Advertisement

Perceptions and Barriers to the Adoption of Blended Learning at a Research-Based University in the United Arab Emirates

  • Rawy ThabetEmail author
  • Christopher Hill
  • Eman Gaad
Chapter
  • 9 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 295)

Abstract

This study investigates the academic staff’s perception of blended learning adoption in higher education (tertiary level) as well as the barriers to this adoption. To this end, 6 academic staff, joining the faculty of education, in one of the research-based universities in the UAE, completed a self-administered survey. A mixed methods approach was used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. The results suggest that the academic staff are fully aware of the importance of integrating blended learning. They are also ready to adopt any innovation that would help students advance in their study provided that the adoption and provision of these technologies are accompanied by professional training. The results also show that the only barrier that inhibits the adoption of technology is the lack of a clear policy on this integration and also the lack of blended learning-enabling software. This research paves the way for more research on the integration of blended learning at the tertiary level. It also raises some recommendation to the management of the university, where the study was conducted, to adopt more advanced features of Blackboard such as Blackboard collaborate.

Keywords

Blended learning Adoption Barriers Tertiary education UAE 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research paper was a part of a project submitted to the British University in Dubai during the Ph.D. study of the first author.

References

  1. 1.
    Pajo, K., Wallace, C.: Barriers to the uptake of web-based technology by university teachers. J. Distance Educ. 16(1), 70–84 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parsad, B., Lewis, L., Tice,, P.: Distance education at degree-granting post- secondary institutions: 2006–2007. National Postsecondary Educ. Coop. (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Straub, D., Keil, M., Brenner, W.: Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Inf. Manag. 33(1), 1–11 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oh, E., Park, S.: How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educ. Technol. Soc. 12(3), 327–342 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Picciano, A.G.: Blending with purpose: the multimodal model. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 13(1), 7–18 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kabassi, K., Dragonas, I., Ntouzevits, A., Pomonis, T., Papastathopoulos, G., Vozaitis, Y.: Evaluating a learning management system for blended learning in Greek higher education. Springerplus 5(1), 1–12 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vrazalic, L., MacGregor, R., Behl, D., Fitzgerald, J.: E-learning barriers in the United Arab Emirates: preliminary results from an empirical investigation. Innov. Knowl. Manag. Twin Track Econ. Challenges Solut. - Proc. 11th Int. Bus. Inf. Manag. Assoc. Conf. IBIMA 2009, 13, 1782–1787 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., Poirot, J.: Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman. Comput. Educ. 53(3), 575–590 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valiathan, P.: Designing a blended learning solution. Learn. Circuits (2002). [Online]. Available: http://www.learningcircuits.com/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html. Accessed 28 May 2019
  10. 10.
    Boelens, R., Van Laer, S., De Wever, B., Elen, J.: Blended learning in adult education: towards a definition of blended learning (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell, A., Honore, S.: Criteria for successful blended learning. Ind. Commer. Train. 39(3), 143–149 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Munro, R.A., Rice-Munro, E.J.: Learning styles, teaching approaches, and technology. J. Qual. Particip. 27(1), 26–32 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalmolin, A., Mackeivicz, M.T., Pochapski, G.A.O., Pilatti, G.L., Santos, F.A.: Learning styles preferences and e-learning experience of undergraduate dental students. Rev. Odontol. da UNESP 47(3), 175–182 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rossett, A.: The ASTD E-learning Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rooney, J.: Blending learning opportunities to enhance educational programming and meetings. Assoc. Manage. 55(5), 26–32 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aldosemani, T., Shepherd, C., Thomson, J., Raddaoui, A.: Second life as third place for English language learners’ crosscultural interaction. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 17(2), 29–40 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Hassan, S., Shukri, N.: The effect of blended learning in enhancing female students’ satisfaction in the Saudi context. English Lang. Teach. 10(6), 190–203 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao, F.: Enhancing the quality of online higher education through measurement. Qual. Assur. Educ. 11(4), 214–221 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mali, Y.C.G.: Beyond words Vol. 4. No. 1. May 2016 graduate school, Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya, Indonesia. Beyound Words 4(1), 17–26 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ertmer, P.A.: Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 47(4), 47–61 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snoeyink, R., Ertmer, P.A.: Thrust into technology: how veteran teachers respond. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 30(1), 85–111 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, A.M., Jacovina, M.E., Russell, D.E., Soto, C.M.: Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom. In: Crossley, S.A., McNamara, D.S. (eds.) Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy Instruction, pp. 13–29. Taylor & Francis, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coleman, E., Mtshazi, S.: Factors affecting the use and non-use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) by academic staff. S. Afr. Comput. J. 29(3), 31–63 (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    UNESCO: The dakar framework for action. Education for all: meeting our collective commitments (2000). [Online]. Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2019
  25. 25.
    Abdalla Alfaki, I.M., Ahmed, A.: Technological readiness in the United Arab Emirates towards global competitiveness. World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 9(1), 4–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bachellerie, I.J.: Knowledge creation and diffusion: the role of UAE universities’, Gulf Research Center (GRC), Report. In: The WAITRO 20th Biennial Congress, leadership for innovation (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Econmic Forum.: The global competitiveness report 2015–2016 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    World Econmic Forum: The global competitiveness report 2019 (2019)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahmed, A., Al-Roubaie, A.: Building a knowledge-based economy in the Muslim world. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 9(2), 76–98 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carnevale, D.: Government’s request for data may delay Blackboard’s purchase of WebCT. Chron. High. Educ. 52(16), A29 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Green, K.C.: Campus computing, 2010: The campus computing project (2010). [Online]. Available: http://www.campuscomputing.net/sites/www.campuscomputing.net/files/Green-CampusComputing2010.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2019
  32. 32.
    Resta, P.: Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide. UNESCO, Paris (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scurry, D., Ensminger, D., Haab, M.: A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36(2), 327–329 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviors. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1980)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim, C.M., Baylor, A.L.: A virtual change agent: motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Educ. Technol. Soc. 11(2), 309–321 (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Porter, W.W., Graham, C.R.: Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47(4), 748–762 (2016)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bensona, V., Andersona, D., Ooms, A.: Educators’ perceptions, attitudes and practices: blended learning in business and management education. ALT-J. Res. Learn. Technol. 19(2), 143–154 (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Powell, A., et al.: Blending learning: the evolution of online and face-to-face education from 2008–2015 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Aldosemani, T., Shepherd, C.E., Bolliger, D.U.: Perceptions of instructors teaching in Saudi blended learning environments. TechTrends 63(3), 341–352 (2019)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Creswell, J.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative & Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th edn. Sage, Los Angeles (2018)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rizvi, N.F., Gulzar, S., Nicholas, W., Nkoroi, B.: Barriers in adopting blended learning in a private university of Pakistan and East Africa: faculty members’ perspective. mHealth 3, 18–18, (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yilirim, G.Y., Yilirim, S., Yildirim, Z.: Main barriers and possible of ICT integration into pre-service teacher education porgrams. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12(1), 193–204 (2009)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hardesty, D.M., Bearden, W.O.: The use of expert judges in scale development. Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. J. Bus. Res. 57(2), 98–107 (2004)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sangoseni, O., Hellman, M., Hill, C.: Development and Validation of a questionnaire to assess the effect of online learning on behaviors, attitudes, and clinical practices of physical therapists in the United States regarding evidenced-based clinical practice. Internet J. Allied Heal. Sci. Pract. 11(2), 1–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tejada, J., Punzalan, J.R.: On the misuse of Slovin’s formula Jeffry. Appl. Opt. 50(19), 3187 (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alkahtani, K.: Teachers ’ knowledge and use of assistive technology for students with special educational needs. Apr 2013 (2017)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gaad, E., Thabet, R.: Behaviour support training for parents of children with down syndrome: perceptions, feedback, and attitudes. Int. J. Divers. Identities 17(3), 19–34 (2017)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Al Khawaldi, H.: Faculty perceptions towards ET status at Omani colleges of education. Yarmouk Univ. (2000)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Al-Musawi, A.: Existing formats and functions of media units in the Omani higher education. J. Educ. Psychol. Sci. 3(2), 33–51 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The British University in DubaiDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations