Towards a faculty blended learning adoption model for higher education

  • Ahmed Antwi-BoampongEmail author


Management of the Ghana Technology University College took the decision to adopt blended learning (BL) for teaching and learning because of its effectiveness as a learning approach. However, academicians are apprehensive about teaching in blended learning environment. A major study to understand the factors influencing faculty to adopt blended learning in the university has allowed a preliminary grounded theory model to be developed. This model identifies key factors, including pedagogy fitness, faculty technology affinity, student positive disposition to BL and institutional readiness lead positively to motivate faculty to adopt BL. The outcome of this research is a faculty blended learning adoption model which highlights the process of how faculty members situate themselves within the construct of adoption. Furthermore, the study highlights that faculty blended learning can be understood through the lens of motivational theories of hygiene and the competing internal and external environmental priorities that faculty must construct and define in order to adopt blended learning.


Blended learning Faculty blended adoption model Constant comparative method Higher education institution Developing countries 



  1. Adekola, J., Dale, V. H. M., & Gardiner, K. (2017). Development of an institutional framework to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 25(1063519), 1–16. Scholar
  2. Alhabeeb, A., & Rowley, J. (2018). E-learning critical success factors: Comparing perspectives from academic staff and students. Computers and Education, 127(August), 1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alhabeeba, A., & Rowley, J., (2018). E-learning critical success factors: Comparing perspectives from academic staff and student, Computers and Education 127(2018)1–12.Google Scholar
  4. Ali, S., Uppal, M. A., & Gulliver, S. R. (2018). A conceptual framework highlighting e-learning implementation barriers. Information Technology & People, 31(1), 156–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Altameem, A. (2013). What drives successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the key technical issues in Saudi Arabian universities. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 53(1), 63–70.Google Scholar
  6. Ankit, A., Nachouki, M., & Abou Naaj, M. (2015). ‘Blended learning at Ajman University of Science and Technology’, Curriculum Design and Classroom Management (pp. 975–998). Scholar
  7. Antwi-Boampong, A., (2018). Proceedings of EDULEARN18 Conference 2nd-4th July 2018, Palma, Mallorca, Spain. International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED), p. 9352–9361 10 p. (EDULEARN Proceedings).Google Scholar
  8. Awidi, I. T. (2008). Developing an E-learning strategy for public universities in Ghana. Educause Quarterly, 31(2), 66–69.Google Scholar
  9. Bacow, L.S, Bowen, W.G., Guthrie, K.M, Long, M. P, Lack, K.A., (2012a). Barriers to adoption of online learning Systems in U.S. higher education -
  10. Bacow, L. S., et al. (2012b). Barriers to adoption of online learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education.Google Scholar
  11. Basak, S. K., & Govender, D. W. (2016). Development of a conceptual framework regarding the factors inhibiting teachers successful adoption and implementation of ICT in teaching and learning. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER)., 14, 431. Scholar
  12. Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers and Education., 58, 843–855. Scholar
  13. Bohle, K., et al. (2013). Unleashing the creative potential of faculty to create blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 18(2013, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116. Scholar
  15. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013a). (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25, 1–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013b). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education., 25, 1–11. Scholar
  17. Butler, D. L. and Sellbom, M. (2002) ‘M.G.H. - barriers to technology’, (2), pp. 22–28.Google Scholar
  18. Carbonell, et al. (2012). Unleashing the creative potential of faculty to create blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 18(2013), 29–37.Google Scholar
  19. Charmaz, K. (1996) ‘The search for meanings - grounded theory’, Smith, J.A;Van Langenhove,L. Rethinking Methods in Psychology, pp. 27–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Charmaz, K. (2000a). Grounded theory: Constructivist and objectivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition. Sage. Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  21. Charmaz, K. (2000b). Grounded theory objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Chen, Y., Little H., Ross M., Zhao Q. (2012) Factors motivating the adoption of e-learning technologies. Journal of e-Learning & Higher Education, 2012, pp. 1–17.
  23. Chyung, S. (2005). Analyze motivation-hygiene factors to improve satisfaction levels of your online training program. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  24. Constant, T. et al. (2016) ‘The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis author ( s ): Barney G . Glaser Published by : Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems Stable URL : REFERENCES Linked refe’, 12(4), pp. 436–445.
  25. Creswell, J.W., and Miller, D.L., Theory into practice, Vol. 39, No. 3, Getting good qualitative data to improve educational practice (Summer, 2000), pp. 124–130.Google Scholar
  26. D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended lear.Google Scholar
  27. Elameer, A. S. and Idrus, R. M. (2010) ‘Modified Khan eLearning Framework for the Iraqi Higher Education’, The Seventh International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 16–17 December 2010, Thailand, (December), pp. 72.1–72.7. Available at: Saleem Elameer_Modified Khan eLearning Framework.pdf.
  28. Fatheema, N., & Sutton, K. L. (2013). Factors influencing faculty members. Learning Management Systems Adoption Behavior: An Analysis Using the Technology Acceptance Model, IJTEMT; EISSN, II(VI), 2321–5518.Google Scholar
  29. Fatheema, N., Shannon, D. and Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol.11, No. 2, June 2015.Google Scholar
  30. Fathema, N. and Leigh Sutton, K. (2013) Factors influencing faculty members’ learning management systems adoption behavior: An analysis using the technology acceptance model, J-Gate and Academic Journal Database. Index Copernicus. Available at:
  31. Fathema, N., Shannon, D. and Ross, M. (2015) Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Google Scholar
  32. Findik Coşkunçay, D., & Özkan, S. (2013). A model for instructors’ adoption of learning management systems: Empirical validation in higher education context. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 13–25.Google Scholar
  33. Fresen, J. W. (2010). Factors influencing lecturer uptake of e-learning. Teaching English with Technology, Special Edition on LAMS and Learning Design, 10(3), 81–97.Google Scholar
  34. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education., 7, 95–105. Scholar
  36. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Garrote, R., & Pettersson, T. (2016). Lecturers’ attitudes about the use of learning management systems in engineering education: A Swedish case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 1–19. Scholar
  38. Gautreau, C. (2016). Motivational factors affecting the integration of a learning management system by faculty. The Journal of Educators Online.
  39. Gawande, V., (2016). Analysis of faculty perceptions toward blended learning adoption at higher education Institutes in Oman. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975–8887), 140(9), April 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gawel, J. (1997). Herzberg’s theory of motivation and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. - practical assessment, Research & Evaluation. Peer to peer Electronic Journal, 5(11), 3–5.Google Scholar
  41. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  42. Glaser, B. (2010). Grounded theory institute: Methodology of Barney G Glaser, 2010. In URL.Google Scholar
  43. Glaser, B. G. (2017). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23–38. Scholar
  44. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago Highsmith J (2000) adaptive software development: A collaborative approach to managing complex systems. New York: Dorset House Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Harona, H., Abbasa, W. F., & Rahman, N. A. (2011). The adoption of blended learning among Malaysian academicians, the 3rd international conference on e-learning ICEL 2011 (pp. 23–24) November 2011, Bandung, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  46. Hemingway, P., & Brereton, N. (April 2009). What is a systematic review? What is Series,‖ Bandolier.Google Scholar
  47. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 53–62.Google Scholar
  48. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  49. Hoffman, M. S. (2013) An examination of motivating factors on faculty participation in online higher education (Doctoral dissertation).’, (February), p. 146.Google Scholar
  50. Humbert, M. (2007) ‘Adoption of blended learning by faculty’, in The challenges of educating people to Lead in a challenging world.
  51. Isa, et al. (2018). Exploring factors that influence the usage of learning among academicians: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 13(special issue 5), 4524–4528.Google Scholar
  52. Jachin, N., & Usagawa, T. (2017). Potential impact of blended learning on teacher education in Mongolia.Google Scholar
  53. Κ., Α. Ε. (2010). No Title Κλινικη νοσηκευτικη βασικες και ειδικες νοσηλειες’, p. 347.Google Scholar
  54. Kasse, J. P., Musa, M., & Nansubuga, A. K. (2015). Facilitating condition for E-learning adoption—Case of Ugandan universities. Journal of Communication and Computer, 12(5), 244–249. Scholar
  55. Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e 3 -learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175–185. Scholar
  56. Khan, B. H. (2002). A framework for E-learning. Educational Technology, 1–2.Google Scholar
  57. Liu, Y.-H. (no date). Blending at small colleges: Challenges and Solutions.Google Scholar
  58. Martin, J. (2010) Applying the motivation-hygiene theory as a means of measuring learner satisfaction with blended learning courses in higher education a Aplicação Da Teoria Da Motivação-Higiene Como Meio De Medida Da Satisfação dos Alunos Em Cursos De B-Learning No Ensino.Google Scholar
  59. McLaren, J. H., & Kenny, L. P. (2016). Motivating change from lecture-tutorial modes to less traditional forms of teaching. Australian Universities’ Review, 16(6), 1893–1919. Scholar
  60. Moser, F. Z. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology: Educational technology support plays a critical role in helping faculty add technology to their teaching. Educause Quarterly, (1), 66–69 Available at:
  61. Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? Internet and Higher Education., 18, 15–23. Scholar
  62. Mouakket, S., & Bettayeb, A. M. (2015). Investigating the factors influencing continuance usage intention of learning management systems by university instructors: The blackboard system case. International Journal of Web Information Systems., 11, 491–509. Scholar
  63. Mtebe, J. S., & Raisamo, R. (2016). February – 2014 challenges and instructors. Intention to Adopt and Use Open Educational Resources in Higher Education in Tanzania, 15(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  64. Mtebe, J. S., & Raphael, C. (2018). Key factors in learners’ satisfaction with the e-learning system at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 107–122. Scholar
  65. Napier, N. P., Dekhane, S. and Smith, S. (no date). Transitioning to blended learning: Understanding student and faculty perceptions. Available at:
