User:Nelliemuller/Research/Chapter1

=CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION= Blended learning courses can potentially transform the way teachers teach and students learn (Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Graham & Robison, 2007; Owston, Garrison, & Cook, 2006; Stensaker, Maassen, Borgan, Oftebro, & Karseth, 2007; Vaughan, 2007, 2010; Zhen, Garthwait, & Pratt, 2008). Effective implementation of technology in blended learning courses require administrators and instructors to collaborate (Akyol, Garrison, & Ozden, 2009; Donnelly, 2010; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Gillard, Bailey, & Nolan, 2008; Hilty, Benjamin, Briscoe, Hales, Boland, Luo, et al., 2006; Lester & Evans, 2009; Stensaker et al., 2007). Administrators should consider instructors’ experiences with blended learning and attitudes and beliefs about the use of technology when developing training programs on the use of technology for instruction and learning (Del Favero & Hinson, 2007; Donnelly, 2010; Ertmer, 2005; Keengwe, 2007; Ma, Lai, Willams, Prejean, & Ford, 2008; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; West, Waddoups, & Graham, 2007; Zhen et al., 2008). The experiences instructors had with blended learning in institutes of higher education may affect the implementation of technology and student learning performance (Conceicao, 2006; Del Favero & Hinson, 2007; Donnelly, 2010; Ertmer, 2005; Harrington, Staffa, & Wright, 2006; Keengwe, 2007; Ma et al., 2008; Wasilik & Bolliger, 2009; West et al., 2007).

Chapter 1 provides a background to the qualitative phenomenological study on the experiences instructors had implementing technology into blended learning courses in campus-based institutions of higher education around the world. The chapter includes a general and specific problem statement, the purpose and significance of the study, and an outline of the nature of the study. Chapter 1 also presents the research question; the preferred method of research for the study; the scope, limitations, and delimitations of the study; theoretical framework; and definitions of key terms.

Background of the Problem
The Internet and technological tools are providing innovative ways for teachers to teach and students to learn (Fillion, Limayem, Laferriere, & Mantha, 2009; Graham & Robison, 2007; Moore, M. C., 2006; Schmid, Lowerison, Abrami, & Dehler, 2009; Wang, 2007). The use of technology and online blended learning environments are enabling students to acquire information and become active lifelong learners (Brown, Smith, & Henderson, 2007; Fillion et al., 2009; Graham & Robison, 2007; Groff & Mouza, 2008; Owston et al., 2006; Schmid et al., 2009). Learning has become flexible without the physical limitation of the brick and mortar classroom environment (Donnelly, 2010; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Graham & Robison, 2007; Owston et al., 2006). The ability to access information online at any time or place has turned the focus from teacher teaching to student learning (Fillion et al., 2009; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Kolb & Stuart, 2005; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006).

Technology can be useful in improving instruction and learning (Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Donnelly, 2010; Eynon, 2008; Fillion et al., 2009; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Gillard et al., 2008; Morote, Wittmann, & Kelly, 2007; Nora & Snyder, 2008; Nworie, 2007; Owston et al., 2006; Price & Kirkwood, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Vignare, 2007). Administrators in campus-based institutions of higher education are expected to provide e-learning and blended learning courses to meet the demands of the 21st century learner around the world (Donnelly, 2010; Eynon, 2008; Gillard et al., 2008; Mars & Ginter, 2007; Mortera-Gutierrez, 2006; Owston et al., 2006; Vignare, 2007). The blended learning method of combining face-to-face and online learning has gained popularity as the best model for instruction and learning in higher education (Akyol et al., 2009; Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Donnelly, 2010; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Larson & Sung, 2009; Mortera-Gutierrez, 2006; Owston et al., 2006; Precel, Eshet-Alkalai, & Alberton, 2009; Tang & Byrne, 2007; Vaughan, 2007; Vignare, 2007).

Competition in international markets, budget cuts, and student demand for flexible learning are driving organizational leaders in institutions of higher education to focus on technology as a way to improve instruction and student learning worldwide (Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Donnelly, 2010; Eynon, 2008; Nora & Synder, 2008; Price & Kirkwood, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Turney, Robinson, Lee, & Soutar, 2009). National and international competition for student enrollment is forcing administrators in institutions of higher education to consider the use of the Internet and technological tools for instruction and learning (Eynon, 2008; Fox, 2007; Sitzmann et al., 2006; Wang, 2007). Students, who use the Internet and technology for communication, entertainment, and collaborative learning, express dissatisfaction with the traditional face-to-face lecture format (Conole, de Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2006; Donnelly, 2010; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Vignare, 2007; Wang, 2007; Wuensch, Azia, Ozan, Kishore, & Tabrizi, 2007). Students expect faculty to use technology and engage learners in the process of learning both online and in the traditional face-to-face classroom (Donnelly, 2010; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Markey, Holmes, Edgar, & Schmidt, 2007; Jiang, Parent, & Eastmond, 2006; Shemla & Nachmias, 2007; Vignare, 2007).

According to Allen and Seaman (2007b), there is a "9.7 percent growth rate for online enrollments [that] far exceeds the 1.5 percent growth of the overall higher education student population" (p. 1). The growing popularity of online and blended learning courses in higher education is placing pressure on faculty to combine face-to-face or traditional means of instruction with e-learning into the curriculum (Eynon, 2008; Goolnik, 2006; Moore, M. C., 2006; Roberts, 2008; Strickland & Butler, 2005; Tang & Byrne, 2007). The blended learning format has gained popularity as the best way to combine e-learning and face-to-face means of delivery (Akyol et al., 2009; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Tang & Byrne, 2007; Vignare, 2007).

Blended learning courses are gaining popularity with students and institutions around the world (Goolnik, 2006; Moore, M. C., 2006; Roberts, 2008; Strickland & Butler, 2005; Tang & Byrne, 2007). With student demand for improved face-to-face learning and online classes, administrators and students in higher education expect faculty to adopt technology and teach blended learning courses. Blended learning courses combine the best of the traditional face-to-face and e-learning methods of instruction and learning (Akyol et al., 2009; Del Favero & Hinson, 2007; Gillard et al., 2008; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Liu & Szabo, 2009; Mars & Ginter, 2007; Osika, Johnson, & Buteau, 2009; Smith & Kurthen, 2007; Stensaker et al., 2007).

Organizational leaders measure the effectiveness of blended learning courses by “course completion rates, program completion, and graduation” (Vignare, 2007, p. 41). The rate of students completing online courses is higher in e-learning and blended learning courses than in traditional learning programs (Allen & Seaman, 2007a; Vignare, 2007). Student satisfaction with blended learning course delivery also appears to be greater than in separate online or face-to-face classrooms (Tang & Byrne, 2007). Administrators in institutions of higher education expect instructors to implement blended learning courses without understanding instructor attitude toward technology (Donnelly, 2010; Ertmer, 2005; Eynon, 2008; Ma et al., 2008; Mars & Ginter, 2007; Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008). Instructor beliefs and attitudes toward the use of technology for instruction and learning may be “the final barrier that prevents technology integration” (Ma et al., 2008, p. 411). Positive experiences may motivate instructors to implement technology, while negative experiences may deter faculty members from adopting technology for instruction and learning in future courses (Donnelly, 2010; Eynon, 2008; Gillard et al., 2008; Harrington et al., 2006; Hilty et al., 2006; Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008; Zhao, Rosson, & Purao, 2007; Vignare, 2007).

Understanding instructors’ experiences with technology as an instructional tool for facilitating instruction and learning is important to implementing technology (Conceicao, 2006; Donnelly, 2010; Groff & Mouza, 2008; Hsieh, 2010; Judge & O’Bannon, 2008; Kim, Chun & Song, 2009; Lareki, de Morentin, & Amenabar, 2010; Liu & Szabo, 2009; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; Rogers, 2003; Swain, 2005; Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008; Teo, Lee, & Chai, 2008; Zhao et al., 2007). According to Roger’s innovation-decision-making process (Rogers, 2003), the “decision to adopt or reject a new idea is often not the terminal stage” (p. 189). Even after implementing technology, instructors may discontinue the practice if conflicts arise (Rogers, 2003). Designers of professional development programs should consider instructors’ experiences with implementing technology in blended learning courses (Donnelly, 2010; Lareki et al., 2010; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; Zhao et al., 2007; Vignare, 2007).

Instructors may need to learn how to restructure courses for the online and face-to-face parts of the blended learning course (Donnelly, 2010; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Hilty et al., 2006; Kaleta, Skibba, & Joosten, 2007; Montera-Gutierrez, 2006; Owston et al., 2006; Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, & Veen, 2008; Vignare, 2007; West et al., 2007; Wrench, Hayslett, Schweizer & O’Sullivan, 2010). Faculty members may find blended learning and integrating technology into the classroom challenging (Cooner, 2010; Donnelly, 2010; Groff & Mouza, 2008; Judge & O’Bannon, 2008; Kaleta et al., 2007; Owston et al., 2006; Vaughan, 2010; Verkroost et al., 2007; Vignare, 2007, Wrench et al., 2010). Administrators at institutions of higher education recognize the importance of professional development and training programs, technical support, and incentives for faculty to facilitate the process of implementing technology effectively for instruction and learning (Donnelly, 2010; Hsieh, 2010; Kaleta et al., 2007; Lareki et al., 2010; Murdock, 2006; Vignare, 2007). Instructors’ experiences with the use of technology for instruction and learning affect the implementation process (Brill & Galloway, 2007; Del Favero & Hinson, 2007; Donnelly, 2010; Lareki et al., 2010; Keengwe, 2007; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; Murdock, 2006; Rogers, 2003; Zhen et al., 2008) and student satisfaction (Vignare, 2007). Understanding instructors’ experiences with technology in blended learning courses may benefit administrators, program leaders, and course developers when creating professional development programs (Brooks, 2008; Donnelly, 2010; Lareki et al., 2010; Kaleta, et al., 2007; Nydon, 2006).

Problem Statement
The general problem is the increasing pressure placed on organizational leaders in institutions of higher education to improve instruction and learning and cater to student needs (Donnelly, 2010; Eynon, 2008; Fox, 2007; Gillard et al., 2008; Mars & Ginter, 2007; Morote et al., 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2008; Vignare, 2007). Students expect instructors at institutions of higher education to use online learning for instruction because students (a) use the Internet regularly (Connelly, 2010; Wuensch et al., 2007) and (b) work full time (Allen & Seaman, 2007a; Vignare, 2007). “Seventy-five percent of all students in higher education. . . work full-time” and expect online means of delivery of the courses (Vignare, 2007, p. 39).

With student demand for blended and e-learning courses, administrators in higher education expect faculty to adopt technology and teach blended learning courses. The specific problem is that administrators in institutions of higher education require faculty to teach blended learning courses without fully understanding the experiences instructors have had implementing technology in campus-based blended learning courses worldwide (Donnelly, 2010; Groff & Mouza, 2008; Judge & O’Bannon, 2008; Lareki et al., 2010; Swain, 2005; Vignare, 2007). Not having a clear understanding of the experiences instructors had implementing technology in blended learning courses may lead to developing inappropriate professional training programs, ineffective use of technology, or to instructor disuse of technology in the future (Donnelly, 2010; Georgina & Hosford, 2008; Georgina & Olson, 2008; Lareki et al., 2010; Rogers, 2003; Vaughan, 2010; Vignare, 2007). The current qualitative phenomenological study addressed the problem by exploring instructors’ experiences with implementing technology in blended learning courses in higher education.

Purpose of the Study
Exploring instructors’ experiences with technology in blended learning courses may benefit administrators, program leaders, and course developers when creating professional development programs (Donnelly, 2010; Lareki et al., 2010; Kaleta et al., 2007). The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to explore the experiences instructors had implementing technology in blended learning courses in campus-based institutions of higher education worldwide. A qualitative methodology was appropriate for the study because a qualitative research design could provide an inquiry-based approach for a deeper understanding of the experiences of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2005; Moustakas, 1990, 1994; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003; Patton, 2002; Shank 2006; van Manen, 1990, 2002).

The phenomenological study applied a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1994) by choosing to interview 20 instructors or up to the point of saturation of responses. The goal of the phenomenological research design was to explore the instructors' innermost feelings and viewpoints concerning the implementation of technology in blended learning courses. A modified van Kaam research design was able to identify the “underlying meanings” in the participants’ experiences with technology in blended learning courses worldwide (p. 18). The themes that emerged may provide administrators and instructional designers with information for professional development courses.

Significance of the Study
Administrators at institutions of higher education believe that providing e-learning and blended learning courses is cost effective and critical to the future of the institution (Donnelly, 2010; Vignare, 2007). Learning about instructors’ experiences with implementation of technology in blended learning courses in campus-based institutions of higher education may contribute to the improvement of instruction and student learning (Groff & Mouza, 2008; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; Teo et al., 2008; Turney et al., 2009; Vaughan, 2010). Instructors’ experiences with technology for instruction and learning may affect student performance (Keengwe, 2007; Kim et al., 2009; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; West et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2007) because instructors carry weight in the success of e-learning programs (Fox, 2007; Meletiou-Mavrotheris & Mavrotheris, 2007; Woods, Badzinski, & Baker, 2007). Exploring instructors’ previous experiences with technology in blended learning courses may determine future adoption of the tools (Zhao et al., 2007). Understanding instructors’ experiences with technology may provide information on how to (a) prepare professional development courses, (b) teach blended learning courses, and (c) provide support for instructors in institutions of higher education (Fox, 2007; Zhao et al., 2007).

Administrators, curriculum specialists, course designers, and change agents in institutions of higher education may benefit from knowing about the experiences instructors had with technology in blended learning courses worldwide. The significance of the study may come from the participants’ reflections of the experiences encountered while implementing technology in blended learning courses for instruction and learning (Eynon, 2008; Friesen, 2009; Hsieh, 2010; Zhao et al., 2007).

The research is significant to leadership because the study may provide organizational leaders of institutions of higher education with information on best practices to prepare and empower faculty to implement technology. The participants also had the opportunity to reflect on the use of technology as an effective tool for instruction and learning and take on new leadership roles of “facilitator, instructional designer, community builder, time-manager, and even technology troubleshooter” (Zhao, 2007, p. 118). The study may contribute to current and future knowledge for educators on best practices in preparing professional development programs on the use of technology for instruction and learning.

Nature of the Study
The data provided reflections of instructors' experiences while implementing technology in the blended learning environment. A phenomenological, qualitative approach provides a systematic means of developing the interviews, collecting and analyzing the data, and reporting the experiences (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003; van Manen, 1990). In a phenomenological research study, the interviews focus on people's innermost feelings and viewpoints concerning a phenomenon (Creswell, 2005; Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003; van Manen, 1990, 2002). A phenomenological research method helped develop an in-depth exploration (Creswell, 2005; Moustakas, 1994; van Manen, 1990, 2002) of the challenges instructors face while implementing e-learning technology in blended learning courses.

A qualitative research methodology was appropriate for this study because the method allowed for (a) a purposeful selection of participants, (b) personal and professional exploration of experiences and views, (c) the use of broad general questions, and (d) the researcher to remain visible and biased (Creswell, 2005; Patton, 2002; van Manen, 1990). The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to explore the experiences instructors had implementing technology in blended learning courses in campus-based institutions of higher education worldwide. A qualitative phenomenological design method enabled a closer look at instructors' personal and professional experiences with technology for instruction and learning. The design method provided "in-depth interviewing (usually conversational rather than structured)" (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, p. 152). A qualitative approach was appropriate because it allowed for an exploration of individual experiences when information was not available (Broussard, 2006; Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002; van Manen, 1990).

The phenomenological study applied a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1994) by choosing to interview 20 instructors or until reaching the saturation of responses. The population was a purposeful sample of instructors who had implemented technology in blended learning in campus-based institutes of higher education worldwide. In purposeful sampling, the selection is intentional because the participants have the information and can clarify the phenomenon (Creswell, 2005; Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002; van Manen, 1990).

A quantitative design was inappropriate for this study because quantitative methods quantify, predict, or compare data (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002). In quantitative studies, information is gleaned via surveys for the purpose of comparing data and showing a relationship among variables (Creswell, 2005: Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002). In a qualitative study, the interview is the instrument and the interviewer is the design (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002). Patton (2002) suggested a brief report of the researcher’s background and connection to the study with “experience, training, and perspective” may be helpful for validity of the data collection and analysis (p. 566). According to Moustakas (1994), “The interviewer is responsible for creating a climate in which the research participant will feel comfortable and will respond honestly and comprehensively” (p. 114).

The current studies on blended learning relate to "product utility, cost effectiveness and learner satisfaction" (Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig, 2006, p. 209), but do not focus on instructor experiences with implementing technology in blended learning courses (Kaleta et al., 2007; Power, 2008). Studies are not available on “the role for technology in the blended learning environment” (Dziuban et al., 2007, p. 284) and on instructors' experiences with technology for instruction and learning (Kurtz, Oved, Rosenberg, & Neuthal, 2007; Power, 2008; Ruiz et al., 2006). Beliefs and experiences with teaching and learning with technology in blending learning courses may influence instructors’ means of delivery (Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008; Mitchell & Honore, 2007), best practices, and motivation to teach (Klein, Noe, & Wang, 2006). Few studies are available on instructors' experiences with implementing technology in blended learning courses (Bain & McNaught, 2006; Brooks, 2008; Ertmer, 2005; Levin & Wadmany, 2006; McAlpine, Weston, Berthiaume, & Fairbank-Roch, 2006).

Research Questions
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to explore the experiences instructors had implementing technology in blended learning courses in campus-based institutions of higher education worldwide. A purposive sampling approach was used to select 20 instructors or until saturation of responses was achieved according to the modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1994). The research questions involved participants reconstructing the experiences they had implementing technology in blended learning courses (see Appendix A). The instructors were familiar with many of the terms because they had taught blended learning courses in campus-based institutions of higher education. For clarifications of terms, participants received definitions of e-learning, face-to-face lessons, blended learning, and implementing technology at the beginning of the individual interviews.

The research questions in a phenomenological study have “both social meaning and personal significance” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 104). A conversational and relaxed manner characterized the interview (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002) with open-ended questions because the questions allow for an in-depth exploration of experiences (Creswell, 2005; Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002). In a qualitative phenomenological study, one main question may guide the research by (a) revealing the “meanings of human experiences,” (b) uncovering “the qualitative rather than the quantitative factors in behavior and experiences,” (c) engaging “the total self of the research participant,” and (d) illuminating “vivid and accurate rendering of the experience, rather than measurements” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 105).

The main question that guided the study was: What experiences did instructors have in implementing technology in blended learning courses? The main research question guided the instructors to describe the experience of implementing technology in blended learning courses in campus-based institutes of higher education. The interview resembled “a social conversation or a brief meditative activity aimed at creating a relaxed and trusting atmosphere” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 114) that included a battery of questions to support the main question (see Appendix A).

Theoretical Framework
Faculty members who teach blended learning courses may face technical, pedagogical, organizational, and personal challenges that may affect instructors' motivation to implement and effectively use technological tools (Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Cooner, 2010; Davidovitch, 2007; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Knowles, 2007; Meloncon, 2007; Vaughan, 2010; Wrench et al., 2010), student satisfaction, and student learning performance (Cooner, 2010; Donnelly, 2010; Ertmer, 2005; Wasilik & Bolliger, 2009). Numerous research studies on e-learning and blended learning courses recommend faculty professional development programs on how to use technology effectively in order to raise student motivation and learning performance (Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Cooner, 2010; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Goolnik, 2006; Graham & Robison, 2007; Keengwe, 2007; Klein et al., 2006; Sitzmann et al., 2006; Vaughan, 2010; Wrench et al., 2010). Blended learning demands effective use of technology and the need for instructors to change from a content lecturer to a blended learning facilitator with the aim of engaging learners (Allan & Clarke, 2007; Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Graham & Robison, 2007; Keengwe, 2007, Vaughan, 2010; Wrench et al., 2010).

Implementing technology for instruction and learning involves a transformation of students’ learning and instructors’ methods of teaching (Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, & Francis, 2006; Vaughan, 2007, 2010; Wrench et al., 2010). The theoretical framework for the qualitative phenomenological study followed constructivist (Vygotsky, 1978) and experiential approaches to learning process (Dewey, 1938). The two learning approaches align with blended learning and frame assumptions, design method, and understanding of the experiences instructors had implementing technology in blended learning courses (Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Sharp et al., 2006).

Constructivist Approach to Learning
Learning is not an isolated event, but a continuous experience with social and cultural real world ramifications as suggested by a constructivist approach to learning (Choi & Johnson, 2005; Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Motschnig-Pitrik & Santos, 2006; Papastergiou, 2006). Constructivists focus on social cognitive development that may align with the use of technology courseware such as course management systems (CMS) for online learning (Papastergiou, 2006). According to Vygotsky's (1978) social constructivism, and Piaget's developmental psychology (Papastergiou, 2006), learning should take place in a natural environment. Constructivist theory of learning encourages social interactions with peers as an effective method of acquiring skills and sharing knowledge (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Constructivism encourages teamwork with collaborative and cooperative activities (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Vaughan, 2010). Vygotsky (1978) believed that collaboration and discussions enhance student learning performance. Constructivists view learning as a "process of maintaining cognitive equilibrium . . . between one's prior knowledge and new [learning] experiences in the environment" where the learner's interaction with authentic everyday experiences results in learning (Carson, 2006, p. 297).

Constructivists believe learners should engage in everyday situations provided by authentic problem-based issues and needs to make learning meaningful (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Papastergiou, 2006; Vaughan, 2010). Students should engage in activities (Barak, Lipson, & Lerman, 2006; Dewey, 1938) that encourage construction of knowledge based on prior learning experiences (Baker, Jensen, & Kolbe, 2005). Constructivist thinkers believe that active learning in authentic problem-based situations will engage students in the learning process and help them acquire independent thinking skills (Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2003). Constructivists view the learner rather than the teacher as central to the learning process (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Papastergiou, 2006). Constructivist theory of learning encourages social interactions with peers as effective methods of acquiring skills and sharing knowledge (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Educators, who follow a constructivist approach, encourage teamwork with collaborative and cooperative activities. Vygotsky (1978) suggested that collaboration and discussions enhance student’s learning performance.

Educators who believe in a constructivist learning approach view students as active learners who solve authentic problems and construct knowledge and meaning (Baker et al., 2005). Instructors that follow a constructivist approach believe authentic problem-based activities engage learners in the learning process and help them acquire independent thinking (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Learners engage through the learning process in mindful processing of information where they are responsible for the result. Constructivism and active learning activities (Barak et al., 2006; Dewey, 1938) facilitate learning (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005).

Experiential Approach to Instruction and Learning
Teachers who use experiential learning encourage students to engage in real authentic activities that provide opportunities to reflect and participate in the learning process (Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2003; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Schmidt & Werner, 2007). Kolb and Kolb (2005) suggested programs that develop students’ (a) concrete experience, (b) reflective observation, (c) abstract conceptualization, and (d) active experimentation. Learners learn to reflect and express their feelings about the learning experience (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Both students and teachers engage and benefit from the collaborative nature of the learning process (Chiasson, 2005). Students learn to view the instructors as role models for lifelong learning (Kaleta et al., 2007). Teachers play an important role in the students' learning development (Starenko, Vignare, & Humbert, 2007). The teachers' participation in the learning process places student and teacher on an equal footing with mutual respect and enthusiasm for learning (Chiasson, 2005; Dewey, 1938).

Experiential learning and e-learning are similar because they do not have the limitations of time and space. Learning becomes an ongoing process that goes beyond the classroom. According to Kolb and Kolb (2005), self-interest and self-direction enhance the learning process in experiential learning by making learning meaningful. Students engage in authentic learning activities, reflect, apply critical thinking, and use their knowledge of everyday situations to learn (Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2003; Salmon, 2002).

Definition of Terms
Including the operationalized definition of key terms in the study helps to clarify the research study and minimize any misunderstandings.

Adopting technology
Adopting technology is the decision to “make full use of an innovation as the best course of action” (Rogers, 2003, p. 181).

Attitude
Attitude is the relationship or the “enduring organization of an individual’s beliefs about an object”, a person, or event. A person’s attitude develops from “the dissonance between what he or she believes versus what he or she is actually doing” (Rogers, 2003, p. 189). Experiences influence “the formation of attitudes of desire and purpose” (Dewey, 1938, p. 39). Attitude determines a person’s reaction and the action he or she takes (Rogers, 2003).

Authentic Learning Activities
Authentic learning activities refer to tasks that correspond to and mirror situations and problems in the real world (Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2003). The goal of authentic learning activities is to engage learners in relevant and meaningful inquiry or problem-based activities for lifelong learning (Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2003).

Blended Learning
The word blended means mixed or combined (Picciano, 2009). Blended learning or hybrid learning courses (Vignare, 2007) are “technology facilitated learning that retains a strong and deliberate role for the teacher in the learning process” (Oliver, 2005, p. 8). Blended learning courses combine the delivery of “traditional face-to-face class activities” (Picciano & Dziuban, 2007, p. 9) with “computer-mediated” (Graham, 2006, p. 5) and online instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2007a). The number of face-to-face meetings and online sessions vary from course to course (Allen & Seaman, 2007a; Picciano & Dziuban, 2007). The online portion of blended learning is from 30% -79% with the rest being face-to-face sessions (Allen & Seaman, 2007a).

Confirmation
At the confirmation stage, the person “seeks reinforcement for the innovation-decision already made and may reverse this decision if exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 189). Achieving confirmation results from “repeated looking and viewing” the phenomenon that remains unchanged (Moustakas, 1994, p. 47).

Course Management System (CMS)
Course Management Systems (CMS) or Learning Management System (LMS) are programs that provide a systematic way of teaching and learning over the Internet in a controlled learning environment (Papastergiou, 2006; West et al, 2007). Course Management Systems include Angel, Blackboard, FirstClass, Moodle, Sakai, TaskStream, and WebCT. The CMS enables the instructor to design online courses that include textual, audio, and video learning material, discussion forums, polls, surveys, and other activities. Students can interact with the content, peers, and the instructor, submit assignments, and take tests (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008).

E-learning
E-learning is a short term for electronic learning (OED, 2007). E-learning is a means of “educational delivery” (Oliver, 2005) that describes the process of learning and teaching by means of a computer where the content is available on the Internet (Clark & Mayer, 2008).

Epoche
Epoche is “a Greek word meaning to stay away from or abstain” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 85) from the usual way of observing things (Patton, 2002). Being in a state of epoche means to put aside prejudices and pre-conceived ideas and view “things, events, and people… as if for the first time” (Moustaks, 1994, p. 85). According to Moustakas (1994), researchers should prepare for the process of epoche prior to the interviews. Through the process of epoche, the researcher may become aware of and removes bias, “viewpoints or assumptions regarding the phenomenon or imposing meaning too soon” (Patton, 2002, p. 485).

Experiences
Experiences are a person’s perceptions and feelings about an object or phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Experiences can have the immediate result of being agreeable or disagreeable with future ramifications (Dewey, 1938). An experience is educational if the experience has future growth while a non-educational experience stops future development (Dewey, 1938). In phenomenological research studies, the participants describe “their individual stories” or experiences (Moustakas, 1994, p. 19).

Face-to-face
Face-to-face refers to the traditional means of instruction “in a teacher-directed environment” (Graham, 2006, p. 5) without Internet or e-learning components (Allen & Seaman, 2007).

Implementing technology
Implementing technology refers to the decision to use technology for instruction and learning (Rogers, 2003).

Online Learning
Online learning is “learning that takes place partially or entirely over the Internet” (U.S. Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 9 ). Online learning can refer to learning available completely via the Internet at a distance. Online learning also includes blended learning (sometimes called “hybrid”, p. 9) with face-to-face instruction to enhance learning.

Technology
“Technology is an enabling tool” that refers to the use of computers and the Internet to access e-learning and blended learning programs (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 8). The purpose of technological tools is to help cope with human “experiences” or needs (Engel & Henckel, 2008, p. 149).

Assumptions
Assumptions may deal with “the nature of human beings, social reality, or a particular phenomenon” (Neuman, 2003, p. 49). The assumptions inherent in this qualitative phenomenological study involved understanding people’s innermost feelings and lived experiences in the use of technology in blended learning courses. The assumptions concerned the researcher’s capability as the instrument of the research study and the participants’ behavior during the interview process. The researcher’s role, “experience, training, and perspectives” may have influenced the study (Patton, 2002, p. 567) and determined participants’ behavior during the interviews. The assumption was that the interviewer had the experience and capability of conducting interviews that provided relevant information on the experiences of the research participants.

The researcher assumed that the participants selected for the study had the appropriate qualifications and information. The instructors, who participated in the research study, had to meet the following criteria (see Appendix B): The researcher assumed that the criteria for selecting the participants would be appropriate for the current study and that the responses from the participants would provide relevant information. It was assumed that teaching three blended learning courses in institutions of higher education provided the participants with the appropriate level of experience and understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
 * 1) experience in teaching blended learning courses in higher education,
 * 2) interest in understanding the nature and meanings of the study
 * 3) willingness “to participate in a lengthy interview and (perhaps a follow-up interview)” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 107),
 * 4) approval for the interviews to be recorded and perhaps videotaped,
 * 5) willingness for the data to be published in a doctoral dissertation,
 * 6) understanding of the questions, and
 * 7) a desire to give truthful accounts of the lived experiences with technology in blended learning courses (Neuman, 2003)

The assumption of the current study was that the participants would respond openly and honestly about the experiences they had with implementing technology in blended learning courses. The participants may have wished to please the interviewer and failed to share accurate information or the participants may have lacked understanding and the ability to use language effectively for expressing inner feelings about the experience of using technology (Friesen, 2009). Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations

Scope of the Study
The scope of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to understand the lived experiences of instructors who had implemented technology in blended learning courses in campus-based institutions of higher education worldwide. The phenomenological study applied a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1994) by choosing to interview 20 instructors or until reaching the saturation of responses. The population was a purposeful sample of instructors who had implemented technology in blended learning in campus-based institutes of higher education worldwide.

The data collection involved personal interviews conducted online via instant messaging using voice because of geographic challenges that did not enable face-to-face meetings. The individual interviews followed a semi-structured conversational format for developing a relaxed atmosphere that would encourage the research participants to share their experiences freely without guidance from the interviewer (Friesen, 2009; Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002; Shank, 2006). The individual online interviews used audio and video Instant Messaging (IM) systems. The durations of the interviews were approximately 60 minutes each with follow-ups by e-mails for further inquiry, clarifications, and participant approvals.

Limitations of the Study
Geographic challenges limited the study’s location, population, language, and culture. The population for this study was recruited using an online questionnaire that appeared on two social networks called Facebook and Ning. The target population was limited to a select group who had access to the online form. The study was limited to online interviews because the distance between the researcher and the participants’ locations did not allow for face-to-face meetings or observations. The data were limited to the questions and the participants’ responses. A phenomenological qualitative design allows for in-depth online interviews of 20 instructors or until the point of saturation of responses has been reached (Moustakas, 1994). The purpose of the qualitative research was to gain an understanding of the experience and not to typify the experience and come to generalizations based on the findings (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002; Shank, 2006). The information shared by participants was specific to the current study and was not generalizable to a larger population (Patton, 2002).

Accuracy in a phenomenological research study means the researcher’s ability to probe and present accurate descriptions of the participants’ lived experiences (Patton, 2002). A way to reach accuracy of the participants’ experiences of the phenomenon is for the interviewer to generate a quiet relaxed atmosphere during the personal interviews and listen (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2002; van Manen, 2002). For an accurate account of the experience, the researcher “has a personal interest” in the knowledge of the experience (Moustakas, 1994). Moustakas (1994) suggested the researcher engage “in the Epoche process” (p. 116) to prevent researcher bias and ensure the validity of the data. Epoche means to “stay away from or abstain” from judging things but observe things as if for the first time without preconceived ideas (Moustakas, 1994, p. 85). The researcher attempted to reach the state of Epoche by practicing mindfulness (van Manen, 2002), “reflection and self-dialogue” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 90) before and during the interviews. The limitations that may threaten internal validity were researcher credibility and bias in acquiring and summarizing the information from the interviews (Creswell, 2005; Patton, 2002). Recording the interviews instead of taking notes during the interviews facilitated the flow of the interviews and ensured a higher accuracy of the data collecting. Transcribing the recordings of the interviews verbatim also ensured internal validity of the information. To strengthen the internal validity of the responses to the questions, the research participants received a copy of the audio recordings and the transcriptions to check for accuracy of the responses and provide feedback.

The participants may also have wanted to please the interviewer and not answered honestly (Creswell, 2005) or may have misinterpreted the questions because of cultural or language differences (Bruner, 1996). Awareness and an open mind helped the interviewer deal with the limitations of language and cultures (Friesen, 2009). Applying probing questions enabled the researcher to confirm participants’ understanding of the questions (Neuman, 2003; Patton, 2002). Delimitations of the Study The researcher limited this phenomenological qualitative study to a specific target population, sample size, method of collecting and analyzing the data because of time constraints and geographic challenges. The current study included 20 participants or until saturation of responses was reached (Moustakas, 1994). The researcher did not add to the sample size because of the nature of qualitative phenomenological studies and time constraints (Ritchie, Lewis, & Elam, 2003). The time needed to conduct and analyze a larger sample size may require a few years because each interview in a qualitative study yields a great deal of information (Ritchie et al, 2003).

The participants selected for the study were limited to instructors who had taught blended learning in campus-based institutions of higher education. The participants had to have taught at least three blended learning courses and had to have a postgraduate degree status. The present study did not include responses from instructors who had taught less than three blended learning courses, administrators, or students from institutions of higher education or from K-12 teachers.

This phenomenological qualitative study consisted of personal interviews conducted online via an instant messaging system because of geographic challenges. One researcher collected and analyzed the data. The current study did not include the respondents or another researcher in analyzing the data. This study did not include face-to-face meetings or observations, open-ended questions or reflective writing of the participants. The current study included individual interviews, but not group interviews of faculty’s experiences with integrating technology in blended learning courses.

Summary
Chapter 1 introduced the general and specific problems and addressed the need for the study. The chapter included the purpose, theoretical framework, scope, limitations, and delimitations of the study with a few definitions of key terms. The significance of the study may result from the participants’ reflection of the experiences with technology in blended learning (Zhao et al., 2007). The themes and patterns may reveal insights on ways to cater to the needs of instructors when implementing technology into blended learning programs (Groff & Mouza, 2008; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; Teo et al., 2008; Turney et al., 2009).

Chapter 2 addresses the phenomenological study and the importance of understanding the experiences instructors had implementing technology in blended learning courses in higher education worldwide (Calandra et al., 2008; Frey, 2008; Graham & Robinson, 2007; Schmid et al., 2009; Ziegler & Reiff, 2006; Zhao et al., 2007). The literature review highlights past research findings on instructors’ experiences with technology and addresses the need for blended learning courses, support from universities, and professional development. Chapter 2 includes a discussion on blended learning, constructivist and experiential learning theories, pedagogical perspectives, and professional development programs for blended learning instructors.