Adoption of blended learning

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 ( 2012 ) 175 – 181

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of i-Learn Centre, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysiadoi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.318

The 3rd International Conference on e-Learning ICEL 2011, 23-24 November 2011, Bandung, Indonesia

The Adoption of Blended Learning among Malaysian

Academicians Haryani Harona*, Wan Faezah Abbasa, Nor Aini Abd Rahmanb

aFaculty of Computer and Mathematical Science, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia bCentre for Foundation Studies, International Islamic University, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract

This study reports the adoption of blended learning among academicians in Malaysia. Many higher learning institutions in Malaysia have implemented blended learning because of its effectiveness as a learning approach. However, studies have shown that academicians are apprehensive about teaching in blended learning. The theoretical framework for this study is based on Mezirow’s Transformational Learning Theory. Five independent variables representing an individual’s frame of reference are studied for their relationship with the attitude of adopting blended learning. The study employed the quantitative method approach. Data are gathered through surveys among academicians in one of the public universities in Malaysia which implemented blended learning. Findings identified that the adoption rate of blended learning is low, as reflected from the result of the study where only 13 percent of the academicians adopted the learning approach. Among the factors which influenced the adoption of blended learning are perceived usefulness of the system, learning goals, and educational technology preference. Findings from this study provided insights on the attitude towards the adoption of blended learning. Its practical contribution includes knowledge which can be incorporated into the e-learning training modules to address the problem of low adoption of blended learning. © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of i-Learn Centre, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

Keywords: Blended learning

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of i-Learn Centre, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

176 Haryani Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 ( 2012 ) 175 – 181

1. Introduction

The first generation of e-learning or Web-based learning programs focused on presenting physical classroom-based instructional content over the Internet. In the second wave of e-learning, various delivery modes are combined into e-learning which is termed as the “blended learning”. Many higher learning institutions in Malaysia implemented e-learning because of its effectiveness as an alternative learning approach (Masrom, 2008). Currently, public higher learning institutions in Malaysia are moving from solely e-learning into blended learning (Bunyarit, 2006). Singh (2003) stressed that blended learning offers more benefits and is more effective than traditional e-learning. However, studies have shown that academicians are apprehensive about teaching in blended learning (Brooks, 2008). This necessitates a study in Malaysian context to investigate the current level of adoption of blended learning among the academicians, and identify the factors influencing the adoption of blended learning.

Rosenberg (2001), confines e-learning as the use of internet technologies to deliver a broad array of solutions that enhances knowledge and performance. It is based upon three fundamental criteria: networked, delivered to the end-user via a computer using standard internet technology and focuses on the broadest view of learning. According to Shoniregun and Gray (2003) e-learning is the delivery of teaching material electronically with the added value of maintaining standard and quality without limitation of a specific location, using multimedia and is interactive. E-learning is not simply putting the notes online. Agboola (2005) concluded that the notion of e-learning should be about using the computer and the Internet technology to disseminate knowledge to learners effectively and to enhance the performances of both the teacher and the learner by utilizing information and communication technology (ICT) for the purpose of instructional delivery. In general, e-learning refers to learning with using of information and communication technologies.

Abd Karim and Hashim (2004) categories three main approaches for implementation of the e-learning system by any institution. There are as follows: 1. Using the technologies to support or supplement the traditional face-to-face course. 2. Integrating online activities into a traditional course to enhance the learning experience. (blended mode) 3. Delivering a course that is entirely online. (online mode). Approach one is usually done by the lecturer themselves using software like Microsoft PowerPoint. For using approach two and three, there must be supported by the university.

In Malaysia, many of the universities are using blended mode and online mode. For example, Bunyarit

(2006) has evaluated Universiti Tun Abd Razak (UNITAR) and Open University of Malaysia (OU) has implemented online mode while International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM) is implementing blended mode of learning.

There are factors which are obstacles keeping academicians from facilitating courses in a blended learning environment. The literature mentions some obstacles academicians must get past if they are to be successful in an online learning environment. These “include orientation, mentorship and established policies” (Ryan, Carlton & Ali, 2004). These factors affect the performance of the academicians as well as affect the quality of the online experience.

In a study by Ross and Seymour (1999), academician’s attitudes towards teaching online courses were examined. It is found that most of the attitudes held by academicians were negative, primarily because the participants doubted the quality of the education that students received through online courses. This conclusion was also reached by Inman et al. (1999) who concluded that the academicians “was willing to teach a distance learning class again, but they rated the quality of the courses as equal or lower quality than other classes taught on campus.” Other studies (e.g. Appana, 2008; Barker, 2003; Mancuso-Murphy, 2007; McIsaac, 2003) have reached similar conclusions about faculty attitudes toward online courses.


Rockwell et.al.(1999) concluded that intrinsic incentives (such as providing innovative instruction and applying new techniques in teaching) were more of a motivational force than extrinsic incentives such as recognition and pay for academicians to employ blended learning.

1.1. Transformative Learning Theory

The theory that framed this study is Mezirow’s Transformational Learning Theory (Mezirow, 1997). Transformative learning offers a theory of learning that is uniquely adult, abstract, idealized, and grounded in the nature of human communication. It is a theory that is partly a development process, but more as learning is understood as the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s’ experience in order to guide future action.

Transformative learning offers and explanation for change in meaning structures that evolves in two domains of learning which are; instrumental learning which focuses on learning through task-oriented problem solving and determination of cause and effect relationships. Second is communicative learning, which is learning involved in understanding the meaning of other concerning values, ideals, feelings, moral decisions, freedom, justice, labor, love, autonomy, commitment and democracy.

Mezirow defines transformative learning theory in terms of frames of reference that define and adult’s attitudes which composed of two dimensions: habits of mind and point of view (Brooks, 2008). A case study by Muhammad Hasmi and Noorliza Karia (2005) to a group of distance education students, Universiti Sains Malaysia (SDE-USM) identified four factors which are home computer, internet access, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness leads to the readiness of e-learning. Based on the study they concluded that e-learning needs to be blended with traditional teaching method for acceptance and readiness.

Research has shown that individuals who are ready to use technology are more likely to try it (Parasuraman, 2000) and Bo van der Rhee et.al. (2007). Davis (1989) developed the technology acceptance model (TAM) that identifies potential drivers and inhibitors of technology acceptance. Similarly, Parasuraman (2000) proposed a Technology Readiness Index (TRI), which measures the tendency to embrace and use new technologies for accomplishing goals in home life and at work. The TRI identifies four indicators of technology belief that impact an individual’s level of techno-readiness. Two of the indicators are positive: Optimism and Innovativeness, while the other two deal with concerns users might have: Discomfort and Insecurity. To determine a person’s Technology Readiness Index (TRI) he or she would have to answer a number of questions, each related to one of these indicators.

2. Purpose of Study

Research has shown that individuals who are ready to use technology are more likely to try it(Parasuraman, 2000) and Bo van der Rhee et.al. (2007). Davis (1989) developed the technology acceptance model (TAM) that identifies potential drivers and inhibitors of technology acceptance. Similarly, Parasuraman (2000) proposed a Technology Readiness Index (TRI), which measures the tendency to embrace and use new technologies for accomplishing goals in home life and at work. The TRI identifies four indicators of technology belief that impact an individual’s level of techno-readiness. Two of the indicators are positive: Optimism and Innovativeness, while the other two deal with concerns users might have: Discomfort and Insecurity. To determine a person’s Technology Readiness Index (TRI) he or she would have to answer a number of questions, each related to one of these indicators.

3. Methodology


The paradigm of inquiry for this research is positivist. Since paradigm of inquiry of this research is positivist, quantitative-method approach is adopted. This process involves conducting surveys in a chosen case-site, a public institution of higher learning which implemented blended learning. The main instrument for this research is the questionnaire. The questionnaire is divided into two sections, demographic section and the factors which influenced the attitude of adopting blended learning. Each section begins with a clear instruction of what is expected of the respondent. To determine the level of relevance of a particular item, a 5-point scale is used. The lowest point of the scale represents “strongly disagree” while the highest point of the scale represents “strongly agree”. The questionnaires were distributed randomly among the academicians and a total of thirty (30) questionnaires were returned.

The questions are developed according to the Transformative Learning Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In the Transformative Learning Theory, the frame of reference for an individual will influence his/her action. Therefore the independent variables explored are educational technology preference, learning goals and perception where as the dependent variable is adoption of blended learning. Two variables from the TAM are added, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as the other two independent variables. All together five constructs are tested for their relationship with adoption of blended learning.

