Journal Pre-proof

Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing

blended learning in higher education

Bram Bruggeman, Jo Tondeur, Katrien Struyven, Bram Pynoo,

Anja Garone, Silke Vanslambrouck

PII: S1096-7516(20)30048-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100772
Reference: INTHIG 100772

To appear in: The Internet and Higher Education

Received date: 13 February 2020

Revised date: 22 July 2020
Accepted date: 13 September 2020

Please cite this article as: B. Bruggeman, J. Tondeur, K. Struyven, et al., Experts speaking:
Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education, The
Internet and Higher Education (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100772

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in

higher education

Bram Bruggemana, Jo Tondeura, Katrien Struyvenbc, Bram Pynooad, Anja Garoneb, Silke
Vanslambrouckb

a
Multidisciplinary Institute for Teacher Education, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 9, 1050
Brussels, Belgium

of
b
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

ro
c
School of Educational Studies, UHasselt
d
-p
Centre of Expertise in Social Innovation, VIVES University College
re
Abstract
lP

While blended learning in higher education is valued for various reasons such as addressing
students‟ needs for flexibility, blended learning implementation remains a challenging process.
na

Because the teacher lies at the heart of any educational change process, the current qualitative
study investigates crucial teacher attributes for blended learning implementation from the
perspective of experts. Experts can analyze deep structures of complex organizational problems
ur

and hold process knowledge that can generate practical effect. Twelve expert interviews are
Jo

conducted and reveal two groups of blended learning teacher attributes: seven adaptive
attributes such as realizing a pedagogical need for change or creatively connecting technologies
to learning processes, and four maladaptive attributes such as a need for a clear understanding of
blended learning or feeling anxious about (the implications of) technology. This study utilizes a
holistic approach to identify related teacher attributes that critically influence the
implementation of blended learning in higher education.

Keywords: Blended learning, expert interviews, higher education, teacher attributes, teacher
change
 Journal Pre-proof

1 Introduction

“Teachers are likely to reject new ideas that conflict with their current ideas unless, as part of
the professional learning, their existing understandings are engaged.”
Timperley et al. (2008, p. 17)

One of the many challenges for higher education concerns the implementation and deliberate
application of blended learning (Becker et al., 2017). Blended learning has been valued and
implemented for various reasons in higher education such as addressing a need for more flexible
and personalized curricula (Jonker et al., 2018), responding to students diversity by using
differentiated instruction (Boelens et al., 2018), or improving students‟ engagement with

of
learning materials (Mestan, 2019). A variety of factors that influence the implementation
process of blended learning are examined in previous research. For example, Adekola, Dale,

ro
and Gardiner (2017) investigated institutional transitions towards implementation of blended
learning, while Graham, Woodfield, and Harrison (2013) researched how organizational
-p
policies and strategies, structural issues and support for teachers influence adoption of blended
re
learning. Much research focuses on studying the design of blended learning (e.g. Owston &
York, 2018; Tsankov & Damyanov, 2017), or on the student perspective and context (e.g.
lP

Vanslambrouck et al., 2018). Yet, in any process of educational change, the teacher has a
significant influence (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992; Guskey, 2002). The teacher journey to
blended learning implementation requires more than simple acquisition of new skills or
na

changing pedagogical roles (Philipsen et al., 2019). Addressing teachers‟ beliefs about
technology and pedagogy, for example, is also crucial (Gerbic, 2011; Philipsen et al., 2019).
ur

Moreover, transferring new instructional processes into teachers‟ practice is inseparable from
their emotions such as feeling less confident (Howard & Mozejko, 2015; Saunders, 2013). It can
Jo

be concluded that teachers face many challenges when implementing blended learning such as
new teaching and technological skills, dealing with changing pedagogical roles, or coping with
risks associated to delivering courses in a blended format (Vaughan, 2010). All of these factors
influence teachers' decisions and courses of action (Timperley et al., 2008), including decisions
regarding the implementation and design of blended learning. On the one hand, many university
teachers respond positively to the concept of blended learning and redesign their courses
successfully (Alammary et al., 2014; Ellis et al., 2006). On the other hand, despite good
intentions, university teachers fail to adopt blended learning due to internal or external
influences such as lack of time or increased instructional workload (Brown, 2016; Owston et al.,
2008). Hence, an in-depth investigation of teacher qualities and characteristics that affect the
 Journal Pre-proof

implementation process both ways is crucial for establishing sustainable anchoring of blended
learning pedagogy in higher education.

2 Conceptual background

2.1 Blended learning in higher education

Over the past two decades, higher education institutions have increasingly adopted blended
learning for various reasons and the pedagogical concept configures itself as the „new normal‟
in higher education (Dziuban et al., 2018; Mestan, 2019). The application of blended learning
affects both students, various institutional systems and structures, and faculty members‟

of
attitudes and pedagogical beliefs (Brown, 2016; Moskal et al., 2013). Extensive research in
education has explored the possibilities of the pedagogical concept (e.g. Garrison & Vaughan,

ro
2013; Mestan, 2019). Although the definition of blended learning is still ambiguous (Hrastinski,
2019), the pedagogical concept of blended learning can be described as the deliberate
-p
combination of online and classroom-based instruction that activates and supports learning
(Boelens et al., 2015). The open nature of this definition allows numerous applications and
re
interpretations, which in turn adds importance to the way teachers approach and conceptualize
lP

blended learning (Ellis et al., 2006).

Educational institutions have adopted blended learning for various reasons such as providing
na

more flexibility to meet students' learning needs and backgrounds (e.g. Vanslambrouck et al.,
2018), or as an attempt to reduce dropout rates (López-Pérez et al., 2011). In finding answers for
deliberate application of blended learning in higher education, many researchers address the
ur

design of blended learning. For example, Boelens et al. (2017) found four key challenges for
designing blended learning: incorporating flexibility, stimulating interaction, facilitating
Jo

students‟ learning processes, and fostering an affective learning climate. Wang, Huang, and
Quek (2018), on the other hand, investigated the role of synchronous videoconferencing in
blended courses and acknowledged among other the importance of balanced instruction for the
classroom students as well as the online students. Han and Ellis (2019) investigated the quality
of discussions in blended learning and recognized the importance of explicating how online and
face-to-face discussions are integrated. According to Graham et al. (2013) organizations face
many contextual challenges when adopting blended learning, such as complexities regarding
strategy (definition and purpose of blended learning, policies and degree of implementation),
structure (technological and administrative systems, governance etc.), or support (technical and
pedagogical support, faculty incentives).
 Journal Pre-proof

The role and position of the teacher within the process of blended learning implementation has
also received research attention. For example, Brown (2016) investigated empirical literature in
the context of university blended learning practices, and identified six influences on the
adoption of blended learning. Four external influences such as academic workload or
interactions with students, and two internal influences - teachers' beliefs about technology and
teaching and the quality of teachers' professional development - were identified (Brown, 2016).
Lai et al. (2018), on the other hand, examined university teachers‟ points of view when
implementing flipped (blended) teaching. Their study focused on 169 university teachers who
had experience with flipped teaching, and a major finding was that intrinsic challenge
motivation and extrinsic compensation critically influence adoption of flipped teaching (Lai et

of
al., 2018). Likewise, Cheung and Hew (2010) examined teacher characteristics in the specific
context of facilitating asynchronous online discussions in two university programs. They

ro
conclude that online facilitators show the habits of awareness of own thinking, and open-
mindedness. Finally, Comas-Quinn (2011) evaluated the impact of introducing blended learning
-p
on university teachers in a distant language course, and argued that a shift towards a blended
re
curriculum goes beyond the mere acquisition of ICT skills, but also requires addressing
teachers' identities in order to understand the full potential of new media.
lP

2.2 Teacher attributes

na

Generally, the tasks and roles of higher education teachers and university teaching staff are
diverse. Research and pedagogy intertwine and academic staff are expected to integrate rapidly
evolving educational technologies (Becker et al., 2017). To meet the many expectations,
ur

teaching staff need a wide set of knowledge, skills and attitudes - i.e. competences (Westera,
2001). However, teaching consists of more than a combination of pedagogical competences and
Jo

roles. Teaching is considered an “ongoing process of integration of the personal and

professional sides of becoming and being a teacher” (Beijaard et al., 2004, p. 113). Researchers
such as Beijaard et al. (2004) refer to this dynamic process as “professional identity”. They
argue that addressing professional identity is useful in helping teachers to cope with educational
change. According to Jonker et al. (2018, p. 120,121) professional identity consists of “routines,
knowledge, skills, beliefs, attitudes about one‟s profession, and is based upon one‟s personal
background and experiences”.

The term “attributes” finds its origin in the Latin word attribuere, which means “assign to”.
Babbie defines attributes as “characteristics or qualities that describe an object or a person”
(2013, p.15). In this sense, attributes are closely related to characteristics and can be considered
as the building blocks assigned to someone‟s personality (Allport, 1961). Allport (1961, p. 28)
 Journal Pre-proof

defines personality as the “dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical
systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought”. Every word of the definition is
carefully conveyed (Feist & Feist, 2009). “Dynamic organization” implies a constantly
changing interrelatedness of various aspects of a person. “Psychophysical” highlights the
importance of both psychological and physical aspects of one‟s personality. And by using the
verb “determine”, Allport (1961) emphasizes the action a person takes: personality is not merely
an individual‟s thoughts but includes a person‟s actions as well. Overall, every person is marked
by unique thoughts and behaviors that set them apart from other people. Allport (1961) referred
to these unique personal building blocks as characteristics or personal dispositions. McCrae and
Costa (2003) and Zaccaro et al. (2018) distinguish between characteristics that are relatively

of
immune to change and characteristics that adapt quite flexible to external situations (McCrae &
Costa, 2003; Zaccaro et al., 2018).

ro
Based on Allport (1961), Babbie (2013), McCrae and Costa (2003), and Zaccaro et al. (2018),
-p
this study wields the term “teacher attributes” to empirically capture any relatively stable
teacher personality characteristic – assigned to teachers by experts on blended learning in higher
re
education - that affects the process of blended learning implementation.
lP

3 Purpose of the study

na

Over the past two decades many institutions have adopted blended learning for various reasons
and the pedagogical concept blended learning can be considered as the “new normal” (Dziuban
ur

et al., 2018; Jonker et al., 2018). The implementation of blended learning is influenced by many
(f)actors (e.g. Porter et al., 2016) and educational change must at least take into account the
Jo

teacher as a person (Fullan, 2014). Since experts generally are better at forward reasoning and
solving complex practical problems (Bou et al., 2006), and possess in-depth knowledge about
implementation processes, this study scrutinizes experts‟ insights on blended learning
implementation in higher education by identifying important teacher attributes from a holistic
perspective. The term “holistic” originates from the Greek word holos, which means “whole”.
Holism treats evolution, ecology and personality as a process of unification of separate parts
(Smuts, 1926). In teacher education research, a holistic approach attempts to find common
ground between views based on different paradigms (Korthagen, 2004). As such, this study
utilizes a holistic approach that allows for the emergence of relatively stable teacher attributes
affecting blended learning implementation. The main research question that guided this study
was: What teacher attributes are important for implementation of blended learning in higher
 Journal Pre-proof

education? To answer this research question, the following sub-questions were formulated:
What teacher attributes do experts describe as positively affecting the uptake of blended
learning? What teacher attributes do experts describe as hindering for the uptake of blended
learning?

4 Method

4.1 Expert interviews

To investigate underlying interpretations of practitioners, qualitative approaches and indirect

measures are commonly used (Miles et al., 1994). Van Audenhove and Donders (2019) and

of
Bogner, Littig and Menz (2009) suggest expert interviews as a valuable and legitimate empirical
research method to reveal insider process knowledge on practical complex problems. Bogner et

ro
al. (2009, p. 221) define an expert as "someone who is responsible in some way or another for
the development, implementation or monitoring of a problem, or who has privileged access to
-p
information about people or decision processes." Although the concept of expertise is a
problematic issue - e.g. what exactly constitutes an expert? - literature agrees on the following
re
generalizations (Bogner et al., 2009; Bou et al., 2006; Brand-Gruwel et al., 2005; Chi, 2006;
lP

Littig, 2011; Willingham, 2009):

 Experts are better at selecting relevant details from large sets of information and spend
na

more time analyzing problems qualitatively.

 Experts understand abstract ideas better than novices because they analyze the deep
structures of problems.
ur

 Experts are oriented towards professional practice and take more complex
Jo

organizational variables into account.

 Experts produce more logical and appropriate solutions than novices.
 Experts transfer knowledge more easily to other domains.
 Experts learn more from intuition, feeling and soft skills.

Moreover, experts demonstrate expertise in different knowledge areas. Bogner et al. (2009)
differentiate between expertise in technical knowledge (data, facts, technical information,
statistics, etc.), process knowledge (knowledge about processes, interactions and organizational
aspects), and expertise in explanatory knowledge (interpretations, points of view, meanings and
explanations held by the expert). Considering the general aim of this study, we focused on a
selection of experts who were directly involved with implementation of blended learning in
higher education, and therefore have more contextual process knowledge than teachers who
 Journal Pre-proof

apply blended learning in the particular context of their teaching department or faculty.
Moreover, experts hold process knowledge that has the power to produce practical effect
(Bogner et al., 2009).

4.2 Participants and data collection

Purposive sampling, and in particular intensity sampling, allows the selection of a small number
of representative cases that provide insider information and knowledge of a particular
phenomenon (Patton, 2002; Teddlie & Yu, 2007). All Flemish universities were included in the
sampling process to ensure representativeness (Cohen et al., 2002) by investigating websites,
LinkedIn profiles, and through the personal networks of the research team. In addition, experts

of
from Flemish university colleges – that show similarities with university teaching - were
included to improve the richness of the data. Fifteen participants were invited through email.

ro
After having been explained the nature and purpose of the study, twelve experts agreed to
-p
participate voluntarily in the interviews through a signed informed consent. All participants
were considered experts on blended learning based on their certification, blended learning
re
experience in their organization and blended learning references in their LinkedIn profiles. A
discussion within our research group acknowledged the expertise of the selected participants.
lP

An overview of the experts, their background and blended learning roles is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Experts and their blended learning role

na

Experta Background Role

Marc PhD Educational Sciences and Educational advisor and designer, project leader
ur

Innovation
Luke MSc Educational Sciences Curriculum and instructional designer, policymaker
Jo

and implementer of educational technology

Finn MSc Communication Sciences Advisor technology enhanced teaching and
learning
Frasier MSc Psychology and Educational Director teacher training institute
Sciences
William MSc Educational Sciences, E-learning Head of research on educational innovation
Charlotte PhD Educational Sciences Professor in e-learning design and educational
technology
Alice PhD Educational Instructional Associate lecturer and researcher in educational
Technology technology
Ferguson Higher professional education Project leader E-learning in higher education
Technology enhanced learning
Agatha PhD Educational Sciences Researcher in instructional psychology and
 Journal Pre-proof

Experta Background Role

technology
Grace PhD Educational Sciences Project leader educational technology
Travis MSc Computer Engineering + Educational advisor blended learning
certificate Educational Technology
Harry MSc Instructional and Educational Instructional developer and researcher
Sciences

To initiate the interview, the experts were asked to prepare a relevant case on blended learning
implementation in their organization (successful implementation or lessons learnt). The experts

of
described a practical example of blended learning implementation at the beginning of the
interview. Some experts illustrated the practical case through demonstration of a course design

ro
in the online learning environment of the organization. Elucidation of the experts‟ practical
examples showed equivalent understanding of blended learning as defined in the conceptual
-p
background section: a deliberate combination of online and classroom-based instruction that
activates and stimulates learning (Boelens et al., 2015). All participants were interviewed on
re
independent locations by the first author. The duration of the interview varied between 39 and
86 minutes with an average of 62.75 minutes (SD=13). To ensure a safe climate, the first author
lP

communicated that experts could talk freely and that all data would be treated anonymously. All
participants were required to sign an informed consent form prior to the interview. The twelve
na

interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for data analysis. Since experts do not
like to be confined to restricted sets of questions (Van Audenhove & Donders, 2019), a semi-
ur

structured interview guideline that leaves enough room for experts to express freely, was
developed and discussed in the research team (see Appendix A). Although the experts fairly
Jo

addressed contextual complexities such as providing enough organizational support, academic

leadership or cultural differences between faculties, this study focused on the teacher in order to
identify relevant teachers‟ attributes applicable across contexts. The experts‟ own contexts in
their universities or university college were not further taken into consideration during data
analysis.

