Matrix representing the categories and stages in the blended learning adoption framework
| Category | Stage 1-awareness/exploration | Stage 2-adoption/early implementation | Stage 3-mature implementation/growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy | |||
| Purpose | Individual faculty/administrators informally identify specific blended learning benefits | Administrators identify purposes to motivate institutional adoption of blended learning | Administrative refinement of purposes for continued promotion and funding of blended learning |
| Advocacy | Individual faculty and administrators informally advocate | Blended learning formally approved and advocated by university administrators | Formal blended learning advocacy by university administrators and departments/colleges |
| Implementation | Individual faculty members implementing blended learning | Administrators target implementation in high impact areas and among willing faculty | Departments/colleges strategically facilitate wide-spread faculty implementation |
| Definition | No uniform definition of blended learning proposed | Initial definition of blended learning formally proposed | Refined definition of blended learning formally adopted |
| Policy | No uniform blended learning policy in place | Tentative policies adopted and communicated to stakeholders, policies revised as needed | Robust policies in place with little need for revision, high level of community awareness |
| Structure | |||
| Governance | No official approval or implementation system | Emerging structures primarily to regulate and approve blended learning courses | Robust structures involving academic unit leaders for strategic decision making |
| Models | No institutional models established | Identifying and exploring blended learning Models | General blended learning models encouraged not enforced |
| Scheduling | No designation of blended learning courses as such in course registration/catalog system | Efforts to designate blended learning courses in registration/catalog system | Blended learning designations or modality metadata available in registration/catalog system |
| Evaluation | No formal evaluations in place addressing blended learning outcomes | Limited institutional evaluations addressing blended learning outcomes | Evaluation data addressing blended learning outcomes systematically reviewed |
| Support | |||
| Technical | Primary focus on traditional classroom technological support | Increased focus on blended learning/online technological support for faculty and students | Well established technological support to address blended learning/online needs of all stakeholders |
| Pedagogical | No course development process in place | Experimentation and building of a formal course development process | Robust course development process established and systematically promoted |
| Incentives | No identified faculty incentive structure for implementation | Exploration of faculty incentive structure for faculty training and course development | Well-established faculty incentive structure for systematic training and implementation |
Reproduced from the article of Graham et al. (2013, p. 7).