Equity in Blended Learning Through a Proposed Framework: Integrating Equitable Gaps with Lived Experiences

Corresponding author: Paul Murphy.

Authors: Paul Murphy, Sian Chapman, Kirsten Lambert.

Abstract

Higher education in 2025 predominantly uses blended learning for course delivery, thereby merging digital platforms with conventional teaching methods. Whilst blended learning has become the ‘new normal’ in higher education post-covid, issues of equity can easily be overlooked. Many frameworks have been used over the past twenty years to guide the creation and understanding of blended learning systems. However, students and staff have recently highlighted the need to explicitly address issues of equity, access and justice. This paper examines five existing frameworks through the lens of equity and proposes a new and modified framework to improve blended learning settings in higher education. Through a comparative analysis of five blended learning frameworks as well as qualitative data from students and staff at a Western Australian university, this paper identifies primary obstacles and potentials for integrating equity and social justice into blended learning systems. Emerging from these obstacles and potentials is a proposed framework which includes equity as a core and essential subsystem. Together with other common subsystems, the proposed model aims to deliver an extensive framework to assess all aspects of blended learning implementation. Equity will be placed at the centre of blended learning design and delivery, enabling educators to consider equity in the development of their courses. By designing diverse, inclusive, and accessible content, courses and units of work can be culturally and contextually responsive to a variety of learners. By planning and delivering ongoing, professional development for staff, universities can build the skills, knowledge and confidence of academic staff in inclusive and equitable blended learning.

Keywords

Blended learning

Equity

higher education

frameworks

access

inclusion.

Introduction

Blended learning has gained significant attention in recent years, especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Wang et al. (2015), pre-pandemic blended learning consisted of “intertwined disjointed parts all trying to connect because each element, in isolation, only offers part of its landscape without interconnection” (p. 381). However,COVID-19 led to a rapid transition to digital Learning Management Systems (LMS) for many universities globally (Marfuah et al., 2023), and a new understanding of blended learning. The search for a definition for blended learning has been daunting as well as challenging (Dziuban et al., 2018). Now when the term blended learning is used, it is understood to mean the provision of opportunities for students and staff to communicate globally with technology, collaborate with others, develop creativity, and become effective workers in the 21st century (Cummings, 2022). Using innovative pedagogical approaches with technology in teaching and learning is necessary for an effective blended learning environment (Hew et al., 2020). However, while some feel that online methods improve overall access to learning, others argue that they exacerbate existing inequalities in accessing higher education and research (Tilak & Kumar, 2022). Equity, therefore, is the key to this paper.

The pandemic has shown us that although online education is possible, the support of other learning options is essential to ensure equity for all students (Drane et al., 2021). Equity is a complex concept to define because it depends on many factors (Jurado de los Santos et al., 2020). Pre-pandemic research defined equity in education as a measure of education achievement where every student is given an equal opportunity to be successful (Ling & Nasri, 2019). Whereas, more recent post-pandemic studies define equity in education as creating collaborative and supportive environments between students and staff (Fuentes et al., 2021).

This paper provides a comparative analysis of five blended learning frameworks (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Mirriahi et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Adekola et al., 2017; Lim et al., 2019), identifying common strengths and persistent gaps – most notably, the absence of equity as a distinct design principle, highlighting the need for a new framework that addresses this absence. By using this comparative method, along with data from staff and students from a Western Australia university, this paper effectively maps existing frameworks across several implementation factors and identifies how a new proposed framework can extend theoretical knowledge and practical understanding, adding equity as a stand-alone, identified subsystem.

Research Questions

This paper explores a better understanding of the role that equity plays in blended learning experiences for staff and students in a university setting post-COVID-19; and in turn, proposes a framework that considers the complexities and demands of working and studying in a blended learning environment in Australia by specifically addressing equity. The proposed framework can be used to consider the intricate relationship between various subsystems and how they interact to create an equitable learning environment. In sum, the research answers the following questions:

Research question 1

How have blended learning environments impacted student and staff well-being pre- and post-pandemic?

Research question 2

Is what ways do current frameworks address the complexities of studying and working in blended learning environments in higher education?

Author Contribution

PM conducted the qualitative data collection and analysis and drafted the initial manuscript.SC and KL provided critical feedback throughout the drafting and revision stages.All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Literature

Recent research in blended learning illustrates the growing complexity of educational practices within digital platforms; with teacher motivations and clear pedagogical goals influencing the choice of online resources and changes in teaching methods. (Arfanakis, 2022). Blended learning reduces the risk of cognitive overload and provides an opportunity for students to engage in a variety of delivery modes (Moussa-Inaty, 2017). As blended learning has evolved, frameworks have been developed attempting to explain blended learning environments that support flexible learning experiences while maintaining coherence in student experience.

2023). Focusing on these factors, five blended learning frameworks, Garrison and Vaughan, (2008), Mirriahi (2015), Wang (2015), Adekola (2017), and A recent systematic review outlined the necessity for institutional frameworks to account for a range of factors including learner needs, risk factors and processes for continuous improvement (McCarthy & Palmer, Lim et al. (2019) were identified in McCarthy and Palmer’s (2023) systematic review as institutional-level frameworks that conceptualise blended learning holistically across pedagogy, technology and implementation, as well as identifying limitations of blended learning implementation. Table 1 presents a matrix comparison of these key blended learning frameworks. This matrix enables an organised identification of recurring elements such as curriculum design, pedagogical approach, technology integration, and institutional role. It also highlights the absence of the key consideration of this paper; equity, which helps inform the rationale for introducing a new model.

Table 1
Blended learning framework factors identified from existing literature (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023)
Title	Garrison & Vaughan (2008)	Mirriahi et al., (2015)	Wang et al., (2015)	Adekola et al., (2017)	Lim et al., (2019)
Blending level	Activity course and programme	Activity course and programme	Institutional	Institutional	Institutional
Curriculum design	x	x			x
Teaching strategy and pedagogy	x	x	x	x	x
Technology integration	x	x	x	x	x
Student role		x	x	x
Learning support		x	x		x
Teacher role		x	x	x	x
Teacher support		x	x		x
Institution role			x	x	x
Vision and policy	x				x
Partnerships			x		x
Physical infrastructure				x	x
Ethical and legal				x
Evaluation & research					x

Reviewing the frameworks chronologically, Garrison and Vaughan’s (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines publication refined the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model and details the framework as grounded in a critical, collaborative learning community consistent with the ideals of higher education (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008).The earliest CoI model was originally developed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (Garrison et al., 1999) and is one of the initial and most referenced frameworks for conceptualising blended learning in higher education. Based on a constructivist perspective, the CoI model consists of three interconnected components as outlined in Fig. 1 – cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence – all of which are crucial for developing meaningful online educational experiences. Cognitive presence refers to learners continuously reflecting and engaging in discourse to build and validate their understand. Social presence focuses on building interpersonal relationships and trust while promoting open communication in digital settings. Teaching presence incorporates instructional design and facilitation along with direct instruction from teachers to guide student learning. When utilizing this framework, researchers can view both synchronous and asynchronous modes of the blended learning model (Garrison et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2015). The use of workshops and plenary sessions are proposed to raise the profile of blended learning (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023). The CoI framework emphasises collaborative inquiry together with instructor facilitation and reflection and created a guide for educators attempting to maintain engagement and quality in online courses (Garrison & Vaughan, 2011).

Fig. 1

Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008).

Note

Adapted from Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008, p. 18).

Several years later, the Blended Learning Framework for Curriculum Design and Professional Development developed by Mirriahi et al. (2015) integrated digital fluency with higher education learning design through a blended learning approach. Interestingly, a combination of theoretical and logical approaches were used in the development of the framework (Brown, 1983; Friedenberg, 1995). It distinguishes itself, as outlined in Fig. 2, by promoting students to be active participants in blended learning environments who require digital platform navigation skills as well as recognising the relationship between teaching methods and technology with student participation. The framework encourages institutional backing for professional development to ensure academics develop necessary skills and confidence to integrate digital strategies effectively. By proposing criteria indicators to define quality of practice, this model enables opportunities for improvement as well as identifying opportunities for professional development (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023). A notable use of this framework is how it aims to motivate academics to improve their praxis through self-directed professional development (McInnes et al., 2024). Mirriahi et al. (2015) establish learning support as an essential formal part of blended learning implementation. The framework presents a stronger argument for institutional responsibility towards supporting students and staff in making the transition to blended learning than Garrison and Vaughan (2008).

Fig. 2

Blended Learning Framework for Curriculum Design and Professional Development (Mirriahi et al., 2015).

Note

Adapted from Blended Learning Framework for Curriculum Design and Professional Development (Mirriahi et al., 2015, pp. 5&6).

In a similar timeframe, the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning Systems Framework (CABLS) was developed serving as a foundational model because of its student-centric approach (Wang et al., 2015).The CABLS framework was born out of the Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) framework, which are open-ended systems that evolve and function within boundaries (Holland, 2006). The boundaries can become more complex when they become surrounded by further boundaries. Smaller complex adaptive subsystems exist within larger complex adaptive systems. As part of a larger complex system, these smaller subsystems fulfill specific roles but often cloud research investigations despite the use of a systems approach (Keshavarz et al., 2010). Complex adaptive systems are divided into three types and are categorized as artificial systems, natural systems, and social systems. The systems operate without any hierarchical control structure. Instead, the control is distributed throughout the system giving way for change, adaptation, and the emergence of new results (Keshavarz et al., 2010). The CABLS framework displays six subsystems and their relationships: the learner, the teacher, the technology, the content, the learning support, and the institution as outlined in Fig. 3. For example, in a university setting, individual blended learning units interact with the larger institutional context. Even though they all work on their own to adapt to the needs of students (learner subsystem) and staff (teacher subsystem), they are all connected to the larger trends of the institutional subsystem. When looking at behaviours of complex adaptive systems, the focus is on the system as a whole rather than its individual parts (Lichtenstein et al., 2006). Like that of the Complex Adaptive System, the CABLS framework combines the complexities in social complex adaptive systems with the challenges of artificial complex adaptive systems. Like its parent framework Complex Adaptive Systems, CABLS analyses blended learning system as a whole and how the different elements function in dynamic ways (Wang et al, 2015).

Fig. 3

The Framework of Complex Adaptive Blended Learning Systems (Wang et al., 2015, p. 383).

Figure 4 Chronologically. the framework presented by Adekola and colleagues in 2017- Development of an Institutional Framework to Guide Transitions into Enhanced Blended Learning in Higher Education further demonstrates how the development of blended learning requires an approach to institutional readiness as both a strategic and systemic process rather than just pedagogical. As identified in Table 1, it is the only framework to highlight ethical and legal factors in terms of accessibility, equity of access and copyright compliance, (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023). This means as an institutional framework, it guides transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education institutions, (Ahmed, 2020). As seen in Fig. 4, a key strength of this model is its attention to change management, while recognising the challenges of workload implications that academics experience. For example, it comprises four overall themes – “an overview of change agents driving the move towards enhanced blended learning, (the why), institutional considerations to address support needs, (the what), processes that facilitate enhanced blended learning, (the how) and stakeholder groups that should be involved in the transition, (the who)”, (Adekola et al., 2017). It also identifies the need for technical infrastructure, resources, and professional development to be in place to support the needs of students and academics. Adekola et al., (2017) present blended learning implementation as a cultural shift that offers a comprehensive view of the steps needed to embed digital innovation sustainably.

Development of an Institutional Framework to Guide Transitions into Enhanced Blended Learning in Higher Education (Adekola et al., 2015, p. 5).

Fig. 5

Finally. and most recently before the COVID-19 pandemic, Lim and colleagues, Lim et al.,, (2019) presented Driving, Sustaining and Scaling up Blended Learning Practices in Higher Education Institutions: a Proposed Framework for blended learning design that includes perspectives from course, program, and institutional levels. As seen in Fig. 5, the framework consists of seven dimensions: curriculum; vision and policy alignment; infrastructure, facilities, resources, hardware and support; professional development; student learning support; partnerships; and research and evaluation. It provides detailed strategic dimensions intended to complement each of the themes within the framework, (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023). The framework uses the principles of design-based research and emphasises iteration and collaborative planning among stakeholders. It also categorizes the institutional strategic planning of technology integration in higher education into multiple dimensions, (Dai et al., 2024). Unlike earlier frameworks, Lim et al., (2019) offer practical approaches for curriculum mapping, collaboration and blended learning development which integrate into institutional planning operations. The framework recognises that successful blended learning design spans multiple levels and requires coordination between individual, departmental, and institutional structures.

Driving, Sustaining and Scaling up Blended Learning Practices in Higher Education Institutions: A Proposed Framework (Lim et al., 2019, p. 4).

In conclusion, this review attempts to analyse the gaps in the identified blended learning frameworks through the lens of equity. While all five models make significant contributions to the understanding of the pedagogical and technological factors influencing the successful design and implementation of blended learning, they differ in their emphasis on equity. Earlier models tend to focus on the cognitive and social aspects of blended learning but lack detail in structural and institutional barriers. Even prior to the pandemic, quality assessment in blended learning was considered essential for course design and delivery (Gruba et al., 2016). While the more recent models in the literature review provide more structural and institutional insights, equity is only implied rather than specifically embedded. A paper published by UNESCO (2023) also highlights the need for equity to be at the heart of higher education. By explicitly acknowledging equity as a distinct subsystem of blended learning, this paper proposes a more comprehensive and equitable framework, especially in the post-COVID-19 era where increased attention to learner diversity and equity-centred design in blended learning is evident. The addition of an empirical study adds weight to this argument and is outlined below.

Method

The empirical component of this study utilized a mixed qualitative methodology to analyse the existence of equity in higher education blended learning frameworks by integrating a literature review with primary data collection. Having developed a solid understanding of blended learning as well as five frameworks over the past seventeen years, it was important to explore how these frameworks ‘weathered’ the pandemic years. To discover their relevance in the post-pandemic world of higher education, semi-structured interviews with final year Initial Teacher Education students (n = 5) and academic staff (n = 5) at a Western Australian university were undertaken. The student interviews examined how students perceived their blended learning experiences across domains such as motivation, digital access and pedagogical engagement, while interviews with academic staff analysed institutional approaches towards blended learning issues and practical methods for managing student diversity in blended learning delivery. In terms of the qualitative data, Table 2 illustrates how codes and themes informed the interview protocols, with Tables 3 and 4 providing background information on students and staff respectively.

Table 2
Alignment of Codes and Themes with Qualitative Data Collection
Codes		Interview Themes (Qualitative)
Learning and Teaching		Study habits, workload management, personal learning strategies
		Supportive teaching, communication styles, flexibility
Learning Support & Institution Recurring		Help-seeking behaviours, access to resources, sense of community University support, flexibility, clarity of blended learning expectations Digital divide, cultural responsiveness, perceived bias or exclusion, device and internet access

Table 3
Student Interview Participants’ Background Information
Name	Major	Mode of Study
Maurice	Early Childhood & Primary	Maurice started as an internal student but switched to external during the pandemic and remained external.
Jonah	Primary	Jonah completed all his studies as an external student.
Louise	Primary	Louise was an internal student for most of her course, except during lockdowns when she had to study externally.
Catherine	Secondary	Catherine completed her studies externally due to living in regional Western Australia.
Carolina	Early Childhood and Primary	Carolina was enrolled full-time but switched between internal and external modes of study due to COVID-19

Table 4
Staff Interview Participants’ Background Information
Name	Role	Years of experience in academia
Anastacia	Lecturer	20
Heather	Lecturer	12
Naomi	Associate Lecturer	12
Caitlin	Associate Lecturer	14
Natalia	Senior Lecturer	10

The interviews were conducted over a 6-week period (December 2023 – January 2024) online via the Microsoft Teams platform. All interviews lasted approximately 45–55 minutes.

Participants were sent the questions via email a week before the interview, so they had an idea of the range of topics to be discussed. The tone of these interviews was largely conversational and informal (Patton, 2002), to facilitate a rapport between the interviewer and interviewee. In an interview setting in which a personal relationship exists before the interview, the notion of rapport has an increased role (Prior, 2018). Reading and re-reading the interviews brought a familiarisation to the data, a set of themes and codes were identified and applied to the transcripts. NVivo Pro12 was used as the analysis software. Generating themes based on experiences shared by students and staff led to naturalistic generalisations, enhancing the interpretive significance. The data for each participant was de-identified to meet ethical requirements and pseudonyms were used. Information power, as described by Braun and Clarke (2022) was achieved with just five participants in each group with rich data related to the research topic.

This research was granted Human Research Ethics Committee approval (Project number 2023/119), which recognised the research design in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (2018b) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2007 (Updated 2018) (2018a). Understandings from the five frameworks reviewed acted as the guiding lens for thematic analysis of both datasets. This enabled a comprehensive understanding of how subsystems interact as well as institutional approaches to equity concerns.

Results

Why a new framework is needed

Five blended learning frameworks published before COVID-19 were reviewed to understand how equity is defined, addressed, and/or missing from the conceptualisations and implementation of blended learning. Table 1 revealed that while all the frameworks provided useful perspectives on designing blended learning environments, they varied in how much the design and implementation of blended learning systems attended to issues of learner diversity and conditions to ensure equity, participation, and outcomes. By specifically addresses the equity shortcomings in each of the five frameworks, this section specifically highlights the need for a new framework with equity as the central component.

When examined from an equitable perspective, the limitations in Garrison and Vaughan’s (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and Guidelines are clear. The framework only looks at one dimension of the blended learning model (Olivera, 2023). While it focuses on the learning experience, it fails to incorporate structural, institutional, and technological aspects that define blended learning environments. Wang et al. (2015) argued that the framework was not even specifically designed to address blended learning; it was originally developed to examine computer-mediated online learning. The CoI framework lacks any component related to equity. It operates under the assumption that that all students and educators can engage fully in community-based learning experiences without recognising the impact of disability status, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, and digital literacy levels on the ability to participate. It is the least prescriptive in terms of proposing blended learning implementation methods (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023). The framework provides minimal guidance for recognising support needs and addressing digital exclusion. The proposed framework expands on this framework by addressing systemic inequities and policy interventions that have become increasingly important in the post-pandemic higher education sector.

Equally, A Blended Learning Framework for Curriculum Design and Professional Development developed by Mirriahi et al. (2015) demonstrates key weaknesses in how it addresses equity and diversity. It emphasises a supportive learning climate and how instructional design should promote the establishment of a community (Hirst & LeNavenec, 2024). The framework addresses the challenges of embedding blended learning within higher education and how staff lack the capacity to engage with it (Truss & Anderson, 2023). However, it can be argued that it overlooks the identity of learners and the numerous barriers they encounter in their blended learning experiences. The assumption that digital fluency can be achieved through support fails to recognise that students from non-traditional backgrounds encounter many obstacles including poor internet access and reliability as well as limited to no prior experience of formal educational environments that emphasise self-directed learning. The proposed framework, which establishes equity as an essential subsystem, addresses critical issues like barriers to access as well as the necessity for differentiated support.

The Development of an Institutional Framework to Guide Transitions into Enhanced Blended Learning in Higher Education framework by Adekola et al. (2017) does address ethical and legal aspects but does not explicitly address equity and diversity. It addresses ‘student experience’ and ‘learner-centred approaches’ as broad principles rather than their connection to structural inequalities including digital access disparities and culturally responsive teaching methods. Academics are not supported at all stages of the digital journey and a framework should not assume levels of digital competence (Honeychurch & Offord, 2021). According to McCarthy & Palmer, (2023), the authors propose a transitioning framework comprised of change agents and institutional considerations, but the framework lacks a comprehensive description of how institutions can adapt policies and learning environments to meet the needs of marginalised and underrepresented students. From research conducted in a UK university, while this model demonstrated an implementation of blended learning, an overall institutional policy needs more than just blended learning at its centre (Whalley et al., 2021). The proposed framework aims to build on the Adekola et al. (2017) model by integrating Equity as a seventh subsystem. The concept of organisational preparedness will be expanded to include equity initiatives such as differentiated learning support and inclusive curriculum design.

The Lim et al. (2019) Driving, Sustaining and Scaling up Blended Learning Practices in Higher Education Institutions: A Proposed Framework provides seven strategic dimensions to be considered in institutional planning but fails to incorporate a dedicated focus on equity and diversity in educational planning. It addresses student learning support and stakeholder involvement but fails to present solutions for inequality and diverse learning requirements. The framework does not explore differentiated instructional design or inclusive pedagogical design that are necessary to support underrepresented students in online learning settings. Zaugg et al. (2021), identify gaps in the framework and make six key recommendations for universities to develop their capacity for blended learning (Graham & Halverson, 2023). However, the recommendations are for universities in Asia and fall short in addressing equity issues unique to Australia. By integrating the Equity subsystem, the proposed framework addresses this shortcoming but also builds on Lim et al. (2019)’s structural perspective. It proposes that equity themes such as digital access, inclusive assessment and cultural responsiveness be embedded at every level of blended learning design.

The Complex Adaptive Blended Learning Systems framework by Wang et al. (2015) demonstrates key strengths and recognises the differences in both learner and teacher readiness. However, it does not address disadvantages faced by students who lack access to technology, have disabilities, and/or come from diverse cultural or linguistic backgrounds. A positive student learning experience is often dependent upon all of the CABLS components working together in unison (McGee & Poojary, 2020). The authors called for future research into the provisions of learning support and the promotion of institutional involvement (Wang et al., 2015). The model also does not analyse institutional responses to these challenges through inclusive policies and strategic plans. Like Garrison and Vaughan’s (2008) COI model, the CABLS framework proposed by Wang et al. (2015) is also not grounded in blended learning, but instead originates from mathematics, chemistry, and physics (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023). CABLS emerged from the principles of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory (Waddington, 1977; Waldrop, 1992). Originating in science and mathematics, Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory has been widely used in an attempt to understand the complexity of dynamic and non-linear systems (Wang et al., 2015). Branch (1999) identified learning as a complex and dynamic system and identified eight subsystems within the learning system: students, teachers, content, media, peers, time, goal, and context. Coupled with Complex Adaptive Systems theory, Branch’s research served as the foundation for Wang et al. (2015) when they developed the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning Systems Framework (CABLS). The absence of an explicit subsystem for Equity in CABLS has led to the development of a new framework which proposes to include Equity as an essential subsystem. The new framework will consider preserving the original CABLS models’ complex adaptive systems approach and will endeavour to increase its importance in educational environments that face inequality and varied levels to access.

Students interviewed acknowledged that they entered blended learning classes with varied levels of digital literacy and academic preparedness. Research during the pandemic concluded that the major challenge for students in adapting to online learning was technical problems (Mishra et al., 2020). Domestic students were also in lockdown, and many needed more or the same level of support as international students (Stevenson et al., 2024). As unit and course modes of delivery continue to evolve at Australian universities, it is critical to understand students’ experience on the social and emotional dimensions of their learning experiences (McLure et al., 2022) but through an equity lens. Addressing the concept of equity in an educational concept, Fraser, (2005) stated that all students should have equal access to quality education, regardless of their background or identity. Of the students interviewed for this study, both Maurice and Jonah highlighted that students came to blended learning environments with different degrees of digital literacies and personal capacities. Maurice discussed how he saw the levels of digital literacies misrepresented by presumptions of their ability because of time spent in high school. He commented, “there was an assumption that we had done it all in high school, (technology), but we had not. We were expected to be tech experts, content experts and have online charisma”. He further emphasized the challenges with the transition to blended learning, especially for students and staff who were not familiar with digital tools:

The first time we did workshop and things; it was such a mess. There were a lot of barriers and feelings of frustration because people didn’t know how to use the technology. Also, people vanish in an instant, we click a button and out we go. That instant disconnect felt strange. I think people who were used to being online before COVID did better than those who were panicking and learning everything from scratch. I suppose we were all very mindful that lockdown happened so fast that staff and students were just given two weeks (Maurice).

Jonah shared the same sentiment, adding that rural and remote students felt a sense of isolation and confusion around expectations. He noted:

The units didn’t always make sense for someone preparing to work in a small country school. Everything was delivered in the same way whether you were in Perth or a remote area. It felt like the city students had a bit more access to support or contact. It was hard to know what was expected – there wasn’t much clarification or feedback. (Jonah).

While Jonah recognised the practical benefits of blended learning, he highlighted an opinion around equity – “we’re not all the same. There are students who need peers around them to either help with information or just to help them with anxieties or stresses”. These perspectives highlighted the need to cater to students’ individual differences in background and access. Another student noted how students were disadvantaged by geographic remoteness, life demands and expectations of self-regulation. According to Catherine, “students out in the regions really struggled with the online components. Some didn’t have decent internet or even a quiet space”. Having completed some of her studies on-campus, Catherine compared face-to-face and online teaching experiences. She noted “on campus, I could actually meet tutors and lecturers face-to-face and just have that personal interaction. There was that familiarity that led to a good learning experience”. Comparing this to online work, Catherine concluded:

When there were no face-to-face classes, I had to be better at managing my timetable and schedule. I believe there is a difference when everyone enters a room that you are ready to be there and present. Most of the time in the online classes, I would have just jumped out of bed, so I wasn’t mentally prepared at all to be there.

Carolina liked the flexibility that blended learning gave her but admitted “you have to be organised. If you’re not, it was very easy to fall behind”. She also felt that staff training in technology, particularly to sort out common technical issues, was a critical investment to improving the online learning experience. She added that “technical issues were often a barrier to learning and if staff could fix these issues quickly, it would save time and make online learning more engaging”. For Louise, finding work-life balance was the challenge. As she said, “A lot of students in my class were juggling children, work and uni. It felt sometimes like we were all expected to be the same type of student”. These student concerns highlighted both internal and external factors impacting an equitable delivery of blended learning in tertiary education.

Equity-related concerns in delivering units of work through blended learning were also addressed in the academic staff interviews. Teaching staff need to be at the forefront of implementing blended learning in their courses (Mozelius & Hettiarachchi, 2017). If institutional support is not in place, staff form communities of practice to facilitate self-care and care for others (Czerniewicz et al., 2020). With over twenty years’ experience in academia, Anastacia was very aware that “many students did not have internet or appropriate devices to access e-materials…greater access to computers on campus and more printed resources were necessary”. From the learner subsystem perspective, Anastacia also reflected on her increased workload; “I felt exhausted because my responsibilities included both online lectures and workshops. It would have helped if unit development had been recognised in our workload, especially when creating new online components from scratch”. Naomi also commented on the need for flexibility when discussing workloads – “personal circumstances play a role in our decision and ability to work online or on campus and this needs to be recognised in workload allocations”. Adding to this, Heather commented on how providing pastoral care to students added significantly to her workload – “there were a lot more emails about anxiety and stress that led to a substantial increase in my workload”. In terms of engagement, Heather went on to say that “students not having their cameras on because of bandwidth problems was also exhausting”. From a delivery perspective, Caitlin added:

Poor internet resulted in glitchy presentations. I always managed to get there, but there was always that worry. Another concern was that first year students especially struggled with the online format of blended learning – I had to adapt a lot of my teaching and check in individually just to keep them going.

Natalia also remarked, “Even when the software worked, it was clunky switching between tools. It broke the flow of teaching, and you started losing the students”. These responses from staff highlighted their struggles with technology and that they worried about it. They turned to colleagues for help, assistance, and care. In keeping with Czerniewicz et al. (2020), regarding self-care and care for others, Heather mentioned “we created informal WhatsApp groups to share resources and troubleshoot and just check in with each other. That kind of support was just as important as any formal PD”. Caitlin added “working with colleagues on campus who would just pop into your office and show you a quicker way to do things was a huge loss when lockdown happened”. Overall, these insights from academic staff highlight the need for equity to be a central principle of effective blended learning and how embedding it as a stand-alone subsystem in a revised framework will ensure inclusive and fair educational experiences for all.

The results of this paper were based on the triangulation of data from two sources. The initial matrix comparison of five existing blended learning frameworks revealed common foci on pedagogy, technology, and institutional factors, but noted that equity was absent or insufficiently addressed across all models. This analysis provided the basis for conceptualising equity as a missing component in the design of blended learning. The second data source was the thematic analysis of student and staff interviews. This analysis revealed challenges on issues of access to digital devices and resources, learner support, and cultural responses. Although students were positive about the flexibility of blended learning, they also noted inconsistencies in teaching quality and the use of technology.

Discussion

COVID-19 pushed university policy makers to search for alternatives to the traditionally based learning systems of classrooms, halls and laboratories (Ozadowicz, 2020). This included an alternative to students being physically present on campus. Emerging from this was a higher degree of self-directed learning by students that required metacognitive skills to include planning and critical evaluation of their learning (Hsieh, 2025). Post-COVID-19 saw a renewed focus on universities to address and support equity groups and rectify inequities (Australian Government, 2023). This study highlighted that students in online settings were more negative about several aspects compared to face-to-face sessions. This aligned with recent research that has shown that students view online learning as working individually and asynchronously, and therefore they are less satisfied with group work (Hadiyanto et al., 2021). Although studies have shown that access to university has become more equitable (Sánchez-Gelabert & Elias, 2023), inequities around socioeconomic status still exist and impact study conditions as well as the quality of education provided (Jury et al., 2017; Reay at al., 2010). The online component of blended learning offers flexibility for students to continue studying, but the requirements of this learning environment can also negate the opportunities it offers in terms of time and space (Sánchez-Gelabert & Elias, 2023).

In terms of staff, many educators were not trained in curriculum design and online teaching and used traditional teaching methods that failed to meet the diverse needs of all students (Coffman & Draper, 2022). Recent research showed how new course designs impacted students’ online engagement and satisfaction with the learning experience (Fanshawe et al., 2025). Limited access to material, professional support staff, and technology were all factors that lead to an increased workload for staff during and post-COVID-19 (Janse van Rensburg & Oguttu, 2022). Institutional resistance to change further exacerbated these issues (Dubazana, 2025). Institutions need to ensure the inclusion of equity in the provision of education for all students (Drane et al., 2021). While some models have guided institutions in the development of blended learning systems, this paper highlights the need to explicitly address equity by embedding it as a central and core subsystem. Although recent research proposed an equity-focused framework to guide blended learning design in South African higher education (Hamman et al., 2025), a noticeable gap in the literature is the lack of a similar framework in Australian higher education. Having reviewed five frameworks, the framework structure that most closely aligns to the codes and themes of the qualitative data, as well as the proposed inclusion of equity as a central subsystem is the CABLS framework (Wang et al., 2015).

Within CABLS, the subsystems and their interior subsystems interact with one another to create a blended learning system. Just like CABLS, the other frameworks explored and attempted to conceptualise blended learning, but they failed to fully address systemic inequities and the diverse needs of students and staff. Digital content and learning support alone cannot ensure meaningful access and participation for every student. Educators face obstacles related to the integration of technology, instructional strategies, and curriculum design (Aksak Kömür et al., 2024). For learners, structural inequalities include differences in digital literacy levels, unreliable internet access availability (digital exclusion), cultural marginalisation, disabilities and vulnerabilities (Drane et al., 2021). A key challenge in any blended learning environment is the importance of supporting students’ well-being; especially in times of low levels of motivation and connection with peers (Pang et al., 2023). Institutions must evaluate whether their system design reduces or perpetuates existing educational disparities. While recent research has addressed Australian institutions developing strategies for reducing global inequalities in access, it was tailored to international higher education students only, and placed a greater emphasis on access to education rather than equity in education (Heller & Leeder, 2025). Learner characteristics, learning outcomes, and design features are all indicators of blended learning effectiveness (Kintu et al., 2017). Therefore, the proposed framework will add equity as a unique subsystem and will be referred to as CABLS + E.

The proposed CABLS + E framework outlined in Fig. 6 functions as both an analytical tool and a strategic approach to create inclusive blended learning settings for all students, domestic and international, as well as staff and the institution.

Figure 6

Proposed CABLS + E Framework

According to Rose et al. (2015), “Challenging issues of providing equitable access to quality education for all students are nothing new in education” (p.71). However, through a comparative framework analysis, it was found that, while existing blended learning models offer a comprehensive basis for the planning, implementation, and support of blended learning in higher education, no existing model incorporates a comprehensive approach to addressing structural inequities and how equity needs to be intentionally integrated in the planning stage. Supporting this gap in existing frameworks for planning and implementation of blended learning, data collected and analysed as part of this study also showed that, while students and staff experienced a number of challenges in both transitioning to and adopting blended learning from a technical and pedagogical perspective, an additional, and often unaddressed challenge was the presence of equity barriers from infrastructure to course and student engagement. The strong need expressed by interview participants for digital literacy training resources for both student and staff demonstrates how integral the equity dimension is.

CABLS + E is a response to the identified gaps in existing blended learning frameworks. By adding equity within a systems-based blended learning design framework for higher education institutions by intentionally adding an additional (seventh) subsystem, there is greater clarity in the planning and design phase. In this manner, the CABLS + E framework aims to firmly add and position equity as a primary driver and design principle for blended learning. The proposed CABLS + E framework attempts to meet these needs by placing equity as a central design principle, rather than an outcome of system change. It further seeks to redefine blended learning as a living system made up of interdependent systems. These are made inclusive by design through equitable access, culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and course design, and differentiated support strategies implemented across all components and systems (curriculum, instruction, assessment, etc.) of the holistic framework, which includes the technology and infrastructure, staff, students, organizational structure, and organizational leadership systems.

Conclusion

The aims of this paper were to (a) better understand how blended learning environments impacted student and staff well-being pre- and post-COVID-19; and (b) how blended learning frameworks addressed the complexities of studying and working in blended learning environments in higher education, with equity as a core consideration. CABLS + E proposes the inclusion of equity as a unique subsystem to create a new framework that provides a more nuanced way to evaluate blended learning practices within higher education. When institutions, students and staff all have different perceptions of what blended learning is, successful implementation becomes very difficult to achieve (Nordmann et al., 2025). CABLS + E developed from both gaps in pre-pandemic frameworks regarding equity and the practical experiences and feedback of students and staff who identified issues with inclusion and equity. It provides a solution to existing educational challenges by positioning blended learning within an integrated system that makes equity a core principle instead of an added element. The framework mirrors learners’ experiences at university and provides the institutions with a clear roadmap for establishing socially fair and inclusive methods. CABLS + E enables universities to move from access-based models to frameworks that will prioritise equity together with diversity and inclusivity. Institutions should view equity as a core element of their educational design and policy-making processes as well as their institutional culture. As blended learning continues to evolve and adapt, frameworks such as the proposed CABLS + E framework are essential to guarantee that advancements in delivery modes correspond with improvements in educational equity.

Funding

The authors disclose that they have not received any funding for this manuscript.

Declarations

Clinical Trial Number: not applicable.

Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish: Human Research Ethics Committee Approved – Project number 2023/119.

References

Adekola, J., Dale, V. H. M., & Gardiner, K. (2017). Development of an institutional framework to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1973

Adekola, J., Dale, V. H. M., Gardiner, K., & Fischbacher-Smith, M. (2017). Student transitions to blended learning: An institutional case study. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v5i2.273

Ahmed, A.-B. (2020). Towards a faculty blended learning adoption model for higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1639–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10019-z

Aksak Kömür, İ., Şahin, Y., & Okur, M. (2024). The complex adaptive blended learning system: A systematic review. Digital Security & Media, 1, 18–29.

Arfanakis, A. K. (2022). Variations in perspectives of blended learning in a predominantly face-to-face classroom: The lived experience of high school science teachers. University of Massachusetts Lowell.

Australian Government, Department of Education. (2023). Final report of the Australian Universities Accord. https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/resources/final-report

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Brown, F. G. (1983). Principles of educational design and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Coffman, S., & Draper, C. (2022). Universal design for learning in higher education: A concept analysis. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 17(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2021.07.009

Crawford, J., Cowling, M., Ashton-Hay, S., Kelder, J. A., Middleton, R., & Wilson, G. S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and authorship editor policy: ChatGPT, Bard Bing AI, and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.01

Cummings, S. (2022). Elementary teacher perceptions of blended learning in the digital classroom. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, M., Felix, A., Gachago, D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kramm, N., Madiba, M., Mistri, G., Mgqwashu, E., Pallitt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, K., Strydom, S., Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4

Dai, Y., Lai, S., Lim, C. P., & Liu, A. (2024). University policies on generative AI in Asia: Promising practices, gaps, and future directions. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2379070

Drane, C. F., Vernon, L., & O’Shea, S. (2021). Vulnerable learners in the age of COVID-19: A scoping review. Australian Educational Researcher, 48(4), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00409-5

Dubazana, Y. (2025). Equity-Driven Curriculum Design: Blended Learning for Inclusive Education in the Global South. In E. Charamba & S. Ndhlovana (Eds.), Enablers, Barriers, and Challenges for Inclusive Curriculum (pp. 227–250). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-1000-8.ch010

Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

Fanshawe, M., Brown, A., & Redmond, P. (2025). Using an online engagement framework to redesign the learning environment for higher education students: A design experiment approach. Online Learning, 29(2), 269–297. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i2.4447

Friedenberg, L. (1995). Psychological testing: Design, analysis, and use. Allyn and Bacon.

Fuentes, M. A., Zelaya, D. G., & Madsen, J. W. (2021). Rethinking the course syllabus: Considerations for promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion. Teaching of Psychology, 48(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320959979

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2011).

Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558

Graham, C.R., Halverson, L.R. (2023). Blended Learning Research and Practice. In: Zawacki-Richter, O., Jung, I. (eds) Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_68

Gruba, P., Cárdenas-Claros, M. S., Suvorov, R., & Rick, K. (2016). Blended language program evaluation (1st ed. ). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137514370

Hadiyanto, H., Failasofah, F., Armiwati, A., Abrar, M., & Thabran, Y. (2021). Students' practices of 21st century skills between conventional learning and blended learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.3.7

Hamman, N., Hodgkinson-Williams, C., Karassellos, L., Nwanze, I., & Small, J. (2025). Enabling design: Creating an equity-focused framework for blended learning. Progressio. https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-5895/16177

Heller, R., & Leeder, S. (2025). Equity in student enrolment: A quantitative population perspective on international students in Australian universities. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. https://doi.org/10.53761/naepgd26

Hew, K. F., Jia, C., Gonda, D. E., & Bai, S. (2020). Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning in unpredictable times: pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), Article 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x

Hirst, S., & LeNavenec, C.-L. (2024). The context of blended learning environments: Lessons we have learned. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, 7, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/pplt.v7Y2024.77687

Holland, J. H. (2006). Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-006-0001-z

Honeychurch, S., & Offord, M. (2021). Developing a school-wide framework for blended and online learning and teaching (BOLT). Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 9(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v9i2.481

Hsieh, Y.-J. T. (2025). Implementation of an ePortfolio to promote professional pathways: A case study of international students in Australian higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.53761/4wa4wz27

Janse van Rensburg, E. D., & Oguttu, J. W. (2022). Blended teaching and learning: Exploring the concept, barriers to implementation and designing of learning resources. South African Journal of Higher Education, 36(6), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.20853/36-6-4595

Jurado de los Santos, P., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Marín-Marín, J.-A., & Soler Costa, R. (2020). The term equity in education: A literature review with scientific mapping in Web of Science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103526

Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The experience of low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success and interventions to reduce social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12202

Keshavarz, N., Nutbeam, D., Rowling, L., & Khavarpour, F. (2010). Schools as social complex adaptive systems: A new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept. Social Science & Medicine, 70(10), 1467–1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.034

Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 8(4), 2–12 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00164.x.

Ling, T., & Nasri, N. M. (2019). A systematic review: Issues on equity in education. Creative Education, 10(12), 3163–3174. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1012240

Marfuah, M., Novita, R., & Danoebroto, S. W. (2023). Book review: Supporting mathematics educators through and towards online learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 112, 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10175-z

McCarthy, S., & Palmer, E. (2023). Defining an effective approach to blended learning in higher education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(2), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8489

McGee, E., & Poojary, P. (2020). Exploring blended learning relationships in higher education using a systems-based framework. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.803343

McInnes, R., Hobson, J. E., Johnson, K. L., Cramp, J., Aitchison, C., & Baldock, K. L. (2024). Online course quality evaluation instruments: A scoping review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8978

McLure, F. I., Koul, R. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2022). University students’ classroom emotional climate and attitudes during and after COVID-19 lockdown. Education Sciences, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI12010031

Mirriahi, N., Alonzo, D., & Fox, B. (2015). A blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28451

Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012

Moussa-Inaty, J. (2017). Student experiences of a blended learning environment. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(9), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.9.5

Mozelius, P., & Hettiarachchi, E. (2017). Critical factors for implementing blended learning in higher education. ICTE Journal, 6(2), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijicte-2017-0010

Nordmann, E., Hronska, B., & Mackay, J. R. D. (2025). How do higher education staff understand the terms hybrid, hyflex and blended learning? Choice, modality and uncertainty. Research in Learning Technology, 33, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v33.3353

Olivera, B. K. (2023). A qualitative investigation of complex adaptive blended learning systems within rural indigenous communities. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Ozadowicz, A. (2020). Modified blended learning in engineering higher education during the COVID-19 lockdown—Building automation courses case study. Education Sciences, 10(10), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100292

Pang, T. Y., Kootsookos, A., & Pirogova, E. (2023). Pandemic-induced course and assessment changes for undergraduate engineering education: The development of graduate attributes. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.5.15

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Ping Lim, C., Wang, T., & Graham, C. (2019). Driving, sustaining and scaling up blended learning practices in higher education institutions: A proposed framework. Innovation and Education, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42862-019-0002-0

Prior, M. (2018). Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(4), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0029

Purvis, A. J., & Crawford, J. (2024). Ethical standards in educational research and publication. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(9). https://doi.org/10.53761/hqnqr710

Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2010). “Fitting in” or “standing out”: Working class students in UK higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902878925

Rose, R. M., Smith, A., Johnson, K., Glick, D. (2015). Ensuring equitable access in online and blended learning. In Clark, T., & Barbour, M. K. (Eds), Online, Blended, and Distanced Education in Schools (pp. 71–83). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003446194-9

Sánchez-Gelabert, A., & Elias, M. (2023). Going online? Does transferring to online university increase the likelihood of graduation among students from lower social background? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00407-4

Stevenson, S., Gurung, M., & Zagala, K. (2024). Emergence of the universal wellbeing model: A journey from Indigenous cultural responsiveness to international relevance and applicability. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(4), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.53761/hp6ggg26

Tilak, J. B. G., & Kumar, A. G. (2022). Policy changes in global higher education: What lessons do we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic? Higher Education Policy, 35(3), 610–628. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-022-00266-0

Truss, A., & Anderson, V. (2023). The navigational challenges of a blended learning approach to teaching in business and management. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 100733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100733

UNESCO. (2023). Equity should be at the heart of international higher education. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/equity-should-be-heart-international-higher-education

Waddington, C. (1977). Tools for thought. Basic Books.

Waldrop, M. M., & Stein, D. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. Physics Today, 45(12), 83–83. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2809917

Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–393.

Whalley, B., France, D., Park, J., Mauchline, A., & Welsh, K. (2021). Towards flexible personalized learning and the future educational system in the fourth industrial revolution in the wake of Covid-19. Higher education pedagogies, 6(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2021.1883458

Zaugg, H., Graham, C. R., Lim, C. P., Wang, T., Graham, C. R., & Lim, C. P. (2021). Current and Future Directions of Blended Learning and Teaching in Asia. In Lim, C.P., Graham, C.R. (eds) Blended Learning for Inclusive and Quality Higher Education in Asia. (pp. 301–327). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4106-7_16

Yes