  66. Newton, D. (2007). Developing an integrated e-learning culture: A model grounded in the Australian Army experience. Lismore, NSW: PhD thesis, Southern Cross University.Google Scholar
  67. Newton, D. and Ellis, A. (2006) ‘A model for e-learning integration’.Google Scholar
  68. Newton, Hase, S. & Ellis, A. (2006). Effective implementation of online learning: A case study of the Queensland mining industry Journal of Workplace Learning; 2002; 14, 4; ProQuest pg. 156.Google Scholar
  69. Ngimwa, P., & Wilson, T. (2012). An empirical investigation of the emergent issues around OER adoption in sub-Saharan Africa. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(4), 398–413. Scholar
  70. ning. Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.Google Scholar
  71. Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers and Education., 56, 689–699. Scholar
  72. Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 327–342.Google Scholar
  73. Oh, E. and Park, S. (no date). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Google Scholar
  74. Oluniyi, O and Taiwo, A. T. (2016). The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT) Issue 20 (Apr-Jun 2016) (52–73).Google Scholar
  75. Paridah, M. ., et al. (2016). We are IntechOpen , the world ’ s leading publisher of open access books built by scientists , for scientists TOP 1%. Intech, i(tourism, 13. Scholar
  76. Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R. G., & Sandberg, D. S. (2016). A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. Internet and Higher Education. Elsevier Inc., 28, 17–27. Scholar
  79. Previtali, P., & Scarozza, D. (2019). Blended learning adoption: A case study of one of the oldest universities in Europe. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(5), 990–998. Scholar
  80. Radif, M, Fan, I. and MclauhghIn, P., (2015). Internal and external barriers influencing LMS implementation in Iraqi higher education, ICERI proceedings: 8th international conference of education, research and innovation. 18–20 November 2015, Seville, Spain, pp 6833–6843.Google Scholar
  81. Radif, M., Fan, I.-S. and Mclaughln, P. (no date). Internal and external barriers influencing lms implementation in Iraqi higher education.Google Scholar
  82. Rhode, J., Richter, S., Gowen, P., Miller, T., & Wills, C. (2017). Understanding faculty use of the learning management system. Online Learning, 21(3), 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  84. Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sarfo, F. K., & Yidana, I. (2016). University lecturers experience in the design and use of moodle and blended learning environment. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education. Google Scholar
  86. Sarjoo, T. V and Fraser, S. H. (2014). An investigation of factors affecting instructors' Usage of E-Learning Systems at the University of the West Indies. International Conferennce on eBusiness, eCommerce, eManagement, eLearning, and eGovernance (IC5e)_, 2014(12218), pp. 48–54. doi: 10.978.819252/12218.Google Scholar
  87. Sexton, C. et al. (2016). Beyond problem-based learning: How a residency model affects the education of pre-service elementary teachers. New Horizons in Education, 6(2).Google Scholar
  88. Shaqour, A. (2014). Faculty members’ views towards blended learning, the case of a Najah National University Master Program Teachers in the College of Education and Teacher Preparation. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(7), 99–106.Google Scholar
  89. Shurville, S., & Browne, T. (2007). Introduction: ICT-driven change in higher education: Learning from e-learning. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 3(3), 245–250. Scholar
  90. Ssekakubo, G., Suleman, H. and Marsden, G. (2011). Issues of adoption, (May 2014), p. 231.
  91. Stoffregen, J. D., Pawlowski J. M., Ras E., Tobias E., Šćepanović S., Fitzpatrick D., Mehigan T., Steffens P., Przygoda C., Schilling P., Friedrich H., Moebs S. (2016) Barriers to open e-learning in public administrations: A comparative case study of the European countries Luxembourg, Germany, Montenegro and Ireland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, pp. 198–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  93. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  94. Taylor, J. A., & Newton, D. (2013). Beyond blended learning: A case study of institutional change at an Australian regional university. Internet and Higher Education., 18, 54–60. Scholar
  95. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers and Education., 57, 2432–2440. Scholar
  96. Tshabalala, M., Ndeya-Ndereya, C. and Van Der Merwe, T. (1993) Implementing blended learning at a developing University: Obstacles in the way. Available at:
  97. Tshabalala, M., et al. (2014). Implementing blended learning at a developing university: Obstacles in the way. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(1), 101–110.Google Scholar
  98. Wilson, J. and Morreira, A. (2006) Incorporating the motivation-hygiene theory as a means of evaluating b-learning environments in higher education. Available at: Scholar
  99. Youn, S., Chyung, Y. and Ed, D. (1999) Analyze motivation-hygiene factors to improve satisfaction levels of your online training program. 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  100. Zawacki-Richter, O., Bozkurt, A., Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A., (2018). What research says about MOOCs – An explorative content analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. Volume 19, Number 1.Google Scholar
  101. Zhang, W., & Zhu, C. (2016). Review on blended learning: Identifying the key themes and categories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(9), 673–678. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Communications, Media and Information Technologies, Department of Electronic SystemsAalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations