Potential Benefits And Complexities Of 
Blended Learning In Higher Education:
The Case Of The University Of Botswana

Year 2009, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 66 - 82, 01.03.2009

Regina K. Masalela

Abstract

Blended/hybrid learning is dominating news in higher education as a training and educational delivery method of choice. It is seen as a link between instructors, learners and classrooms located in different places to enhance learning. Based on the interviews with 15 faculty members and one administrator that had direct experience with this form of delivery at the University of Botswana (UB) the findings suggested two major themes that dominated faculty members ’accounts: potential benefits and challenges of blended learning. The study was guided by the Diffusion of Innovation theory. The potential benefits of blended learning included improved pedagogy; engagement in learning; and added flexibility in the teaching and learning to mention a few. Faculty members perceived complexities such as lack of students’ readiness to use the course management system, slow network and breakdowns; lack of computers for students and lack of time. The article concludes by suggesting future directions for blended learning (BL) at the UB.

Keywords

Blended Learning; Complexities; Benefits; Hybrid Courses; Benefits; Diffusion Of Innovation.

References

• Artman, E.M. (2003). Motivation factors to overcome faculty resistance to integrating asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), 17-27.
• Bakutes, A. P. (1998). An examination of faculty development centers. Contemporary Education, 69 (3), pp.168-171.
• Bersin & Associates. (2003). Blended learning: what works?: An industry study of the strategy, implementation, and impact of blended learning: Bersin & Associates.
• Betts, K. S. (1998). Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, 1998). Dissertation Abstract International, 59 (07), 237A.
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th Edition). Boston: Pearson Education Group, Inc.
• Driscroll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let‘s get beyond the hype. E-learning, 54.
• Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th Edition). White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with technology today, 8 (6).
• Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments, in: M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology I-V. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
• Graham, C. R. (2004). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions in Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). Handbook of blended learning: Global
• Perspectives, local designs. (San Francisco, Pfieffer Publishing). Hahn, C. L. (1974). Relationships between potential adopters‘ perceptions of new social studies materials and their adoptions of those materials in Indiana and Ohio.
• Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 5679-5680A. (University Microfilms No. 75- ).
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Natural inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Luetkehans, L. M. (1998). A case of using a computer supported collaborative learning tool to supplement a distance learning course in educational telecommunications.
• Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Molelu, G. B., & Uys, P. M. (2003). Development of eLearning at the University of
• Botswana: Challenges, achievements, and pointers to the future. ELearning Conference, MORUO Communications. Four ways, Johannesburg. South Africa, 27 August. Mutula, S. M. (2002). E-learning initiative at the University of Botswana: challenges and opportunities. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 19(2), 99-109.
• National Development Plan 9: 2003/4-2008-09. Gaborone, Botswana.
• Reay, J. (2001). Blended learning–a fusion of the future. Knowledge Management Review, 4 (3), pp.6.
• Rockwell, S. K., Schauer, J., Firtz., S.M., & Marx, D.B. (2001). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online
• Journal of Distance Learning Administration [Online serial], 2 (4). Retrieved November , 2003 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/rockwell24.html
• Wolcott, LL. (2003). Dynamics of faculty participation in distance education: Motivations, incentives, and rewards. In M.G. Moore & W.G. Anderson (Eds.) Handbook of distance education (pp. 549-565). City, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (Fifth Edition). New York: The Free Press.
• Rooney, J. E. (2003). Blended learning opportunities to enhance educational programming and meetings. Association Management, 55(5), pp.26-32.
• Rossett, A. (2002). The ASTD E-Learning Handbook: McGraw-Hill.
• Thomson, I. (2002). Thompson job impact study: The next generation of corporate learning. Thompson, Inc. Retrieved July 7, 2003 from http://www.netg.com/DemosAndDownloads/Downloads/JobImpact.pdf
• University of Botswana Newsletters, September 2004; p.6.
• Uys., P. M. (2003). International review of research in open and distance learning.
• Retrieved June 25, 2004 from http://www.globe- online.com/phillip.uys/200302Uyslearningreflection.htm
• Young, J. R. (2002). Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp.A33.