Data are analysed using SPSS version16. Correlation analysis is used to test the relationship between independent and dependent variables. The paradigm of inquiry for this research is positivist. Since paradigm of inquiry of this research is positivist, quantitative-method approach is adopted. This process involves conducting surveys in a chosen case-site, a public institution of higher learning which implemented blended learning. The main instrument for this research is the questionnaire. The questionnaire is divided into two sections, demographic section and the factors which influenced the attitude of adopting blended learning. Each section begins with a clear instruction of what is expected of the respondent. To determine the level of relevance of a particular item, a 5-point scale is used. The lowest point of the scale represents “strongly disagree” while the highest point of the scale represents “strongly agree”. The questionnaires were distributed randomly among the academicians and a total of thirty (30) questionnaires were returned.

The questions are developed according to the Transformative Learning Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In the Transformative Learning Theory, the frame of reference for an individual will influence his/her action. Therefore the independent variables explored are educational technology preference, learning goals and perception where as the dependent variable is adoption of blended learning. Two variables from the TAM are added, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as the other two independent variables. All together five constructs are tested for their relationship with adoption of blended learning.

Data are analysed using SPSS version16. Correlation analysis is used to test the relationship between independent and dependent variables.

Table 1: Reliability of Constructs

Construct Cronbach’s alpha

Learning goal (10 statements) 0.825 Educational Technology Preference (7 statements)

0.853

Perception on Blended learning (5 statements) 0.706 Perceived Usefulness (4 statements) 0.932 Perceived Ease of Use (4 statements) 0.966


Adoption of Blended learning (14 statements) 0.843

4. Results and Discussions

The five constructs (independent) were tested for their correlation with motivation and adoption. No significant correlation was found between participants’ perception on e-learning and the adoption of blended learning. There is also no significant correlation between perceived ease of use and the adoption of blended learning.

However, three other constructs are found to have significant correlations with motivation to adopt blended learning. Pearson correlation test shows that there is a strong relationship between learning goals and adoption of blended learning (r=0.635 and sig = 0.020). Educational technology preferences also has a strong relationship with the adoption of blended learning (r = 0.643, sig=.018). Another construct which shows a strong relationship with adoption of blended learning is perceived usefulness (r=.545, sig =. 054).

Table 2 summarizes the results

Relationship tested Results Learning goals of an academicians has a significant corelation with the adoption of blended learning.

Strong relationship (r=.635, sig=0.020)

Educational technology preferences has a significant corelation with the adoption of blended learning.

Strong relationship (r = 0.643, sig=.018)

Perceived usefulness has a significant correlation with adoption of blended learning.

Strong relationship (r=.713, sig = .006)

Perceived ease of use has a significant correlation with adoption of blended learning.

No relationship (r=.545, sig =. 054)

Perception on blended learning has a significant corelation with adoption of blended e-learning.

No relationship (r=.166, sig =.580

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study examined the factors influencing the adoption of blended learning. Results showed that perceived usefulness is one of the important construct that influenced the adoption of blended learning. An explanation might be that academicians adopted blended learning because they viewed the technology as beneficial to the process of teaching and learning. This finding may suggest that academicians tend to focus on the usefulness of the technology in adopting it. In this context, proper training on the usefulness of the technology plays an important role for concretizing the adoption of blended learning among the academicians. Learning goals of an academician reflected the efforts taken to fulfill their personal target through self-learning. Learning goals has a strong relationship with the adoption of blended learning. A possible explanation of this finding is that, the introduction of a new technology provides challenges for the academicians. In coping with the challenges, academicians capitalize on their personal or self strength. A study done on how academicians cope with transformation of educational identity also reflected that capitalizing self-knowledge is one of the strategies taken by the academicians (Haryani Haron and Rose Alinda, 2009). The third construct influencing the adoption of blended learning is the educational technology preferences of the academicians. Blended learning combines technology and


traditional ways of teaching. This finding is in-line with the earlier study by Parasuraman (2000) on the adoption of technology. Academicians who are ready for new technology are most likely to adopt it. Therefore user training on blended learning may solidify the adoption of blended learning. This study is an initial study towards the adoption of blended learning. Only five constructs are investigated and the researchers acknowledged the sample limitation of the study. However, the study provides insights on the low adoption of blended learning besides providing some suggestions which can be implemented for a better adoption rate of blended learning.

