You are here:

Professors' Perceptions and Needs on Blended e-learning

, Syracuse University, United States ; , Seoul National University, Korea (South)

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-66-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA


A growing number of conventional universities in Korea seek to combine e-learning systems such as Blackboard and WebCT into their classroom-based learning environment. An assumption underpinning this change is that it allows both instructor and student more extended and effective educational experiences than face to face instruction. With this new ‘blended’ mode of instruction, the faculty is being urged to adopt the technology and integrate it into their classes. In order to facilitate the adoption, the study intends to investigate how professors perceive the blended instructional mode and what supports they need to use this mode. It is envisaged that the results of this study will help university administrators to establish the policies and strategies that would facilitate faculty members use of blended e-learning.


Lee, S. & Lee, H. (2008). Professors' Perceptions and Needs on Blended e-learning. In C. Bonk, M. Lee & T. Reynolds (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2008--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 984-993). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Agboola, A.K. (2006). Assessing the Awareness and Perceptions of Academic Staff in Using E-learning Tools for Instructional Delivery in a Post-Secondary Institution: A Case Study, The Innovation Journal, 11(3).
  2. Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. Internet and Higher Education, 6, P.53-63.
  3. Berge, Z.L., & Muilenburg, L.Y. (2001). Obstacles faced at various stages of capability regarding distance education in institutions of higher learning. TechTrends, 46(4), 40-45.
  4. Bielawski, L., Metcalf, D. (2002). Blended eLearning: Integrating knowledge, performance, support, and online learning. MA: HRD Press Inc.
  5. Care, W.D., & Scanlan, J.M. (2001). Planning and managing the development of courses for distance delivery. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2)
  6. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning. E-Learning, 3(3), 54-56.
  7. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Proving the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.
  8. Galusha, J.M. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance education, Interpersonal Computing and Technology, v5 n3-4 p6-14.
  9. Graham, C.R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments: A review of the research literature.Unpublished manuscript, Provo, UT.
  10. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987)." Change in schools: Facilitating the process." Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. (ED 332 261)
  11. Khan, B. (2005). Managing E-Learning Strategies: Design, Delivery, Implementation and Evaluation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
  12. Kobulnicky, P., & Ruby, J.A. (2002). EDUCAUSE Quarterly. Third Annual EDUCAUSE Survey identifies Current IT Issues by Paul Kobulnicky, Julia A. Rudy and the EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee, 252.
  13. Koszalka, T. (2003). Reflection as a critical component of the technology adoption process. EDO-IR-2003-04 ERIC Digest.
  14. Lazarus, B.D. (2003). Teaching courses online. Journal of ALNs, 7(3), 47-54.
  15. Lee, J., & Busch, P.E. (2005). Factors related to instructors’ willingness to participate in distance education. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 109-115.
  16. Lee, H. & Kim, I. (2007). Blended e-Learning Strategies for Effective Teaching in Traditional Universities. Educational Technology International, 8(1), 71-90.
  17. Lee, E. (2006). Instructors' perception of online education and their instructional strategies. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 12(1), 87-105.
  18. Lynch, D. (2002). Professors should embrace technology in courses. Chronicle of Higher Education. 18(2002).
  19. Mantyla, K. (2001). Blending e-Learning: The Power is in the Mix. Alexandria.VA:ASTD.
  20. Osguthorpe, R.T. & Graham, C.R. (2003). “Blended learning environments: definitions and directions.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
  21. Rha, I. & Han, A. (2002). A comparative analysis of students', instructors' and managers' perception on e-learning. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 8(2), 115-134.
  22. Rosenberg, M.J. (2001), e-Learning, McGraw Hill.
  23. Shifter, C. (2000). Compensation models in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(1).
  24. Spotts, T.H. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education. Educational Technology& Society, 2(4), 92-99.
  25. Veen, W. (1993). The role of beliefs in the use of information technology: implications for teacher education, or teaching the right thing at the right time. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2 (2), pp.139-153.
  26. Visser, J. (2002). Faculty work in devleloping and teaching web-based distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 21-32.
  27. Xu, Y. & Meyer, K.A. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 41-52.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact