The objectives of this research study were to examine local level factors shaping the implementation of a blended pedagogical approach for geospatial- and information-literacy, and to understand implementer satisfaction. As such, we addressed the following research questions: What local-level factors shape the implementation of the blended learning model? and How satisfied are implementers (faculty, administrators and library instructional/support staff) with the new blended learning model for geospatial and information fluency? Focus groups (n = 7) plus one interview (total n = 22) were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., staff, faculty, administrators) to better understand facilitators, barriers, and/or issues related to module development, in addition to perceptions about how the modules are utilized by teaching assistants (TAs), instructional assistants (IAs), and instructors. Participants were identified according to their status as either discipline-specific instructional staff (i.e., instructor, TA, IA) or staff who supported the development of modules (i.e., library instructional staff, library management, administrators). From an ontological standpoint that privileges an individual perspective on the nature of reality, while epistemologically seeking to understand the relationship between the "knower" and what can be known, we adopted a theory of constructivism to support this inquiry. Transcripts were imported into a qualitative analysis software package (NVivo 8.0) for organization, coding and analysis. Instructors found value in the online modules, particularly in a blended learning setting. Instructors felt that having the material in advance, in-class time could be better focused on interaction, assignments, and assessments and resulted in reduced anxiety in busy lab environments. Several key themes emerged, including: (a) instructor expectations (time constraints, sustainability, and collaborative nature of development process) and assessment (student grades and performance); (b) implementation benefits (course content consistency, more lab time devoted to instructor support, provision of additional course resources, and opportunities for student reflection; (c) implementation challenges (inadequate support for information literacy, perceptions of an increase in student workload, and definitional issues surrounding blended learning); (d) course-tailored modules (dichotomy of needs--course tailored vs. generic modules, value in a quiz component, and changing context of lab environment); and (e) key areas for improvement. Focus group respondents illustrated the importance of engaging students in the process of blended learning model development. Future iterations of blended learning modules should explicitly incorporate student feedback through focus groups during their development.