References

Abd Karim, M. R., Hashim,Y(2004)The Experience of the E-Learning Implementation at the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris,

Malaysia. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT) Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 50-59. Aditiawarman U. (2007). Factors influencing online learning acceptance in Indonesian Open Learning University – Universitas

Terbuka(UT). M.S thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia, Agboola, A.K. 2005) A Study of readiness towards the introduction of e-learning as a teaching and learning environment among

lecturers: A case study of the International Islamic University Malaysia”, Ph.D. dissertation, International Islamic University Malaysia.

Bih, J. (2007) When it Comes to E-learning. ACM Ubiquity. Bo van der Rhee et. al. (2007). Technology Readiness, Learning Goals and eLearning:Searching for Synergy. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative education. Vol 5 (No 1) pp 127-149).

Brooks,L . “An Analysis of Factors that affect faculty attitudes toward a blended learning environment”, Ph.D dissertation, Faculty of the College of Education, TUI University, California, 2008.

Bunyarit, Malik. (2006).E-learning Systems: An Evaluation of Its Effectiveness In Selected Higher Learning Institutions in Malaysia. M.S thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia,

Davis, F. D.(1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly Vol. 3(No. 3): pp. 319-340,.

Elliot, K.M, et.al.(2008). Student Technology Readiness And Its Impact On Cultural Competency. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal. Vol 4, (No 6).

Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, D.L., Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Haryani Haron and Rose Alinda Alias (2009). An Interpretive Tacit Knowledge Exploration of Malaysian Academicians. Unpublished Thesis, University Technology Malaysia.

Inman, E., Kerwin, M. & Mayes, L. (1999). Instructor and Student Attitudes toward Distance Learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Volume 23, Number 6, pp. 581-591

Elmehdi, H. M., “Factors Influencing Faculty and Students’ Acceptance of E-Learning Tools in the United Arab Emirates and its Implication on Teaching and Learning: a Statistical Survey,”http://www.astf.net.

Masrom, M. et.al.(2008). Critical Success in E-Learning: An Examination of Technological and Institutional Support Factors. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education” Vol 1, (No 2) :pp 131-142.

Mezirow, Jack.(1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice." In Transformative Learning in Action: Insights from Practice. New directions for adult and continuing education no. 74, edited by p. Cranton, pp. 5-12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Summer 1997.

Minton, L, Boyle, R, Dimitrova, V. (2004) If Diversity is a Problem Could e-Learning be Part of the Solution A case study. ITiCSE’04.

Muhammad Hasmi Abu Hassan and Noorliza Karia. (2005). Adult Learners and E-learning Readiness: A Case Study. European College Teaching and Learning Conference, Athens, Greece.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002) Distance education instruction by postsecondary faculty and staff: Fall 1998. US. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Parker, M. (2003) Technology-enhanced e-Learning: Perceptions of First Year Information Systems Students at the Cape

Technicon. SAICSIT. Parasuraman,A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies.

Journal of Service Research,2(4),307-320. Rockwell, S. Kay, Jolene Schauer, Susan M. Fritz, and David B. Marx. "Incentives and Obstacles Influencing Higher Education

Faculty and Administrators to Teach Via Distance." Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 2.4 (1999).


Rosenberg,M. (2001). e-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age New York:Mc Graw-Hill, p28, 2001. Ryan,M,,Carlton,K. H., and Ali, N.S. (2004). Reflection on the role of faculty in distance learning and changing pedagogies.

Nursing Education Perspectives. Shoniregun, C.A and Gray, S.A. (2003). Is E-learning Really the Future or a Risk? ACM Ubiquity. Singh, H.(2003). Building Effective Blended Learning Programs. Educational Technology, Volume 43, Number 6 pp 51-54. Teo, B.T and Gay R.K.L. (2006). A knowledge driven Model to Personalize E-learning, ACM Journal of Educational Resources in

Computing. Vrasidas, C. (2004). Issues of Pedagogy and Design in e-learning Systems, Symposium on Applied Computing. Yordanova, K.

(2007) Integration of knowledge management and E-learning – common