Clark, & Morales, 2007). Full grounded theory application is
beyond the scope of this study, therefore the main elements used were question formulating,
open-coding, and development of conceptual categories. There is very little research regarding
teachers’ attitudes and experiences with blended learning implementation due to lack of
widespread institutional adoption. Therefore, qualitative research is needed to discover why there
is not widespread adoption of a technology that generates increasing educational and commercial
interest. This study examined teachers’ blended learning knowledge influences, blended learning
teacher motivation to adopt new technology, and organizational support of new technology and
training.
As part of qualitative research, Creswell (2012) defined three designs of grounded theory:
systematic, emerging, and constructivist. While limitations do not allow full use of grounded
theory practice regarding the creation of an original hypothesis, partial use of grounded theory in
terms of a constructivist approach was used. The constructivist design was appropriate for ‘why’
questions and maintaining the complexity of social situations. In qualitative study the researcher
is the primary data collection instrument so use of multiple collection methods such as an
organizational scan, interviews, and documentation can safeguard against researcher bias and
maintain the complexity of social situations (Creswell, 2012). Multiple data collection provides
triangulation to support internal validity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, a preliminary
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 48

organizational scan, interviews, and public documents were utilized for data collection. Each one
of these data collection methods is addressed below.
Preliminary Organizational Scan
For this study a preliminary scan was used to examine if there were current departmental
or university policies in place to support adoption of blended learning technology and educators’
professional development. A preliminary scan was used to explore existing personnel,
management, and organizational capabilities to adopt and implement blended learning in the
future. The protocol for the preliminary scan involved a university system public document
search and a questionnaire for one department chair. The department chair questionnaire is not
part of the study data but served only to provide background organizational information such as
university and department practices that exist to support blended learning adoption and
implementation. This questionnaire has been modified from Duarte, (2016). The Questionnaire
Protocol for the chair is included in Appendix A. Documents are covered in the Documents and
Artifacts section below.
Interviews
Per Maxwell (2013), purposes of a qualitative interview are to gather rich, detailed data,
and descriptions to integrate multiple viewpoints. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended
using an unstructured, informal interview structure with open-ended questions to gain the most
detailed responses. This type of interview structure is conversational and exploratory. Since the
purpose of this study was to explore educators’ attitudes towards blended learning as an
innovative instructional strategy, a conversational method that used topics or themes was the
preferred approach.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 49

The conceptual framework consisted of multiple learning theories to construct an attitude
analysis method and was the basis of this study’s inquiry methodology. The conceptual
framework was covered in the previous Interactive Conceptual Framework section and works in
conjunction with the Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences. Loosely based in
grounded theory using systematic design, the two main parts involved cognitive development
and transformative learning. Informal, unstructured interview questions were designed to serve
the two primary processes of Mezirow & Taylor’s (2010) transformative learning theory:
reflection and rational discourse. Without rational discourse, transformative learning is
improbable. Premise reflection, in which the learner questions her own attitudes and
assumptions, is similar to epistemic cognition. When coupled with rational discourse, reflection
advances cognitive abilities allowing the learner to use attitude analysis for higher, long-term
learning and innovation.
Grounded theory data collection also uses unstructured, open-ended interview questions
as the researcher is unable to predict where questions will lead and grounded theory is intended
to construct a theory based on inductive reasoning (Birks & Mills, 2011). Open-ended interviews
were conducted with volunteer faculty and followed with open-coding of keywords or phrases
towards category generation (Harding, 2013). All less commonly taught language educators
within two departments were recruited amounting to six participants. Participants were
interviewed once with permission to contact again as needed for data clarification. Interviews
were conducted remotely using a virtual meeting room so that participants’ schedules could be
accommodated. The sampling criteria is included in Appendix B. The interview protocol is
included in Appendix C.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 50

Documents and Artifacts
As part of a natural setting incorporating multiple realities, Merriam & Tisdell (2016)
suggest that documents may include both classroom and online documents such as lesson plans,
student assignments, student tests, online screen grabs, recorded dialogue, quizzes, project
descriptions, and researcher generated documents such as questionnaires and screen grabs used
in interviews. Meta analyses of previous research of higher education blended learning adoption
may also provide background information and comparative data. In this study, since the
universities are state institutions, online public organizational data such as strategic planning,
technical innovation, professional development initiatives and faculty resources were referenced.
This public information was used to verify information received during the preliminary
organizational scan. To provide this public information in an appendix would compromise
participant identity so it has been excluded.
Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore faculty attitudes towards department-wide stage
1 BL adoption for LCTL instruction as defined by Graham, et al. (2012). The outcome of the
findings suggested that additional departmental communication and coordination was needed to
create a foundation for stage 1 adoption and advocacy. The three main areas requiring increased
attention are departmental policy, BL professional development (including communication about
existing resources and support), and more effective utilization and engagement of innovative
volunteer faculty. The two research questions (RQ) align to the KMO framework as explained
by Clark & Estes (2008) with RQ1 related to faculty educational and motivational influences,
RQ2 related to organizational influences. Organizational influences involve department and
university issues so are covered in the following section, Solutions and Recommendations.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 51

This section presents the findings organized by research questions which reflect the KMO
conceptual framework. Subthemes provide additional information regarding the research
questions and the three main areas stated above involving BL stage 1. Supportive data is in the
form of an organizational scan interview, faculty interviews, and public documents or artifacts.
Pseudonyms are used for the participating university, departments, and faculty so document
contents are generalized to protect the schools’ and participants’ identities.
The participants included a total of six faculty instructors of less commonly taught
languages including Japanese, Korean, Persian, and Vietnamese. There were four female and two
male instructors. The faculty represent two language departments from two different university
campuses with five adjunct instructors and one tenured instructor. Language instruction years of
experience range from 5 to 34 years with four instructors exclusive to adult education and two
instructors experienced in teaching both adult and children. Language instruction level varied
from beginner to combinations of beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Three instructors had no
experience with BL and online instruction, one considered herself to be an intermediate user
(less than five years’ experience), and the remaining two self-reported as advanced users (more
than five years).
Table 4

Participant Demographics

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 52

Organizational Scan
A preliminary organizational scan was performed at one of the two campus language
departments to provide basic departmental policy and information. Both departments had a
language multimedia lab used by both students and faculty. They contained resources such as
films and language learning software that could be used in the lab or accessed remotely. It was
estimated that most of the faculty and courses used some form of BL component in their
classrooms using the multimedia lab. In addition to traditional classroom courses, complete
online courses were available for languages at variable levels. Regarding technological
innovation, both campuses had a teaching resource center directed towards faculty professional
development. Instruction in the use of digital tools to be used in the classroom or multimedia lab
were provided along with courses in online tools and platforms like Blackboard, Zoom,
TITANium, and Moodle. Both campuses had asynchronous workshops or instruction, online
guides or tutorials, support consultations, and live walk-in assistance. They both also had
technical IT support staff available for advice, assistance, and to receive suggestions for
improvement. There was a campus-wide initiative administered by a technologist vice president
committed to the use of new technologies, faculty and staff training, and service. The
organizational scan revealed that both campuses had technology tools for blended learning and
resources for faculty development pursuant to the system wide initiative to support increased
graduation rates by 2025, innovative technology, and professional development.
RQ1: What are the educators’ knowledge and motivation related to the adoption of
blended learning?
Two main themes were observed regarding RQ1 involving educators’ knowledge and
motivation influences towards BL adoption. The themes mostly focus on the participants’
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 53

variable responses to a definition of BL and utility value of BL instruction as a strategy to
achieve student learning outcomes. The findings are detailed below.
Knowledge Inconsistencies: defining blended learning. Knowledge interview
questions were designed to cover factual (F), conceptual (C), procedural (P), and metacognitive
(M) types of learning needs (Appendix C). Because not all respondents were experienced in BL
or online strategies, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge did not apply to
everyone. However, as part of the factual knowledge aspect and to acquire a point of reference,
all participants were asked to define blended learning in their own words. Although all
participants mentioned “online” or “internet”, some did not elaborate. Of the three participants
who had no experience using blended learning instruction, two did not offer definitions and one
offered a non-technical definition involving a multi-disciplinary approach, “…you include any
other discipline besides language.” Of the three participants who had experience with blended
learning instruction, here too, definitions varied by experience with the intermediate user stating
simply, “Blended learning is online together with in-class setting…” and the other two advanced
users elaborating on time percentages, “one third of instruction is online two thirds of instruction
is in class”, and they mentioned software like Blackboard, TITANium, and Moodle. Regarding a
serviceable definition of BL, there was no departmental general definition or LTCL specific
definition provided directly to faculty as recorded in a preliminary organizational scan. None of
the faculty interviewed for this study referred to any departmental, campus, or university system
provided definitions.
However, the initial organizational scan acknowledged a university wide initiative and
teaching resource center committed to new technologies with faculty and staff training. A
university website provided quality assurance for blended and online courses with resources,
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 54

scheduled workshops, and information per campus as part of the system wide initiative. It was on
this website that specific campus definitions and policies towards BL (or hybrid) and distance
instruction was found with variations. One campus defined BL as a combination of online and
face-to-face instruction with some classroom sessions potentially replaced with online activities.
The other campus defined hybrid (BL) instruction as a blend of traditional and, synchronous and
asynchronous online methods, with between 20-80% of the sessions taught online. Based on the
organizational scan and the public online websites, each campus could define BL according their
own criteria. It is unclear how many faculty at each campus utilized the resources as described in
the public websites with offered asynchronous and synchronous resources. Further information
regarding the university-wide initiative and faculty support is covered in the findings for RQ2
where organizational influences are presented.
According to Graham (2012) and Duarte (2016), wide variations on institutional
definitions of blended learning present a challenge, not only to researchers, but to the
institutional adoption, implementation, and subsequent development of BL itself. The simplest
definition involving the blending of online with face-to-face instruction is insufficient to address
the four central issues critical to defining BL in a serviceable fashion: what is being blended;
should seat time be part of the definition, should quantity of online instruction be part of the
definition, and should quality factors be part of the definition. The response variations to this
interview question reflect national and international BL disparities. Because BL is an evolving
instructional strategy, such confusion is interpreted by some scholars as an advantage (Sharpe,
Benfield, & Francis, 2006) because simplistic, broad, and vague definitions allow for easy
institutional acceptance resulting in adaption and the freedom to design or implement practices
unique to specific purposes and goals along with ownership.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 55

Motivation Inconsistencies: Utility Value. Motivation interview questions were
directed towards theories of expectancy-value, attributions, self-efficacy, and goals (Appendix
C). Of particular interest was the response variation in the perceived expectancy-value of BL as a
LCTL instruction strategy. Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala, et al. (1983) defined the
expectancy-value model as broad beliefs about competency in a domain coupled with
expectancies regarding success on a specific task or task-value. As a predictor of motivation,
Eccles et al. (1983) outlined four components of task-value, of which utility value is directly
related to the respondents’ attitudes towards the perceived usefulness of learning and applying
BL strategies towards language instruction. Utility value relates to current and future goals and
can reflect extrinsic reasons for engaging in a task such as learning to use BL teaching strategies.
A positive utility value means that a task facilitates future goals.
In this case, the participants equated the utility value of learning or using BL instruction
methods to successful attainment of student learning objectives (i.e., foreign language
comprehension). Responses ranged from (1) adherence to traditional face-to-face instruction
only to (2) allowing BL instruction after the beginner level to (3) allowing BL instruction at all
learning levels. It is in response to this question that differences between less commonly taught
languages and commonly taught languages (i.e., Romance languages) requirements were
observed. It is noted that attitudes in favor or not in favor of BL practices were not congruent to
age, gender, language taught, or number of years of teaching experience. Rather, favorable or
unfavorable attitudes seemed related to how well tools were expected to facilitate alphabet or
character writing as the represented LCTLs had complex and numerous alphabets or characters
and extensive vocabulary.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 56

The three participants who did not have BL teaching experience did not perceive value in
using instructional BL or online strategies towards achievement of student learning outcomes
and preferred traditional face-to-face classroom instruction. While not opposed to using some
technology (such as email, PowerPoint slides, or online videos), any technology used had to be
supportive of classroom interaction. Reasons in favor of the traditional classroom approach
include extensive alphabet or syllabaries, student demographics, and the immersive aspect of the
classroom. Direct quotes supporting these three reasons are provided below.
Regarding the alphabet or syllabaries, the less commonly taught languages included in
this study tend not to use the simple Latin alphabet in which English and Romance languages are
written. By contrast, the languages in this study use syllabaries, logograms, modified Arabic
characters, and Latin alphabet extended with diacritics. Therefore, comments in favor of
traditional classroom instruction reveal doubts that online or technological resources can help
students to write the alphabet or syllabaries accurately. Participant #6 stated, “… the most
difficult thing to learn is the alphabet. Most students struggle and quit the class… young people
who always use computers cannot write kanji. On the other hand, there is also a web site that is
set to kanji. When it comes to students using the computer, it is attractive and useful and so in
that case some technology also helps the student to master kanji but it is still not good enough for
them to write.” Although participant #6 was still in favor of technology that supports
independent review or practice, “…the use of electronic or physical flashcards I think is
effective... vocabulary quiz and tests…”
Participant #1 supported handwork over typing, “I want students, myself included, to put
something in work using handwriting instead of typing… when you write it takes longer but you
are thinking more… you are processing what you're doing.” Using a physical dictionary was
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 57

also preferred over an online dictionary, “I encourage the students to look up words in the
dictionary… easy come, easy go… they understand the definition, but then one second later they
forget.” Reading is also preferred to be done in-class as a timed assignment and assisted by live
tutors, “…they're going to work on the reading with the language tutors in the language center.”
Therefore, due to the complexities of specific alphabets, syllabaries, or logograms these
instructors preferred classroom instruction and traditional (nontechnical) teaching methods
versus online or software methods. As noted in the organizational scan section, language
computer labs were available on both campuses and all the instructors said they recommended its
use to students (along with the use of available live tutors.) However, due to the lack of BL
experience by these respondents, (beyond their use of YouTube videos, PowerPoint slides, email,
and attending the language lab) and their lack of experience with campus faculty resources, a
connection between BL objections and specific available faculty resources could not be made.
Due to this reason, it was also not possible to connect their objections to specific BL strategies
like remote online or software tools for extended lecture, review, or practice.
Participant #4 thought student demographics were a contributing factor in favor of the
traditional classroom. For first-generation college students from working class backgrounds
immersion in the college campus experience was considered an intrinsic part of learning as
participant #4 suggested that
…they need to take advantage of this and they need to take traditional college classes.
They need to learn how to sit in a lecture room, they need to take notes by hand. They
cannot type everything on a computer. A lot of learning happens when you write things
out by hand. I do understand that for the demographics of the students that we teach,
flexibility is very important. Many of our students work, they have family… I
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 58

understand that online classes or even blended classes would be very helpful to students
to just take the class. So, I would never downplay that.
Participant #4 acknowledged the need to accommodate students’ schedules and travel
needs and also suggested there be a dialogue with students about the differences and aspects of
face-to-face and online enhanced instruction so that students might make appropriate decisions
towards their educational choices. The immersive aspect of the campus and classroom were
preferred over online contact as participant #6 focused on classroom activities, “The goal is to try
to make kind of a game with activities, class activities.” Participant #1 stressed in-person human
interaction in the classroom and through travel as the optimum way to learn a foreign language,
“I love to travel…I love to learn new things… I want to be exposed to new environments… I
appreciate that they are interested in my culture… I'm sharing my experience with them and it's
good for me and I hope that helps students to feel more comfortable with the culture or language
that I am sharing with them.”
Due to the lack of BL experience, it was unclear if Participant #1 and #4 might have
confused BL teaching with remote online teaching because many objects were based on a
perceived lack of live face-to-face time. Participant #3, although proficient at BL and online
strategies, stressed the importance of live student interaction, “…teaching a language as a second
language helped me to move the students toward more communication and interaction. Rather
than just communicating with the textbook they are communicating with the instructor. They're
communicating with their classmates too. So, I think it's more communication- and interaction-
based.” Therefore, demographics and immersion experience were given as reasons to promote
traditional classroom strategies over blended learning and/or online strategies. It was suggested
that students who are the first in their family to go to college would benefit most from non-
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 59

technical learning strategies like attending a live classroom, taking notes, reading, and listening
to live lectures. Similarly, the live classroom experience was compared to the immersive
experience of travel to an area where the target language is primarily spoken. Again, due to the
participants’ lack of experience with technological tools specific objections were unclear
regarding online and/or software tools for lecture, review, or practice.
Between the respondents who were in favor of minimal-to-no BL learning strategies and
the proponents of early-and-continual use of BL learning strategies was a middle position
recommending criteria for the introduction and required use of BL. Participant #2 offered that
beginners should first learn in a traditional classroom setting and after that can partake of BL
instruction. This is because the very first level is often the most difficult and requires the most
encouragement and assistance from the instructor due to unfamiliarity with the specific language
alphabet, syllabaries, or logograms. After a student has gained some familiarity with these
components and the required learning processes, more independent resources can be introduced.
Additionally, BL methods are necessary if classroom sessions are infrequent as “the student
should study at home because they only come twice a week to class… once a week or twice a
week blended learning tools are very important so they can study at home.” Although participant
#2 was alone in these suggestions, it is interesting to note that this respondent was the only
intermediate level user of BL and online instruction so took an accommodating position in the
use of BL to address the aforementioned concerns about alphabet, syllabary, or logogram
complexity. These are elements particular to LCTLs that may separate BL instruction adoption
and strategies from CTLs. This respondent was the only one to suggest infrequent meeting times
might be a criterion for BL supplementation. Due to the small sample it is unclear how prevalent
this suggestion might be among other instructors.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 60

