1. THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL
The Influence of a University's Learning and Teaching Strategy
On the Use of Blended learning within a Faculty: A Staff Perspective
Being a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Education in E-Learning
in the University of Hull
by
Victoria Louise McGarvey, BA Staffordshire University,
PgDipILS Manchester Metropolitan University, PgCert History of
European Design and Visual Culture Staffordshire University
April 2010

2. Contents
Introduction
3
Chapter 1. Influences on the Use of blended learning
Within Teaching in Higher Education
7
Chapter 2. Research Design and Methodology
25
Chapter 3. Results and Findings
46
Chapter 4. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
67
References
79
2

3. Introduction
The following study will investigate the influence of a University’s learning and
teaching strategy on the use of blended learning within a Faculty. The study focuses on
the Faculty of Social Sciences at Sterndale University an English university, which had
previously been a polytechnic but became a university in 1992 after the passing of the
Further and Higher Education Act. This Faculty was chosen because it has evidenced an
integrated approach to supporting the use of blended learning by the creation of a
“Blended Learning Group” for teaching staff, the dissemination of good practice,
illustrated within existing courses and the development of a policy for learning and
teaching and assessing online (FLTAO), which provides a definition of blended
learning. The research will attempt to answer the questions how and why Sterndale’s
learning and teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning within teaching in
the Faculty of Social Sciences.
This is a qualitative investigation, using the Faculty of Social Sciences as a case study.
A multimodal approach was implemented, which analysed the University’s strategic
documents and the interview transcripts of six members of staff within the Faculty, four
of which are involved in teaching and two have a strategic responsibility. The analysis
and the findings attempts to identify the influences and the barriers on the use of
blended learning and to correlate these with the University’s learning and teaching
strategy.
This research is within the context of the demographic and organisational changes,
which have taken place within higher education since the Dearing Report (NICHE,
1997) which includes the impact of the use of technology within teaching. The change
3

4. in approach with respect to the integration of technology within teaching in higher
education is exemplified in the Higher Education Funding Council of England’s
(HEFCE) decision to revise its 2005 Strategy for E-learning because of a review carried
out by Glennaffric Ltd. (2008). HEFCE decided to change the title of its strategy to
Enhancing Learning and Teaching Through the Use of Technology because it thought elearning to be too narrow a term to describe the use of learning technology within
teaching in higher education (HEFCE, 2008). The Glennaffric review suggested a move
from the “technological determined” approach reflected in the original strategy to an
approach that reflected the “transformative potential of technology” (HEFCE, 2008:5).
The executive summary provides three levels of benefits for using technology within
teaching, efficiency, enhancement and transformation, all relating to existing processes
within higher education. The strategy provides a framework for enhancing learning with
technology, for institutions, which includes considerations with respect to pedagogy,
learning resources, lifelong learning, infrastructure, research and quality. However,
after the Dearing Report (NICIHE, 1997) universities had already been encouraged to
implement learning and teaching strategies (Gibbs et al. et al., 2000), which included
interventions with respect to the use of technology (Sterndale, 1994, Conole et al.,
2007). Some universities for example, Oxford Brookes (Sharp et al. 2006) and
Staffordshire University (2003) also developed specific e-learning strategies. HEFCE’s
recent change in direction but clearer articulation in relation to learning and teaching
and the normalising of e-learning will put new demands on institutions to revisit their
existing strategic approaches, to ensure that they are responsive to the changing digital
educational landscape.
The new HEFCE strategy acknowledges the influence of recent studies, which have
tried to articulate the drivers and rationales for influencing the use of technology to
4

5. enhance learning. In addition, commentators and some institutions have begun to use
the term blended learning (Sharpe et al., 2006, Sterndale, 2009, Jara and Mohamad,
2007) to define the approach where technology is implemented within face-to-face
teaching. Organisations such as JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), UCISA
(University and Colleges Information Systems Association) and the HEA (Higher
Education Academy) have all been contributory in articulating learning and teaching
rationales for the integration of technology within learning and teaching and influencing
strategic directions. The HEA’s 2006 study (Sharpe, et al.) into the undergraduate
experience of blended e-learning identified, institutional, course and educational
rationales for using blended learning, which included supporting a diverse and increased
student population; enabling flexible learning and operating in a global context. More
recently, the CAMEL (Collaborative Approaches to the Management of e-Learning)
2008 report on tangible benefits of e-learning, identified a number of drivers influencing
the development of e-learning by teaching staff within Higher Education. These drivers
included, retention and recruitment; improving efficiency; recording achievement and
reflection; skills development; institutional strategic policy; innovative reputation; asset
preservation and quality. UCISA’s 2008 (Browne et al.) survey added some additional
factors, namely meeting student expectations; widening participation; internal and
external funding and responding to technological changes. The UCISA survey also
discovered that strategic documents, produced by HEFCE, JISC, the DFES and
professional bodies as well as institutional e-learning strategies and policies were all to
some extent contributory.
The first chapter of this case study provides the theoretical context for this research. It
examines in more detail some of the studies cited above and will considered the impact
of Dearing (NICHE, 2007) on the strategic priorities within higher education together
5

6. and the influence of technology on the learner experience. The chapter considers the
various approaches and definitions of blended learning, in particular influences on using
blended learning and technology within teaching, referring to the research carried out by
HEFCE (Sharpe et al 2006), JISC (2007) and UCISA (Brown et al. 2008). In addition,
it takes into account the barriers to using technology for teachers. The second chapter
describes the organisational context for this case study, it provides an overview of the
case study methodological approach influenced by Yin (2003) and the strategic
decisions made with respect to the case study approach. The third chapter presents the
findings from the analysis of the strategic documents and the interviews. These findings
attempt to identify the influences on and the barriers to using blended learning within
teaching in Sterndale’s Faculty of Social Sciences. Initially, a number of barrier and
influence propositions, informed by the literature, were developed these formed the
basis for the coding of the strategic documents and interviews, which were analysed
using a grounded theory approach together with axial coding. The interview analysis not
only identified the influences on and barriers to the use of blended learning within
teaching there was an attempt to establish a relationship between the interviewee
responses and the University’s learning and teaching strategy. The fourth chapter
reflects further on the findings of the research and discusses if the how and why
questions, with respect to the University’s learning and teaching strategy influence on
the use of blended learning, were answered within the case study. The chapter considers
what improvements the university can make with respect to the development of its
learning and teaching strategy together with its implementation and provides a series of
recommendations for engaging staff with University learning and teaching strategy and
blended learning approaches.
6

7. Chapter 1
Influences on the Use of blended learning
Within Teaching in Higher Education
Our goal is to help universities and colleges use new technology to enhance
learning and teaching as effectively as they can, so that it becomes part of
their activities. (HEFCE, 2009:17)
Since the Dearing Report (NCIHE, 1997), Higher Education within the United
Kingdom has experienced dramatic demographic and cultural changes. National drivers
such as, widening participation, the introduction of top up fees (DFES 2003), quality
assurance and modularisation (NCIHE 1997) together with the internationalisation of
education, have had a considerable influence on the strategic priorities of universities.
These organisational changes have been paralleled by great advances in technology,
which have had a major impact on individuals and institutions. The following will
provide an overview of these changes together with their impact on teaching,
particularly concentrating on the impact of technology. It will critically analyse the use
of the term blended learning, which has become a phrase used by some to define a
combination of face-to-face and online teaching (Sterndale, 2009, Sharpe et al., 2006)
and will reflect on the rationales relating to the pedagogic approaches associated with
this. It will finally go on to consider the impact of strategic approaches to the use of
technology to support teaching within universities, taking into account institutional
learning and teaching strategies.
7

8. Higher Education Context
The eighth report from the Universities UK, covering the period 1997/98 – 2006/07,
noted a dramatic change in the student population over that 10 year period. For
example, enrolments had increased by 31%; the number of undergraduates was up by
28% and postgraduates dramatically by 45%, although it observed that there was
uncertainty about whether the loan debt associated with variable rate fees, would have
an impact on enrolments in the future. The report stated that part time study was
beginning to play a more important role in addressing the development of skills and the
lifelong learning agenda, but addressed in little detail the disadvantaged position of part
time students with regards fees and funding. Most part time students were in the 30 – 50
year age group and it was predicted that this group would grow. Another observation
presented was the increase in international students over this 10-year period. Non-EU
international students have more than doubled; in fact, there has been a greater growth
than that of UK based students, with China forming the largest proportion and India
being a significant provider of postgraduate students. The report observed an increase
in mature students but there was only a slight increase in minority ethnic groups and
lower social economic groups, and although female enrolments have increased, male
enrolments have slightly declined by 3%. Taking into account this, despite widening
participation being a major strategic priority for the government it appears that
institutions still have to undertake considerable work in this area.
With respect to the UUK report it is useful to see if these observations are accurately
reflected at Sterndale University, the institution within this study because it may
illustrate that there is parity between national demographic trends and institutional
demographic trends. Sterndale University currently has just over 23,000 students; just
8

9. fewer than 80% are undergraduate students, over 20% of the students are undertaking
postgraduate studies and over 2% are on foundation degrees. Over 30% of students are
from the local area and nearly 10% of the student population are international students,
coming from the EU and beyond. Nearly 60% of students are full-time, over 20% are
part time and over 20% are on sandwich degrees. The largest College is Business Law
and Social Sciences, which hosts nearly 45% of the student population. Some of these
statistics compare favourably with the UK statistics published by UUK, despite some
discrepancies; the demographic picture at Sterndale is not too different to the national
demographic picture.
Comparison of Student Numbers: Sterndale and UK
Student type
Undergraduate
Full time
Part time
International students
Largest Course
Business and administrative
Sterndale
80%
60%
20%
10%
UK
76%
50%
24%
15%
20%
13%
studies
Consequential to these changes in the student population and a preoccupation with new
managerial approaches (Connole et al., 2007, Deem, 1998) institutions have become
more concerned with quality assurance and enhancement (Smith, 2007). According to
Gibbs et al.(2000), the introduction of modularisation led to the redesign of course
specifications and the development of learning outcomes. The Dearing Report (NICHE,
1997) increased the priority of teaching within institutions, institutions, as a result, were
encouraged to develop learning and teaching strategies, similarly to the U.S and
Australia, and some funding was made available to encourage this activity. According
to Gibbs et al. (2000), the purpose of the strategies was to,
9

10. improve quality, address specific challenges, coordinate activities,
encourage cultural change and exploit communication and information
technologies (Gibbs et al., 2000:358).
Gibbs et al. states that the success of these strategies was dependent on strong
leadership and management. Staff needed to understand the rationale for the
implementation of the strategy, therefore the strategy needed to be in a language that
staff understood. However, there has been some criticism that this is not been the case,
that learning and teaching strategies are still not engaging staff and that institutions need
to undertake considerable work to “empower and motivate staff by their discourse”
(Smith, 2008: 405). The purpose of this research will be to examine whether staff
within the Faculty of Social Sciences at Sterndale do engage with strategy and whether
the amount of engagement is influenced by strong leadership within the faculty.
An attempt had previously been made by Sterndale University to examine staff
involvement with learning and teaching strategy, within the context of integrating
technology within teaching. In 2007, the University ran an e-learning benchmarking
exercise, which was part of the national e-learning benchmarking exercise, led by the
Higher Education Academy (HEA) and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee).
The e-learning benchmarking exercise held focus groups within each Faculty, which
were comprised of teaching staff, and one of the questions asked was about their
awareness of learning and teaching strategy. The analysis of the focus groups found that
most staff were aware of the University’s learning and teaching strategy (SLTS) but
were not aware of the Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS), which was a
University requirement in order to address the priorities in the SLTS. It could therefore
be argued that this response showed that some staff were not fully aware of or engaged
with their faculty’s strategic approach.
10

11. Connole et al. (2007) highlight the importance of the Dearing Report with respect to the
implementation of technology within teaching as it has fifteen recommendations that
reference this. According to Connole et al., a result of the Dearing Report was that
institutions began to “interlink strategies” (Connole et al., 2007:47) to ensure that the
integration of technology was considered within learning and teaching. Another
consequence of the Dearing Report was that Higher Education began to debate the
impact of “ICT-scale-up, infrastructure and associated staff and student training needs”
(Connole et al., 2007:47). Higher Education also began to identify a range of
technological initiatives and products, which would become part of mainstream
education, which facilitated the development of ICT skills, such as the implementation
of virtual learning environments and digital libraries. Connole et al. argue that the
influence of technology in the 90s within Higher Education, was mainly at a strategic
rather than an operational level. However, they state that since the end of the last
century the importance of learning and teaching has been evidential in available
funding, listing initiatives such as, “managed learning environments, sharable resources
and digital repositories” (Connole et al., 2007:47). This reflects the findings in
Sterndale’s (2007) e-learning benchmarking report, which stated that half of the staff
surveyed thought that there was an attempt to integrate e-learning within programmes
whilst the other half did not. However, most staff surveyed thought that faculties did not
present clear aims, targets and resource plans for integrating e-learning, although the
report observed that the Faculty of Social Sciences, which is being examined in this
case study, did unusually provide some support via its learning and teaching committee
and distance learning special interest group. Conole et al. (2007) claim in order to
address the operational aspects of e-learning within universities, JISC implemented an
e-pedagogy programme, which supported research into teacher and learner experiences
11

12. and the development of national e-learning strategies by HEFCE and DFES, which
illustrates that there “is a dialogue between policy-makers, funders and practitioners”
(Connole et al., 2007:48).
Student Expectations
Over the last 8 years the development of Web 2.0 technologies, “social web,
technologies that enable, communication, collaboration, participation and sharing”
(JISC, 2009:5), have changed the way that students interact and share resources. The
recent JISC report “Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World” comments that,
the timeline is striking for example: WIKIPedia (online encyclopaedia)
2001; del.icio.us (social bookmarking) 2003; MySpace (social networking);
Facebook (social networking) 2004; Flickr (social media) 2004; Bebo (social
networking) and YouTube (social media) 2005. (JISC, 2009:13)
JISC, via its learner expectation reports, has provided some valuable observations in
relation to learners’ relationship with technology. The JISC 2007 report “In their own
Words” identified a group of adept of technology users who wanted to use their own
technologies but were willing to experiment and use a blend of the institutional
provided technology with their own. However, the report did observe that there was a
digital divide within the student population and that those with poor technology skills
were at a disadvantage. It also introduced the issue of information literacy skills and the
need for all students to develop these, particularly in the area of evaluating information
sources and their appropriateness.
JISC’s Student Expectations Study (2007) surveyed students about to go to University.
It introduced students’ concerns relating to the integration of technology within
learning, in particular the use of technology without providing a clear rationale. It
12

13. showed that students were pragmatic regarding the advances in technology, mainly
using it to find information, communicate with friends and family, and organising
events. Their experience of ICT within the learning environment had mainly been in
relation to accessing resources rather than accessing learning activities. Overall
participants still preferred traditional teaching methods: “ICT was seen to be a
supplement to teaching not as a substitute” (JISC, 2007:22). However, some
participants thought that technology would play a greater role at university, mainly with
respect to accessing resources rather than the delivery of new teaching methods.
The 2008 Ipsos Mori study for JISC built on this research by talking to students in their
first year of study within Higher Education. Face-to-face teaching was still regarded as
the best form of teaching, and face-to-face teaching support with poor use of technology
was considered worse than using no technology at all. The participants’ perceptions of
the teacher’s role was an authoritative role a conveyor of knowledge, they were more
comfortable with online social networking that was initiated by themselves or their
fellow students, than that initiated by their tutors. The report commented that there was
a challenge for universities with respect to introducing new technologies because of
student reluctance. To overcome this, the study stated that universities have to
encourage students to consider how technology can enhance their learning and take into
account the less technically able.
Some of the findings in these student expectations studies are similar to the findings in
Sterndale’s (2007) e-learning benchmarking report. In the staff survey in relation
student expectations of the use of e-learning on courses, most staff said that there was
not a high demand by students to integrate e-learning. However, there was criticism of
teaching staff by the student focus groups with respect to the absence of online
13

14. resources to support courses, in particular assessment criteria, reading lists and contact
details. Students thought that there should be more consistency across courses with
regards online resources. Some students, conversely, did mention that the dependency
on the use of the virtual learning environment had had an impact on the student
community with some students feeling socially isolated.
Blended Learning
In order to address the learning and teaching challenges outlined above, teaching staff
and institutions as a whole have begun to explore how learning technologies can be
integrated within face-to-face teaching to enhance the learning experience. A term that
is popularly used to describe this approach is blended learning (Sterndale, 2009, Sharpe
et al., 2006, Jara and Mohamad, 2007), although, there has been some debate over the
definition of the term, many of the definitions refer to a combination of face-to-face and
online learning. Rovai and Jordan (2004) define blended learning as learning which
takes place in different times and places. Another definition is the fusion of face-to-face
and online learning and teaching, within a context of a community of enquiry (Garrison
and Kanuka, 2004, Garrison and Vaughan, 2007). This definition reflects a
transformative approach to course design, highlighting the importance of interactivity
within the learner community, both online and in face-to-face settings, to facilitate the
development of knowledge, giving learners the opportunity to spontaneously react and
reflect, on and off line. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) state that there are three elements
within this approach; social, providing opportunities to challenge established beliefs,
cognitive, via goal setting and teaching and the final element, teacher facilitated
learning. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) claim that blended learning is a new learning
and teaching paradigm, the combination of face-to-face and online learning, where the
14

15. presence of both modes of delivery enhances learning. Jara and Mohamad (2007) use
blended learning to refer to “a course or module which includes face-to-face and
distance/online elements” (Jara and Mohamad, 2007:7), and to articulate this they have
developed a blended learning continuum, a series of models moving from a resource
based approach through to transformative design, where teaching takes place mainly
online:
Jara and Mohamad’s Blended Learning Continuum (2007:7)
B1: Online admin support
Core learning activities and support are face-toface. Administrative information, resources,
B2: Follow-up
assignment submission and some support is online
Core learning activities and support are face-toface. Additional online task and support are
organised in between sessions as follow up or
B3: Parallel
preparation for other sessions
Learning activities run in parallel some in the
B4: Face-to-face events
face-to-face sessions others online
Core learning activities and support are online.
Face-to-face events/workshops are held to initiate
or wrap up online activities
Oliver and Trigwell (2005) criticise the use of the term blended learning, because they
say it is ill defined. However, they seem less critical of the definition of a combination
of face-to-face and online activities although they do question whether there is anything
special about using the internet to support teaching. Oliver and Trigwell claim that the
origin of the term can be found within training not education and the approach of
combining face-to-face teaching with online was introduced because of the failure of
online training. They contend that the term is now used within higher education to
15

16. “bolster the subservient relationship of HE to industry” but fails to recognise the
“success, experience and expertise of Higher Education” (Oliver and Trigwell,
2005:21). Oliver and Trigwell claim that the term could be redeemed if understood
within the context of learning theory, in particular, variation theory which pertains that,
learning occurs if variation in the object of learning is discerned, in other words the
learner experiences something different and this will vary from learner to learner. They
suggest the need to look at variations in learner experience within a blended learning
context that involves,
a critical analysis of aspects of the subject matter that are in variation in the
act of using blended learning (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005:24).
The rationale for taking this approach is because often what students learn from blended
learning is different from what the teacher originally intended, and if there is a blend of
learning experiences this could be defined as blended learning. However, it could be
argued that this is not specifically related to blended learning but learning in general.
Sharpe et al. (2006) claim that the strength of the term blended learning lies in the fact
there is not one definition, as it allows,
staff to negotiate their own meaning – the implication of the protection of
face-to-face teaching and the implication of designing active learning
(Sharpe et al., 2006:4).
Their report found that “delivery mode, technologies and chronology, are consistent
with the use of the term” (Sharpe et al., 2006:22) ranging from the delivery of resources
to support face-to-face teaching to transformative course redesign, where online
teaching had replaced face-to-face and where learners were even using their own
technologies. This continuum is similar to that reflected by Jara and Mohamad’s
(2007) models of blended learning, which are a useful reference point. For, example,
Sterndale’s, definition of blended learning, within its minimum standards of online
16

17. learning, which will be the adopted definition for this research, is more closely aligned
to Jara and Mohamad’s (2007) B3 parallel model.
This programme will combine traditional and online learning approaches.
This will include essential information…. [and] a range of online learning
activities…Participation in online activities is therefore as important as
participation in the classroom. (Sterndale, 2009:3)
Rationales for Using Blended Learning
The rationales for using blended learning are as varied as the definitions. However,
despite one of the main reasons behind adopting a blended learning approach being to
address the organisational changes facing teaching staff within higher education, such as
the impact of an increasing diverse student population, the most prominent driver
appears to be learner enhancement (Garrison and Vaughan. 2007). For example, Jara
and Mohamad (2007) provide a number of reasons with respect to why teaching staff
should use their blended learning models. Their reasons include, easy 24/7 access to a
wide range of resources; extending activities and communication beyond the classroom;
improving the quality of face-to-face sessions; the opportunity for students to share
experiences and improved support for off-campus students. It could be argued that these
reasons not only address organisational issues but also tackle the issue of learner
engagement, which as a result will enhance the learner experience. Also in UCISA’s
2008 (Browne et al.) survey of technology enhanced learning, respondents rated the
quality of learning and teaching in general as the most important driver for using
technology followed by:




Meeting student expectations
Improving access to learning for students off campus
Widening/participation/inclusiveness
Improving access to learning for part time students (Browne et al.,
2008:10)
Sharpe et al. (2006) in their HEA commissioned report into student experiences of
blended learning, organised rationales into categories, institutional, course and
17

18. educational. The institutional rationales related to the organisational changes that
universities are dealing with, such as, supporting a diverse student population, in
particular mature students; enabling flexible learning in order to improve recruitment
and retention; operating in a global context; efficient delivery of learning and enhancing
the on-campus experience. With respect to course rationales, some of those identified by
Sharp et al. are similar to Mohamad and Jara’s (2007). These included, coping with
large numbers of students; engaging students out of class; providing easier access to
staff for students and developing students’ professional skills, mostly relating to I.T.
With respect to educational rationales, Sharpe et al. organised these into associative,
constructivist and situative. Mayes and De Freitas had used these learning groupings in
their JISC review of e-learning theories in 2004. With regards associative learning,
Sharp et al. presented illustrations of blended learning which used e-resources and
assessments that affected student performance. Constructivist learning was exemplified
by online student collaborations. With respect to situative learning this was
demonstrated in professional courses where there was a “rationale to develop the skills,
attitudes and behaviours of practitioners” (Sharpe et al., 2006:35).
Sterndale does not use the term blended learning in its 2004-2010 University Strategic
Plan, however, the institutional rationales cited by Sharp et al. (2006) relate to the
benefits, within its “E-Learning Strategy” section within the plan, particularly in
relation to flexibility and efficiency.






…flexibility to students of time pace and place of their learning
opportunity to offer a diverse product portfolio that reaches new markets
opportunity to enhance student skills
a consistent VLE for staff and students reducing costs of maintenance and
support
A managed learning environment…thus maximising efficiencies
A skilled academic workforce that is at the leading edge of using
technologies to enhance learning and teaching
18

19. 
An enhanced reputation aiding the university to the preferred choice
(Sterndale, 2004:32)
One area that is not fully addressed by Sharpe et al. is the development of academic
skills, which it will be seen in this research, is an important factor in encouraging staff
to use blended learning approaches. Sterndale is due to release a new strategic plan and
it will be interesting to see if it takes a lead from HEFCE (2009) and replaces the term
e-learning with blended learning or technology enhanced learning. Sterndale’s learning
and teaching enhancement strategy (SLTS), produced two years after the University
strategy, which underpins,
the policies practices and support needed to promote good practice and
foster excellence in learning and teaching (Sterndale, 2006:1)
does use the term blended learning.
[SLTS] embraces the essence of the Elearning Strategy [university strategic
plan] to move towards blended learning in the delivery of University
programmes. (Sterndale, 2006:2)
It states that blended learning will “engage and excite students” (Sterndale, 2006:5) it
does not provide any detailed rationales but goes on to give a set of priorities for
implementing blended learning. More recently, Sterndale’s (2009) Minimum Standards
of Online Learning policy does provide a definition and an approach to blended learning
(see above). However, the policy does not give any rationales for using blended learning
but provides rationales for online learning relating to student expectation, which was
second on UCISA’s (Browne et al., 2008) list of drivers.
In setting a minimum standard of online provision the University seeks to
give students a common expectation of access to information and resources
across their programmes of study (Sterndale, 2009:2)
This is within the context of student expectations in relation to access to technology and
development of their digital literacy skills in preparation for work, as well as dealing
19

20. with “current pedagogic and demographic trends” (Sterndale, 2009:1) with limited
resources in a competitive HE environment (Sterndale, 2009, Sharpe et al., 2006).
Barriers to Using Blended Learning
It was difficult to find research that specifically focused on the barriers relating to the
use of blended learning, much of the literature relates to barriers with respect to the use
of technology and/or e-learning. However, given that the definition of blended learning
that will be used within this research refers to a combination of online and face-to-face
activity, the literature relating to staff use of technology was deemed appropriate.
Time, lack of staff skills to develop online learning and poor academic recognition of
online teaching appear to be common barriers to staff engagement (MacKeough and
Fox, 2008, Schneckenberg, 2009, Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007). MacKeough and
Fox (2008) surveying staff at Dublin City University as part of the development of an elearning strategy found that staff had difficulty finding the time to integrate e-learning
into their courses. Some staff felt that online learning was a distraction from face-toface teaching and there were concerns about the lack of engagement by students. Staff
also commented that there was more recognition within the University for research than
for innovative teaching. Furthermore, staff claimed that there was inadequate support
and there was fear about the complexity of online learning. Schneckenberg (2009),
also, claims that the “imbalance between the value of research and teaching
performance” (Schneckenberg, 2009:420) is a barrier and criticises staff development
activities for being too long and for not relating to teaching practice. He suggests a
movement from ICT training to competency based development, complimented by
institutional incentives. Samarawickrema and Stacey’s (2007) case study at Monash
20

21. University, in Australia, also identified similar barriers to staff engagement with respect
to web based learning but concluded,
Technology has less to do with academic teachers’ technology skills and
their preference to use technology and more to do with the difference in
their motivations, approaches to change and to their learning and applying
of new processes (Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007:332)
It will be seen that this observation is also prevalent within the findings in this research.
Influence of Learning and Teaching Strategies
As it has already been stated, post Dearing universities were expected to address the
quality of their learning and teaching with limited resources (Garrison and Vaughan,
2008, Conole et al., 2007) by developing learning and teaching strategies. With respect
to the use of e-learning, some institutions such as Sterndale (2004) made the decision to
incorporate this in their University strategy whilst others, Oxford Brookes (Sharpe et al.
2006) and Staffordshire University (Stiles 2003) have developed e-learning strategies.
The UCISA survey (Browne et al., 2008) cited university learning and teaching
strategies as being the key strategies that influenced the use of technology within
teaching, additionally the report stated that there had been a rise since 2005 in elearning strategies. The impact of strategy may be a result of universities implementing
a range of educational, technological and organisational strategic interventions
identified to encourage the use of technology within learning and teaching (Conole et
al., 2007). According to Connole et al. (2007), educational interventions are concerned
with developing learning and teaching approaches and include staff development
activities, which has already been identified as a major priority for Sterndale, as well as
staff sharing practice, which we will see is important within the Faculty of Social
Sciences. Technological interventions include the development and implementation of
21

22. new technologies, for example, Sterndale has just implemented a new virtual learning
environment. Finally, organisational interventions, relate to university strategy or
external influences such as quality assurance.
However, strategy does not appear in UCISA’s (Browne et al.,2008) top five drivers
and Sterndale’s (2007) e-learning benchmarking exercise reported the limited influence
of the University strategy, in fact the report found that the main rationales for staff using
e-learning were practical, they were to address rising student numbers and the increase
of software tools for learning and teaching. Smith (2007) argues that the lack of staff
engagement with university strategy may be because of the language used within
university strategy. According to Smith institutions need to identify what motivates
their staff and understand that,
what constitutes progress in education is value laden and subjective, not
Universal (Smith, 2007:73).
Scott (2003) states that,
people will not engage or stick with a change effort unless they see it as
being relevant desirable and feasible for them to do so (Scott, 2003:73)
He argues that change takes time; it is complex, subjective and cyclical. He argues that
the most successful changes require a team approach involving those occupied in the
learning process, with strong leadership. Some institutions are possibly beginning to
understand this by implementing long-term strategies, for example, Sterndale’s learning
and teaching strategy. In addition, we will see in this research the importance of the role
of the Head of Learning and Teaching in implementing strategic interventions via the
Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy.
Conclusion
22

23. Higher education has begun to use technology within learning and teaching to address
the issues associated with the impact of organisational changes resulting from the
implementation of government educational policy. Within their teaching staff have seen
the opportunities associated with the use of technology to enhance the quality of the
learner experience (Browne et al., 2008, Sharpe et al. 2006). Teachers have understood
that learners still value face-to-face teaching but have some expectations in relation to
the use of technology (JISC 2007) so in order to address these, blended models of
learning have been developed which combine both traditional and online elements (Jara
and Mohamad 2007). Strategically, institutions have also begun to focus on the use of
technology to support learners and are beginning to understand the importance of
blended learning approaches. Institutions like Oxford Brookes (Sharpe et al. 2006) and
Staffordshire University (Stiles 2003) have developed e-learning strategies to address
this whilst institutions like Sterndale University have opted to integrate e-learning and
blended learning within their university and learning and teaching strategies. In order to
encourage staff engagement with use of technology universities have implemented a
number of strategic interventions (Conole et al. 2007) via action plans (Stiles 2003,
Sharpe et al., 2006, Garrison and Kanick, 2004, Sterndale, 2006). However, for
Sterndale (2007) and UCISA (Browne et al. 2008) respondents, strategy does not
appear to be a major driver in adopting blended learning. Some research shows that
barriers exist with respect to staff engagement with integrating technology within
teaching, such as time to develop, lack of academic recognition and poor skills
(MacKeough and Fox, 2008, Schneckenberg, 2009, Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007)
and possibly a general sceptism of the benefits of online learning (MacKeough and Fox,
2008 Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007). These observations provide the context for
this research. The literature also informed the development of the propositions for the
23

24. influences and the barriers relating to Sterndale’s learning and teaching strategy and the
use of blended learning within the Faculty of Social Sciences.
24

25. Chapter 2
Research Design and Methodology
This chapter will provide an overview of the research design and methodology. As this
is based on Yin’s case study approach, a summary of this will be provided within the
critical context presented by Flyvbjerg (2006). This will be illustrated by the
implementation of the components of case study research, presented by Yin (2003) and
Soy (1997), including the establishment of propositions within the area of study.
Finally, an overview of the data collection techniques and the data analysis approach
that was used to interpret the findings will be presented.
Strategic context
This research investigates the influence of Sterndale’s learning and teaching strategy on
the use of blended learning within the Faculty of Social Sciences. In the previous
chapter an overview of Sterndale’s strategic commitment to supporting the
implementation of e-learning and blended learning, as illustrated in the University
Strategic Plan (Sterndale 2004), Sterndale’s Learning and Teaching Strategy (SLTS)
(Sterndale 2006) and within its policy on the Minimum Standards of Online Learning
and Teaching (Sterndale 2009), was provided. In order to understand how strategy may
influence learning and teaching activities within faculties it is useful to see the
hierarchical context of the strategic plan together with the governance of the Sterndale’s
learning and teaching strategy:
25

26. Stermdale’s Learning and Teaching Strategic Document Hierarchy
HEFCE Aims & Objectives:
E.g., widen. part.; enhance.
Learning teaching research
Sterndale Strategic Plan
2004-2010
Sterndale Learning &
Teaching Strategy 20062010
Sterndale Minimum
Standards of Online
Learning & Teaching
Provision
Faculty of Social Sciences
Learning &Teaching
Strategy
Faculty Learning, Teaching
& Assessment Online Policy
26

27. Sterndale’s Learning and Teaching Strategy Governance
Owner: University
Uni responsibility:
PVC Academic
&Research
Academic Standards
& Quality
Committee
Quality Assurance
Quality
Enhancement
Faculty
responsibility:
Faculty Head
Faculty Academic
Standards & Quality
Committee
Implementation:
Head of Learning &
Teaching
27

28. It can be seen from the diagrams that HEFCE’s strategic objectives influence
Sterndale’s strategic plan, the learning and teaching objectives are then consolidated
into Sterndale’s Learning and Teaching Strategy (SLTS), which is implemented within
the faculties via a Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS). The owner of the
SLTS is the University, implementation lies within the faculty with the Head of
Learning and Teaching, via the FLTS. There are associated SLTS policies, in the
context of this research the most appropriate is the Faculty’s, Learning, Teaching and
Assessment Online – Faculty benchmarks policy.
Unit of Analysis
Sterndale’s Minimum Standards for Online Learning policy was influenced by existing
practice within the faculties of Architecture and the Built Environment and of Social
Sciences; both of these already had implemented policies categorising online learning
and assessment activities. A decision was, therefore, made to choose one of these
faculties as the unit of analysis (Yin 2003) or the case study for this research, and the
Faculty of Social Sciences was selected. This decision was influenced, in part, by the
fact that the Faculty had a benchmarking policy for online learning which provided a
definition of blended learning:
Web dependent and combines online and traditional methods. (Faculty of
Social Sciences, Sterndale University 2008:1)
In addition, the faculty is quite advanced in its use of blended learning. Blended
learning is one of its priority areas within its Learning and Teaching Strategy.
[Priority] Supporting the transition from a predominantly document based
VLP to blended learning. (Faculty of Social Sciences, Sterndale University,
2006:1)
28

29. Furthermore, in the last academic year the Faculty started a Blended Learning Group
which has a strategic context as it is chaired by the Head of Learning and Reaching and
is a sub-group of the Faculty Learning and Teaching group. The Learning and Teaching
group is answerable to the Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Assurance Group.
Initially the aim was to have a Faculty focus group to capture data. However, it was too
difficult to arrange this given that it needed to take place at the beginning of the
academic year and staff were unable to plan their time until they had received their
teaching timetables. A decision was therefore made to interview teaching staff within
the Faculty. These staff were selected from the Blended Learning Group, which is
comprised of teaching staff who are enthusiastic about the use of e-tools to enhance
learning and teaching. The Head of Learning and Teaching and the Faculty Head were
also selected for interview in order to provide a strategic context. The interviewee roles
are slightly different from their actual roles to ensure anonymity. In addition, a decision
was, made to synonymise each of the interviewee roles in relation to their engagement
with blended learning and these categories are in the attribution of statements and
quotes within the findings.
Existing Role
Lecturer:
Teaches on and off campus
Senior lecturer and course leader:
Teaches on campus and distance learning students
Part time lecturer:
Teaches on campus; provides Faculty e-learning support
Lecturer:
Teaches on campus: provides Faculty e-learning support
Faculty Head of Learning and Teaching:
Teaches on campus students and responsible for
learning and teaching development in the Faculty
Faculty head:
Managers the Faculty with the support of the Faculty
executive, occasionally teaches
29
Blended Learning Role
Beginner
Intermediate
Early adopter
Innovator
Strategist
Manager

30. Approach
A decision was made to use a case study approach for this research as case studies can
be “informative about experiences of the average person or institution” (Yin, 200o:48).
According to Yin (2003:1), a case study is the preferred strategy when:
•
How or why questions are being posed, e.g. “How has the University learning
and teaching strategy influenced the use of blended learning” “Why has
university learning and teaching strategy influenced the use of blended
learning”.
•
The researcher has little control over events. In this research, the researcher is
not part of the academic community that is being studied hence has no influence
on the teaching decisions made by staff within this research.
•
The focus is on contemporary phenomenon within some real life context, where
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not evident (Yin, 2009:18).
In this research, the phenomenon is the university learning and teaching strategy
and the context is the use of blended learning by staff within the faculty of
Social Sciences.
Yin (2009:18) states
Because the phenomenon and context are not always distinguishable in real
life situations technical characteristics including data collection and data
analysis strategies” become part of the technical definition (Yin, 2009:18).
This is illustrated in the following table, which provides an overview of the case study
methodological characteristics together with the strategies that were employed to
address these particular characteristics.
30

31. Alignment of Methodology with Strategy
Case study characteristic
More variables than data points, dealt
Strategy
Hierarchy of themes, relating to
with within one result
strategic influences and the use of
blended learning
A reliance of multiples sources of
Multiple sources will include data such
evidence, with data triangulation
as, interview evidence and strategic
The development of theoretical
documents
Propositions identified influenced by the
propositions that guide data collection
literature review
It was also thought that as staff may have different understandings of what learning and
teaching strategy is, a case study approach would provide a more in-depth exploration
into what could be considered complex phenomenon in a way that other qualitative and
quantitative methodologies might not provide.
There are three types of case study approaches (Yin 2009 and Tellis 2007). Firstly, the
exploratory case study, which is often used as an initial stage of a piece of social
research. The second type is the explanatory case study, which can be used in causal
research. The third type is the descriptive case study, which is the approach that was
used in this research as it is more appropriate for considering theory that describes a
given phenomenon, such as describing and identifying the characteristics of university
learning and teaching strategy that influence the use of blended learning.
It was hoped that the outputs of the case study would be of particular value to the staff
teaching within the wider university community, in particular staff who may be
31

32. considering adopting a blended learning approach. It may, also, indirectly or directly
influence strategic practices across the university, by providing a greater understanding
of how staff engage with strategy.
Criticism of the Case Study Approach
A number of criticisms have been levied at the case study approach to research, for
example, that it is only an exploratory tool, that it can be difficult to establish reliability
and generality within findings and that it is open to bias (Soy 1997). Flyvbjerg (2006)
counters this by addressing several misunderstandings about case study research which
relate to the issues of scientific method, generalising and subjectivity. The first one is
that general theoretical knowledge is more valuable than concrete practical knowledge.
According to Flyvbjerg “context-dependent knowledge and experience are at the very
heart of expert activity” and using only “context-independent knowledge” limits
analytical rationality and is “inadequate” when trying to find the “best results”
(Flyvbjerg, 2006:222). He argues, “predictive theories and universals cannot be found
in study of human affairs” (Flyvbjerg, 2006:224). In addressing the misunderstanding
that you cannot easily generalise using the case study approach, and therefore it cannot
be considered as scientific, he claims that generalising is “overrated” (Flyvbjerg,
2006:224) and is limiting, stating that,
a purely descriptive phenomenological case study without any attempt to
generalize can be certainly be of value in this process and has often cut a
path to scientific innovation (Flyvbjerg, 2006:227)
However, Yin also addresses this criticism by stating that it is possible to generalise
between case studies, and like experiments, case studies are generalisable to theoretical
propositions (Yin 2003).
32

33. In response to the criticism that case studies are best for generating hypotheses as an
initial stage within the research process, Flyvbjerg agrees that case studies are useful for
generating and testing hypotheses, however, he claims that,
it is often more important to clarify deeper cause behind a given problem
and its consequences than to describe the symptoms of the problem and
how frequently they occur (Flyvbjerg, 2006:229)
Berg (2007) also argues that a case study is capable of examining simple or complex
phenomenon.
Answering the criticism of subjective bias towards verification case study research,
Flyvbjerg, contends that the advantage of a case study is that it can closely analyse “real
life situations and tests views directly to phenomena as they unfold in practice” and he
maintains that it is “falsification not verification that characterises the case study”
(Flyvbjerg, 2006:235). Flyvbjerg claims that this is an issue in all research methods
such as quantitative methods because the researcher does not get close to those being
studied. Finally, in response to the claim that it is difficult to summarize case studies, he
agrees with this in relation to the process, however, he argues this is not always
desirable to generalize that “good studies should be read as narratives in their entirety”
(Flyvbjerg, 2006:241).
Within the context of this research, it is felt that this approach facilitated the
investigation into complex phenomenon, the influence of university learning and
teaching strategy. This can be considered complex because this could refer to actual
strategy referring to learning and teaching, for example, SLTS, areas within a strategy,
as with the University strategic plan or even strategic interventions relating to Faculty
Learning and Teaching Strategy priorities and within the context of this research all,
these aspects were considered. In order to obtain the level of detail required the
33

34. research involved the analysis of teaching staff narratives within the context of the
literature on blended learning, which appears to suggest that the main driver is learner
enhancement (Browne et al., 2008, Garrison and Vaughan, 2008 Sharpe et. al, 2006).
With regards generalising the findings, there were some common influences and
barriers, within the Faculty on the use of blended learning, which to some extent related
to the literature on blended learning. However, it could be argued to make fully
successful generalisations the observations within the literature should be within the
context of the influence of university learning and teaching strategy.
Theory
Yin argues,
The reliance on theoretical concepts to guide the design and data collection
for case studies remains one of the most important strategies for completing
successful case studies. (Yin, 2003:3)
The rationale for this is that it:



can help select cases
aids in defining a complete and appropriate description when undertaking
descriptive studies
can support generalisations (Yin, 2003 in Berg, 2007:285)
However, referring to the work of Fernandez (2005) and Eisenhardt (1989) Berg
(2007:285) argues that the case study approach can be used, also, to generate theory
because it has three strengths:
1.
Theory building from case studies is likely to produce theory
2.
Theory can be tested by subsequent studies
3.
The resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid via constant
comparison and questioning
34

35. Thus, theoretical observations can be a consequence of data collection and the
interpretations of this data made throughout the case study. Within this research, theory
relates to the propositions relating to the influences on and barriers to using blended
learning generated from the literature review. These were used as the basis of the coding
categories but they were developed and added to within the data analysis process.
Finally, these propositions were discussed within the context of the influence of
Sterndale’s strategies and the associated literature.
Research Design
Denscombe (2007:36) argues that the value of a case study is lost if attention is not
given to the processes that lead to the outcomes. He states that the real value of a case
study is that it offers an opportunity to explain why certain outcomes might happen,
more than just presenting outcomes. Taking a systematic approach, Yin (2003) proposes
that the following should be the components of a case study:
1. study questions
2. propositions
3. unit of analysis
4. logic of linking data to propositions
5. criteria for interpreting findings
However, Soy (1997) claims that a case study should have the following steps:
1. Determine and define questions
2. Select the cases and determine data gathering and analysis techniques
3. Prepare to collect data
35

36. 4. Collect data in the field
5. Evaluate and analyse the data
6. Prepare the report
The research plan for this study applied a combination of both these approaches.
1. Define research question
2. Select case
3. Develop propositions based on the literature review
4. Develop interview questions
5. Collect data
6. Analyse data linking to propositions
7. Interpret data within the context of the research question
Propositions
Initially a series of propositions relating to the influences and barriers on the use of
blended learning, based on the literature review were created:
Influence propositions:

Quality of learning and teaching
•
Meeting student expectations
•
Widening participation/inclusiveness
•
Flexible learning
•
Dealing with organisational changes
•
Efficient delivery of learning
•
Operating in a global context
36

37. •
Development of student skills
•
Development of academic skills
Barriers propositions:
•
No academic recognition
•
No time to integrate into teaching
•
Distraction from face-to-face teaching
•
Lack of student engagement
•
Inadequate support
•
Too complex
•
Staff development not relating to practice
•
Poor staff motivation
These propositions were referred to in the analysis of the data acquired from the
interviews and the institutional documents (Yin 2003).
In the analysis, it was found that some these propositions could relate to learning and
teaching choices and/or strategy, depending on the context in which the interviewee
referred to them.
Study questions
37

38. Soy (1997) states that a case study should have a research focus which is constantly
referred to during the study, a question or questions that determine the purpose of the
study. As has already been stated in the overview of the case study approach these
questions should ask how and why teaching staff within the Faculty of Social Sciences
are using blended learning and whether this is influenced by the University’s learning
and teaching strategy. The interview and the questions within the interview were
designed in order to facilitate the answering these how and why questions. All
interviewees were asked similar questions; there were minor adjustments to
accommodate for the role of the interviewee. Questions were divided into two sections:
Section one: Academic Practice: These questions were to provide a context and to
identify the learning and teaching strategies that influence the use of blended learning
together with the barriers. Interviewees were asked in relation to their use of blended
learning to provide:

The context/s

Their rationale/s

How they obtained their ideas

Hindrances to using blended learning

Observations with respect to colleagues’ attitudes to using blended learning

Observations with respect to the impact of student expectations
Section 2: Strategic: These questions were aimed at identifying the Faculty and the
University’s strategic approaches to blended learning: Interviewees were asked in
relation to their use of blended learning provide:
38

39. 
Details of the Faculty and University strategic approach

Observations with respect to Faculty expectations

Observations with respect to Faculty and University support

Details of University and Faculty incentives
Data Gathering Techniques
A multimodal approach was adopted, as guidance states that case studies are likely to be
much more convincing and accurate if they are based on several different sources of
information (Colorado State University 2008). This approach involved gathering data
from selected University strategic documents and structured interviews in order to
identify categories that were influenced by the propositions generated from the literature
review:
Strategic Documents Selected

Sterndale Strategic Plan (2004-2010) (SSP)

Sterndale Learning and Teaching Strategy (2006-2010) (SLTS)

Faculty of Social Sciences Learning, Teaching and Assessing Online –
School Benchmarks (FLTAO)

Faculty of Social Sciences Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS)
Structured Interviews

6 interviews (see above), captured with a digital recorder, transcribed using
“Express Scribe”
39

40. Data Preparation
The interview questions were piloted on a Head of Learning and Teaching and a
Teaching Assistant within another faculty. On a practical level, it was useful to carry out
the pilot interviews to assess the timing. It was desirable to keep the interviews to one
hour as the staff involved were in a middle of a busy teaching schedule and were
required to fit the interview around other commitments. The pilots also helped in
picking up a couple of minor errors in the permissions form. Feedback was requested at
the end of each pilot interview on the process itself, particularly on my role and on the
clarity of the questions. The feedback was mainly positive but the following minor
changes were made because of both this and my general observations:

Interview questions were distributed before the interview to give the
interviewee the opportunity to prepare as well as identify any question
he/she did not feel comfortable asking.

Where possible the interviews were carried out in a booked room away from
the interviewee’s work place. This allowed me to set-up the room
appropriately and to carry out sound testing. However, the Faculty Head’s
interview took place in his office. His interview was at the end of the
scheduled interviews and by that time, I was familiar with the interview
process.

Questions were organised into sections (see study questions above) and
numbered to aid easier recording and note taking.
40

41. 
At the beginning of the interview, the context for the research was provided
with reference to findings in other studies to induct the interviewee into the
research.
Ethics
Denscombe (2007:141) states that researchers should respect the rights and dignity of
those participating and researchers should operate with honesty and integrity. He argues
that researchers should abide by the following principles:
1. The interest of the participant should be protected
2. Researchers should avoid deception and misrepresentation
3. Participants should give informed consent.
The interviewees were asked to give their consent to taking part in the research and the
purpose of the data collection, storage and use was clearly explained. The interviews are
anonymous, and on the request of the Head of the Faculty, a pseudonym has been used
for the University and some of its organisational aspects, apart from the subject areas,
which initially it was felt might have been important in the data analysis but turned out
to be less significant than expected. Approval was received from the University of Hull
ethics committee and the Faculty Head gave formal permission to carry out the research.
Data Analysis
41

42. A “Grounded Theory” approach was implemented using “Axial Coding” where the
propositions (see above) were identified as categories or sub categories and
relationships and relationships were made between the categories, sub categories and
the research question. For example:
•
I(Influence) (Category) Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching: (sub
category) Extending activities and communication beyond the classroom
•
B (barrier) (Category) Time: (sub category) to embed e-learning
A transcript was produced for each interview and each transcript was coded using this
approach. This approach allowed some flexibility within the coding for the inclusion of
any additional categories and sub-categories that might arise during the data analysis.
The coded results for each interview were collated within a template, which was
organised into question areas for each interviewee. As there were not many interviews,
this process was carried out manually rather than using software.
Yin (2009:101) states that documentary information should be “the object of explicit
data collection plans” and that within case studies the use of documents is important to
“corroborate and augment evidence from existing sources” (Yin, 2009:103).
Additionally, all the main strategic documents that mention the use of technology or
blended learning were coded using the proposition influences.
Reliability
42

43. Reliability considers whether the same results can be generated in repeated studies
(University of Colorado 2008). As this is a case study, it may be difficult to make
generalisations that will be applicable to other organisations and Opie (2003) states
reliability should not be used as a criterion to assess the goodness in research. However,
it will be seen that some generalisations can be made in relation to the influences and
barriers that do relate to the literature. However, as has already been stated the
possibility of generalising may be limited if the research within the literature has not
been carried out within a similar context.
Validity
Validity is concerned with whether the study reflects or assesses the specific concept
(University of Colorado 2008), in this case the influence of universities strategies on the
use of blended learning within a faculty. Colosi (1997) presents the following categories
of validity, which can be examined in research:
1. Conclusion validity, asks if there is a relationship between the research area
and the observed outcome. For example, “How and why the University learning
and teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning.”
2. Internal Validity, according to Opie (2003:68), is the “relationship between a
claim and the result of the data-gathering process”. Both Soy (1997) and Yin
(2003) claim internal validity relates to how rigorous the study has been and
whether it has taken into account alternative explanations. Within this study,
adopting a multimodal approach to data collection and making additional
43

44. observations throughout will help to ensure that the research approach is
rigorous.
3. Construct validity, Soy (1997) claims this is where the correct measure has
been adopted for the construct being examined, for example, in this research did
the case study approach identify how and why the University learning and
teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning.
4. External validity refers to the ability to generalize the results of the study in
other settings. This may be more difficult to show in this research as the case
study approach was chosen because it was appropriate to study something that
was happening at a specific time and in a specific place, the influence of a
particular university’s learning and teaching strategy on blended learning within
one faculty in a particular UK university.
Conclusion
Denscombe (1997:45) presents a series of criticisms of the case study approach. One
criticism is that it is difficult to produce credible generalisations, although Opie (2007)
questions the importance of this. However, as this research is based on a faculty case
study together with documentary evidence, there may be an opportunity to present
similarities within an institutional context. Another criticism is that this approach only
produces soft data and that the outputs are merely descriptive not evaluative. However,
the university teaching community may find a descriptive account useful and the
multimodal approach adopted did appear to produce enough data to make evaluations.
In addition, Denscombe argues that the presence of the researcher can have an impact,
44

45. “the observer effect”. However as this study did not observe the teacher in situ, teachers
were interviewed about their experiences, this may be less of an issue, although it must
be acknowledged that the interviewer had prior knowledge of teaching activities within
the faculty, so there may have been some possibility of bias. There was also the
possibility that the analysis brought an element of subjectivity to the study, but it was
hoped that the multimodal approach and the literature review limited the impact of this.
45

46. Chapter 3
Results and Findings
Applying Yin’s (2003) case study approach, as outlined in the previous chapter, the
analysis was based on a series of coded categories and sub categories, influenced by the
propositions generated by the literature review. Axial coding was used to identify the
interrelationships between these categories. This was a multi-modal approach analysing
strategic documents and interviews. The results and findings are organised into two
parts. The first part presents the category and sub-category influences for using blended
learning identified within the following selected University and Faculty learning and
teaching strategic documents:

Sterndale Strategic Plan 2004 – 2010 (SSP)

Sterndale Learning and Teaching Strategy (SLTS)

Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS)

Faculty Learning and Teaching and Assessing Online (FLTAO)
The analysis of the strategic documents provides a context for the second part of the
results and findings, the analysis of the interviews, which identifies the interrelationship
between the barriers and influences on the use of blended learning by staff within the
Faculty with the University’s learning and teaching strategy.
Strategic Document Influence Categories
The research question is an attempt to answer how and why the University’s learning
and teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning within the Faculty of Social
Sciences. The SLTS, FLTS, FLTAO and SSP all use the term blended learning but the
46

47. SLTS and in particular, SSP often interchange this with the terms e-learning and online
learning. This is possibly because the SLTS and SSP were written at a time when the
University had not formally developed a framework for blended learning, the Strategic
Plan was written in 2004 and the Learning and Teaching Strategy in 2006. A decision
was therefore made to analyse all the references to the use of technology within learning
and teaching mentioned within the strategic documents.
Enhancing the Quality of Learning and Teaching
This category relates to the delivery of learning and teaching. The following subcategories could be identified within this influence:

Access to resources: This will be addressed by providing “seamless on-line”
access, to “interactive resources” to ensure student engagement (SSP).

Flexible learning: There will be considerations with respect to “time, place and
pace” (SSP) regarding the delivery of learning.

Collaborative learning: The facilitation of this learning environment will be
through a combination of “collaborative environments and interactive resources”
(SSP), facilitated by “electronic systems and e-forms of collaboration” (SLTS).

Inclusivity: The learning environment will be “rich and blended…for all
students, whether on-campus or studying at a distance or flexible mode” (SSP)

Managed learning environment: Staff and students will have access to “up-todate data” (SSP) that will “sustain curriculum design and e-pedagogies” (SLTS).
It could be argued that this category of enhancing the quality of learning and teaching
has an interrelationship with all the other influence categories identified within the
strategic documents. For example, the success of enhancing the quality of learning and
teaching is dependent, on developing staff and student skills as well as, providing
47

48. adequate support. By developing more effective and efficient processes, the University
will be better placed to support its diverse student population, which in turn may
enhance its reputation. The enhancement of the quality of learning and teaching was
identified as a proposition because it was prominent within the literature (Browne et al.,
2008, Garrison and Vaughan, 2008, Jara and Mohamad, 2007). Sharpe et al. (2006),
also identified institutional rationales relating to organisational changes, such as,
supporting a diverse student population, enabling flexible learning and efficient delivery
of learning, which could relate to the sub-categories inclusivity, flexible learning and a
managed learning environment. In addition, this category could relate to universities’
preoccupation with quality assurance and enhancement (Smith 2007, Conole et al.
2007).
Staff Development
This category relates to the University’s commitment to developing staff skills with
respect to the use of technology in learning and teaching. The following sub-categories
could be identified within this influence:

University staff development: There is a commitment to providing “a range of
staff development opportunities focusing on pedagogy and specialist training on
the virtual learning environment and other technologies” (SSP), as the
University acknowledges the importance of staff having a “skill-mix” in order to
fulfil academic, administrative and technical roles” (SLTS).

Faculty staff development: The Faculty intends to provide peer observation,
support for the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) and to
host a staff development week (FLTS).
48

49. The importance of this category will be seen in the interview findings. Staff
development was identified as a proposition, as it is seen as an organisational
intervention (Conole, et al. 2007 Stiles, 2003).
Support
This category relates to support provided by the University for staff using technology.
The following sub-category could be identified within this influence:

Elearning Development Unit (EDU): This central unit will provide support
and guidance on the “production of elearning resources, assessments and
courseware (SLTS). The Faculty acknowledges that the implementation of
blended learning within the Faculty is dependent on how the work of this unit
“evolves” (FLTS).
Despite this not being in the original propositions identified in the previous chapter, this
category could have an interrelationship with the staff development category, as helping
staff to use technology could facilitate the development of their skills.
Student Skills
This category relates to the development of students’ academic and digital skills that
can be facilitated by the use of technology within teaching. The following subcategories could be identified within this influence:

Digital literacy skills: The University claims that the development of these
skills will enhance student employability (SSP) and that these skills are “critical
factor for success” of the University’s learning and strategy (SLTS).
49

50. 
Academic skills, information, literacy and numeracy: The University
support intends to facilitate the development of these skills by providing a
“bank of online student learning materials” (SLTS).
This category influence was in the original propositions, given in the previous chapter
(Sharpe et al., 2006). This influence could also relate to JISC’s (2007) student
expectations research. However, it will be seen that this was not an important influence
on the use of blended learning for most of the interviewees as one interviewee
(beginner) only identified it.
Student Expectations
This category relates to managing student expectations with respect to the use of
technology to deliver learning. The following sub-category could be identified within
this influence:

Access to resources: The Faculty has made a commitment to clarifying for
students the use of technology within teaching by providing a statement of use
within course handbooks(FLTAO)
This was identified as a proposition in the previous chapters because it was identified
within UCISA’s 2008 survey. However, it will be seen in the interviews that student
expectations with respect to the use of technology appear to be limited to access to
resources rather than online activities, which relates to the JISC’s (2007) findings. This
category may interrelate with the student skills category, as there could be a correlation
between student skill level and expected uses of technology in teaching.
50

51. University Reputation
This category relates to enhancing the University’s reputation and thus attracting
students. The following sub-category could be identified within this influence:

Providing a variety of courses: The University wants to ensure that it is
attractive to businesses and professions, it also, wants to reach new markets and
to make it the “preferred choice” (SSP) for potential students.
This was not identified as a proposition, although it could relate to the proposition
operating in a global context identified by Sharp et al. (2006) and the
internationalisation of education (Ramsden, 2008, Bradwell, 2009).
Interviews: Influences and Barriers on the Use of Blended Learning
These are the findings from the interviews with respect to the identified influences and
barriers on the use of blended learning within the Faculty. The analysis and
identification of the influences and barriers is within the context of the research
question, so within each category influence and barrier there is an attempt to correlate
the findings with the University’s learning and teaching strategy.
Influences on the Use of Blended Learning
Enhancing the Quality of Learning and Teaching
This category relates to what emerges through the data as to influences on the decisions
made by teachers in relation to the delivery of learning. The following sub-categories
could be identified within this influence:

Active Learning: This approach was taken to enhance the course and engage
the students (intermediate)
51

52. 
Online assessment: A course team decided to use this because it was a different
type of assessment method (beginner). The early adopter decided to use online
assessment to prepare students for their exams.

Enhancing-face-to-face teaching: The online content made available for
students was different to that which students were getting in the classroom
(beginner, innovator, early adopter)

Feedback: Video feedback was used to provide “quicker” feedback and to
encourage student engagement (innovator).

International students: A course team “thought through the delivery of their
material and how to engage students who were from a different country and
different time zone” (strategist).
This influence was prominent within all the interviews, this is possibly because at the
heart of a teacher’s vocation is the enhancement of the learner experience. As it has
already been stated, with respect to this influence within the strategic documents, it
could be claimed that this has an interrelationship with all the other influences identified
in the interviews, as they all, to some extent, have an impact on teaching and the learner
experience. This influence was also within the original propositions found within the
literature and identified within the previous chapter (Browne et al., 2008, Garrison and
Vaughan 2007). However, even though this influence was prevalent within the strategy
documents, it was difficult to identify a relationship between the illustrations provided
by the interviewees and University strategy.
Addressing an Operational Issue
This category relates to the delivery of teaching. The following sub-categories could be
identified within this influence:
52

53. 
Location of students: This was with respect to teaching students off-campus on
professional courses (beginner) and international students (strategist).

Group size: This related to teaching large groups of students, where blended
learning was seen to,
solve a lot of [the Faculty’s] operational dilemmas, in terms of how [the
Faculty] assess [and] mark, large groups [the] staff student ratio.
(strategist).
Also, managing small groups on “small courses” where there has been a
“struggle to recruit”, as illustrated on one course,
[where there was] a very small group so there were online activities the
group met alternative weeks (intermediate).
It could be argued that this category also interrelates with the category enhancing the
quality of learning and teaching because considerations relating to the operational
aspects could enhance the learner experience. It could also relate to the propositions,
dealing with organisational changes and efficient delivery of learning (Sharp et al.
2006). However, it is difficult to identify a direct relationship with University strategy
in this category, although, the interviewees responses in this category could be seen to
show a movement towards flexible and inclusive approaches, identified in the strategic
documents.
Staff Development
This category relates to staff development activities organised by the University and the
Faculty, such as workshops, events and peer support. The following sub-categories
could be identified within this influence:

Faculty organised:
o Peer observation: This was in the area of teaching using blended
learning (intermediate)
53

54. o Staff development week: For the staff development week blended
learning was a theme (intermediate, innovator, early adopter, strategist)
o Faculty away day: At this event, staff were introduced to different
models of online learning together with illustrations of use (beginner).
o Staff appraisals: Part of the appraisal looks at “issues around learning
styles” (manager).
o Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education: This is run by the
University but requires the support of Faculty, with respect to identifying
staff and freeing up their time to undertake the course. It was observed
that staff who had undertaken this “had more input in terms of elearning”
(strategist).

University:
o PGCHE: This is compulsory for all new staff (beginner) (also see
Faculty category above).

External:
o Conferences: This gave one interviewee the opportunity to see
innovative practice (innovator).
This category interrelates with the support category, which, is discussed below, as well
as the academic skills proposition, which was indentified as a strategic intervention
(Stiles 2003 Conole et al. 2007). This category is also prominent within the SSP, SLTS
and FLTS. With respect to the sub-category, Faculty organised activities, which
includes peer observation and the staff development week, these activities are priorities
in FLTS, which addresses SLTS. Regarding the University sub-category PGCHE,
FLTS states that the Faculty has made a commitment to funding this and the University
has made a strategic decision to ensure all new staff have this qualification.
54

55. Support
This relates to help given by colleagues and services within the Faculty and University.
The following sub-categories could be identified within this influence:

Faculty support:
o Colleagues: This was with respect to talking to work colleagues about
blended learning (beginner) and seeing their work (strategist).
o E-learning champions: Each department had an e-learning champion,
which was “someone people could go to, to get the help” (intermediate).
o Head of Learning and Teaching and Faculty Head: Both of these
roles have supported blended learning proposals, in relation to time and
resources (innovator).
o Implementation of the new VLE: The Faculty “organised support for
students and staff” (early adopter).

University support:
o Implementation of the new VLE: The University organised activities
that facilitated this and although there “was quite a lot of anxiety [about]
changing over to a new system…as a University on the whole [it] went
quite well” (early adopter).
o Elearning Development Unit (EDU): This Unit provides supporting
documents, assists with technical problems and helped to implement the
new VLE (innovator, early adopter, strategist and manager)
It has been stated that there is an interrelationship with this category and the staff
development category, as formal or informal support could help to develop an
individual’s skills and knowledge, and as a result, this relates to the academic skills
55

56. proposition given in the previous chapter. With respect to strategy, the EDU was
referred to in the SLTS and FLTS. Peer observation is a FLTS priority although seeing
colleagues’ work, mentioned by the strategist as an important influence, was not
discussed within this context. In addition, it will be seen that there is an interrelationship
with this category and the strategy category with respect to the roles of the Head of
Learning and Teaching and Faculty Head.
Strategy
This relates to explicit references to the influence of University and Faculty strategic
groups, roles and documents referred to by the interviewees. The following subcategories could be identified within this influence:

Faculty strategy:
o Documents:

FLTS: This provides a “strategic framework” (strategist). There
is “work within the FLTS” [relating to blended learning] which
is “influenced by SLTS” (intermediate).
This strategy is designed to underpin what the university
wants to do it gives the Faculty a sense of direction because it
gives [the Faculty] more control (early adopter).

FLTAO: This policy provides a “continuum and definitions [for]
where courses might be” (intermediate), there are “three different
models” (beginner). It states a “minimum level for what students
should have in their courses” (innovator).
o Groups:

Blended learning group: This is a sub-group of the learning and
teaching committee (intermediate).
o Roles:
56

57. 
Course leaders: These promote and encourage “uses of different
kind of pedagogy” (manager).

Faculty Head of Learning and Teaching: This role is
responsible “for the development of e-learning and blended
learning for driving it forward” (manager).


Quality manager: This role identifies good practice (manager)
University
o SLTS: see comments relating to FLTS
All the interviewees had an understanding of strategy and could articulate to some
extent its impact on Faculty learning and teaching activities. Understandably, the
intermediate, who is a course leader, the Head of Learning and Teaching and the
Faculty Head could articulate most clearly the Faculty strategic approach and the
relationship with the University learning and teaching strategy, although no SLTS
details were given. Three interviewees, the beginner, intermediate and innovator
acknowledged an awareness of the FLTAO, which benchmarks the use of technology
by the Faculty. Additionally, there is an interrelationship with the support category as
the Head of Learning and Teaching’s role is to implement and supports the priorities in
the FLTS. This category was not within the original propositions as it was not clearly
identified within the literature, for example, Sharpe et al. (2006) researched institutional
rationales but not specifically strategy and UCISA(Browne et al, 2008) had a strategy
category within its survey but it was not listed in its main drivers. There is also an
interrelationship with this category and other influence categories, where an
interrelationship between the influence and University strategy can be identified, for
example in the support and staff development categories.
57

58. Student Expectations
This category relates to the influence of student expectations with respect to access to
online activities and resources. The following sub-categories could be identified within
this influence:

Access to online content: Student expectations relate mainly to document
delivery (early adopter, innovator, beginner, intermediate).

Comparing courses: Students are beginning to compare and question the
resources they have access to on different courses (innovator, beginner,
intermediate, early adopter).
In this category it was perceived that student expectations related to the delivery of
online resources rather than learning activities, although students are appreciative of
“what gets beyond very basic document delivery” (early adopter) and students are not
“challenging in terms of their own online experiences” (strategist) reflecting JISC’s
(2007) findings. This was in the propositions (Browne et al., 2008); however, with
respect to University strategy only the intermediate’s response appears to have a
relationship with strategy as she mentions the FLTAO.
Barriers to Using Blended Learning
Staff attitude
This category relates what was reported as to the impact of staff feelings towards the
use of technology in learning and teaching. The following sub-categories could be
identified within this barrier:

It has no place in teaching: (beginner, manager):
[Some staff think] it is the scourge of any sensible pedagogy and what we
need to be doing is working in a traditional way (manager).
58

59. 
Afraid of using it: some staff suffer from “technophobia” (intermediate) and
find using technology “a terrifying prospect and confusing” (innovator).

Do not want to go beyond basic use: mainly relating to staff using the VLE as
a repository for storing information (intermediate, beginner, innovator, early
adopter).

Concerns about impact on attendance: this was referred to by the beginner
who stated that there had been a “big debate” in her division in relation to
putting content in “the VLE and students just start using that rather than
[attending] sessions”. This interrelates with the influence enhancing the quality
of learning and teaching, sub-category, enhancing-face-to-face teaching, where
interviewees used online resources to enhance not replicate face-to-face
teaching.
This barrier category was in the original propositions (Stacey 2007). It could be argued
that it interrelates with the category barriers, staff development and support as negative
staff attitudes may result from lack of knowledge of pedagogic application of
technology. Despite the University and the Faculty making a commitment to staff
development and the Faculty providing guidance on expected benchmarks for online
delivery some staff appear to remain disengaged.
Staff Development
This category relates to approaches to staff development provided by the University.
The following sub-categories could be identified within this influence:

Does not relate to practice:
It is useful if it could be applied to something [to] make it a bit more real
and pertinent, or else it’s forgotten (beginner).
59

60. Work [needs] to be done in terms of making the step between e-tools and
how you could use them in a meaningful way and the design of a learning
activity, joining up a set of activities. Regarding pedagogy [it’s] still limited
and underdeveloped (strategist).

Embedding:
If there is an expectation that [staff] are going to do it, it needs to be flagged
up (beginner).
The University puts people through equality and diversity courses and
professional development [and] appraisal training, all academics should go
on it, and it might be done online (intermediate).
There was a criticism that “training that was set-up for the VLE took place far
too early before [staff] started using it” (beginner).

Dissemination of best practice: Some individuals think,
there is a limited range of what is capable of but there might be all sorts of
things going on that [the faculty] doesn’t know about (strategist).
Staff development was identified as a major influence on implementing blended
learning and identified, by the University and the Faculty, as a strategic priority.
However, it could be seen that there are concerns that staff development presently does
not relate to pedagogic uses of technology and that it is not embedded within existing
practice. As a result, this category may have an interrelationship with staff motivation
category. This barrier was in the original propositions (Schneckenberg, 2009).
Support
This category relates to formal and informal help provided by the University. The
following sub-categories could be identified within this barrier:

Availability:
There’s lots of support available but its hidden (intermediate).
Some [staff] would benefit from a bit more basic support certainly in the
early stages and the development of e-tools and distance learning materials
[as more would] be achieved more quickly and more efficiently if there was
more support available. If [there were] more people to do some of the
preparatory work (manager)
60

61. 
From colleagues:
[Not having] anybody to discuss it with [or having] somebody at
department meetings (beginner).
This was identified as a proposition (MacKeough and Fox, 2008) and in the influences
in the interview findings, it was noted that effective help could enhance the skills of
those accessing the support; also, it could have an impact on staff attitude if the support
is successful. Support was indentified in SLTS and FLTS with respect to the EDU but
the manager commented that more support was required. In addition, lack of support by
colleagues, as identified in the beginner’s interview, could interrelate with staff attitude
barrier, which may have an impact on engagement.
Formal recognition
This category relates to University rewarding staff for adopting blended learning
approaches. There has been little or no recognition with respect to this.
I sit on awards and titles committee and people have come through the
learning and teaching route I haven’t seen one that’s been specifically
around blended learning practices other things seem to be more valued.
(strategist)
Also there were concerns that the University does not, “[recognise] excellence in
learning and teaching generally” (early adopter)
This was a proposition (MacKeough and Fox, 2008, Schneckenberg, 2009) and again,
this category could relate to staff attitude. If there is, no formal recognition of
innovative approaches to blended learning staff may be disinclined to commit time and
effort. It is an area that appears to be notably absent from the University’s strategic
documentation.
61

62. Time
This category refers to the availability or lack of time. The following sub-categories
could be identified within this barrier:

To fit around teaching (beginner, early adopter, intermediate): it is seen as an
“additional layer” that comes with the job (innovator) and it is within the context
of some senior staff having to deal “with a large admin burden” (strategist)

Takes to develop (beginner, early adopter, intermediate): it is time consuming
not just in training but the design and carrying it out (strategist). This needs to
acknowledged by the University “if it wants people to do it properly” (strategist)
the University needs to provide a “funding stream” for this activity (manager).
This was a proposition (MacKeough and Fox 2008) and despite the University’s
commitment to implementing blended learning there appears to be no reference to the
provision of extra resources to support this activity.
University Central Control
This category relates to the central control of processes. The following sub-categories
could be identified within this barrier:

Publishing on the web:
The [University] under the current management took an approach to the
use of the web which if effectively destroyed my elearning stuff and a lot of
my scholarship so and that put me back some years really and reduced my
enthusiasm for doing stuff. And I am deeply suspicious of the institutions
motives in this area (early adopter)

Obtaining software (early adopter, innovator): This relates to having to make a
business case.
The problem is you couldn’t always make a business case for stuff, such is
the nature of this an awful lot of it will get dumped and you wont go back to
it and you wont use once you have evaluated it. But you need to evaluate it
to decide if it is good or not (innovator).
62

63. 
Support: “central units [EDU] are pressured, and are not as autonomous as they
might be” (early adopter).
This was not in the original propositions and the category only relates to the innovator
and early adopter interviews, individuals who are more advanced in their use of
technology. However, this category could interrelate with staff attitude as restricting
staff evaluating new technologies may de-motivate staff or have a negative impact on
the development of their skills, which, the University has made a strategic commitment
to.
Student Skills
This was identified by the beginner interviewee in the sub-categories of poor digital
literacy and access to technology, with respect to mature students,
who did not have a computer so they had to use a computer at home …
because of the nature of where they worked they weren’t allowed access to
open forum…a couple of students were really concerned about if they were
going to be disadvantaged because they were typing with one finger and one
hand.
This barrier was identified as an original proposition and it could be argued that this will
influence student engagement. This illustration reflects some of the recent findings by
JISC student expectations report (2007) which acknowledged that there was a digital
divide. The issue of digital literacy skills is a priority within SSP and SLTS. However,
the beginner’s experience is in relation to supporting off-campus students on
professional courses possibly identifies a group that has slipped through the net.
63