4.3 Data analysis and trustworthiness

According to Van Audenhove and Donders (2019) the interviewer preferably is co-expert in the
field of study. The first interviewer‟s professional background as a teacher, teacher educator and
trainer, and experience with blended learning was considered sufficient by the research team to
meet this criterium. Yet, researcher bias, for example on the concept of blended learning, is an
 Journal Pre-proof

area of researcher concern. This was addressed by being aware of the own assumptions on
perceived benefits of blended learning, personal pedagogical beliefs, and teacher professional
development preferences before and during the interview. During the interview, the discussion
was stimulated by leaving enough room for open answers from the experts. Moreover, experts
are not easily influenced and are used to defending their position (Van Audenhove & Donders,
2019), which contributed to the authenticity of experts‟ input during the interview.

Furthermore, to improve trustworthiness and reduce bias, data was analyzed in different phases.
The first author took the lead, and co-authors and other members of the research group
functioned as critical friends through discussion and reviewing of the interpretations and
conclusions drawn from the data. Initially the transcripts were read through several times to

of
allow first categories to emerge by means of open and inductive coding in NVivo 12 (Thomas,
2006). This phase led to a first set of emerging themes and categories. After an introduction to

ro
the theoretical concepts underpinning this study, a co-author coded three interviews inductively
-p
and parallel to the first author (Thomas, 2006). Manual comparison of the openly coded
interviews showed insufficient reliability. In line with Armstrong et al. (1997), there was
re
agreement on general themes but both researchers “packaged” them differently. For instance,
first author coded "a willingness to explore technology" while the second coder tagged this as "a
lP

capacity for exploration of technology". Informed by discussions in the research group and
through continuous comparison of the interpretations with the conceptual frameworks (Miles et
na

al., 1994), the coding scheme was refined and finalized by the first author (see Appendix B).
Next, a third researcher with expertise in the subject of the study was introduced to the
theoretical background, purpose of the study and final coding scheme. To enhance reliability,
ur

the researcher independently coded four of twelve interviews in NVivo 12 based on the
finalized coding scheme (Cohen et al., 2002). Inter-rater reliability (Cohen et al., 2002) was
Jo

calculated through a coding comparison query in NVivo 12 and showed 97% agreement. In
addition, the twelfth and last interview was conducted several months after the first interview in
order to improve stability of observations and reach saturation (Cohen et al., 2002). Finally,
member checks – which are actually not a verification strategy and more often a threat to
validity (Morse et al., 2002) – were not performed since the final coding scheme and study
results have been decontextualized and abstracted.

5 Results

All experts discuss to a greater or lesser extent two sides of blended learning implementation:
teachers who adopt blended learning in their practice and teachers who show resistance or even
reject the pedagogical concept. Both sets of attributes are discussed in this section.
 Journal Pre-proof

5.1 Adaptive attributes

According to the experts, seven adaptive attributes contribute positively to blended learning
implementation in higher education. Table 2 gives an overview of the adaptive attributes,
grouped per expert, followed by substantiating the findings.

Table 2 Overview adaptive attributes

Adaptive attributes
Expert Teaching Student- Realizing a Daring to Daring to Being able Connecting
and centered need for experiment speak out: to critically technologies
education pedagogical change: the (and fail) sharing self-reflect to learning
at the beliefs at pedagogical needs and as a teacher processes:
center the heart of wake-up concerns the creative

of
the matter call professional

Marc       

ro
Luke   
Finn    -p  
Frasier    
William    
re
Charlotte     
Alice      
lP

Ferguson    
Agatha     
Grace      
na

Travis     
Harry      
ur

5.1.1 Teaching and education at the center

Jo

According to more than half of the experts the belief that education and teaching are important
for higher education essentially contributed to the adoption of blended learning. For example,
expert William said that teachers “who generally have a drive to deliver good education adopt
blended learning more easily”. Agatha described this attribute as follows: “Understanding that
education is important, seeing education as an important part of the job, that‟s what matters.” Or
as Grace put it: “teachers who like to teach are actually the good ones to go to blended
learning.” Marc agreed in saying that “those teachers [that apply blended learning] are
convinced of the importance of education, they see the relevance of education, and that they [the
teachers themselves] will benefit from it in their careers.”
 Journal Pre-proof

5.1.2 Student-centered pedagogical beliefs at the heart of the matter

More than half of the experts gave nuance to the general belief that education and teaching are
important from the perspective of the student. They mentioned the voice of the student
explicitly. As Grace put it:

And also, wanting to coach students matters. If you don't feel like coaching more,
guiding more, well yes, then it does not work. That [guiding and coaching more] is
actually the most important driver I notice among teachers to do blended learning.

William acknowledged addressing the students‟ perspective by stating that those teachers “want
to be more contemporary, want to activate students more, and want to do it in a different way.”

of
Alice mentioned this attribute from a constructivist perspective: “Those teachers [who
implement blended learning] have a kind of deeply felt constructivist attitude towards education

ro
and teaching”. Additionally, Charlotte summarized attribute 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 when being asked
what is important for blended learning adoption:
-p
The first aspect, you can call it educational beliefs or what they see as 'good education',
re
and then in fact you always need to have a new interpretation of what 'student-centered'
means. The second aspect is also listening to students, listening to students' voices.
lP

5.1.3 Realizing a need for change: the pedagogical wake-up call

The starting point of the blended learning implementation process was, according to the
na

majority of the experts, becoming aware of a pedagogical need for change. Simply having an
educational belief as described in the previous section, was not enough for successful
ur

implementation of blended learning. For example, Ferguson stated: “That particular teacher
[who adopted blended learning] realized through student feedback that something needed to
Jo

change. „I lost my students somehow and I wanted to change that‟ said a blended learning
teacher, and with that question he came to our department.” As Finn declared: “Those teachers
[who adopt blended learning] come to us and say „You see, I have a problem - I have too many
students, I have many large groups - and how can I activate those large groups more?‟” Frasier
concluded by describing “that type of teacher who adopts blended learning is a teacher who
actually collides with a number of boundaries, for example there must be in-class
differentiation, and says „I think we should find other ways to solve these problems here.‟”
Ferguson agreed as follows: “Yes, that teacher had sensed himself that something had to
change, yes, he really realized that something had to happen, and he himself had the idea of
trying something else, and thinking about 'how can I realize that‟?”
 Journal Pre-proof

A more detailed analysis of this attitude revealed insights in diverse pedagogical needs that act
as triggers for teachers to implement blended learning. Most experts described becoming aware
of student-oriented pedagogical needs for blended learning such as activating students in large
groups, dealing with diversity in heterogenous student groups, addressing problematic subjects
that many students struggle with, as main drivers for change. Another need to implement
blended learning was addressing the context and needs of international or working students. For
example, Finn stated: "We have a lot of subjects with many variations in student population and
big differences in students' prior cognitive abilities."

5.1.4 Daring to experiment (and fail)

of
According to the majority of the experts, blended learning implementation was undeniably
linked to the pedagogical use of technology. An important attitude concerning the use of

ro
technology for blended learning was described by more than half of the experts. This attitude is
summarized as „daring to experiment (and fail)‟. As Frasier described it: “You have those
-p
teachers who have an interest in everything that is new and fancy, who are driven by innovation
and always wanting to learn new things themselves.” In the words of Alice: “Those teachers
re
have a willingness, well yes, a curiosity to explore the affordances of technology for the
learning process.”
lP

According to the experts, experimenting with technologies in function of the learning process
also involved handling failure or perfectionism. For example Grace said that “What matters is a
na

healthy kind of urge to experiment, but also, when failing once in a while, or students complain,
do not panic immediately. Maybe perfectionism is not a good attribute to have to facilitate
ur

blended learning.” Agatha touched upon vulnerability when experimenting:

Yes, actually, it is about allowing a risk. A teacher pointed out there was a risk involved
Jo

but did not give in. Other teachers could have said „I don‟t ever do that again‟ after
failing. It is about openness to trying new things.

Harry summarized the attribute of daring to experiment and fail as follows: “I think a relevant
attribute for blended learning is wanting, or daring to experiment with tools, trying out new
things. And being able to cope with it if something does not work the first time.”

5.1.5 Daring to speak out: sharing needs and concerns

Another attribute described by more than half of the experts concerned communication. Agatha
stated: “I think communicating is very important, knowing from each other what happens. Yes,
also in relation to the people who have a supportive role. Transparency, what happens where?”
William expressed the importance of open communication: “We really appreciate when teachers
 Journal Pre-proof

come to us and dare to say „This example in your blended learning rubric, we cannot do that
yet.‟ That is exactly what we want to hear.” Grace agreed by stating:

Open communication, especially that. Because when someone says „I don‟t agree with
for example using modules or online assignments, I think that is nonsense‟, then you
have to be open about it. The discussion between those three teachers [who adopted
blended learning] would not have happened if they did not feel the openness to
communicate about it.

Although most experts mainly talked about communication with colleagues and, or
(project)leaders, Alice also mentioned the communication with students and mutual

of
understanding of different student perspectives:

In the end, the bottom line for e-learning and blended learning is whether or not you can

ro
establish that communication. And it is not about „I am for or against this or that‟. But
that you have a kind of respect for other perspectives, and also for the fact that you
-p
might not understand a certain perspective online. Sometimes, that [establishing
communication] is harder online.
re
5.1.6 Being able to critically self-reflect as a teacher
lP

Critical reflection on the own teaching practice was generally described as an important
attribute by almost all experts. For instance, Alice stated: "Teachers are able to ask themselves
na

'why do I react this way, what is my pedagogical intention here?', there is a kind of pedagogical
reasoning aspect involved." Finn also said:
ur

That teacher [who adopted blended learning] took a student evaluation as a starting
point where students said, 'we are not prepared well enough for the exam'. Based on that
Jo

he realized that his teaching style did not prepare the students enough, and started to
implement two-weekly exercises that students had to prepare online and were discussed
in real life contact sessions.

Marc explicitly identifies "being able to self-criticize and adjust your teaching methods if you
notice something is not working" as one of the most important teacher attributes for the
adoption of blended learning. Alice confirmed this competence by describing it as: "Teachers
who are able to ask themselves 'why do I react this way, what is my pedagogical intention
here?', there is a kind of pedagogical reasoning aspect involved." And Harry concluded:

Yes, I strongly believe that teachers who implement blended learning should be able
and willing to reflect on their own practice, being able to critically investigate their
 Journal Pre-proof

practice. Perhaps it‟s not so easy for everyone to let go of their assumptions, but I do
think that you can get everyone to take small steps in that process.

5.1.7 Connecting technology to learning processes: the creative professional

A relevant competence in relation to technology and blended learning is described by more than
half of the experts as “being able to connect those shiny or non-shiny tools to learning
processes” (Alice). The experts described a capacity to creatively connect ICT tools to learning
processes. Luke and Marc for instance, describe teachers who use the tool „Padlet‟ to enhance
discussions. Both emphasize that the tool as such is not the most important. What matters most
is the deliberate choice and the constructive alignment between learning outcomes, pedagogical

of
choices and creative use of the technology. This is shown in the following quote of Marc:

Padlet, what is that? How can we use that to enhance interaction and discussion? Where

ro
is the added value? Those teachers are able to integrate that tool in a meaningful way, so
that it can have added value. If they eventually choose Padlet, or GoogleDrive, or
-p
something else, that is not essential, it is essential that they think about what the added
value is.
re
Marc emphasized creativity in relation to tools and pedagogy as a very important for teachers:
lP

“Yes, they [teachers who adopt blended learning] see the added value of technology and realize
that creativity is important for the organization of your blended learning lesson.” Charlotte
described this attribute by saying that: “How do they see technology and a how do they know
na

how technology can serve for educational purposes. I would not say that technology has a
dominant role, but more how technology can play a facilitating role.” Finally, Travis described
ur

pedagogical creativity with ICT tools in terms of a blended learning „stream‟:

Jo

I notice with successful blended learning teachers, that they have a pedagogical stream,
a flow of learning activities with technology. They mix the right elements and the right
tools to a stream of activities they can easily follow. Some have a stream of interaction
with the students, they have a kind of story. Others choose for a series of online
assignments growing in complexity.

5.2 Maladaptive attributes

Four maladaptive attributes are perceived as hindering for the adoption of blended learning by
the experts. Table 3 presents an overview of the maladaptive attributes, grouped per expert,
followed by substantiating the findings.

Table 3 Overview maladaptive attributes

 Journal Pre-proof

Maladaptive attributes
Expert Prioritizing other tasks The teacher at the Blended or blurred Feeling anxious
over teaching epicenter learning: in need for about (the
a clear understanding implications of)
technology
Marc   
Luke 
Finn  
Frasier  
William 
Charlotte 
Alice    
Ferguson  

of
Agatha   
Grace 

ro
Travis 
Harry    
-p
re
5.2.1 Prioritizing other tasks over teaching

Teaching in higher education and especially in universities includes many different tasks and
lP

teacher roles. According to half of the experts - who were solely active in university contexts at
the time of the interview, the implementation process in universities is hindered by holding a
na

belief that education and teaching is less important than other job related tasks such as projects
or doing research. Expert Marc stated:
ur

You simply have a lot of teachers, professors who give priority to other job tasks that
deliver more immediate return such as projects, some even think teaching is a waste of
Jo

time, something that you unfortunately do in a hurry and in between other tasks.

Finn confirmed with a nuance on prioritizing research: “Teaching comes in second place, in
comparison to research. So it is publications, publications, publications. Seating in commissions
etc. that is perceived as priority, while teaching is not per se included in those activities,
research comes first.” Also Agatha stated: “Someone who believes that research is most
important, and teaching is just something that comes along, yes, such a person will not invest in
blended learning.” Finally, Harry added a nuance of uncertainty: “You have teachers who
simply say „we do research first‟", and they even don‟t feel so certain about their teaching,
especially when letting go of typical ex-cathedra teaching methods are involved.”
 Journal Pre-proof

5.2.2 The teacher at the epicenter

Half of the experts referred to the pedagogical belief that teaching is mainly considered as
teacher-centered as hindering for the adoption of blended learning. In other words, the
implementation of blended learning is hindered when teachers believe that teaching is mainly
distributing content, a kind of one-way traffic from teacher to students. As Harry said: “Some
[teachers] are purely focused on distributing content, very factual, while you have other teachers
[that implement blended learning] who are going to look more at the results they want to
achieve with students.” According to William, teachers “prefer mainly explaining content by
using PowerPoint presentations.” And Alice emphasized:

A type of teacher that thinks „When I have handled the content and I have showed that

of
[the learning content] in class, the students simply have to accept that [and do the

ro
learning by themselves]‟. Now, in blended learning settings, it does not quite work like
that, by saying „If I distribute this, then they must have understood it.‟
-p
5.2.3 Blended or blurred learning: in need for a clear understanding
re
More than half of the experts reported insufficient teacher knowledge and insights of the
pedagogical concept blended learning as a main barrier to successfully implement blended
lP

learning. Frasier and Travis commented on discussions with teachers on the clarity of the
concept of blended learning: “And then the discussion starts, „but what do you mean by blended
na

learning? And what do I have to do exactly?‟. Those are often heard questions.” In the words of
Ferguson: “In the beginning there was a lot of uncertainty about those concepts.” Charlotte
stated: "They don't know how easy or how difficult it is to apply blended learning, or stimulate
ur

learning online, or what technical solutions are in the learning environment. So that is certainly
one aspect [that plays a hindering role]." Alice confirmed with a link to a broader vision on
Jo

blended learning:

I see teachers who often actually don't know what it [blended learning] means. While
we know what the concept is, they [teachers] often don't know what it is, and what its
complexities are. I have never seen a decent definition of it in policies of organizations
[of blended learning].

According to the experts, the consequence is that teachers jump to conclusions or choose a
wrongly informed course of action. Marc stated:

Because yes, a wrong perception that I hear a lot is that people think that blended
learning is about integrating as many ICT tools as possible. I especially notice that when
people talk about blended learning, that they think it just involves placing learning
 Journal Pre-proof

content online. Or they say „Oh, blended learning? Then you will video record my two-
hour lectures?‟

Harry said:

There are those teachers who record their web lectures, put them online, and only say to
students „Go ahead now‟. Obviously, that does not work, and then they say that students
don‟t come to lectures anymore and exams are worse than before.

Finally, experts conclude that often teachers have more pragmatic reasons for adoption such as
creating more time for other tasks and projects (Marc). Or according to Harry: “Teachers are
confronted with a decrease in [teaching] time, so they decide to do it [the entire course] blended.

of
Then it will take less [teaching] time.” In William‟s words: "Teachers think they have to teach
less when applying blended learning, so in that way, they try to create more time for projects."

ro
5.2.4 Feeling anxious about (the implications of) technology
-p
Implementation of blended learning obviously involves the use of numerous possible
technologies, ranging from online learning environments to many external tools or social media.
re
According to more than half of the experts, adoption of blended learning is hindered by a
general anxiety towards technology, a fear of failing, and feelings of uncertainty. According to
lP

Finn: “Some teachers do not want certain things to be placed somewhere on a medium that they
don't know how long it will stay online. There is also a kind of anxiety of how they come across
na

on screen.”. Ferguson agreed:

Teachers may also be afraid of failure, I think that has something to do with it. Teachers
ur

still find the technical threshold to join too big. They then say 'I can try something, but
if something goes wrong, well, then I am the one in front of the class, I do not want to
Jo

be embarrassed in front of my students‟.

In Grace‟s words: “I have the feeling that people are afraid to open up their materials, are afraid
of not realizing their goals, afraid of not being able to handle all their content if they switch to
blended learning.” Harry and Agatha talked about uncertainty: “Of course, you never have
certainty, you can have anxiety that something might go wrong. It is actually about allowing
that uncertainty.” Frasier and Alice, on the other hand, referred to the implications of
technology towards central services or students. Frasier stated: “Central services had developed
a long blended learning checklist, and that scared people. Being faced with a three page
checklist that the course must meet, the enthusiasm was already sinking a lot.” Alice said:

So, some are more anxious online, more anxious to fail someone or not to honor their
agreements. Suppose someone [a student] put something important online, and you
 Journal Pre-proof

missed it? You didn‟t do anything about it? Of course, something can always happen
face-to-face as well, but then you can solve it more easily.”

6 Discussion

This study utilizes a holistic approach to identify related teacher attributes that contribute to or
hinder the implementation of blended learning. As Little‟s (2012) appeal for micro-process
research on how practice is meaningfully constructed, this study offers insights and in-depth
knowledge from experts about important teacher qualities and characteristics for blended
learning implementation. Two sets of related attributes emerged from the interviews. During
analysis of the data, relationships between the (sets of) attributes discerned. This section

of
therefore discusses the main findings from a relational perspective.

ro
6.1 Relationships between adaptive and maladaptive attributes
-p
Firstly, both the adaptive and maladaptive attributes in this study contain two distinctions in
teachers‟ pedagogical beliefs. According to Tondeur et al. (2017), Kim et al. (2013), and Brown
re
(2016), pedagogical beliefs critically inform teachers‟ practices and influence the integration of
technology in education. The first two adaptive attributes in this study, namely putting teaching
lP

and education at the center, and holding a student-centered view on teaching, acknowledge the
findings of Tondeur et al. (2017), Kim et al. (2013) and Brown (2016) in the specific context of
na

blended learning implementation in higher education. Since blended learning provides teachers
with opportunities to experiment with new teaching strategies and tools that engage students
ur

more (Vaughan, 2010), the first two adaptive attributes endorse the importance of a student-
centered pedagogical belief when implementing blended learning.
Jo

In contrast, according to the experts in this study, the first two maladaptive attributes
(prioritizing other tasks such as research or projects, and holding a teacher-centered pedagogical
belief) hinder adoption of blended learning. Studies such as Jonker et al. (2020) have argued
that teacher-centered teacher educators adopt technology less cohesively and therefore need
extra support. The results in this study extend the research of Jonker et al. (2020) to other
departments and faculties in higher education. It is worthwhile noting that all experts who were
solely active in a university teaching context at the time of the interviews acknowledged the first
maladaptive attribute “prioritizing other tasks over teaching”. It can be concluded that in the
area of pedagogical beliefs, adaptive and maladaptive attributes mirror one other and can be
regarded as two sides of the same coin.
 Journal Pre-proof

Secondly, implementing blended learning requires a clear understanding and sufficient

knowledge of the pedagogical concept (Ellis et al., 2006; Jonker et al., 2020). Surprisingly, a
clear understanding of blended learning was not expressed explicitly by the experts as an
adaptive attribute. Yet, this was mentioned as an important maladaptive attribute. It can be
assumed that experts automatically include a thorough understanding of the concept in the
adaptive attribute “being able to creatively connect tools to learning processes”. On the other
hand, the experts clearly perceive “having unclear view of blended learning” as a barrier to
implement blended learning. For example, Lai et al. (2018) state that blended learning often
includes the use of video and knowledge clips. Therefore, teachers may have the unclear view
that when integrating a video in their course, they implement blended learning. This is not

of
necessarily the case. An insufficient understanding of the concept of blended learning can lead
to jumping to conclusions.

ro
Thirdly, a major finding of this study addresses teachers‟ self-reflective competence as teachers.
-p
This adaptive attribute relates to the attitude of “realizing a pedagogical need”. Realizing a
pedagogical need for change agrees with the findings of Westbroek et al. (2019) who
re
investigated peer-reviewed articles on teachers as co-designers during a curriculum innovation.
Although the authors focus on collaborative curriculum design they state that “what ultimately
lP

motivated teachers to re-design their context was not a new scientific insight on how to do
things, but a deeply felt and experienced problem in their teaching practice” (Westbroek et al.,
na

2019, p. 43). Teacher reflection is particularly in line with Kearns (2016) who investigated the
impact of online teaching on faculty innovation, and acknowledged the importance of reflection
on practice in the process from moving face-to-face courses to online learning environments.
ur

While Philipsen et al. (2019) state that being able to self-reflect is important for every teacher,
the experts in the current study accentuated that teacher reflection is more critical when
Jo

implementing an innovation such as blended learning. The experts argued that applying blended
learning to meet diverse students‟ needs and demands provokes self-reflection as a teacher more
prominently. The attribute “being able to creatively connect tools to learning processes” could
be regarded as a competence that overarches all other adaptive attributes in this study: building
upon two distinctions in student-centered beliefs, three growth-oriented attitudes, and a capacity
for self-reflection, this competence comprises the other adaptive attributes.

Fourthly, the adaptive attribute “daring to experiment and fail” and “daring to speak out” relate
to the maladaptive attribute “being anxious about (the implications of) technology”. “Daring to
experiment and fail” is in line with the research of Martin et al. (2019) who associate the
willingness to experiment with award-winning online faculty teaching practices. Furthermore,
"daring to speak out” involves the courage to open up and is in line with Jonker et al. (2019)
 Journal Pre-proof

who investigated teacher design collaboration and endorsed open communication as a condition
for teacher collaboration. The aforementioned two adaptive attributes are mirrored by the
maladaptive attribute of having anxiety towards (the implications of) technology. A teacher who
dares to experiment with technology and does not give up after failing, has lower anxiety and is
more likely to be confident using technology (Howard, 2013). The maladaptive attribute of
being anxious about technology and its implications is confirmed by Johnson et al. (2012) who
adverted that technical anxiety can plague faculty throughout blending. Also, Howard (2013)
acknowledged that decisions to integrate technology are influenced by negative emotions about
technology.

of
6.2 Limitations and future research

This study also has its limitations. A first limitation concerns the methodological choice of

ro
expert interviews. Although expert interviews are considered a valid empirical method to reveal
-p
insider practical knowledge (Bogner et al., 2009; Bou et al., 2006; Van Audenhove & Donders,
2019), the main weakness of this method is that the experts express the perceptions of others.
re
Firsthand information of teachers themselves were not included in the data. Consequently, it can
be argued that the knowledge obtained from experts is not neutral. However, Van Audenhove
lP

and Donders (2019) assume that experts' knowledge can be generated reliably by using
interviews when carefully approached methodologically. Furthermore, experts tend to be
na

confident and open in their knowledge and opinions, when interviewed in an atmosphere of trust
(Bogner et al., 2009; Van Audenhove & Donders, 2019). The first author carefully addressed
these issues in a neutral way in order to improve reliability of the results. Yet, further research
ur

could add strength to these findings by means of firsthand teacher data. Investigation of
teachers‟ blended learning practices through stimulated recall interviews for example, can
Jo

validate or give nuance to the findings in this study.

Secondly, the teaching context and the culture of teaching impact teacher change (Fullan, 2014).
Although the experts acknowledged the importance of context, these results were not included
in this study. The context of the experts was examined during the sampling phase, but was not
further addressed, nor included during data analysis. Moreover, the sample was limited to
higher education in Flanders, Belgium, so the transfer of the results to higher education in other
countries must be approached with caution. Future research could focus more on the relation
between contextual or cultural complexities and the attributes from this study.

Next, the precise mental mechanisms behind the attribute “daring to experiment and fail” could
be another possible area for future research. Intrinsic motivation might also play an important
 Journal Pre-proof

role, but how motivation relates to these attributes remains to be elucidated. This would clearly
need further investigation, for example how the results of this study relate to the psychological
needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Future investigations could focus on the practical implications of these attributes for teacher
professional development initiatives. Questions such as “How can these results be translated
into professional development initiatives so that practice benefits from it?” or “What approaches
can contribute to help teachers shift from a general anxiety towards technology to a more
experimental teacher behavior?” could need further investigation.

6.3 Implications

of
Holistically, the findings of this study have a number of implications for practice. Since the

ro
current study provides insights into important teacher attributes when implementing blended
learning, organizations and practitioners concerned with the implementation of blended learning
-p
can benefit from the results in this study. Table 4 gives an overview of possible
recommendations for practice with the attributes clustered.
re
Table 4. Summary of findings and recommendations for practice
lP

Teacher attributes Recommendation

Teaching and education at the center Address pedagogical beliefs when organizing professional
Student-centered pedagogical beliefs at the heart development initiatives by including reflection questions on
teachers‟ pedagogical beliefs and convictions. Stimulate
na

of the matter
experimenting with new technologies and organize reflection
Prioritizing other tasks over teaching sessions after having applied a new blended learning approach.
The teacher at the epicenter
ur

Realizing a need for change: the pedagogical Encourage teachers to evaluate courses from a student
wake-up call perspective in order to become aware of pedagogical needs for
which blended learning might offer solutions.
Jo

Daring to experiment (and fail)
Being anxious about (the implications of)
technology
Daring to speak out: sharing needs and concerns
Being able to critically self-reflect as a teacher
Connecting technology to learning processes: the
creative professional
Blended or blurred learning: in need for a clear
understanding
Stimulate an organizational culture in which experimenting (and
failing) with technology is allowed. For example, organize
events where teachers can experiment with new technologies,
guided by experts (innovation labs, future classroom setup,
blended learning bootcamps etc.).
Invest in an organizational culture that builds on trust. Promote
sharing experiences in a safe environment.
Deliberately include teacher reflection activities during the
implementation process (by using guidelines for reflection and
reflection templates for example). Organize collegial
consultation sessions to share experiences and practices.
Invest in sharing best practices and blended learning toolkits that
demonstrate how technology deliberately contributes to learning
processes.
Invest in teacher professional development initiatives that
enhance insights in the multifaceted concept of blended learning,
including paying attention to practical examples (for example a
knowledgebase with best practices)
 Journal Pre-proof

7 Conclusion

The implementation of blended learning is a challenging process and is influenced by many

(f)actors. In any process of educational change, the teacher plays a pivotal role. This study was
conducted with the aim of investigating teacher attributes that contribute to, or hinder the
implementation of blended learning. Since experts are able to analyze deep structures of
complex practical problems and have more contextual process knowledge than teachers who
apply blended learning, a qualitative method of expert interviews was chosen. Twelve Flemish
blended learning experts in higher education perceived seven teacher attributes as key for
adoption of blended learning: (1) putting teaching and education at the center, (2) holding a

of
student-centered pedagogical belief, (3) realizing a pedagogical need for change, (4) daring to
experiment (and fail), (5) sharing needs and concerns, (6) being able to critically self-reflect as a

ro
teacher, and (7) being able to connect technologies to learning processes. According to the
experts, four teacher attributes hinder adoption of blended learning: (1) prioritizing other tasks
-p
over teaching, (2) holding a teacher-centered pedagogical belief, (3) having an unclear view on
blended learning, and (4) feeling anxious towards (the implications of) technology. Moreover,
re
the relationship between the adaptive and the maladaptive is an interesting result that provides
insights into how teachers can “shift” from rejection of blended learning to adoption. For
lP

example, overcoming anxiety for (the implications of) technology is a prerequisite to develop a
capacity of connecting online technologies to learning processes. Or, discussing the orientation
na

of a pedagogical belief with colleagues can stimulate becoming aware of a pedagogical need to
implement blended learning.
ur

8 Acknowledgment
Jo

This study was part of a VUB funded project “Blend the Future” that focused on the
implementation of a new learning environment in the VUB, and we would like to thank the
people who made this research possible.

9 Appendices

Appendix A. Interview guideline

Date: October 2018 - April 2019, between 39 and 86 min. p.p.

Materials: recording equipment + notebook.

Instruction beforehand through e-mail: You have experience with the implementation of
blended learning. Can you describe a practical situation that has been successful (or
 Journal Pre-proof

unsuccessful) for you in the field of blended learning in higher education? We can then use that
as a starting point for the interview. What was the need? How many teachers and department(s)
were involved? How did teachers approach and handle the process of implementation? What
was your role in the practical example?

Introduction: Interviewer shortly frames the main aim of the study and why we rely on their
expertise. Signing of the informed consent.

Can you briefly tell who you are, what background and / or expertise you have in blended
learning? As a preparation for this interview I asked you to shortly think about a successful (or
not) case of blended learning implementation. Were you able to think of such a case? Can you

of
describe it?

Guiding questions (Focus on leaving enough room for the experts to express freely and

ro
formulate longer answers. Experts do not like to be confined to restricted sets of questions.)

What made this case successful?

-p
How important was the role of the teacher in your case?
re
How did you notice the success of this case in the teachers' practice?
What exactly made those teachers successful in the blended learning course? And not a
lP

few others?
Which traits do you see with those teachers?
na

Were there also teachers who refused to accept blended learning? Why?
How did you pull the over the line? How did you solve that?
What specific knowledge did they need to improve?
ur

Which attitudes are typical for those teachers?

How do you ensure that teachers' attitudes change positively?
Jo

Which characteristics hinder implementation of blended learning?

What excuses do teachers sometimes make for not having to blend?
What role do teachers' beliefs play in implementing blended learning in their teaching
practice?

Closure: The interview recordings will be transcribed and analyzed, of course anonymously.
Did you have the feeling that you could describe everything as you wanted? Do you want to add
or nuance something?

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. We will inform you on the results.
 Journal Pre-proof

Appendix B. Final coding scheme

Table 2

Final coding scheme

Main category Code Description

Adaptive ADAPT_EduTeachCenter Experts express that having belief that education and
attributes teaching are important for higher education and
universities. Being concerned with education, teaching
and learning.

ADAPT_StudCenteredBelief Experts express as important: academic staff believes that

of
coaching students, meeting students, listening to and
respecting their voices, etc. is important.

ro
ADAPT_Needforchange Realizing a need for change; predisposition to start acting
with blended learning. Can be student-centered, or more
-p
practically oriented reasons.

ADAPT_DaringToExp Willingness to investigate and experiment with

re
technology. Daring to experiment with technology. This
also involves handling failure, continuing when
sometimes it doesn‟t work the first time.
lP

ADAPT_SharingNeedsConcerns Having an open attitude to dare talk about educational

practice.
na

ADAPT_Reflection Teachers are able to reflect on their teaching practice and

act upon it.
ur

Having the capacity to reflect on own teaching practice

with attention to relevant pedagogical knowledge. Being
Jo

able to reflect on 'what means good education' for my

students. Pedagogical reasoning on blended learning.

ADAPT_PedCreativityBL Capacity to connect technology and learning processes, in

function of blended learning (both F2F and online,
connecting the two) and thus being able to recognize/find
the added value of blended learning. Being creative in
technology usage in a clear and coherent project.

Maladaptive MALADAPT_PrioritizingOther Education and/or teaching are less important than other
attributes professional tasks such as projects/research etc.

MALADAPT_TeacherCentered Holding the pedagogical belief that teaching is less active,

mainly lecturing, distributing knowledge, “just giving”
PowerPoints etc.
 Journal Pre-proof

Main category Code Description

MALADAPT_UnclearViewBL The concept of blended learning is unclear, teaching staff

doesn‟t have a fine distinction of what the concept is.
What follows is jumping to conclusions.

MALADAPT_Anxiety General anxiety towards blended learning, failing with

technology, feelings of uncertainty, perfectionistic, fear of
failing.

10 References

of
Adekola, J., Dale, V. H., & Gardiner, K. (2017). Development of an institutional framework to

ro
guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. Research in

Learning Technology, 25. -p

Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three
re
different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4).

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality.

lP

Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater
na

reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597–606.

Babbie, E. R. (2013). The basics of social research. Cengage learning.

ur

Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V.
Jo

(2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. The New Media

Consortium.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers‟

professional identity. Teaching and teacher education, 20(2), 107–128.

Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended

learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001

Boelens, R., Van Laer, S., De Wever, B., & Elen, J. (2015). Blended learning in adult

education: Towards a definition of blended learning.

 Journal Pre-proof

Boelens, R., Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2018). The design of blended learning in response to

student diversity in higher education: Instructors‟ views and use of differentiated

instruction in blended learning. Computers & Education, 120, 197–212.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009

Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing experts. Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276

Bou, E., Sauquet, A., & Bonet, E. (2006). Understanding Expertise. The First International

Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities.

of
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by

ro
experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human

Behavior, 21(3), 487–508.

-p
Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on
re
instructors‟ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and
lP

Higher Education, 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001

Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Examining facilitators‟ habits of mind in an asynchronous
na

online discussion environment: A two cases study. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1106

ur

Chi, M. T. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts‟ characteristics. The Cambridge
Jo

handbook of expertise and expert performance, 21–30.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An

exploration of teachers‟ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218–

232. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000152

Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning:

The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational

Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

 Journal Pre-proof

Ellis, R. A., Steed, A. F., & Applebee, A. C. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning,

blended teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 22(3).

Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2008). Theories of personality. McGraw-Hill.

Fullan, M. (2014). Teacher development and educational change. Routledge.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Red.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change.

Falmer Press.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with

of
blended learning innovation: Two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 18,

ro
24–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.001
-p
Gerbic, P. (2011). Teaching using a blended approach–what does the literature tell us?

Educational Media International, 48(3), 221–234.

re
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption
lP

and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher

Education, 18, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003

na

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching,

8(3), 381–391.
ur

Han, F., & Ellis, R. A. (2019). Identifying consistent patterns of quality learning discussions in
Jo

blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 40, 12–19.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.09.002

Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers‟ resistance to technology

integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357–372.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802995

Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Teachers: Technology, change and resistance. Teaching

and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions, 307–317.

Hrastinski, S. (2019). What Do We Mean by Blended Learning? TechTrends, 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
 Journal Pre-proof

Johnson, T., Wisniewski, M. A., Kuhlemeyer, G., Isaacs, G., & Krzykowski, J. (2012).

Technology adoption in higher education: Overcoming anxiety through faculty

bootcamp. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 63–72.

Jonker, H., März, V., & Voogt, J. (2018). Teacher educators‟ professional identity under

construction: The transition from teaching face-to-face to a blended curriculum.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 120–133.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.016

Jonker, H., März, V., & Voogt, J. (2019). Collaboration in teacher design teams: Untangling the

of
relationship between experiences of the collaboration process and perceptions of the

ro
redesigned curriculum. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 138–149.
-p
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.010

Jonker, H., März, V., & Voogt, J. (2020). Curriculum flexibility in a blended curriculum.
re
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Advance online publication.
lP

Kearns, L. R. (2016). The experience of teaching online and its impact on faculty innovation

across delivery methods. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 71–78.
na

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.005

Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
ur

technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.

Jo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic

approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002

Lai, H.-M., Hsiao, Y.-L., & Hsieh, P.-J. (2018). The role of motivation, ability, and opportunity

in university teachers‟ continuance use intention for flipped teaching. Computers &

Education, 124, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.013

 Journal Pre-proof

Littig, B. (2011). Expert Interviews. In B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser, & L. Morlino (Red.),

International Encyclopedia of Political Science (Vol. 5, pp. 1343–1346). Sage.

https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/2443/

Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of

micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.

López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in

higher education: Students‟ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers &

education, 56(3), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023

of
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online

ro
teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The
-p
Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory

re
perspective. Guilford Press.
lP

Mestan, K. (2019). Create a fine blend: An examination of institutional transition to blended

learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1).

na

https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3216

Meyer, K. A., & Xu, Y. J. (2009). A Causal Model of Factors Influencing Faculty Use of
ur

Technology. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 57–70.

Jo

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Huberman, M. A., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data

analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for

establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of

qualitative methods, 1(2), 13–22.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The

Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001

 Journal Pre-proof

Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J., & Lupshenyuk, D. (2008). Blended teacher professional

development: A synthesis of three program evaluations. The Internet and Higher

Education, 11(3), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.07.003

Owston, R., & York, D. N. (2018). The nagging question when designing blended courses:

Does the proportion of time devoted to online activities matter? The Internet and

Higher Education, 36, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.001

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed). Sage Publications.

Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Roblin, N. P., Vanslambrouck, S., & Zhu, C. (2019). Improving

of
teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-

ro
aggregative review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–30.
-p
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8

Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R. G., & Sandberg, D. S. (2016). A qualitative analysis
re
of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education.
lP

The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 17–27.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
na

Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional

development on higher education teachers‟ beliefs and intentions towards learning

ur

facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122–131.

Jo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.002

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Saunders, R. (2013). The role of teacher emotions in change: Experiences, patterns and

implications for professional development. Journal of Educational Change, 14(3), 303–

333.

Smuts, J. C. (1926). Holism and evolution. Рипол Классик.

 Journal Pre-proof

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of

mixed methods research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.

American journal of evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2008). Teacher professional learning and

development.

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the

of
relationship between teachers‟ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A

ro
systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and

Development.
-p
Tsankov, N., & Damyanov, I. (2017). Education majors‟ preferences on the functionalities of e-
re
learning platforms in the context of blended learning. International Journal of
lP

Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 12(05), 202–209.

Van Audenhove, L., & Donders, K. (2019). Expert interviews and elite interviews. In H. Van
na

den Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, & L. Van Audenhove (Eds). Handbook of Media

Policy Methods (pp. 179–197). Palgrave MacMillan.

ur

Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Lombaerts, K., Philipsen, B., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Students‟
Jo

motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning

environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33–40.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.002

Vaughan, N. D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student

engagement and course redesign. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 60–65.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.007

Wang, Q., Huang, C., & Quek, C. L. (2018). Students‟ perspectives on the design and

implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment. Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology, 34(1).

 Journal Pre-proof

Westbroek, H., de Vries, B., Walraven, A., Handelzalts, A., & McKenney, S. (2019). Teachers

as Co-designers: Scientific and Colloquial Evidence on Teacher Professional

Development and Curriculum Innovation. In Collaborative Curriculum Design for

Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning (pp. 35–54). Springer.

Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum

studies, 33(1), 75–88.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers

questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom (1st ed).

of
Jossey-Bass.

ro
Zaccaro, S. J., Dubrow, S., & Kolze, M. (2018). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis &
D. V. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership (p. 29–55). Sage Publications, Inc.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Highlights

 Two sets of related teacher attributes critically influence blended learning

implementation in higher education
 Implementation of blended learning starts with realizing a pedagogical need for
change.
 Being able to creatively connect technologies to learning processes is essential.
 A clear understanding of the pedagogical concept blended learning is a
prerequisite.
 Though challenging, expert interviews reveal rich process knowledge that has

of
the power to produce practical effect.

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 1. Experts and their BL role

Experta Background Role

Marc PhD Educational Sciences and Educational advisor and designer, project leader
Innovation
Luke MSc Educational Sciences Curriculum and instructional designer, policymaker
and implementer of educational technology
Finn MSc Communication Sciences Advisor technology enhanced teaching and
learning
Frasier MSc Psychology and Educational Director teacher training institute
Sciences
William MSc Educational Sciences, E-learning Head of research on educational innovation

of
Charlotte PhD Educational Sciences Professor in e-learning design and educational

ro
technology
Alice PhD Educational Instructional Associate lecturer and researcher in educational
Technology technology
-p
Ferguson Higher professional education Project leader E-learning in higher education
Technology enhanced learning
re
Agatha PhD Educational Sciences Researcher in instructional psychology and
technology
lP

Grace PhD Educational Sciences Project leader educational technology

Travis MSc Computer Engineering + Educational advisor blended learning
na

certificate Educational Technology

Harry MSc Instructional and Educational Instructional developer and researcher
Sciences
ur

a
All names are pseudonyms
Jo

Table 2 Overview adaptive attributes

Adaptive attributes
Expert Teaching Student- Realizing a Daring to Daring to Being able Connecting
and centered need for experiment speak out: to critically technologies
education pedagogical change: the (and fail) sharing self-reflect to learning
at the beliefs at pedagogical needs and as a teacher processes:
center the heart of wake-up concerns the creative
the matter call professional

Marc       
Luke   
Finn     
Frasier    
William    
 Journal Pre-proof

Charlotte     
Alice      
Ferguson    
Agatha     
Grace      
Travis     
Harry      

Table 3 Overview maladaptive attributes

of
Maladaptive attributes
Expert Prioritizing other tasks The teacher at the Blended or blurred Feeling anxious

ro
over teaching epicenter learning: in need for about (the
a clear understanding implications of)
-p technology
Marc   
Luke 
re
Finn  
Frasier  
lP

William 
Charlotte 
Alice    
na

Ferguson  
Agatha   
Grace 
ur

Travis 
Harry    
Jo

Table 4. Summary of findings and recommendations for practice

Attributes
Teaching and education at the center
Student-centered pedagogical beliefs at the heart
of the matter
Prioritizing other tasks over teaching
The teacher at the epicenter
Recommendation
Address pedagogical beliefs when organizing professional
development initiatives by including reflection questions on
teachers‟ pedagogical beliefs and convictions. Emphasize the
non-judgmental character of this professional dialogue.
Stimulate experimenting with new technologies and organize
reflection sessions after having applied a new BL approach.

Realizing a need for change: the pedagogical
wake-up call
Daring to experiment (and fail)
Being anxious about (the implications of)
Encourage teachers to evaluate courses from student learning
perspective in order to become aware of pedagogical needs for
which BL might offer solutions.
Stimulate an organizational culture in which experimenting (and
failing) with technology is allowed. For example, organize
events where teachers can experiment with new technologies,
 Journal Pre-proof

technology guided by experts (innovation labs, future classroom setup, BL

Daring to speak out: sharing needs and concerns
Being able to critically self-reflect as a teacher
Connecting technology to learning processes: the
creative professional
Blended or blurred learning: in need for a clear
bootcamps etc.).
Invest in an organizational culture that builds on trust. Promote
sharing experiences in a safe environment without judging.
Practitioners involved with BL implementation can
communicate openly themselves, and show authentic
understanding of different points of view.
Deliberately include teacher reflection activities during the
implementation process (by using guidelines for reflection and
reflection templates for example). Organize collegial
consultation sessions to share experiences and practices.
Invest in sharing best practices and BL toolkits that demonstrate
how technology deliberately contributes to learning processes.
Focus primarily on the added value of the technology to the
learning process instead of mere technological usage guidelines.
Invest in teacher professional development initiatives that

of
understanding enhance insights in the multifaceted concept of BL, including
paying attention to practical examples (for example a
knowledgebase on BL with best practices)

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Bram Bruggeman is a PhD candidate at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). He has a
background as a teacher computer sciences, a teacher educator and a trainer/school adviser on
educational innovation. His research interests are in educational innovations in higher education
(mainly online and blended learning) from a mental teacher resource perspective.

Jo Tondeur is a professor at VUB and he is also affiliated as a guest professor at Ghent

University, Belgium. His research is situated within the field of educational innovations. Most
of his research focuses on the integrated use of ICT in preservice teacher training and in
compulsory education, and online and blended learning in higher education.

of
Katrien Struyven is an associate professor at Hasselt University (UHasselt), School of
Educational Studies and VUB, Educational Sciences Department. Her research focuses on

ro
instructional methods (differentiated instruction methods, blended learning, PAL, student-
activating teaching methods, case-based learning, PBL) and assessment (portfolio, peer
-p
assessment, feedback).
re
Bram Pynoo is a researcher and pedagogical collaborator at the teacher training department of
the VUB and researcher in the Centre of Expertise on Social Innovation in UC VIVES. His
lP

research interests concern blended learning, educational technology, technology acceptance and
community service learning.
na

Anja Garone is a PhD candidate at the VUB. Her research interests are in professional
development in higher education in the context of blended learning.
ur

Silke Vanslambrouck obtained her PhD in Educational Sciences at the VUB and is currently a
collaborator for educational development at the Department of Quality Assurance and
Jo

Innovation and a pedagogical collaborator at the Department of Educational Sciences. Her

research interests concern blended learning, adult education, motivation and self-regulation.

Address for correspondence: Bram Bruggeman, Multidisciplinary Institute for Teacher

Education, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 9, 1050 Brussels, Belgium

Email: bram.bruggeman@vub.be