The participants who had extensive BL and online teaching experience placed student-
centered learning at the forefront of all advantages. Participant #5 stated that “blended learning
design is helpful for the student because we can individualize instruction.” A common strategy
used by the participants who had BL experience was to upload a variety of review material,
projects, or assignments that would cater to the personal interests of their students and then let
the students make selections. In this way, students were encouraged to integrate language
learning into other aspects of their lives. Participant #3 explained:
When I was in the intensive summer program they wanted us to connect with their
discipline. If they were an engineering major connect the language to their engineering
major. If they want to do some research pick a famous character in engineering and write
about it. I think that's connecting to their discipline or their interest. That's enjoyment in
blended learning. I think it's a big factor.
Participant #5 found this way of designing BL courses particularly helpful in addressing
various learning styles due to generational differences, “…the new generation (Gen Z) they want
to succeed in learning so I set up specific goals for them… Millennials are focused on sharing so
when I design, I design the community language and mobile sharing (for discussion).”
Assessment, too, was designed to individualize student learning as participant #3 used
online for formative assessment and the classroom for summative assessment,
…online ongoing assessment is great. But as far as the midterm exams and final exams
the quizzes that they take, I'm not sure about the validity of the exams because I'm not
there. They can easily cheat-- they can use Google Translate. So, what I have done is to
use online for ongoing assessment. All the forums and discussions that they do in class
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 61

and all the online activities have grades. Seventy percent is achieved through the online
ongoing assessment and 30% is the midterm and final.
By using online activities for ongoing assessment, student progress was verified and
matched to in-class midterm and final exam results. In this way, the instructor could target areas
of student difficulty and intervene before the summative exam assessments.
Timely feedback provided online also supported both formative and summative
assessment, “I assess each assignment weekly. If they didn't do a good job on one assignment, I
give them feedback. I ask them to go revise that for a complete grade and all the assignments are
timed.” Participant #2 utilized a flipped classroom approach by having students prepare for the
live class online, then using classroom time for interaction, “They can review and have visual
aids and auditory aids then they come to class and we can practice together. As long as they
have very detailed material, like YouTube, PowerPoint, auditory, and visual aids, they can
prepare very well. So that is the advantage of blended learning.” When asked if there were
observable positive student outcomes related to BL styled instruction, participant #3 noted,
The difference that I notice is the motivation level and enjoyment. The students in the
blended learning class, you can see that they're enjoying the class, very excited to go… it
just gives them more control and it's more interesting for the students to do blended
learning… if they didn't have access to the Internet instead of giving them choices about
assignments or projects I would pick a character and I would say read this passage and
write something about that person. But instead it BL gives them more freedom, more
control, and they can base activities on their own discipline.
Participant #5 mentioned student retention effort, “This is constructivism. There's a
constructivist interest for themselves, for social interaction. We build on relationship because
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 62

language is for social interaction, for community language… they’re able to have a relationship,
the relationship helps them to have retention because in community language, they interact with
the other students and the material is designed to maintain retention.” Table 5 below illustrates
faculty perceived utility value of BL based on BL instruction experience.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 63

Table 5

Motivation Inconsistencies: Utility Value of BL
Instruction
Components

BL Instruction
Experience:

Little to None

BL Instruction
Experience:

Intermediate

BL Instruction
Experience:

Advanced
Teaching unfamiliar
alphabet, syllabaries, and
logograms
Traditional
classroom methods
Traditional classroom
with transition to BL
methods
BL methods
Lecture Traditional
classroom methods
Traditional classroom
with transition to BL
methods
BL methods
Review Language Lab,
non-technical
methods (books)
Traditional classroom
with transition to BL
methods
BL methods
Practice Language Lab,
tutors, non-
technical methods
(books)
Traditional classroom
with transition to BL
methods
BL methods
Assignments Traditional
homework methods
Traditional homework
methods
BL methods
(i.e., online projects
and live classroom
or remote
presentation)

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 64

Although responses ranged from little perceived utility value in BL instruction to highly
perceived utility value (in the form of student engagement and resultant motivation and
retention), there appeared to be agreement in that all instructors wished for their students to enjoy
learning engagement and interaction with each other, the instructor, and possibly a community.
Variability was expressed in how effective BL instruction would be towards that student
experience. Although all the instructors seemed to agree about wanting their students to
experience learning engagement and interaction, a definition of engagement was not provided,
therefore it was not possible to determine if they agreed on the same indicators for learning
engagement.
Per Vaughan (2014), the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) defines
student engagement as the amount of effort and time that students expend in their studies to
achieve academic success and how the institution designs learning opportunities and services to
induce student participation in such activities. The NSSE mirrors a constructivist framework
when it emphasizes meaningful learning outcomes assisted by a collaborative environment
where students are supported, multiple perspectives are presented, and misconceptions
addressed. Recent definitions of BL now involve collaborative learning, social interaction,
reflection, higher order thinking, problem solving, more authentic assessment in higher
education, and content which could lead to a greater sense of student engagement (Vaughan,
2014). Unfortunately, empirical evidence is lacking about the effect of BL instruction on student
engagement in general and if BL instruction increases LCTL student engagement in particular.
Although the participants with advanced BL experience stated that they believed their student
engagement results were positive based on observable online student presence and completion of
online activities, national findings are scarce regarding BL’s effect on LCTL student
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 65

engagement. Although the NSSE provides annual student engagement findings, results are
aggregated so delineation by academic discipline is not available at the time of this dissertation
writing. Therefore, increased institutional BL adoption for LCTL instruction implementation,
and evaluation is needed for more specific empirical information.
RQ2: What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and educators’
knowledge and motivation?
Two main themes were observed regarding RQ2 involving organizational interaction
with the educators towards BL adoption. The themes focus on the participants’ variable
responses to BL organizational policy, support, and professional development resources and
professional development incentives. As mentioned previously, The Pacific State University
Southeast (PSU) system, (a pseudonym) as a collection of statewide campuses, has a five-year
initiative to increase student graduation rates by 2025, promote teaching innovation, develop the
Faculty Resource Center (FRC), and create a plan to increase training opportunities for faculty
and staff. As part of the university system initiative, a website was developed to maintain quality
assurance and faculty and staff training in BL and online instruction. After an initial
organizational scan from one campus, data was gathered in the form of faculty interviews
collected from two different campus language departments. While faculty and technological
resources varied between the two campuses, a common BL policy and professional development
information gap between the university wide initiative, individual campus FRCs, and the faculty
became apparent. The findings are detailed below.
Departmental Initiatives and Support. Responses were consistent regarding
departmental BL policy, however a gap existed between the departmental faculty respondents
and the university wide initiative with corresponding departmental viewpoint. Of the five part-
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 66

time and one full-time faculty participants, when asked if they were aware of a departmental
policy towards BL adoption or implementation, all the participants stated they were not aware or
that none existed. Responses ranged from “No, I'm not aware at all” to “…the department doesn't
have any particular policy to encourage or support the faculty towards those goals” to “I don't
think I have seen a university policy or initiative that sets aside online learning as something to
be encouraged.” While true that there was not an official departmental policy regarding BL
utilization, the initial organizational scan revealed an administrative viewpoint that deferred to
the university wide initiative (which in turn supported the system wide mandate to promote and
improve technological innovation and professional development as described above.)
When asked about professional development resources either within the department or on
campus, responses were varied. Two participants were aware of email notifications regarding
upcoming training or workshops but had scheduling conflicts and/or were not completely
informed. Participant #1 reported,
I think we have a department or office trying to train instructors for tech knowledge and
new technology in class. There are some sessions and they're on and off. I have an
email… it always collides with my class schedule so I have not been able to attend those
meetings, but I think I should someday make myself available…
Participant #4 stated:
We do have initiatives to use online education tools, but it's more like ‘here are some
tools’… you can put a video online if you want students to watch at home. But that's not
about teaching or learning… like if you want to learn how many times your students are
logging into Blackboard here's a tool… maybe I just missed the memo… maybe there's a
big push to go online…
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 67

Participant #6 was mildly interested but had not pursued developmental resources yet, “I
haven’t yet experienced teaching an online class. I don't know how it works but I am interested
maybe in the future. We thought maybe the teaching might change. I don’t know maybe we
have to change our minds.”
When participant #2 was asked to create an online course, support was not offered but
after asking another colleague about resources, “I went to the campus professional instructional
designer… designing the course takes the most time. However, there is a designer on the campus
so I'm working with her and she is helping me do that.” This particular action supported a
finding that courses with higher educational quality and consistency towards building
organizational capacity are the result of a partnership between faculty and instructional designers
in the development of BL courses (Moskal, Dziuban, & Hartman, 2013).
Participant #3 also received support in preparing an online course proposal:
I told them that I'm ready to write a proposal for online instruction…they encouraged me
and connected me with all the professors in the committee in the department… they gave
feedback on the proposal because it usually takes about six, seven months to write a
proposal that takes about one year to get approved. We just offered a class within a year.
That was wonderful. We have a lot of assessment every year, every semester there is a
professor who comes to class to access your teaching skills and the student's learning
experience. So helpful and so proud that I work for that department because they called to
reach a higher level of potential.”
Participant #5 had taken advantage of a faculty development resource in the form of
IMPACT teacher training, “I have a workshop within my department… we study several topics
and finally we get the IMPACT certificate.” In terms of general learning and teaching resources,
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 68

all the participants were aware of how to order additional teaching materials, help students
access tutors, language computer labs, and self-study materials, and seemed satisfied with the
autonomy afforded to faculty in customizing and scheduling their instruction. However,
inconsistencies in knowledge about department or campus technology training and resources that
could support fundamental information about instructional BL practices suggested that more
direct faculty communication was needed.
When asked what the department or campus did to assist faculty in collaboration around
BL or supporting a community of practice, again responses varied with most respondents
claiming to have no time for such engagement either within or outside the department, “we don't
have much of a community of practice. We don't get to talk to each other that much. We don't
need each other that much…we come to teach and then we leave. At the end of the day we don't
hang out… a lot of us commute from very far places.” Even though one participant was aware of
a campus wide organization for foreign language teachers that “get together once a semester to
talk about issues related to language teaching in the university system” two instructors used other
online communities stating, “… the faculty community is virtual, we can see they have projects
up, they have syllabi, they have assignments… we gather together after workshops… I attend
regularly if I have the time” and:
If I see a webinar I sign up for that. For example, I took some webinars from K1 through
12, for the school district. So, it doesn't matter. Anything that’s online. Also, there is
study.com. There are a lot of resources online. There's not one specific community that I
join.
It appeared that two participants used other online faculty communities for resources not
available within their university system. Participants who sought assistance with technology in
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 69

general and BL tools specifically in a community or on campus showed the most mastery and
confidence in BL instruction. Assistance was in the form of both department, campus or
university resources and resources from other online entities. Three of the most proficient users
of BL and online methods acknowledged a significant time investment. Participant #2 devoted
15 hours per week initially to design an online course in conjunction with a campus instructional
designer. Participant #3 suggested that LCTL languages may need more support than CTL
languages:
I think we need more resources for difficult to learn languages… everything in online
instruction should be planned, you need to plan every single minute of instruction… the
most challenging part for me in the online instruction was the alphabet because the
students were challenged. It was difficult the first two to three weeks, it was very
advanced… it moved very smoothly but if they missed a session, it wasn't easy for them
to catch up. So, I was posting and making videos for my alphabet. I tried to do it in very
short segments, 3-minute videos. And for the first three or four videos I just started
talking about the features of the language. After they're familiar with the basics they need
to learn all the alphabet in one week… they need to learn all names and the shape of the
letters… every session they learn about four or five letters.
Participant #3 was primarily self-taught and stated:
I started from scratch with YouTube videos. I started learning from lynda.com… since
2013 I started working on technology and feel every day I'm learning something. The
other part is that you need to convert older materials from traditional to online materials.
That's the part that takes a lot of time and energy. But it's worth it because once you make
it and upload it you can use it forever.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 70

Participant #5 learned specific software in a self-taught fashion using Moodle from the
early 2000’s to present day:
Before I used Moodle, I used Blackboard, but to me Blackboard is kind of simple.
Moodle has opened the gate of success in teaching for me. I designed Moodle with
everything… listening tasks… my lecture… forum, I can use anything that I want to post
on it… in our university we always have Moodle training every month, every week.
Participant #5 used other software such as Rosetta Stone, “…we have Rosetta Stone
material. We didn't design the assignment for them. You give them study guides in Rosetta
Stone… we have extended projects included in Rosetta Stone. This is support for learning
languages.”
Inconsistencies in the responses highlight a knowledge gap between participating faculty
and system wide university (with departmental deferment) regarding the five-year initiative,
resources, and professional development opportunities. Consistent with utility value attitudes,
participants in favor of traditional instruction did not seek out clarification of policy or resources,
while participants in favor of BL strategies sought out mostly resources and professional
development opportunities, although unfamiliar with policy. The most advanced users of BL
instruction used resources and professional development primarily outside the university system.
It is unclear if this was due to perceived inadequacies within the system’s resources or
lack of information regarding available resources. Perceived inadequacies may involve the
advanced technological knowledge level which had had not yet been addressed by the university
system. It is also unclear if the quantity, frequency, or quality of information distribution used to
inform faculty about the initiative, resources, and professional training was insufficient and
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 71

required more than periodic email notifications. Table 6 below shows the total responses to the
initiatives and support topics.
Table 6

Departmental Initiatives and Support Inconsistencies
Initiatives and Support Topics Yes Unsure No
Awareness of a Departmental BL Policy 6
Awareness of a University System Wide Innovative Technology
Initiative
1 5
Use of Departmental or Campus Faculty Development Resources 3 3
Use of Outside Resources for Faculty Development 2 4

Professional Development Incentives Inconsistency. When the above BL proficient
users were questioned about their commitment to learn new technology they all stated
professional development towards better student outcomes and career advancement goals.
Participant #2 explained, “I was advised that it was good for my profession… also more and
more busy students like to take online courses. I think it's something I should know. That's my
motivation.” Participant #5 credited a learner-centered focus in modern education, “when we
have a workshop, we discuss how to help students engage in critical thinking, how to present the
data… help them to share responsibility…how to recognize themselves as a doer for problem
solving…not just blaming others.” Participant #3 referred to career and student learning
objectives:
…teaching is an ongoing process… I get bored with one lesson plan and then I move on
to another lesson plan. We need to enjoy what we're doing… the students will enjoy it if
you put in time and energy. We're going to enjoy it; the students are going to enjoy it; and
the outcomes will be great. The only good feeling that I have about blended learning and
online teaching is the student's enjoyment, they participate when they add personal
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 72

information. Then they interact with me or with other students. It pays off-- all the hard
work, pays off in students’ engagement I'm happy to say.
This participant suggested a correlation between instructor and student interactivity and
teaching and learning enjoyment. As written previously in this paper under Motivational
Influences, per Daniels, et al. (2009) effort and positive emotions are connected and can lead to
increased motivation when mastery goals instead of grades are promoted. Effort towards
mastery has been linked to positive emotions such as joy of learning, pride, and hope which are
dominant components of intrinsic motivation resulting in learning persistence. These positive
emotions combat negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, shame, hopelessness, and boredom
and lead to increased motivation (Pekrun, 2011; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry,
2011). This instructor used BL instructional design to combat personal boredom, thereby
illustrating mastery goals and strategies to positively influence motivation in the students.
When the BL users were asked what incentives might be included for faculty in
department wide BL adoption and implementation, again, the responses varied. Among the
participants who had no BL instruction experience, Participant #1 wanted to attend some of the
professional development meetings before answering, Participant #6 suggested a grant
acquisition to assist in developing an improved language course as budget issues seemed to be
currently preventing departmental advancements, and Participant#4 had questions about BL and
online instruction efficacy towards improved student outcomes and/or if online methods were an
economic solution to budgetary constraints or cutbacks.
Among the respondents who had BL instruction experience, Participant #2 suggested
higher pay for teaching BL (and especially online courses) as increased online sessions with
reduced classroom hours can potentially increase class size resulting in increased instructor hours
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 73

per week including added student orientation periods. Also, paid travel expenses to conferences
would be an added convenience for faculty. As the majority of the participants were part-time
instructors, issues regarding part-time versus full-time compensation were mentioned. Participant
#3 recommended adding enough units or hours to quality for health benefits, especially if the
instructor has been instrumental in course development or increased enrollment, and also cited
budgetary constraints as an obstacle to departmental advancement. Participant #5 also
recommended paid professional development for expenses and thought there may be such a
budget for full-time instructors but if it was not used then it should be allocated to part-time
faculty.
In summary, two main themes were observed regarding RQ2 and the organizational
interaction with educators towards BL adoption. The first theme was centered on BL
organizational policy, technical support, and technical professional development resources. The
second theme focused on professional development incentives. Respondents were consistent
with their utility value attitudes which were covered in the findings for RQ1. Participants in
favor of traditional instruction were less motivated to clarify university policy or resources, while
participants in favor of BL strategies persisted in seeking out resources and professional
development opportunities, although unfamiliar with university policy. However, regardless of
participant BL attitude, an information gap possibly caused by incomplete or infrequent
organizational communication from the university regarding system wide initiative, resources,
and professional development opportunities appeared to be a cause of the participants’ perceived
lack of organizational support and its influence on faculty motivation. To clarify, the system
wide system wide initiative to support increased graduation rates by 2025, innovative
technology, and professional development. At the time of this data collection partway through
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 74

the program, it appeared that wide spread communication did not reach all faculty, including
part-time and full-time.
Regarding professional development incentives, responses varied and included the
following suggestions: intrinsic motivation is its own reward; increase departmental budget for
more innovative experimentation; higher pay for faculty; and paid travel expenses. Beyond the
asynchronous technological professional development workshops and tutorials provided by both
campuses, any other monetary compensation was negotiated privately within the department (as
was reported by the two most advanced users).

Discussion
Department-wide stage 1 BL adoption is not applicable at this time because of a lack of
departmental BL policy, the need for improved support communication between the university
and faculty, and the need for volunteer innovative faculty to be involved in policy and
communication.
BL Departmental Policy. The BL utility value discrepancies within the faculty indicate
a need to relate the value of BL instruction to the overarching values and mission of the
institution towards its students in a manner that is specific and easily communicated. For stage 1
BL adoption there needs to be a BL departmental policy. Per Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016),
the primary result of Level 4 innovation or training is an alignment of values between
stakeholders. The value of blended learning instruction should agree with the university and
departmental values and mission for student outcomes. The process of creating a BL
departmental policy ensures that those involved can answer affirmatively to the question, “Is this
what the organization exists to do, deliver, or contribute to its customers or society, at a high
level?” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 75

Innovative Technology Support Communication. The inconsistencies in participant
responses regarding innovative technological support, resources and training opportunities for
faculty indicate a lack of effective communication about the university system wide initiative
and its implementation. For stage 1 BL adoption there needs to be better communication
regarding BL and technology resources and support. Although some participants mentioned
infrequent email notifications, there was no observed connection between the emails and an
awareness of the encompassing system initiative and corresponding support resources either at
each campus or system wide. Increased support communication coupled with increased
communication of BL policy and how both contribute to system wide stakeholder values and
mission outcomes might alleviate inconsistencies resulting from lack of utility value knowledge
and motivational influences.
Volunteer Innovation Steering Committee. Because participants with BL instruction
experience mentioned utility value involving student-centered outcomes and instructional skill
improvement, and that the most advanced users showed a high degree of self-motivation in
acquiring new knowledge and skills, these are traits that could be utilized in creating a
department policy and improving support communication. Volunteer innovative-minded and
experienced BL instructors can be better utilized to assist in developing BL policy and
technological communication. Porter and Graham (2016) concluded that innovators and early
adopters were positively influenced by institutional purpose for BL adoption and resource
support (i.e. professional development). They noted that institutional purpose which is closely
aligned with faculty was highly influential. A dialog between administration and innovative
faculty can be instrumental in departmental resource and goal/value alignment during stage 1
adoption. The specific strategies and outcomes learned and observed by the experienced faculty
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 76

could be instrumental in accurately connecting institutional value and purpose to BL instruction
and student outcomes.
Department and Institutional Alignment. While the creation of a volunteer innovation
steering committee would be a good starting point in guiding the department to stage 1 BL
adoption, because values and goals must be aligned between the department and the institution,
this will necessitate communication between department faculty and administration, and
university administration. Since public documents and the organizational scan revealed
knowledge of system wide initiatives this information needs to be conveyed to the departmental
faculty stakeholders with a clear rationale for professional development in BL and how that
would fulfill system wide proposed student outcomes. The development of departmental policy
and strategy that is in alignment with the system wide initiative is needed.
Solutions and Recommendations
The recommendations were grouped according to knowledge, motivational and
organizational influences. The knowledge solutions concern the creation of a departmental BL
definition and require engaging innovative faculty as a steering committee to develop
professional development courses. The motivational solutions focus on the utility value of BL in
LCTL instruction and, again, involve innovative faculty to ensure that the value of BL
instruction is in alignment with positive student outcomes. The organizational recommendation
involves aligning institutional and professional development into a unified vision (policy) and an
implementation strategy sufficient for supporting stage 1 adoption.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 77

Knowledge
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 7 represent assumed influences related to
blended learning adoption and implementation. These are based on the literature review which
focused on factual elements of knowledge and skills that enable teachers to integrate online
material and to acquire blended learning best practices towards improved student outcomes. Also
included in the knowledge and skills literature is conceptual and procedural knowledge as
defined by Krathwohl (2009). Conceptual knowledge addresses the theory or model of blended
learning while procedural knowledge addresses subject or technological specific techniques and
methods; and criteria for determining appropriate use.
Also, BL conceptual knowledge includes terminology such as virtual community of
inquiry, student autonomy, and cognitive load. Of all the potential advantages, the creation of an
online community of inquiry and increased learner autonomy directly address political
educational demands to serve a more diverse population and facilitate lifelong learning.
Procedural knowledge involving cognitive load theory implementation differentiates
different types of mental activity per efficacy towards long term memory. Extraneous cognitive
load interferes with learning while germane cognitive load contributes to learning. Increasing
germane cognitive load is best achieved by decreasing extraneous load (distractions) to avoid
overloading short term and working memory so that long term memory is optimized (Kirschner,
P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, 2006).
Combined, the concepts of community of inquiry, autonomy, and cognitive load create an
effective learning environment conducive to enhancing student self-regulation and motivation
through low-risk or low-anxiety speaking activities with other students. Teachers need to
understand the social cognitive concepts and advantages behind creating virtual opportunities for
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 78

students to experiment, practice, and drill in a low-risk environment (Bruland, 2013) that also
encourages self-efficacy for autonomous, individualized learning. (Brooke, 2013; Pajares, 2006).
Table 7 provides the summary of stakeholder knowledge influences and corresponding
recommendations which are covered in more detail in the Solutions and Recommendations
section.
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence for
Stakeholders
Validated?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to know
blended learning
vocabulary and
elements.
HP Y Factual knowledge allows
instructors to become familiar
with basic elements needed to
become familiar with the
discipline (Krathwohl, 2009).
Provide online
primer information
on basic blended
learning best
practices for
foreign language
instruction.
Faculty need to know
current blended learning
concepts that improve
student outcomes.
HP Y Conceptual knowledge of the
interrelationship between basic
elements can use classifications
and categories to integrate
foundational knowledge and
new technological knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2009).

Job aids assist in knowledge
transfer to apply past
experiences to a new challenge
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide job aids to
assist in
categorizing
syllabi and lesson
plans between
classroom and
online tasks and
goals.
Faculty need to
understand how to create
personalized materials
for students.
N Y Procedural knowledge focus on
specific skills and determination
of when to use appropriate
procedures (Krathwohl, 2009).

Procedural knowledge can
increase germane cognitive load
through the creation of engaging
and meaningful online material
(Kirshner et al., 2006).

Training is required when
people need “how to”
knowledge based on modeling
Provide software
specific training on
how to make
course material for
online access.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 79

or demonstration, practice, and
feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Faculty need to know
how to engage in
communities of practice
to support one another.

Faculty need to know
how to create a
community of practice
for their students.
HP Y Demonstration and modeling
helps learners develop new
behavior (Denler et al., 2009),
observational learning needs to
be rehearsed/practiced, (Mayer,
2011) and feedback enhances
performance (Shute, 2008)

Procedural knowledge on how to
use specific online methods to
create a community of learners
using goal orientation theory
(Yough & Anderman, 2006).

This includes conceptual
knowledge (what is a
community of practice?) and
factual knowledge (definitions).
Provide training on
mastery and goal
orientation theory
to create an online
supportive
environment.

Provide a
consultant to
model, guide
faculty in practice,
and provide
feedback regarding
how to create a
community of
practice.

Faculty need to reflect
upon their prior
knowledge to encourage
students towards online
independent study,
practice, and self-
assessment.

N Y Use of Metacognitive strategies
facilitates learning (Baker,
2009).

Provide experiences that help
people make sense of the
material rather than just focus
on memorization (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Education is recommended for
people who require varied types
of knowledge for novel and/or
unexpected problems (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Provide education
that gives faculty
an opportunity to
monitor their own
learning process by
talking out loud or
creating mind
maps while
learning online
best practices.
Transfer this
knowledge to
students so that
they learn to
exercise self-
monitoring and
make accurate self-
assessments.

*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (F) Factual;
(D)eclarative=(P)rocedural & (C)onceptual; (P)rocedural; (C)onceptual; (M)etacognitive
Declarative (Conceptual) knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets.
Faculty need to know blended learning concepts towards best practices that can positively
influence student outcomes such as retention, persistence, and graduation rates. Per Krathwohl
(2009), conceptual knowledge combines factual elements, such as terminology and details, to
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 80

connect to larger constructs, such as categories, classifications, principles, models, theories, and
structures, to enhance understanding. In this way, foundational knowledge and new knowledge
are integrated. Job aids assist in knowledge transfer in applying past experiences to a new
challenge. Therefore, it is recommended that faculty work in groups to categorize syllabi, lesson
plans, and learning objectives into discrete classroom and online tasks and goals. The purpose is
to separate the class components into online and face-to-face activities for maximum
effectiveness. This is especially important for LCTL instruction as a majority of the faculty think
that the complexities of alphabets, syllabaries, or logograms require different teaching strategies
compared to CTLs. The groups will create a job aid that will provide a “best practice” guide for
knowing when to apply classroom or online instructional strategies.
Schraw & McCrudden (2006) suggest in information processing theory that when new
information is connected to prior knowledge, it is learned faster and remembered more
accurately than less meaningful dispersion of information. Like Krathwohl (2009), Schraw &
McCrudden place emphasis on helping individuals connect prior experience to new knowledge
to construct meaning. Creating a job aid that assists in knowledge transfer to apply instructors’
foundational knowledge about course design towards creating a “best practices” guide for
blended learning instruction is a task that utilizes selection of course goals, organization of
course material, and integration of classroom and internet activities to implement information
processing theory (Mayer, 2011). Spaulding & Dwyer (2001) determined the effectiveness of
different job aids and the relationship between job aid type and time on-task. Seven hundred and
fifty selected college students were randomly assigned to one of five instructional treatments.
Total time on-task was calculated for each student. The results of the study indicated that job
aids were an effective instructional strategy for increased knowledge acquisition and that
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 81

proceduralized job aids were most effective in facilitating achievement. Therefore, the
recommendation to provide job aids to assist faculty in categorizing syllabi and lesson plans to
integrate classroom and online activities towards designing blended learning courses will
increase instructors’ conceptual knowledge of blended learning.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Faculty need to
know how to create an online community of practice for students so that students are encouraged
towards autonomous study outside of the classroom. Social cognitive theory states that credible,
similar, and culturally appropriate modeled behavior is likely to be adopted if the behavior has a
functional value (Denler et al., 2009). Further, observational learning needs to be practiced
(Mayer, 2011) and immediate feedback must be given to reinforce new knowledge (Shute,
2008). Demonstration and modeling strategies are effective in helping learners acquire new
behaviors because this type of training involves observation, practice, and feedback. Using a
consultant to demonstrate, guide practice, and provide immediate and appropriate feedback is the
preferred strategy to teach instructors how to create an online community of practice.
A core concept of social cognitive theory is that people learn through observation. Live
demonstration by an expert is conducive to behavior or skill mastery (Denler et al., 2009). The
concept of communities of practice is important for faculty to experience during training because
it emphasizes the social aspect of learning and involves transformation of the learner and his/her
environment as explained by Comas-Quinn (2011), and this is especially important to teachers of
less commonly taught languages to share high quality, hard to find material (Blyth, 2013).
Ultimately, teacher training using community of practice experience will assist in transferal of
this knowledge to students for autonomy outside of the classroom and subsequent increased
student persistence. A meta-analysis provided by Shute (2008) stated that a combination of
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 82

scaffolded practice and formative feedback results in improved learner performance to the extent
that the learner is receptive and the feedback is timely, focused, objective, and clear. Therefore,
the recommendation is to provide a consultant trainer in creating communities of practice for
modeling/demonstration, guidance during practice, and feedback.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Faculty need to
reflect upon their prior knowledge and experiences to encourage students towards metacognitive
practices that will positively influence their online independent study, practice, and self-
assessment. Per Baker (2009), when students control their own cognitive processes, learning is
enhanced. Combined with information processing system theory, Schraw & McCrudden (2006)
stated that student’s use of prior knowledge promotes new information learning. Therefore,
helping students reflect upon prior knowledge and guiding them to connect that information with
new knowledge facilitates easy memory retrieval and promotes transfer of knowledge by
increasing cognitive efficiency. Instructors who are guided to do this for themselves can instruct
students towards better online autonomy.
Schraw & McCrudden (2006) stress the importance of helping learners create meaning
by processing information deeply. The three strategies used are organization, inferences, and
elaboration. Creating a visual diagram of previous information is recommended in order to
integrate new information. In this manner, inferences are created which can then result in
connecting new information to old thereby increasing meaningfulness or elaboration.
Pishghadam & Khajavy (2013) examined the role of intelligence and metacognition in
143 Iranian English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners and found that metacognition out-
weighed intelligence as a predictor of foreign language achievement. Intelligence was measured
using Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and metacognition was measured using
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 83

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. Although intelligence and metacognitive ability where
closely tied (12.2% and 17.6% respectively), it was noted that metacognitive ability can be
taught while intelligence may be inherent and where intelligence is lower, metacognitive
strategies such as self-planning, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation can compensate. Therefore,
teachers who understand metacognitive strategies can pass this knowledge to students and
implementation techniques such as talking aloud and drawing diagrams about thinking processes
can facilitate learning. Strategies to address knowledge influences for these organizations are
covered in detail in the Solutions and Recommendations section.
Motivation
Introduction. The motivation performance gap has 3 main factors: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Confronting beliefs about cultural and
personal differences; and about efficacy and control can improve motivation. This means
changing the environment to support people in addressing motivational performance gaps and
guiding them towards value shared outcomes and goals. There are different types of incentives
that have advantages and disadvantages.
Educators’ motivational influences. Whether teachers design effective blended
learning content depends on how motivated they are to learn blended learning procedural and
conceptual knowledge. Motivation is a key factor to the success of the educators’ goal because it
points to the beliefs teachers have that they can affect student outcomes (Rueda, 2011).
Motivation also affects task and goal active choice (starting), persistence (continuation), and
mental effort (Rueda, 2011). Therefore, it is important teachers choose to apply effort towards
increasing their own motivation to affect student motivation in the form of study time or
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 84

independent practice, and that they have confidence in learning and implementing blended
learning technology (Oh & Park, 2009).
The following is an explanation of attributions and self-efficacy as motivation factors.
Attributional motivation means that teachers emphasize students’ efforts and practice time rather
than their innate ability. Teachers need to know how to do this for themselves so they can
explain, demonstrate, and guide students in attributional motivation. Self-efficacy means
teachers are confident can perform procedural knowledge strategies for blended learning.
Motivation Expectancy Value. Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) state that learners
need to develop positive values towards what they are learning and this is accomplished by
stressing the importance and utility of new knowledge. Additionally, Pajares (2006) suggested
that similar models can foster positive values in learners. Faculty must believe in the value of BL
strategies towards improved student outcomes. Training consultants who are also foreign
language teachers can model effective blended learning strategies to instill positive values
towards new knowledge and skills to integrate classroom and internet teaching methods.
Motivation Attributions. Anderman and Anderman (2009) explained Weiner’s model
of attributions and that an individual’s perception of an event being controllable or
uncontrollable affects motivation. If a person believes that success or failure is due to ability,
then that is uncontrollable and may lead to demotivation. Conversely, if a person believes that
success or failure is due to effort, then that is a controllable factor and may subsequently lead to
increased motivation. Similarly, teachers can communicate to students how they can use the
controllability dimension of effort in utilizing the supplemental blended learning material to
increase motivation and study time for improved outcomes.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 85

Effort and positive emotions are connected and can lead to increased motivation when
students focus on mastery goals instead of grades (Daniels, Stupnisky, Pekrun, Haynes, Perry, &
Newall, 2009). Effort towards mastery goals has been linked to positive emotions such as joy of
learning, pride, and hope. All three are dominant components of intrinsic motivation which aid
in learning persistence. These positive emotions have been found to combat negative emotions
such as anxiety, anger, shame, hopelessness, and boredom which can lead to increased
motivation (Pekrun, 2011; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011). Faculty need to
give feedback that support mastery goals, strategies, effort, and self-control to positively
influence motivation (Pintrich, 2003).
In a blended learning context, information can be communicated in various ways. For
example, teachers can communicate information to students using the blended learning platform
and encourage interaction, thus creating a community of inquiry through which students share
information with each other. This can be accomplished by introducing the students to the LMS
platform, creating online profiles, engaging in introductory conversation about course
expectations, and following up with information about the course syllabus and activities (Makri
et al., 2014). Teachers can also communicate attributional information by developing teaching
presence through facilitating online discourse, reinforcing student contributions, initiating
inquiries, and guiding students to resolutions (Makri et al., 2014). Both approaches involve
teacher and student effort towards successful integration between the face-to-face sessions and
the blended learning resources.
Motivation Self-efficacy. Pajares (2006) defined self-efficacy as negative or positive
self-perceptions that determine how people motivate themselves, how they maintain persistence
towards a goal, and how vulnerable they are to setbacks. These control self-regulation practices
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 86

that individuals use every day to correct their thinking and actions. Self-efficacy, therefore, is
confidence that an individual’s actions will have positive and productive results.
Individuals form self-efficacy beliefs from four sources of past experiences: mastery experience,
vicarious experience, social persuasions, and physiological reactions. Past perceived successful
experiences increase self-efficacy, conversely past perceived failure experiences decrease self-
efficacy (Pajares, 2006). However, past negative experiences can be overcome using social
cognitive theory self-regulatory practices which include goal setting, self-observation, self-
judgement, and self-reaction (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009).
Teachers need to feel confident that they can address all the complex tasks of being
instructional designers. Drawing from past perceived successful experiences regarding technical
tool implementation, as well as using self-regulatory practices to connect technical tools to
curriculum and student outcomes, teachers can communicate the same self-efficacy and self-
regulatory practices to students in blended learning LMS utilization. Teachers can engage
students in using the LMS for goal setting. Ways to transfer self-efficacy learning to students
include: how to set initial benchmarks for themselves (e.g., using online pre-tests or quizzes);
how to use the LMS to study for a midterm; or how to create community to practice
conversational tasks (Bandura, 2006; Bandura & Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2014; Yeşilyurt, Ulaş, & Akan, 2016).
Motivation Goal Orientation. Per Pintrich (2003) goals motivate and direct students
and focus on mastery, learning, and understanding can be achieved by using collaborative groups
as an opportunity for social and academic goal setting. As discussed in the knowledge section
and the above paragraphs, creating a virtual community of inquiry and practice is essential to
successful blended learning teaching to develop autonomy and commitment to lifelong learning.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 87

Therefore, setting goals towards creating and maintaining a community of inquiry and practice is
an integral part in the focus on mastery. Table 8 shows the organizational mission, global goal,
educators’ goal, motivational influences and motivation influence assessments identified in this
literature review.
Table 8

Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
for
Stakeholders

Validated
Yes, High
Probabilit
y, No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to value
blended learning
training.
(Expectancy Value
Theory)

HP Y Rationales that
include a discussion
of the importance
and utility value of
the work or learning
can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
Training should
include rationales
that stress the
importance and
utility value of
the task (Pintrich,
2003).

Models who are
credible and
similar (e.g.,
gender, culturally
appropriate) can
foster positive
values (Pajares,
2006).

Attributions:
Faculty need to feel
that positive outcomes
are due to their own
effort in acquiring
blended learning skills
and strategies.
HP Y Attribute success or
failure to effort
improves
performance.
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2009)

Adaptive attributions
and control beliefs
motivate individuals
(Pintrich, 2003).

Provide feedback
during training
performance
(performance-
related behavior)
that looks for
attributional biases

Provide feedback to
faculty that focuses
on the learning
process with
strategies that
encourage and
strengthen self-
directedness.

Faculty should
receive accurate
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 88

feedback for self-
directedness (self-
control) and create
a supportive
community of
learners to model to
students.

Self-Efficacy:
Faculty need
confidence to
implement blended
learning strategies.
HP Y Self-regulatory
strategies that
include goal-setting
improve learning
and performance.
(APA, 2015: Dembo
& Eaton, 2000;
Denler,
et al., 2009)

Timely feedback that
is specific and
private connects
learning and
performance. (Shute,
2008)
Provide training
and point out how
the training will be
useful in blended
learning teacher
tasks and make it
clear that the
teachers are capable
of learning and
performing the
tasks.
Goals:
Faculty need to
demonstrate
collaborative qualities
towards creating
communities of
practice.
HP Y Focus on mastery
through diverse
learning tasks
promotes positive
motivation.
(Yough
& Anderman, 2006)

Focusing on
mastery, individual
improvement,
learning, and
progress promotes
positive motivation
(Yough &
Anderman, 2006).
Provide opportunity
for teachers to have
control over some
training activities.

Use training to
enable teachers to
create a community
of learners among
themselves where
everyone supports
everyone else’s
attempts to learn.

Use cooperative
and collaborative
faculty groups to
allow for
opportunities to
attain both social
and academic
goals.

Value. Faculty need to value blended learning training. Pintrich (2003) and Eccles
(2006) state that rationales which discuss the utility value and importance of a training can assist
learners in developing higher expectations towards success with positive values and can,
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 89

therefore, positively influence learning and motivation. This can be accomplished by explaining
utility value of the training, using relevant material connected to real world tasks which are
connected to the learners’ interests, and modeling the value of the task using interest and
enthusiasm. Additionally, Pajares (2006) suggests using models who are credible to learners and
similar in gender or culture. Therefore, instructor training should include discussions and
explanations about the value of blended learning in foreign language teaching with special
emphasis on the benefits to less commonly taught language instruction. Trainers should be
similar to the instructors in that they are foreign language teachers also.
Eccles & Wigfield (2002) posit that expectancies and values include task-specific
individual beliefs regarding perceptions of self-competency, task difficulty, individual goals, and
self-schema. These social cognitive variables have a direct influence upon performance,
persistence, and task choice. Therefore, relative value and expectancy of success of a learning
process is influenced by an individual’s perception of other people’s attitudes and expectations
of them and by their own memory and interpretation of previous achievement outcomes.
Matusovich, Paretti, Mcnair, and Hixson (2014) used expectancy value theory as a
framework to understand faculty practice-research cycles necessary for innovation in engineering
education. Using mixed methods assessment data from two engineering educational conferences
focused on innovative change, the conference participants provided open-ended end-of-event
responses, open-ended general surveys, quantitative surveys, and observational notes were taken.
Descriptive statistics and open-coding were used for data analysis. The study found that in
addition to addressing individual expectancies and beliefs about utility value, collective
expectancies and beliefs about utility value need to increase. Group activities, such as topic-
specific conferences, can be instrumental in shifting personal competency to collective
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 90

competency beliefs. As applied to the faculty stakeholders in this study, Matusovich, et al’s
(2014) recommend that group activities can be used to address collective competency beliefs.
For example, professional development lectures given by LCTL instructors who have experience
using BL towards positive student outcomes can be used to increase utility value of BL
professional development and affect positive collective competency.
Attribution. Faculty need to feel that success from learning blended learning
implementation is dependent upon their effort to learn it rather than inherent ability. Anderman
& Anderman (2009) posit that when learners attribute success or failure to effort rather than
ability, learning and motivation are enhanced. Pintrich (2003) points out that control
beliefs motivate individuals and this coincides with Anderman & Anderman (2009) who
stress the self-control of learning to motivate learners. This means that accurate feedback used to
correct the learners’ knowledge or skills while stressing the nature of learning will give the
learner more self-control over the learning process, thereby enhancing motivation and learning.
Therefore, trainers should provide performance-based feedback to the instructors with a focus on
the learning process to achieve self-directedness. The trainers should also have the instructors
practice performance-based feedback on each other as a means of creating a community of
learners that they can then model to their students.
Hall, Hladkyj, Perry, & Ruthig, (2004) involved 203 Midwestern research-1 university
students to participate in a longitudinal 4-phase study lasting two years. Using elaborative
learning techniques (such as asking students to paraphrase, summarize, and use examples to
explain new information) to individualize attribution retraining (AR) intervention videos and
professor lectures, students were given assignments and their progress was tracked. Results
showed that individualized AR techniques were effective towards substantial improvements in
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 91

final course grades, cumulative GPA, motivation increase, and positive emotions. Students who
received AR improved final course grades one full letter grade. Similarly, the advanced BL
participants in this study reported increased student satisfaction when individualizing online
projects. The online nature of the activities allowed the instructors to track student progress and
intervene if additional guidance was needed.
Self-Efficacy. Faculty need confidence to believe they can complete the steps in learning
to use blended learning techniques in their instruction. Pajares (2006) explains that when learners
have high expectancy of success in completing tasks then learning and motivation are enhanced.
Feedback and modeling also increase self-efficacy which contributes to learning and motivation
enhancement. Therefore, trainers should make it clear that the learners can perform the tasks, use
models that build self-efficacy, set specific and concrete goals that contribute to learners’ feeling
of task success, and provide gradual support with opportunities for practice. The provided
training should be structured so that all tasks and goals are specific, concrete, and scaffolded to
build towards a feeling of accomplishment. Timely and accurate feedback should be given to
connect instructors to the goal and purpose of each task. According to Shute, (2008), it is
especially important to utilize scaffolding for low-achieving learners or learners with low self-
efficacy. Scaffolding is compared to training wheels on a bike which are gradually removed as
the student gains stronger cognitive footing. Scaffolded feedback is important to LCTL learning
because of the added complication of unfamiliar alphabets or characters and pronunciation and it
begins with directive feedback (providing corrective information) with facilitative feedback
(providing guidance and cues) to be used later. Effective scaffolding requires timely feedback.
The advanced BL users in this study mentioned using online monitoring to intervene in online
activity student progress.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 92

Buchanan, Sainter, & Saunders (2013) surveyed 114 faculty members at UK university to
measure Internet self-efficacy to ascertain barriers to technology adoption. Regression analyses
that included barriers such as structural constraints within the university, perceived usefulness,
and Internet self-efficacy were associated with online learning technology adoption. The findings
indicated that Internet self-efficacy was positively associated with self-reported high use of
learning technology by faculty. In contrast to low perceived usefulness (value) and structural
constraints of the technology resulted in lower use. Therefore, while attempts to increase faculty
Internet self-efficacy (through training) is helpful, improvements in structural constraints (such
as monetary investment in technical infrastructure) is important to positively influence perceived
usefulness.
Goals. Faculty need to demonstrate collaborative participation towards creating a
community of practice. Yough & Anderman (2006) state that mastery is based on diverse
learning tasks and continual personal improvement and progress that promotes positive
motivation. This means that instruction which avoids social comparisons or norm-based
standards and instead focuses on self-improvement is conducive to positive learning and
motivation. This type of learning environment can be achieved through a supportive community
of learners. Therefore, trainers should allow teachers to have some control over training activities
and use training to enable teachers to create a community of learners among themselves where
everyone supports everyone else’s attempts to learn. Trainers should also use cooperative and
collaborative faculty groups to allow for opportunities to attain both social and academic goals.
Desruisseaux (2016) used a phenomenological study to examine higher education faculty
attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs towards participating in a community of practice. A sample of
nine faculty from one university who were actively using the university-sponsored communities
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 93

of practice (CoP) volunteered to participate in the study. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with open-ended questions for each participant. Phenomenological reduction was used
to analyze the responses of the participants and identify themes and subthemes to form a
narrative about the faculty member’s perceptual changes in their professional practices due to
CoP experiences. Findings suggested that the participants experienced positive insights and
support in the CoP because the volunteer faculty were dedicated to improving their professional
practices in the classroom and found problem-solving support in collaboration. Four major
themes were identified: Identity, Sense of Belonging, Collaboration, and Transformation. The
study concluded that implementation of CoPs in institutions of higher education promotes
professional dialogue towards improvement in teaching, learning, and assessment. Referring to
mastery and goal theories, Daly (2011) stated that the combination of individual and social
processes involved in CoPs enhances faculty motivation through self-determination theory which
focuses on the individual’s need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Both Desruisseaux
(2016) and Daly (2011) state findings that are supportive of Yough & Anderman’s (2006)
description of mastery as a goal in personal development. Strategies to address motivation
influences for these organizations are covered in detail in the Solutions and Recommendations
section.
Organization
Introduction. Organizational gaps exist due to inadequate processes or materials and
can obstruct performance even if knowledge and motivation are adequate. Organizational culture
is also a very strong influence although it is difficult to diagnose or prove (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Alignment of organizational culture and performance solutions are crucial to successful change
processes. Additionally, all stakeholders must support the change process.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 94

Educators’ Organizational Influences. According to Schein (2010) understanding
organizational culture is key to effective leadership. The connection between culture and
leadership is strongest in organizations and tends to be complex, fluid, and multifaceted
involving macro and micro cultures that represent visible artifacts, espoused beliefs and values,
and unconscious assumptions. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) separated visible cultural
artifacts from mental schema using cultural settings and cultural models. While cultural models
involve behavior and attitudes that are so familiar as to be unnoticed and invisible to group
members, cultural settings are distinct activities agreed upon for a specific purpose by two or
more people (e.g., a parent helping a child with homework, a faculty meeting, or student
presentations). For this study, cultural settings include departmental initiatives, policy, and
professional development activities. The presence or absence of such tangible directives, events,
and activities is indicative of organizational culture.
Adopting and implementing a blended learning (BL) approach to education requires
coordinated analysis and effort. In higher education, most BL implementation is enacted on a per
class, individual faculty, or course level without institutional involvement or policy. Scattered
adoption and implementation inhibits accurate data collection, research, evaluation, and effective
improvements (Graham, et al., 2012). Institutional adoption and implementation would provide a
duplicable process towards standardized data measurement, assessments, and improvements
(Graham et al., 2012).
Rogers (2003) outlined five stages to implement innovation that included, identifying
organizational challenges that create a need for innovation; identifying an innovation that
addresses the organizational challenge(s); modifying the innovation to fit the organization;
creating a relationship between the organization and the innovation; and making the innovation a
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 95

normal part of organizational activity. Graham et al. (2012) incorporated Rogers’ (2003) five
stages into three broad categories (strategy, structure, and support) which were then
differentiated into three stages of adoption moving from initial interest in BL to mature
institutionalization.
The three stages consist of:
1. Institutional awareness and exploration with limited support for faculty,
2. Institutional adoption of BL strategy with new policies towards strategy of
implementation and support, and
3. Mature institutional establishment of BL strategies, structure, and support integrated
into university operations.
For these recommendations, the focus will be on stage 1 involving exploration into
faculty and administrative attitudes, organizational challenges creating a need for innovation,
alignment of organizational challenges to BL benefits, and organizational structure regarding
pedagogical and administrative framework supporting a BL environment.
As learning institutions, schools play a role in continual organizational learning which
requires effective policy towards professional development. BL adoption and implementation
necessitates a higher level of commitment to professional development therefore an examination
of existing policy towards faculty and administrative professional development is needed
(VanDerLinden, 2014). Minimally, policy should provide sufficient time for faculty and staff to
pursue added knowledge even if training is not institutionally provided. The creation of a faculty
development group would serve to advocate both professional development and BL adoption
initiatives and analysis (VanDerLinden, 2014). Current studies call for further research in
professional development, institutional policy, and adoption of BL as it constitutes an ecosystem
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 96

between faculty, administration, and students (Graham et al., 2012). Existing data ignores
faculty and administration in relationship to student experiences in BL (Drysdale, Graham, &
Spring, 2013).
A strategy towards BL adoption and implementation should involve examination of
knowledge, motivation and organizational needs. International BL research results reveal shared
rationales and experiences among practitioners as they grow BL communities and collaboration
piquing more U.S. interest (Spring, Graham, & Hadlock, 2016). International educational and
economic competition continue to spur inquiry into BL, therefore a policy towards adoption is
needed as implementation is generally driven by faculty members or administrators worldwide,
with administrative support being most crucial for adoption (Spring et al., 2016).
Stage 1 of BL adoption represents a period of inquiry, definition formation, need
analysis, pedagogy and assessment development, advocacy, community collaboration,
technological system selection, and institutional model identification to begin a dialogue towards
continuous organizational learning and capacity building (Graham, et al., 2013). Institutional
alignment can be a further outcome of stage 1 as the organization develops a working definition
of BL that integrates departmental values and curriculum. Stage 1 identifies advocates and early
adopters within the faculty and staff allowing them to engage other professionals in a community
of practice that may have advantages beyond BL. Table 9 shows the organizational mission,
global goal, educators’ goal, organizational influences and organizational influence assessments
identified in this literature review.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 97

Table 9

Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influences
for
Stakeholders

Validate
d
Yes,
High
Probabil
ity, No
(V, HP,
N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation

Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
The organization needs
a specific vision for BL
professional
development (include
working definition).
HP Y 1. Effective
organizations insure
that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies
and procedures that
govern the work of
the
organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values
(Clark and Estes,
2008).

2. Effective change
efforts insure that all
key
stakeholders’
perspectives inform
the design
and decision-making
process leading to
the
change.

Building a shared
vision means
creating a working
definition of BL,
identifying
intrinsic and
extrinsic
motivation of
faculty, finding
alignment between
the organizational
vision and faculty
vision, and
communicating
and asking for
support.

C&E
recommendation
1. Conduct an
informal audit of
your
policies,
procedures and
messages
to check for
alignment or
interference with
your goals. In
some cases, you
may have
procedures or
policies in conflict
with each other.

1. As noted in
earlier toolkits,
model
the value of
“cognitive
diversity”
by expanding the
membership of
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 98

your planning
teams to include
diverse thinkers,
people with access
to different
networks.
2. Regularly meet
with individuals
from all areas of
the organization to
share ideas with
and get feedback
from them.
3. Generate ways
to receive
feedback
that encourage
participation from
people who are
afraid to tell you
things.

Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
The organization needs
a strategy for
implementing blended
learning.
HP Y
Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their
job,
and that if there are
resource shortages,
then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark and
Estes, 2008).

1. Build in pilots
or beta tests of
efforts.
2. Model
“piloting” a
project.

1. Before things
become stressful
or chaotic,
establish the
indicators you will
monitor, and the
benchmarks that
will indicate that
you need to alter
your plan.

2. Require
planning processes
to include the
anticipation of
adverse events and
the creation of a
“Plan B” to
respond to those
possibilities,
before any change
effort launches

C & E 2008: align
resources with
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 99

departmental goals
and values/
Prioritize
resources and
strategic steps.
1. If everything is
a priority, then
nothing is. Work
with your team to
establish, from the
beginning, what
the priorities are,
so that when hard
choices must be
made, the
guidance is
already in place.

Cultural Setting
Influence 3:
The organization needs
to implement the first
stage of blended
learning adoption.
HP Y Effective change
efforts will test (and
if needed, modify) a
change or innovation
on a
small scale before
implementing it
widely.
(PDSA)

PDSA:
1. Build in pilots
or beta tests of
efforts.

2. Model
“piloting” a
project.

Cultural settings. The departmental organization needs a specific vision for BL
professional development that includes a working definition. Clark and Estes (2008) state that
effective organizations align new messages, rewards, policies and/or procedures with
organizational goals and values. They also state that key stakeholders should be involved in the
decision-making process involving policy or procedural change. A strategy that involves both
principles would be to conduct an informal audit of faculty to inquire if the proposed message,
rewards, policy or procedural change is perceived to be in alignment with the organizational
goals and values. Therefore, faculty could be surveyed to find out if a proposed definition for BL
and the vision for professional development is in perceived alignment with the departmental
goals and values.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 100

Being that this is an innovative study, supportive empirical evidence regarding BL
adoption is lacking. BL, in general, lacks wide-spread standardized institutional application
sufficient for conclusive data analysis and BL, as specifically targeted in this study to the
instruction of less commonly taught foreign languages, is mostly non-existent. Halverson,
Graham, Spring, Drysdale, and Henrie, (2014) analyzed the most highly cited studies in BL
research from 2000 to 2011 resulting in a total of 50 articles, 25 book chapters, and 10 books.
The authors found that multiple definitions for BL exist and do not coalesce around either a
singular referenced definition or a cohesive theoretical framework. The authors also found that
little attention was given to faculty demographics, faculty perspectives on adoption and
implementation, or the assessment of professional development gaps and the most attention was
spent on student perspectives and technology. Moskal, Dziuban, and Hartman, (2013) use a
single university model based on a longitudinal study of over 16 years and state the importance
of aligning administrative, faculty, and student goals for BL adoption and implementation. Most
importantly, administrative and faculty goals must be in alignment but this seldom happens
because administrators are not familiar with teaching methodology so are unable to link BL with
teaching objectives and outcomes. This in turn makes faculty suspicious of top-down initiatives
that favor enrollment over educational quality. Therefore, a dialog between administration and
faculty must exist prior to BL adoption to develop a working definition and vision that aligns
learning outcomes to BL implementation.
The departmental organization needs a strategy for implementing blended learning. Clark
& Estes (2008) stress identifying resources, aligning resources to goals, and prioritizing
resources to achieve the most important goals. During the dialog between administration and
faculty, alignment of critical resources (such as computer labs, software, professional
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 101

development, instructional design, curriculum, additional personnel, etc.) to the most important
departmental goals and values should be identified and prioritized.
Halverson, Graham, Spring, Drysdale, and Henrie, (2014) also note the lack of research
regarding implementation of BL. Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison, (2012) attributes this gap in
research to disagreement over BL definition and subsequent efficacy measurement standards.
Lack of clear implementation strategies is an obstacle to resource alignment with goals and
values. It is for this reason that Graham, et al. (2012) proposed a 3-stage implementation
strategy based on six case studies of BL institutional adoption. The 3-stages are 1)
awareness/exploration, 2) adoption/early implementation, and 3) mature implementation/growth.
According to the authors, institutions in stage 1 have no formal strategy, however, a review of
resources (especially technological) as applied to potential BL adoption and limited faculty
support (in the form of stipends or professional development) can be enacted to support a dialog
to identify strategies and link them to goals and values.
The organization needs to implement the first stage of blended learning adoption based
on Graham, et al. (2012), which is stage 1: awareness/exploration. Langley, Noen, Nolan, Nolan,
Norman, and Provost (2009) propose that effective organizational change will first test and
modify an innovation on a small scale before implementing it wide-scale. This involves creating
a test or beta model before adoption and implementation. Therefore, innovative faculty may
work with administration to identify resources and apply them to a small-scale test to be
evaluated.
Porter and Graham (2016) surveyed 214 faculty members from a university in Stage 2
(adoption/early implementation) and identified factors that influenced faculty to adopt BL. The
authors recognized that faculty cooperation was a key factor in BL adoption/implementation and
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 102

that most studies focused on barriers to faculty participation instead of facilitation. Using
Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations, which describes how innovations are communicated to
members of a group, they identified five categories of adopters: innovators, early adopters, early
majority, late majority, and laggards. Applying Moore’s (2002) principle of focusing on one
category of adopters at a time and leveraging successful implementation towards recruitment of
the next category of adopters, Porter & Graham (2016) assigned categories to the research
participants by matching survey responses about active technology use to Roger’s adopter
category descriptors. They concluded that innovators and early adopters were positively
influenced by institutional purpose for BL adoption and resource support (e.g. infrastructure and
online professional development). It was found that institutional purpose(s) which is closely
aligned with faculty were highly influential. A dialog between administration and innovative
faculty can be instrumental in departmental resource and goal/value alignment during which time
innovative faculty may develop a beta model prior to the adoption stage. Additionally, Moskal,
Dziuban, & Hartman (2013) recommend employing instructional designers to partner with
faculty in the development of BL courses because this was found to result in courses with higher
educational quality and consistency towards building organizational capacity.
As stated above in the Department and Institutional Alignment section, a dialogue
between department faculty and university administration must be initiated to ensure alignment
of values and aid in the creation of departmental policy and strategy towards stage 1 BL
adoption. As the majority of faculty are adjuncts, university full-time administrative personnel
are needed to provide continuity and accountability to the system wide strategic plan.
Specifically, the appropriate university dean and department chair can work with innovative
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 103

faculty towards understanding and disseminating collective values and outcomes that support BL
adoption and professional development.
In summary, recommendations were grouped according to knowledge, motivational and
organizational influences. The knowledge solutions involve learning about a serviceable BL
definition, concepts towards best practices that affect positive student outcomes, and creating
communities of practice and using reflection for continual learning (Table 7). The motivational
solutions include identifying value in BL instruction, applying effort and confidence towards
acquiring new skills, and using collaborative strategies towards continual learning (Table 8). The
organizational suggestion is comprised of developing blended learning aligned vision (policy)
and an implementation strategy sufficient for supporting stage 1 adoption (Table 9). The
successive internal and external outcomes, critical behaviors, drivers, course metrics and
evaluations are contained in Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan.
Conclusion
Stage 1 BL Adoption
This study examined higher education foreign language faculty attitudes regarding the
adoption of blended learning strategies towards positive student outcomes in learning LCT
languages. Positive student outcomes in LCT language learning means sustained motivation and
persistence towards fluency in languages that are very difficult to learn compared to CTLs. The
importance of department and institution wide adoption and implementation of BL practices for
this purpose is to address a lack of empirical evidence about the efficacy of BL instruction for
foreign language learning. Based on the Graham, et al. (2012) BL adoption and implementation
framework, findings indicated additional recommended actions were needed to ready the
institutions in this case study for the stage 1 level of BL adoption. Hopefully, utilization of these
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 104

recommendations will assist other organizations in a similar level to begin stage 1 adoption and
add to this topic body of knowledge.
Beyond Blended Learning
Beyond the adoption of BL practices in a foreign language department, this study has
exposed other issues regarding innovative change. These issues are posed as questions as they
are beyond the scope of this study. The advanced BL participants in this study mentioned how
much more they would like to contribute to innovative change within the department yet were
hindered by unknown reasons. Even if successful at developing blended or online courses, no
further advancement in additional courses or job role was offered. Why can’t adjuncts and part-
time faculty be utilized more according to their proven knowledge and skills, especially if able to
contribute to university imperatives? How can they be integrated better and more effectively into
the university system? If their knowledge and skills were leveraged over the long term for
innovative change, there appears to be potential to build capacity and even increase enrollment
and departmental revenue. Beyond stage 1 BL adoption, other innovational changes are
implicated by using adjunct and part-time faculty as a known resource that, if used creatively,
could potentially increase revenue to offset the cost of technological improvements.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 105

References
About OPE - International and Foreign Language Education. (2018). Retrieved June 13, 2018,
from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/index.html#news.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1969). The prediction of behavioral intentions in a choice situation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(4), 400–416. http://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1031(69)90033-X
Anderman, E., Anderman, L. (2009). Attribution Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., Yough, M. S., & Gimbert, B. G. (2010). Value-Added
Models of Assessment: Implications for Motivation and Accountability. Educational
Psychologist, 45(2), 123–137. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461521003703045
Baker, L. (2009). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2005). The Evolution of Social Cognitive Theory. In Great Mind in Management
(pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (2006). Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. Chapter 14, Guide for Constructing Self-
Efficacy Scales, (1), 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Bandura, A., & Bandura, A. (1997). Teacher Self Efficacy Scale. Unpublished, 307–337.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Essentials of grounded theory. Grounded Theory: A Practical
Guide, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9258-1_12
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current Trends in Online Language Learning. Annual Review of Applied
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 106

Linguistics, 31, 19–35. http://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051100002X
Blyth, C. (2013). Special Issue Commentary LCTLs and Technology: The Promise of Open
Education. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 1–6. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2013/blythcommentary.pdf
Brooke, M. (2013). Facilitating the development of the autonomous language learner using
online virtual learning environments. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 572–
580. http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.4.572-580
Bruland, N. F. (2013). Examining the Relationship Between Interaction and Linguistic
Outcomes: Is the Online Learning Environment a Viable Alternative to Traditional
Classroom Instruction for Beginning Language Learners?
Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning
technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 25(1), 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9066-6
Caraivan, L. (2011). Blended learning: from concept to implementation. Euromentor Journal,
II(4).
CETRA. (n.d.). 78 Priority Languages in the US: Less Commonly Taught But Critical - CETRA.
Retrieved April 25, 2017, from http://www.cetra.com/blog/78-priority-languages-in-the-us-
less-commonly-taught-but-critical/
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. A Guide to Selecting the Right
Performance Solution. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 236, 190.
Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An
exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218–232.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000152
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 107

Creswell, J. W. (2008). The Selection of a Research Approach. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3–22. http://doi.org/45593:01
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative Research
Designs: Selection and Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
Critical Languages | nsepgov. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2017, from
https://www.nsep.gov/content/critical-languages
Daly, C. J. (2011). Faculty learning communities: Addressing the professional development
needs of faculty and the learning needs of students. Currents in Teaching and Learning,
4(1), 3–16.
Damron, J., & Forsyth, J. (2012). Korean Language Studies: Motivation and Attrition. Journal of
the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 12, 161–188.
Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Newall, N. E. (2009).
A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective antecedents to emotional
effects and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, (101), 948–963.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease Of Use, And User Accep. MIS
Quarterly, 13(3), 319. http://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, J. M. (2016). Toward a Capacity Framework for Useful Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment in College Foreign Language Programs. Modern Language Journal, 100(1),
377–399. http://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12319
Denler, H., Wolters, C., Benzon, M. (2009). Social Cognitive Theory, 6(C), 1–60.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)81483-X
Desruisseaux, L. R. (2016). Communities of Practice: The Shared Experiences of Higher
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 108

Education Faculty. Southern New Hampshire University.
DOE. (2016). CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES, 601(c). Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/consultation-2016.pdf
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Spring, K. J. (2013). An Analysis of
Research Trends in Dissertations and Theses Studying Blended Learning. Internet and
Higher Education, 17(1), 90–100. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031,
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003
Duarte, A. (2016). Blended Learning; Institutional Frameworks for Adoption and
Implementation. University of the Incarnate Word. Retrieved from
http://athenaeum.uiw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=uiw_etds
Dziuban, C.; Graham, C.; Picciano, A.G. (2013). Research Perspectives in Blended Learning,
2nd ed.; Routledge, Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals. Annu. Rev.
Psychol., (53), 109–32.
Eccles (Parsons) J, Adler TF, Futterman R, Goff SB, Kaczala CM, et al. 1983. Expectancies,
values, and academic behaviors. In Achievement and Achievement Motivation, ed. JT
Spence, pp. 75–146. San Francisco: Freeman
Fink, A. (2013). How to Conduct Surveys, A Step-by-Step Guide. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
FY 2012 Consultation with Federal Agencies on Areas of National Need (PDF). (2012).
Retrieved June 13, 2018, from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/consultation-2012.pdf
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to Connect
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 109

Minority Achievement and School Improvement Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to
Connect Minority Achievement and School Improvement Research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of Inquiry Review: Social, Cognitive, and Teaching
Presence Issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.
http://doi.org/10.1128/JB.05513-11
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential
in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,
principles, and guidelines. booksgooglecom (Vol. 1st). Retrieved from
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0787987700
Graham, C. R. (2012). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore
(Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York: Routledge.
Retrieved from
https://library.usc.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/5?searchdata1=4032089%7BCKEY%7D
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption
and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education,
18, 4–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). Institutional Blended Learning
Adoption Checklist Checklist that can be used to assess where your institution is at in terms
of providing strategy, structure, and support for blended learning. Internet and Higher
Education.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 110

Graham, C. R., Borup, J., & Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand
teacher candidates’ technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 28(6), 530–546. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00472.x
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption
and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher
Education, 18, 4–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
Haley, M. H., Steeley, S. L., & Salahshoor, M. (2013). Connecting Twenty-first Century Skills
and World Language Practices: A Case Study with Teachers of Critical Need Languages.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(6), 865–876.
http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.6.865-876
Hall, N. C., Hladkyj, S., Perry, R. P., & Ruthig, J. C. (2004). The role of attributional retraining
and elaborative learning in college students’ academic development. Journal of Social
Psychology, 144(6), 591–612. http://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.6.591-612
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A
thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning
research. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping Parents to
Motivate Adolescents in Mathematics and Science: An Experimental Test of a Utility-Value
Intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435530
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Chapter 10: Sampling in Quantitative, Qualitative,
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 111

and Mixed Research. In Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
approaches (5th ed., pp. 247–264). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Johnson, C. P., & Marsh, D. (2014). Blended Language Learning: An Effective Solution but not
Without Its Challenges. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(3), 23–41.
http://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i3.213
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick W., K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive Load Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. American Journal of
Psychology, 122(1), 39–52. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104
Langley, G.J., Noen, R.D., Nolan, K.M., Nolan, T.W., Norman, C.L., Provost, L. P. (2009). The
Improvement Guide, A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Letter from the Coalition for International Education Concerning Title VI and Fulbright-Hays
Funding. (2018). Retrieved June 13, 2018, from https://www.historians.org/news-and-
advocacy/statements-and-resolutions-of-support-and-protest/letter-from-the-coalition-for-
international-education-concerning-title-vi-and-fulbright-hays-funding
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An
asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, (37), 69–78.
Lowendahl, J.-M. (2013). Business Model Innovation Examples in Education, (January), 14.
Makri, K., Papanikolaou, K., Tsakiri, A., & Karkanis, S. (2014). Blending the community of
inquiry framework with learning by design: Towards a synthesis for blended learning in
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 112

teacher training. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 12(2), 183–194. Retrieved from
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84902011499&partnerID=40&md5=ff70e72a45b6242c115497c140a4bf0a
Matusovich, H. M., Paretti, M. C., Mcnair, L. D., & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty motivation: A
gateway to transforming engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2),
302–330. http://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20044
McCoach, D. B. (2007). Increasing Student Mathematics Self-Efficacy Through Teacher
Training, 18(2), 278–312.
Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Meurant, R. C. (2006). Learning strategies used by Second Language students in accessing
online resources. Strategies, 1–7.
Moore, G. A. (2002). Crossing the chasm: marketing and selling disruptive products to
mainstream customers. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? Internet
and Higher Education, 18, 15–23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001
NSEP. (n.d.). Critcal Languages. Retrieved from https://www.nsep.gov/content/critical-
languages
Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educational
Technology and Society, 12(3), 327–342. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.1851983
Olani, A. (2009). Predicting first year university students’ academic success. Electronic Journal
of Research in Educational Psychology, 7.3(Sept. 2009).
Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 113

Developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801
Pajares, F. (n.d.). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-Efficacy. Retrieved January
1, 2017, from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/eff.html
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pappas, C. (2014). Cognitive Load Theory And Instructional Design - eLearning Industry.
Retrieved April 3, 2017, from https://elearningindustry.com/cognitive-load-theory-and-
instructional-design
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as Drivers of Learning and Cognitive Development. In S. K. Calvo,
R.A., D’Mello (Ed.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–39).
New York: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions
in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ).
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pishghadam, R., & Khajavy, G. H. (2013). Intelligence and metacognition as predictors of
foreign language achievement: A structural equation modeling approach. Learning and
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 114

Individual Differences, 24, 176-181.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.004
Porter, W.W., Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of
blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4),
748–762. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12269
Powell, A., Watson, J., Staley, P., Parick, S., Horn, M., Fetzer, L., Hibbard, L., Oglesby, J.,
Verma, S. (2015). Blending Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education
from 2008 – 2015. International Association for K-12 Online Learning, (July), 19 p.
Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/resource/blending-learning-the-evolution-of-online-
and-face-to-face-education-from-2008-2015/
Prokhorets, E. K., Plekhanova, M. V., & Scherbinina, N. G. (2015). Instructional Design of
Foreign Language Blended Courses. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 215(June),
161–169. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.611
Ranellucci, J., Hall, N., Muis, K., Lajoie, S., & Robinson, K. (2017). Mastery, Maladaptive
Learning Behaviour, and Academic Achievement: An Intervention Approach. Canadian
Journal of Education, 4(4). Retrieved from www.cje-rce.ca
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Macmillan Publishing Co.
http://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:126680
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership Organizational Culture and
Leadership. Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 115

http://doi.org/10.1080/09595230802089917
Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. (2006). Information Processing Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., & Francis, R. (2006). Implementing a university e ‐learning strategy:
Levers for change within academic schools. Research in Learning Technology, 14(2), 135–
151.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. http://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Source: Review of Educational Research,
78228173(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
Silverman, D., Marvasti, A. (2012). Doing Qualitative Research A Comprehensive Guide.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from yachtpaint.com
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher Self-Efficacy and Perceived Autonomy:
Relations with Teacher Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion.
Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. http://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
Spaulding, K., & Dwyer, F. (2001). The effect of time-on-task when using job aids as an
instructional strategy. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(4), 437. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/204262433?accountid=14749
Spring, K. J., Graham, C. R., & Hadlock, C. (2016). The current landscape of international
blended learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(1), 84–102.
http://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2016.075961
U.S. Department of Defense, 1400 Defense Pentagon, Room 3A750, Washington, DC 20301-
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 116

1400. Tel: 703-428-0711; e-mail: pia@hq.afis.osd.mil. (2005). A Call to Action for
National Foreign Language Capabilities. US Department of Defense.
VanDerLinden, K. (2014). Blended Learning as Transformational Institutional Learning. New
Directions for Higher Education, 165(Spring 2015). http://doi.org/10.1002/he
Vaughan, N. (2014). Student Engagement and Blended Learning: Making the Assessment
Connection. Education Sciences, 4(4), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4040247
Wigfield, Allan, Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
http://doi.org/doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com
on Expectancy–Value
Yeşilyurt, E., Ulaş, A. H., & Akan, D. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and
computer self-efficacy as predictors of attitude toward applying computer-supported
education. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 591–601.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.038

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 117

Appendix A: Protocol Preliminary Scan

Questionnaire Instrument for Preliminary Scan
The purpose of the questionnaire for the department chair is to provide background
organizational information regarding structure and current and future support for blended
learning adoption and implementation.
Questionnaire Form
Institution: _____________________________________________________________
Interviewee: (Title, Name, and Gender) _______________________________________
Post Questionnaire Comments or Leads: _______________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Introductory Protocol
I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, Rossier School of
Education working towards an EdD. You are being asked to take part in a dissertation research
study regarding institutional frameworks for adoption and implementation of blended learning
courses and/or programs. The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide departmental
background information to examine existing support when adopting and implementing blended
learning models for less commonly taught languages. This questionnaire is not part of the
research study but should provide factual organizational detail. The study exists because
innovative instructor(s) are interested in exploring adoption of blended learning for select
courses. Please sign this release form. For your confidentiality, only researchers involved with
the study will have access to the questionnaire results. Also, you must sign a form designed to
protect research participants. Essentially, this document states that: (1) all information will be
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 118

held confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time if you feel
uncomfortable, and (3) the research does not intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for agreeing
to participate.
The questionnaire is not take any longer than one hour to complete.
Questionnaire
1. What is your institutional type?
Public
Private
For Profit

2. What is your role in your institution?
Dean
Associate/Assistant Dean
Chair
Other (please specify)

3. Stakeholders:
a. Approximately how many students were enrolled in each of the language degree and
certificate programs for the 2015-2016 academic year? ________________
b. What is the total number of faculty in the language department? _________
c. What is the number of full-time and adjunct language instructors? _______________
d. What is the number of less commonly taught language instructors? __________
e. What is the number of full-time and adjunct less commonly taught language instructors?
_______________

4. What blended learning options do you offer in your language degree programs?
_________________________________________________________________

5. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the
strategy for blended learning options in your institution.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

a. Individual faculty informally advocate blended learning options in my department.
b. Individual faculty informally implement blended learning options in my department.
c. Blended learning is informally approved by university administrators.
d. Blended learning is formally advocated by university administrators.
e. There is formal blended learning advocacy by university administrators.
f. Individual faculty implement blended learning options at our institution.
g. There is no uniform definition of blended learning currently proposed at our university.
h. An initial definition of blended learning has formally been proposed at our university.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 119

i. Tentative blended learning policies have been communicated to stakeholders at our
university.
j. Tentative blended learning policies have been revised at our university.
k. Our university has formally adopted a refined definition of blended learning.
l. Our university has robust blended learning policies in place.
m. There is a formally adopted a refined definition of blended learning in my department.

6. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the structure
for blended learning options at your institution
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

a. There is currently no official approval structure for blended learning options at our university.
b. There is currently no official implementation structure for blended learning options at our
university.
c. Our university has emerging structures to approve blended learning options.
d. Our university has robust structures involving academic unit leaders for strategic decision
making about blended learning options.
e. There are no institutional models of blended learning at our university.
f. Our university is exploring blended learning models.
g. Our university encourages general blended learning options.
h. There is no designation of courses as blended in our university course registration system.
i. Our university is making efforts to designate blended learning courses in the course
registration system.
j. There are no formal evaluations in place addressing blended learning outcomes at our
university.
k. There are limited institutional evaluations addressing blended learning outcomes at our
university.
l. The evaluation of blended learning outcomes is systematically reviewed at our university.
m. My department is exploring blended learning models.
n. There are no institutional models of blended learning in my department.

7. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the support
for
blended learning options at your institution
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

a. The primary focus of technological support at our university is on the traditional classroom.
b. There is an increased focus on blended learning technological support for faculty at our
university.
c. There is well-established technological support to address blended learning needs of all
stakeholders at our university.
d. Our university does not have a course development process in place for blended learning
options.
e. Our university is experimenting with a formal blended learning course development
process.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 120

f. Our university is building a formal blended learning course development process.
g. Our university has a robust blended learning course development process established.
h. Our university does not have an identified faculty incentive structure for implementation of
blended learning options.
i. Our university is exploring a faculty incentive structure for blended learning faculty training.
j. Our university is exploring a faculty incentive structure for blended learning course
development.
k. The primary focus of technological support in my department is on the traditional classroom.
l. There is an increased focus on blended learning technological support for faculty in my
department.
m. My department does not have an identified faculty incentive structure for implementation of
blended learning options.
n. My department is exploring a faculty incentive structure for blended learning faculty training.
o. My department is exploring a faculty incentive structure for blended learning course
development.
p. My department has a well-established faculty incentive structure for systematic blended
learning training.

8. Please identify to what extent the following aspects of blended learning are covered by
institutional policies. (Circle all that apply.)

Professor readiness
Professor preparedness
Curricular content
Use of technology
Learner support
Percentage of time face-to-face required
Blended learning definition
Technology support
Pedagogical support

9. Please identify to what extent the following aspects of blended learning are covered by
institutionally adopted performance standards. (Circle all that apply.)

Professor readiness
Professor preparedness
Curricular content
Use of technology
Learner support
Percentage of time face-to-face required
Blended learning definition
Technology support
Pedagogical support

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 121

10. Would you be willing to share your institutional policies/standards for blended/hybrid
learning formats?
Yes
No

11. If you are willing to share your institution’s blended learning policies/standards, please
indicate the manner in which you would like to do so:

a. I will email them to you
b. We have no institutional blended learning policies/standards
c. Other - I would like to provide either an email for you to contact me directly or a URL which
contains our blended learning standards/policies at our university website

*** Any personal identifiable information (PII) such as but not limited to, name or URL
provided, will not be included in any published results, individually or in the aggregate. ***

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 122

Appendix B: Participating Educators with Sampling Criteria for Interview

Participating Educators
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale

The educators will be male and female, full-time and adjunct faculty members teaching
less commonly taught language courses at a state university world language department. Critical
need languages are defined as non-Western European languages and non-Latin American
languages (Critical Languages, nsepgov, n.d.). Critical need is a U.S. government security
designation given to less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) which is a U.S. educational
designation including over 60 languages (CETRA, n.d.; “Critical Languages nsepgov,” n.d.).
Because of language list overlap, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. The sampling
criteria is based on the importance of critical need language instruction and exploration of
adoption and implementation attitudes in post-secondary world language departments.
Criterion 1. Must teach or support less commonly taught language course(s) using the
definition and lists from above because the purpose of this study is to examine critical language
educators’ attitudes towards BL.
Criterion 2. Must be a faculty educator in a world language department because the
purpose of this study is to examine critical language educators’ attitudes towards BL.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale

Non-random, convenience sampling will be used since the educators must volunteer to be
interviewed. I will not be able to generalize from this sample to a general population since not
everyone in the population has an equal chance of being selected, however, characteristics may
describe a hypothetical population (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). All less commonly taught
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 123

language educators within the department consist of to six to eight members not including the
innovative faculty member who is acting as consultant and recruiter.
My conceptual framework is based on educators’ attitudes towards blended learning
adoption and implementation so will utilize in-depth interviews grounded in motivation
assessment in attributions and self-efficacy, organizational influences in cultural settings of
policy towards professional development and inquiry community development, and knowledge
gap analysis in blended learning training (Clark & Estes, 2008).
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 124

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Interview Instrument
The purpose of the interview is to explore educators’ attitudes towards the use of
blending online and classroom components as a first step in institutional blended learning
adoption for foreign language instruction.
Interview Form
Institution: _____________________________________________________________
Interviewee: (Title, Name, and Gender) _______________________________________
Interview Sections: Demographics/Background
Knowledge Influences
Motivational Influences
Organizational Influences

Post Interview Comments or Leads: ____Can you recommend another faculty member
who might participate in this study?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Introductory Protocol
To facilitate my notes, I would like to record our conversation today. I am in receipt of
your signed consent form. For your confidentiality, only researchers involved with the study will
have access to the recording which will be eventually destroyed after transcription. Also, you
signed a form designed to protect research participants. Essentially, that document stated that: (1)
all information will be held confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop at
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 125

any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) the research does not intend to inflict any harm.
Thank you for agreeing to participate.
I have planned this interview to last no longer than one hour. During this time, there are
several questions to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt you to
make progress and complete all the questions.
Introduction
You have been selected to participate in this research because you have been identified as
someone who has a great deal of knowledge regarding foreign language instruction, learning,
and assessment in higher education. This research project focuses on the improvement of
foreign language teaching and learning by blending online and classroom components, with
interest in understanding how faculty in academic programs are engaged in learning and using
technology, how they view the advantages and disadvantages of using innovative methods
towards student learning outcomes, and what issues are of most importance to organizations in
considering adoption of new technology and professional development. This study is not
designed to evaluate your techniques or experiences, but is for learning more about mixing
online and traditional classroom teaching methods so that we can hopefully help organizations
support their educators and students better.
Interview Questions
Demographics
1. What are you teaching right now?
2. How long have you taught?
3. What school levels and institutions have you taught in?
4. Have you ever taught a blended learning class? A totally online, remote class?
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 126

Knowledge - Factual
5. In your own words, define blended learning.
6. Explain an experience you had using blended learning instruction, if applicable.
Knowledge - Conceptual
7. What are your expectations of blended learning instruction?
8. What advantages exist, if any, in using blended learning instruction for less commonly
taught language instruction as opposed to common language instruction?
9. What are the advantages and disadvantages you have experienced using blended learning
instruction, if applicable?
Knowledge – Procedural
10. Describe the process used to implement blended learning in your department or describe
how an institution might take steps to begin adoption of blended learning.
11. What teaching strategies do you think are better done in person and which strategies are
better done online?
12. In your own words what is a community of practice and what are the
advantages/disadvantages?
13. Describe some steps used to create a community of practice.
Knowledge - Metacognitive
14. Describe your experiences using blended learning instruction as opposed to traditional
classroom instruction, if applicable.
15. Describe some challenges or obstacles that you encountered during your blended learning
experience(s) or that you expect to find in using blended learning.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 127

16. Walk me through your preparation for your blended learning instruction experience. Is it
different from class preparation for face-to-face instruction?
17. What would you change in your preparation after your experience?
Motivation – Expectancy Value Theory
18. What are your expectations about the success of blended learning towards
improving student learning outcomes like attrition, persistence, and graduation
rates?
19. How important do you feel it is for you to use blended learning for instruction?
20. How much time do you think it will take to learn to use blended learning for
instruction? How much time to feel mastery? What do you think is needed to be
successful at blended learning instruction?
Motivation - Attributes
21. What would be the reasons for your successful blended learning instruction? Your
unsuccessful blended learning instruction?
22. What would encourage or discourage you from learning/using blended learning?
Motivation – Self-efficacy
23. How do you feel about your ability to learn/use blended learning techniques and
strategies for instruction?
24. To what degree do you feel confident about your ability to learn/use blended learning
techniques and strategies for instruction?
Motivation – Goals
25. What might be some specific goals you would have to want to learn blended learning
instruction techniques? To use blended learning instruction?
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 128

Organizational – Cultural Settings
26. Describe the support you would like to have or have had for your blended learning
experience. (Probing: What BL policy or professional development resources exist in
your department or university?)
27. Describe any experiences you have had collaborating with either administration or
faculty in adopting blended teaching in your classroom.
28. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages to department-wide adoption of
blended learning?
29. What would your organization need to implement blended learning instruction
department-wide?
30. Describe the process used to implement blended learning department-wide or describe
how an institution might take steps to begin adoption of blended learning.
31. What incentives have you received or would like to receive to help adopt or implement
blended learning department-wide?
Ending Protocol
We have completed all the questions that relate to foreign language teaching, assessment,
and improvement, and we covered your background, knowledge, motivational aspects, and your
departmental factors. Is there anything else you would like to add?
I will be in contact to schedule a follow-up interview as needed. It will be shorter than this
session. Thank you very much for your time. You provided some useful information that will
greatly benefit this study. Your participation is appreciated.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 129

Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness

Because qualitative research is constructivist, involving descriptions of multiple
viewpoints of reality, trustworthiness is often questioned by quantitative positivists who use the
scientific method based on numerical results of experimentation and surveys. It is for this reason
that credibility is one of the primary factors in trustworthiness and internal validity is the main
credibility criteria scrutinized by positivist researchers (Shenton, 2004). Per Merriam & Tisdell
(2016), internal validity asks the question of ‘how accurately is reality presented by the
findings?’ Effective internal validity checks include triangulation, member checks, peer reviews,
and researcher reflexivity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Triangulation is one of the best-known methods to strengthen internal validity. This study
used three sources of data: public documents, an organizational scan, and interviews. Since it
was not possible to triangulate in terms of using a wide range of participants and member checks,
documentation in the form of previous studies and meta analyses was also used to allow
comparisons to be made between the public documents, organizational scan, interviews and prior
studies.
Because the researcher is the primary data gathering instrument in a study, peer reviews
are a prime method of avoiding researcher bias. Researcher assumptions may be overlooked due
to the extended time spent developing and implementing the study. Peer reviewers can be
colleagues, peers, professors, and academic committee members. Therefore, committee members
have the dual purpose of serving in collaborative debriefing sessions. These discussions can shed
light on the researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and preferences. By widening perceptions,
alternative approaches can be discussed and the supervisory nature of the committee may
eliminate flaws in rigorous thinking and planning.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 130

Not only will outside scrutiny help maintain rigorous thinking and internal validity but it
can also stimulate internal scrutiny by using the researcher’s reflective efforts. This involves a
continuous formative appraisal and questioning of the researcher’s initial impressions during
data collection, observation of patterns while open-coding provided findings, and emerging
theories. During reflection, the researcher may also address her own background and experiences
and how they influence the study design and findings. Performing reflective commentary
throughout the research process can acknowledge or prevent reactivity or inadvertent researcher
influence on the settings or participants (Maxwell, 2013). The resulting reflective memo added to
the study’s limitations and suggestions for future research.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 131

Appendix E: Validity and Reliability
In qualitative research reliability refers to information consistency and validity refers to
information accuracy or truthfulness (Creswell, 2014). This interview was modified from an
existing instrument so required reestablishment of reliability and validity. This was done prior to
interview distribution and during data analysis.
Reliability determines internal consistency which involves two aspects, stability and
consistency. Stability of the instrument means that it should produce similar results if
administered again and again over time. Consistency means that the interview should also be
administered and scored the same way each time (Creswell, 2014). According to Salkind (2011)
there are four types of reliability: test-retest, parallel forms, internal consistency, and interrater.
Internal consistency measures consistency between the interview items or is there consistency
within one dimension for their category or construct (Salkind, 2011). This study consisted of
three dimensions: knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Per Merriam and
Tisdell, (2016), qualitative research consistency means that findings are consistent with the data
presented and Harding (2013) states that reliability involves the degree of consistency in which
data is assigned to the same category by different observers, therefore this research used peer
review as a measurement for internal consistency.
Validity or truthfulness is the extent that we can draw meaningful inferences from scores
or is the instrument measuring what it claims to measure (Creswell, 2014). Instruments can have
content, criterion, and construct validity (Salkind, 2011). In this study, inter-related
psychological variables or constructs, such as favorable attitudes and beliefs towards blended
learning; and knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences are being examined.
Therefore, construct validity will be used to measure the accuracy of the concepts being studied.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 132

It forces the researcher to ask, “How well did I translate ideas into measurements or interview
questions?” For construct validity to exist, there must be a definite link between the questions
and the construct, and there must be clear distinctions between different constructs (i.e.,
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences) (Construct validity, n.d.). In interview
development, review of the draft instrument by experts and/or stakeholders is an essential step
(Irwin & Stafford, 2016). Prior to interview distribution, the interview content was reviewed by
two or three experts familiar with the concepts involved such as knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences, and blended learning. The experts provided feedback and suggestions
for construct improvement in each dimension according to relevance of the dimension being
measured in construct and according to content validity (e.g., blended learning terminology,
definitions, benefits). The experts also reviewed with a focus on threats to construct validity,
such as hypothesis guessing, researcher expectancies and bias, poor construct definition, and
construct confounding. Another threat to validity is nonresponse bias when there is less than
100% response from participants (Fink, 2013). However, because this study did not utilize a
survey, and due to the small sample size, the nonresponse bias did not apply.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 133

Appendix F: Ethics

In this qualitative study, I was attempting to explore what knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences affect adoption and implementation of a technical innovation, such as
blended learning, in postsecondary critical foreign language teaching (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Qualitative exploration requires deep and insightful interview techniques to focus on meaning
and understanding of complex issues such as innovative organizational change, its advocacy and
obstacles (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ethical issues are involved in interview data gathering
because of the open-ended and conversational format. Above all, the researcher has a
responsibility to the participants (Glesne, 2011) which are outlined in a checklist (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) and enforced by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board.
My responsibility as a researcher of the organization and educators involved gaining informed
consent which required explaining the purpose of the inquiry and methods used; confidentiality;
data collection boundaries; and explanations of reciprocity, promises, and risk assessment
(Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, 2016). Glesne (2011) stipulate that the researcher-researched
relationship do no harm and be free of exploitation. This is achieved by informing the
researched that participation is voluntary, withdrawal from participation is always available
without penalty, and confidentiality is included. Because my stakeholders were administrators
and faculty, confidentiality was extremely important. I respected their wishes to participate or
not, secured signed consent forms prior to interviewing, and reminded them that they may
withdraw from participation at any time. I obtained permission to record interviews. No
incentives were promised to participants but they will receive thank you cards with a small token
of appreciation to be determined later. The token may include a copy of the completed
dissertation. By not offering incentives, I hoped to engage only participants who were genuinely
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 134

interested in the topic of study and the ‘thank you’ token should be in alignment with their
interest in educational innovation.
Since I am an outsider to the organization, there should be no confusion over dual roles
and I organized the study as an objective investigator. The greatest obstacle to being an outsider
is lack of trust. Glesne (2011) described two possible roles for a researcher and the dilemmas
involved. I presented myself as a developing scholar interested in learning about educational
innovation. As a student of technological innovation in higher education, there were less ethical
dilemmas than if a bias were disclosed at the beginning during the informed consent stage.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 135

Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used as the framework for planning,
implementation, and evaluation of the recommended innovation’s initial phase of this study
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model described four levels of training implementation:
Level 1 (Reaction), Level 2 (Learning), Level 3 (Behavior), and Level 4 (Results).
However, for planning purposes Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, (2016) recommend to begin
with the end in mind Level 4 (Results) and work backwards through Level 3 (Behavior), Level 2
(Learning) and, finally to Level 1 (Reaction) to ensure the most successful implementation. In
planning the training, it is important to define the desired outcome first (Level 4), and identify
leading indicators or steps that will result in the desired outcome. Indicators are internal to the
organization and external to the organization and are tangible and recognizable outcomes.
Critical behaviors are key skills that employees need to exercise to reach each indicator. By
identifying and connecting critical behaviors to the indicators, a means of measurement is
created whereby the pathway to the desired results can be observed and tracked.
In Level 3 (Behavior), the identified critical behaviors should be monitored to ensure that
they are transferable to the workplace after training. Drivers are ways that trainers and/or
supervisors can affect critical behavior consistency towards reaching leading indicators and
include monitoring, reinforcement, encouragement, and reward.
Level 2 (Learning) should have a means to evaluate trainees in skills, knowledge,
attitude, and confidence and commitment to the training using both formative and summative
methods. Level 1 (Reaction) requires formative and summative methods also to gather trainee
attitudes towards training in terms of how favorable, engaging, and relevant it has been to their
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 136

job. Once the components of Levels 4, 3, 2, and 1 are carefully planned and designed,
implementation can then proceed in chronological order 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The goal of the organization is to address the Graham, et al. (2012) stage 1 of blended
learning adoption which is awareness and exploration that leads to advocacy. Langley, Noen,
Nolan, Nolan, Norman, and Provost (2009) propose that effective organizational change will first
test and modify an innovation on a small scale before implementing it wide-scale. This involves
creating a test or beta model before adoption and implementation. Therefore, innovative faculty
may work with administration to identify resources and apply them to a small-scale test to be
evaluated.
The purpose of stage one is to informally explore and advocate to individual faculty and
to clarify educators’ needs for the adoption of blended learning. During this process the
expectation is to define blended learning as it applies to less commonly taught language
instruction, align BL outcomes to the organization’s mission and values, allow innovative faculty
to participate in BL program adoption and implementation planning, and allow innovative
faculty to develop a test or beta model before adoption and implementation.

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Short-term observations and measurements for external outcomes would be to:
1. Create Web-posted documents directed towards the development of BL adoption
department policy with web-site access monitored for all stakeholders
2. Increased recognition by the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages
evidenced by mentions in their publications and conferences, and
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 137

3. Increased student inquiries about language department enrollment monitored and
counted by admissions and/or student recruitment.
Short-term observations and measurements for internal outcomes would mostly involve
the participation of innovative administration and faculty towards the creation of a workable BL
definition, development of departmental BL adoption and implementation policy, and
clarification of outcomes. These would be measured by leadership and peer observations, faculty
survey, list of suggestions from stakeholders, and meeting minutes. These external and internal
leading indicators would allow tracking towards desired results (see Table 10).
Table 10

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased recognition by the
National Council of Less
Commonly Taught Languages
for improvements towards
language learning frameworks
Number of Web-posted public written
documents outlining blended learning
(BL) definition, purpose of BL
adoption, anticipated student outcomes
of BL adoption, and initial
implementation procedure.
Measure web-site access by
administration, faculty, and students.
Increased press in NCOLCTL
newsletter
Number of press mentions. Receive at least one mention in the
NCOLCTL newsletter
Increased recognition at
NCOLCTL conferences
Number of mentions in conference
papers
Receive at least one mention in a
NCOLCTL conference
Increased school reputation Number of mentions in community
press outlets
Receive at least one mention in a
community press outlet
Increase in number of new
applications to the school
Number of applications compared to
past years
Achieve at least a 2% increase in
student inquiries to department
enrollment
Internal Outcomes
Increased faculty performance
in language learning
framework development about
BL (definition, purpose, and
implementation).
Checklist observations using a rubric.

Positive faculty responses to reasons,
advantages, disadvantages, and
anticipated student outcomes about
BL.
Leadership and peer observations and
monitoring.

Faculty survey.
Increased faculty engagement
about BL departmental policy
development.
Ten or more faculty contributions in
the form of BL proposed definitions,
BL adoption processes, BL
implementation procedures, BL
Written list of suggestions submitted
by department administrator, faculty,
and staff personnel.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 138

purposes, expected improvements to
student outcomes, and faculty/staff
needs towards BL best practices.
Departmental alignment of
mission, values, and BL
adoption.
Measure participation by counting the
number of administrative and faculty
participants. Review draft(s) of
department policy towards BL
adoption.

Two meetings involving department
administrator, faculty, and staff
personnel to discuss alignment of
mission, values, and BL adoption.

Written meeting minutes.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Critical behaviors are actions directly connected to desired outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In this study, the key activities of innovative administrators
and faculty involve 1) developing and planning BL professional development activities, 2)
running BL professional development activities, and 3) creating a departmental BL adoption and
implementation policy (see Table 11).
Table 11

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1) Key volunteer
innovative administration,
staff, and faculty, target
and organize BL-related
professional development
activities. (i.e. faculty to
research, design and plan
BL-related professional
development courses.)
A list of topics, lectures,
and demonstrations for
BL-related professional
development activities.

Conduct quarterly meeting
involving key innovative
administration, staff, and
faculty personnel with the
objective of completing a
report to document status of
professional development
activities for early adopters.

Every quarter
2) Early adopter faculty
take advantage of
professional development
activities.

Enrollment in BL-related
professional development
lectures, and
demonstrations.
Innovative personnel to track
early adopter participation in
professional development
activities by creating
enrollment lists.
Every month
3) Key innovative
administration, staff, and
faculty personnel target
and organize BL-related
discussions/meetings for
alignment of departmental
mission/values and BL
adoption/implementation
towards the creation of a
List of topics and
suggestions towards BL
definition and
departmental policy to be
publicly posted on a
website.
Conduct quarterly meeting
involving key innovative
administration, staff, and
faculty personnel with the
objective of documenting the
status report on creation of
department policy towards
BL adoption/implementation.

Every quarter
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 139

departmental policy
document.

Required drivers. Drivers are actions that key personnel (in this case, innovative
administrators and faculty) do to support critical behaviors and hold developing stakeholders
accountable to critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Supportive drivers reinforce,
encourage and reward key behaviors. Accountability drivers monitor key behaviors to ensure
consistency and regularity on the job.

In this study, support drivers include creating a community of practice for BL
professional development, designing job aids for early adapters, peer modeling by innovative
stakeholders, and payment or other incentives towards the encouragement of BL professional
development. Accountability drivers include periodic interviews with all stakeholders and
reflection (See Table 12).
Table 12

Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Create community of practice for
key innovative administration, staff,
and faculty personnel to support
each other and consult with outside
faculty/experts to work on BL
professional development material
and departmental policy.
Ongoing 1, 3
Key innovative administration,
staff, and faculty personnel to create
job aids for early adopters as part of
professional development and self-
directed learning.
Monthly 2
Encouraging
Peer modeling presented by
innovative administration, faculty,
staff, and trainers to early adopter
administration, faculty, and staff for
Monthly 2, 3
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 140

participation in professional
development activities and policy
development discussions.

Rewarding
Pay for professional development
(e.g. conferences, class attendance,
creation of job aids, and policy
development)
Monthly 1,2,3

Monitoring
Innovative administration, faculty,
staff, and trainers to touch bases
periodically with early adopter
professional development
attendance to interview about
experiences and attitudes.
Quarterly 1,2,3
Innovative administration, faculty,
staff to reflect together in
community of practice about
experiences, attitudes, and
observations.
Quarterly 1,3

Organizational support. The department needs to support innovative stakeholders to
develop a specific vision for BL outcomes that is in alignment with departmental mission and
values, develop a departmental policy that can be a start towards BL adoption and
implementation strategy, and address the Graham, et al. (2012) stage 1 of blended learning
adoption using awareness and exploration that leads to advocacy. To develop a vision of BL
outcomes and informal audit would be conducted that reviews existing policies, procedures and
messages to check for alignment of departmental goals. Identifying innovative personnel is
important to form a team that can meet regularly and use their cognitive diversity to research and
prepare the groundwork for the creation of a departmental BL policy. The formation of a
department policy can then be used to enter Stage 1 of BL adoption towards advocacy to early
adopters thereby gradually introducing change through levels of participants (i.e. innovators,
early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards).
Level 2: Learning
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 141

Learning goals. Since the objective of the learning goal is to address the Graham, et al.
(2012) stage 1 of blended learning adoption using awareness and exploration that leads to
advocacy, the learning goals and program will be designed for a two-tier model. Tier 1 includes
innovative stakeholders (i.e. volunteer faculty, administration, and staff) who will research,
design, and plan the training program(s) for Tier 2 which consists of early adopter faculty. It is
the responsibility of Tier 1 innovative stakeholders to research, design, and plan for two main
areas: training course(s) development (professional development) and departmental policy
creation. Learning goals will apply to the two tiers differently and will be specified below.
In stage 1 of blended learning adoption, faculty and administration will participate in BL
research, training and course development, strategic planning, and a pilot program directed
towards advocacy, professional development and the creation of departmental policy are key
factors in initial adoption. Innovative stakeholders (identified through volunteering) will
spearhead the initiative to first early adopter stakeholders so their learning goals, program,
activities, and evaluation will be instructor-centered. Tier 1 will be responsible for gradually
expanding the innovation to other subsequent groups of stakeholders. Tier 2, early adopter
faculty, will be the recipients and beneficiaries of Tier 1’s activities so learning goals, program(s)
activities, and evaluation will be student-centered.
These stakeholder groups are defined according to Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations
(Rogers, 1995) five categories of adopters: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late
majority, and laggards. Therefore, the recommended solutions and corresponding learning goals
involve two tiers: innovative and early adopters, including faculty and/or administration, are
specified below. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, Tier 1 and Tier 2 stakeholders
will be able to:
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 142

Learning goals for Tier 1.
1. Apply the steps to research, generate, plan, and produce pilot training program.
2. Value blended learning training. (Expectancy Value Theory)
3. Apply the steps to generate a policy for blended learning(Procedural).
4. Generate a specific vision for BL professional development (include working
definition) (Cultural Setting Influence 1).
5. Plan a strategy for implementing blended learning (Procedural: Cultural Setting
Influence 2).
6. Implement the first stage of blended learning adoption (Procedural; Cultural
Setting Influence)
Learning goals for Tier 2.
1. Recall knowledge of blended learning vocabulary and elements. (Factual
Knowledge).
2. Explain blended learning concepts that improve student outcomes. (Conceptual
Knowledge).
3. Produce personalized online materials for students. (Procedural Knowledge).
4. Apply the steps to engage in communities of practice to support one another.
(Procedural Knowledge).
5. Apply Execute collaborative strategies towards creating communities of practice.
(Procedural).
6. Exemplify a community of practice for their students. (Procedural Knowledge).
7. Reflect upon their prior knowledge to encourage students towards online
independent study, practice, and self-assessment. (Metacognitive Knowledge).
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 143

Program
The learning goals in the previous sections will be achieved through research, training
and tabling group meetings that increase the knowledge and motivation of the Tier 1 innovative
stakeholders so that they can train and advocate to the group of Tier 2 early adopters. Through
Tier 1’s research, training development, job aids, journal, peer observation and peer monitoring,
advocacy training for Tier 2 will begin for an initial period of two years.
Program for Tier 1. First, every quarter Tier 1 will research, design and plan BL-related
professional development courses based on knowledge and motivation influences. Consultants,
conferences, and/or webinars will be used as knowledgeable others to provide demonstration and
feedback to Tier 1. These key personnel will work in groups to discuss learning goals 1, 2, 3, and
4 as described above. These learning goals are knowledge based and primarily related to training
development.
After the first quarter, Tier 1 will implement pilot training courses to address learning
goals 1, 2, 3, and 4. Tier 2 will enroll in pilot courses designed to familiarize trainees to BL
terminology, technology, and concepts contributing to improved student outcomes. Pilot training
courses will occur monthly and involve evaluation and trainee reactions.
After the second quarter, Tier 1 will meet to discuss learning goal number 7 which is
primarily policy related. By this time, Tier 1 will have sufficient evidence-based material from
pilot training courses with evaluation data that can be applied towards policy and strategy
creation. Suggestions towards value of training will be discussed along with BL vision for the
department, alignment of department values to BL training and outcomes, and initial strategy for
BL department-wide implementation will be addressed.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 144

Program in Tier 2. Every month peer modeling presented by Tier 1 will encourage Tier
2 towards participation in training activities and policy development. Incentives for Tier 1 and
Tier 2 will be proposed and learning goals 4, 5, and 6 involving communities of practice will be
encouraged and reinforced.
Every quarter, Tier 1 monitoring of training development and policy creation will be
enacted through peer observation, peer monitoring and feedback, and reflection. This is for
continual check of alignment between department mission and values, BL adoption, and
improved student outcomes.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Tier 1 must be aware of the knowledge and
motivational influences needed to achieve the learning goals. There are factual, declarative,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive aspects to all the learning goals. Additionally, there
are motivational aspects such as goal and value expectancy theory and organizational cultural
settings involved in the learning goals. Critical behaviors are integrated into the learning goals
for effective assessment and evaluation after training. Tables 13a and 13b lists the evaluation
methods and timing for these learning components for Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Table 13a

Evaluation of the Components of Building the Program: Tier 1 - Innovative Stakeholders.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Innovative stakeholders: Knowledge checks through
group tabling discussions.
During quarterly meetings
Report out on-table discussions for innovative
stakeholders to ensure that volunteers are participating
regularly.
During quarterly meetings

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Innovative stakeholders: Consultant feedback on design
and development of training materials.
Prior to implementation of pilot training sessions.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Innovative stakeholders: Brainstorm during group
tabling.
During quarterly meetings
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 145

Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Innovative stakeholders: Discussion during group
tabling.
During quarterly meetings
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Participation. During quarterly meetings

Table 13b

Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program: Tier 2 - Early Adopter Faculty.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Early adopter stakeholders: Formative and summative
assessments
During monthly meetings
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Early adopter stakeholders: Observation and feedback
on training session takeaways and utility.
During the training
Immediately after the learning event.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Early adopter stakeholders: Pre- and Post- assessment
survey to measure value of training and alignment of BL
to student outcomes
Before and immediately after the learning event
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Early adopter stakeholders: Feedback from peers and
trainer during observations
Immediately after the learning event
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Early adopter stakeholders: 1:1 discussions following
trainer observations
Immediately the learning event
Early adopter stakeholders: Write down what they
learned and how they will apply it in class.
Immediately r the learning event

Level 1: Reaction
It is important to determine participants’ reaction during the training in a way that
provides useful information towards quality monitoring and improvement. It is insufficient to
gather ‘smiley face’ ratings of the training. Therefore, information that conveys value of the
training, utility, and commitment to use in the classroom after the training event is key.
Since the first stage of BL adoption is accomplished using two tiers of stakeholders Level
1 will focus on the Tier 2 because that is the group who will receive training. Tier 2 will cover
Level 1 components during quarterly meetings. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) stress the
importance of using formative evaluation methods during training to ensure that participants find
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 146

the training engaging, favorable, and job-relevant. While summative evaluation is also important,
in the form of surveys and/or interviews, after training, formative is more important to remove
distractions and discomfort throughout the training. Even though Level 1 evaluation is usually
enacted immediately after the training event, Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest that
formative evaluation methods can be used in addition to or instead of the common summative
methods and include instructor observation, pulse checks, and using a dedicated observer.
Recommendations for formative and summative evaluation methods are included in Tables 14a
and 14b below.
Table 14a

Tier 1: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Open-ended Questions Summative: Immediately after meeting.
Relevance
Open-ended Questions

Summative: Immediately after meeting.
Customer Satisfaction
Open-ended Questions Summative: Immediately after meeting.

Table 14b

Tier 2: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Dedicated Observer Formative: During training.
Pulse Check Formative: During training.
Survey Summative: Immediately after training.
Relevance
Pulse Check Formative: During training.
Survey Summative: Two weeks after training.
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse Check Formative: During training.
Workshop Evaluation Survey Summative: Two weeks after training.

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 147

Evaluation Tools
Tier 1
After the first quarter, Tier 1 will implement pilot training courses to address learning
goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 for Tier 2. Evaluation tools for Tier 1 consist of open-ended questions
immediately after each quarterly meeting that pertain to the topic relevance for each meeting.

Questions include but are not limited to:
1. Is what we’re doing aligned to university and department values and mission for student
outcomes?
2. What have we learned from Tier 2 evaluations?
3. Which learning goals have succeeded and why?
4. Which learning goals have not succeeded and why?
5. What other resources exist to help us?

Tier 2
Tier 2 will enroll in pilot courses designed to familiarize trainees to BL terminology,
technology, and concepts contributing to improved student outcomes. Pilot training courses will
occur monthly and involve evaluation and trainee reactions. The courses will follow the Tier 2
learning goals and program as stated above. Evaluation tools for Tier 2 consist of an evaluation
immediately following the training program and a delayed evaluation approximately two weeks
following the training program.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 148

Immediately following the program implementation. For Level 1 (reactions) and
Level 2 (learning) evaluations following the pilot training course, the Tier 2 participants will
complete a summative survey to gauge their perceptions of engagement (See Appendix H for the
survey questions). Since engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction also use formative
pulse check evaluations throughout the training, observations by both the Tier 1 instructor and
back-of-the-room-guest (BORG) will be completed in the form of a checklist. The checklist will
cover both Level 2 learning goals and Level 1 reactions (See Appendix I for the checklist).
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately two weeks
after the pilot training, Tier 2 participants will complete a survey designed to measure relevance
of the training. Relevance also includes continued confidence in using new knowledge and
transferring it to the classroom, and level of commitment to applying new knowledge in the
classroom. Level 1 and 2 evaluations of declarative and procedural knowledge, skills, and
confidence will be included. Tier 2 participants should be able to assess how specific workshop
content might lead to improved student outcomes. This survey will address the utility of the
workshop towards better instructional strategies and student outcomes. Level 1 and 2 attitudes,
commitment, relevance will be revisited along with Level 3 behavior such as transference of new
techniques to the classroom and Level 4 results such as observable improved student outcomes
(See Appendix J for the survey questions).
Data Analysis and Reporting
There are three internal Level 4 goals which are measured differently (see Table 10). The
first goal of increased faculty engagement about BL departmental policy development involves
Tier 1 activities and will be measured by a review of the draft documents containing proposed
BL definitions, BL adoption processes, BL implementation procedures, BL purposes, expected
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 149

improvements to student outcomes, and faculty/staff needs towards BL best practices. Reviewers
will consist of Tier 1 participants and executive administration. Feedback will be provided that
addresses feasibility and departmental mission.
The second internal Level 4 goal of departmental alignment of mission, values, and BL
adoption also involves Tier 1 activities and will be measured by counting the number of
participants quarterly for a total of one year to see if the initial number of volunteers is
maintained. There will also be a review of the departmental policy draft (the result of the first
internal Level 4 goal). Reviewers will consist of Tier 1 participants and executive administration.
Feedback will be provided that addresses the draft policy alignment of BL objectives and
alignment of departmental mission and values, BL objectives and departmental student
outcomes, and BL objectives and departmental objectives towards faculty/staff professional
development.
The third internal Level 4 goal of increased faculty performance in language learning
framework development about BL (definition, purpose, and implementation) involves Tier 2
training outcomes and will be measured by a review of the Tier 2 Evaluation Tool results. There
will be evaluations immediately following the pilot training and a delayed evaluation two weeks
later. The evaluation immediately following the training will measure learning goals and Tier 2
reactions to training (See Appendix H). Reviewers will consist of Tier 1 participants and
executive administration. Feedback will be provided that addresses if the trainees attained the
learning goals, found value in the training, what their level of commitment is to use the training,
and if they have a positive attitude toward the adoption of BL. Tier 1 observations of the training
will also provide instruction delivery information and objective trainee reaction descriptions (See
Appendix I).
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 150

Figure 1 below illustrates that the first two internal Level 4 results which are based on
review agreement by Tier 1 and executive administration using the measurements stated above.
The third internal Level 4 training results are displayed using two graphics. One summarizing
student outcomes and the other summarizing back of the room guest (BORG) observations.

Figure 3

There are five external Level 4 outcomes with the first four being self-evident and are
achieved by publication (See Table 10). The fifth external Level 4 outcome, increase in number
of new applications to the school) is based on achieving at least a 2% increase in student
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 151

inquiries to department enrollment. This can be measured during normal university and/or
departmental data reportage.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model outlines 4 levels to program implementation and
evaluation consisting of Level 1 Reaction, Level 2 Learning, Level 3 Behavior, and Level 4
Results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By planning a change program using Level 4 Results
first, the training program objectives are clearly defined and then subsequent planning and
evaluation tools were developed for each level. In this case, the three internal objectives at Level
4 include BL policy creation, alignment between department mission and values to BL policy,
and implementation of a pilot training program for faculty.
After the data analysis and reporting is completed as described in the previous section,
three key data analysis questions will be asked:
1. Do the outcomes of the three internal objectives meet expectations?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, why?
The answers to these questions can be used to develop internal benchmarks regarding BL
training. Additionally, results from Level 1 Reactions and Level 2 Learning (Goals) evaluation
can be incorporated into planning for the next training session after the pilot. This process aids in
program refinement and assists in optimizing future program results.
The first question applies to data collected and evaluation of each of the four levels.
Addressing expectations can help to create target metrics for each level that will be integrated
into department goals. More accurate target metrics can then be used for improved evaluation
tools.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 152

The second question leads to identification of weaknesses or gaps as to why the Level 4
results were not met. The answer to this question may force a revision of Level 4 objectives and
assumptions. Leading indicators, desired outcomes, and critical behaviors may need to be re-
assessed. This is an attempt to identify root causes in failure to meet expectations or outcomes.
The third question has to do with successful outcomes and how to duplicate those results.
The answer to this question may involve an evaluation of Level 1 and 2 results as positive post-
training outcomes mean that the training process has been effective and should be duplicated.
However, identification of the most successful aspects of the training need to be documented for
later propagation.
Finally, Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend providing a brief report on training
outcomes to key stakeholders and executives. The post-training report will be submitted to Tier
1, Tier 2, and executive administrators as a summary of the value that the innovation may hold
for the department. It is important to make the report short, graphic, and show alignment to key
department values and student outcomes. Innovative change that is meaningful to the
stakeholders is change that will be perceived to be credible and interesting.
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 153

Appendix H: Level 1 Tier 2 Survey
Learner-Centered
Evaluation
Category
Learner-centered Disagree
1
2 3 4 Agree
5
Program Objectives I understood the
learning objectives.

Course Materials I felt that the course
materials will be
essential for my success.

Content Relevance I will be able to
immediately apply what
I
learned.

Facilitator Knowledge My learning was
enhanced by the
knowledge of the
facilitator.

Facilitator Delivery I was well engaged
during the session.

Program Evaluations I was given ample
opportunity to
demonstrate my
knowledge.

Breaks I felt refreshed after the
breaks

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 154

Facility I experienced minimal
distractions during
the session

Source: http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Portals/0/Storage/The%20new%20world%20level%201%20reaction%20sheets.pdf
Note: Survey administered electronically.

Open-ended Questions:

1. What part of the training was most beneficial?

2. What part of the training needs modification?

3. How would you modify it and why?

4. List the two most important takeaways from the training. Why are they important to
you?

EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 155

Appendix I: Level 1 and 2 Checklist
Tier 1 and BORG
Trainer-Centered

BORG
(Back of the Room Guest)
Observed
(Y/N)
1. Includes opportunities for participants to express their personal
perspectives (e.g. experiences, thoughts, or concepts)

Evidence or example:
2. Included opportunities for participants to interact with each other
related to training content

Evidence or example:
3. Adheres to agenda and time constraints
Evidence or example:
4. Content: the trainer demonstrates knowledge of content
Evidence or example:
5. Delivery: the trainer uses a variety of instructional strategies to meets
students’ learning needs

Evidence or example:

Sources: http://aea365.org/blog/ed-eval-tig-week-amy-gaumer-erickson-on-evaluating-the-quality-of-professional-development/
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 156

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/performance_evaluation/teacher/training_phase2/materials/day_1_completed_formal_obse
rvation_form.pdf

Appendix J: Level 1-4 Tier 2 Survey (Delayed After Training)

1 - Little or no application
2 - Mild degree of application
3 - Moderate degree of application
4 - Strong degree of application
5. Very strong degree of application, and desire to help others do the same
Objective 1 2 3 4 5
I have applied what I learned to my work.

If you entered 4 or below, please indicate the reasons (check all that apply):
☐ I do not have the necessary knowledge and skills.
☐ I do not have a clear picture of what is expected of me.
☐ I have other, higher priorities.
☐ I do not have the resources to apply what I learned.
☐ I do not have the support to apply what I learned.
☐ The training didn’t give me the confidence to apply what I learned.
☐ I don’t think what I learned will work.
☐ There is no system of accountability to ensure application of what I learned.
☐ Other (please explain):
Open-ended Questions
EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES BLENDED LEARNING 157

1. How have you used what you learned in training on the job?
2. Describe any challenges you are experiencing in applying what you learned to your work,
and possible solutions to overcome them.
If you entered 5, please rate the contribution(s) from the following table:

Contributing Factor Rating
Not at all Low Medium High
The course itself
Coaching
Support and/or encouragement
Effective system of accountability or monitoring
Belief that it would help me to be more effective in
my work

Ongoing training, I have received after the initial
class

Payment of bonus or other incentives
Community of practice or other peer support
Job aids
Other (please specify):

Source: Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study addresses the problem of practice concerning the lack of sufficient empirical data in the use of blended learning (BL) for postsecondary foreign language instruction. Less commonly taught language (LCTL) instruction was targeted because the higher attrition rates serve as an innovation motivation and possibly serve a future purpose as a BL efficacy performance indicator. The literature review documented the importance and challenges of postsecondary foreign language education in the U.S., technological and corporate innovations in foreign language instruction, and the importance of educators’ attitudes towards institution-wide BL adoption towards sufficient data gathering. Using two state language departments, a small sample of LCTL faculty stakeholders were interviewed for a qualitative study about instructor attitudes towards BL adoption. Their attitudes were evaluated to support future research towards institution-wide adoption and implementation of BL following the Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison (2012) three stage BL adoption framework. ❧ For this study, the focus was on stakeholders’ readiness for stage 1 Awareness and Exploration only. Research questions were based on the Clark and Este’s (2008) Gap Analysis framework designed to identify stakeholders’ key knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The research questions included (1) What are educators’ knowledge and motivation related to the adoption of blended learning? and (2) What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and educators’ knowledge and motivation? ❧ The qualitative design was triangulated by an organizational scan, interviews, and documents. Findings were that stage 1 BL adoption was not applicable at this time due to the need for improved communication between the university and faculty and the need to engage faculty in policy and innovation. Recommendations were grouped by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences with corresponding internal and external outcomes, critical behaviors, drivers, course metrics and evaluations.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Modern corporate learning requires a modern design methodology: an innovation study

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment

PDF

Adaptive learning in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Child welfare turnover: an evaluation study of work-life balance practices

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Rethinking Hispanic attrition rates at U.S. post-secondary institutions: an evaluation study conducted at Latino private college

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

PDF

Digital learning in K12: putting teacher professional identity on the line

Asset Metadata

Creator Moody, Juniko (author)

Core Title A qualitative study of educators’ attitudes towards blended learning institutional adoption

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/13/2018

Defense Date 08/13/2018

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

Tag blended learning,critical languages,educators' attitudes,foreign language learning,hybrid learning,L2,less commonly taught languages,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Kaplan, Sandra (committee member)

Creator Email art_tek@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-67389

Unique identifier UC11668685

Identifier etd-MoodyJunik-6742.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-67389 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MoodyJunik-6742.pdf

Dmrecord 67389

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Moody, Juniko

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