# Institutional Adoption and Implementation of Blended Learning in the Era of Intelligent Education
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Fulfillment of the Intervention Objective
#### 4.1.1 Achievement on Blended Learning Strategy  
As is described in Table 1, S university basically fulfilled its goal in the aspect of BL strategy.  
Beginning with purpose, the BL transformation initially aimed at reducing the F2F time so as to save teaching faculty's time and energy commuting to the sub-campus. Moving on to Stages 2 and 3, instructors of the BL courses shifted to focus on improving students' higher-order thinking abilities and independent learning ability as well as seeking for instructors' professional development.  
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that in terms of implementation, Stage 1 only involved less than 5% of the courses in exploring BL implementation and gradually increased to 59% at Stage 3, combining 20-50% of online learning time with 50-80% of face-to-face meeting time. This result is in alignment with [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s findings that higher education institutions are trying to provide more flexibility and individualization [26].  
When it comes to policy, S university planned to put forward a tentative version of institutional BL policy at Stage 1 and to keep revising it until it was more comprehensive at Stage 3.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Category**} & **Stage 1:** & **Stage 2:** & **Stage 3:** \\  & **Exploration** & **Early Implementation** & **Mature Implementation** \\  & **(2015–2016)** & **(2017–2018)** & **(2019–2021)** \\ \hline
**Strategy** & & & \\  Purpose & Less F2F1 time & Ss\({}^{\prime}\) abilities & Ss\({}^{\prime}\) abilities \\  & & Ts\({}^{\prime}\) development & Ts\({}^{\prime}\) p development \\ \hline  Implementation & \textless{}5\% of courses involved & 18\% of courses involved & 59\% of courses involved & 20–50\% online \\ \hline  Policy & Institutional policy (V12) & Institutional policy (V2) & Institutional BL policy (V3) \\ \hline
**Structure** & & & \\  Governance & LMS3 & LMS & school inspection \\  & school inspection & school inspection & Video surveillance \\  & & & \\ \hline  Models & Standard 151 (V1) & Standard 151 (V2) & Standard 151 (V3) \\ \hline  Scheduling & OL4 curriculum schedule & OL curriculum schedule & \\  & & BL curriculum schedule & BL curriculum schedule \\ \hline  Evaluation & Small-scale Ss survey & Large-scale Ss survey & Large-scale Ss survey & Formative evaluation \\  & & Formative evaluation & Summative evaluation \\ \hline
**Support** & & & \\  Technical & LMS & LMS & LMS \\  & & BL Community of Practice & BL Community of Practice \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Pedagogical} & 6 BL lectures & 8 BL lectures & One-to-one expert guidance \\  & 5 BL workshops & 25 BL salons & 4 BL lectures \\  & 22 BL salons & Fund/arrange BL trainings & Fund BL trainings \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Incentives} & Fund 53 BL courses & Fund 13 BL courses & Fund provincial projects \\  & Fund provincial projects & Fund provincial projects & Teaching hrs counted as \\  Teaching hrs counted as & Teaching hrs counted as & & \\  double & double & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{1}\) “F2F” is short for “face to face”; 2 “V” is short for “version”; 3 “LMS” is short for “learning management system”; 4 “OL” is short for “online learning”.  
\end{table}
Table 1: S university’s institutional BL reform fulfillment.