Framework review and Western Australian university interviews place equity at the core of blended learning design

A comparative review of five higher-education blended learning frameworks and interviews with 10 students and staff found that equity was absent or insufficiently addressed as a distinct design principle. The researchers proposed CABLS + E, which adds equity as a seventh subsystem to the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning Systems framework so that digital access, participation barriers and flexible learning options are considered across course design and delivery.

The study combined the framework review with a qualitative component from a larger mixed-methods project. The qualitative work used an interpretivist approach and purposive sampling at one Western Australian university. Participants were five final-year Initial Teacher Education students and five academic staff from a School of Education. The students had experienced face-to-face study in 2019–2020, a short period of emergency remote teaching in the first semester of 2020, and blended learning from the second semester of 2020 onward. Staff were eligible if they had at least five years of experience teaching Initial Teacher Education courses.

Semi-structured interviews took place online through Microsoft Teams from December 2023 to January 2024. Each lasted approximately 45–55 minutes, and participants received the questions by email one week beforehand. Student interviews addressed online and face-to-face learning, access to resources, participation conditions, motivation, flexibility, technology orientation and staff training. Staff interviews also covered workload, blended delivery, institutional expectations and the support needed for equitable implementation. The researchers used reflexive thematic analysis with hybrid inductive–deductive coding. Initial codes followed the CABLS subsystems—learner, teacher, content, technology, learning support and institution—while inductive codes captured themes related to equity and inequity.

Across the five reviewed frameworks, recurring elements included curriculum design, pedagogy, technology integration and institutional roles. Garrison and Vaughan’s framework emphasized cognitive, social and teaching presence. Mirriahi and colleagues connected curriculum design and professional development with digital fluency and self-assessment. Adekola and colleagues addressed change management, infrastructure, resources, professional development, accessibility, equity of access and copyright compliance. Lim and colleagues proposed seven strategic dimensions covering curriculum, policy alignment, infrastructure, professional development, student support, partnerships, and research and evaluation. CABLS treated blended learning as a complex adaptive system comprising six interconnected subsystems.

The review found that equity was not operationalized consistently across these models. Some frameworks did not expressly identify it, while the Adekola framework addressed related ethical and legal matters without making equity a central design principle. The authors also concluded that the reviewed frameworks did not adequately combine structural considerations such as device access, connectivity, institutional flexibility and barriers to participation with pedagogical and technological guidance. This gap motivated the addition of equity as a crosscutting subsystem rather than a separate concern limited to technology or student support.

Interview participants described uneven experiences with the flexibility offered by blended learning. Students reported differing levels of digital literacy, unclear expectations, inconsistent teaching quality, technical problems and reduced peer interaction in online components. Regional students described inadequate internet connections or unsuitable home study conditions, while one participant said delivery appeared identical in Perth and remote areas even though city students had greater access to campus support. Students also reported that work, family responsibilities, rigid timetabling and the need for self-direction could constrain participation. Recorded lectures and the ability to choose modes of engagement were nevertheless valued by several participants.

Staff described similar access and delivery constraints, alongside additional workload pressures. Participants reported concerns about poor connectivity, unsuitable devices, clunky technology, inconsistent support for students and the need to adapt teaching for students who were less familiar with online environments. Some staff carried greater responsibilities for blended unit development, pastoral care and individual check-ins, and described concerns about workload recognition and institutional support for flexible working. Staff also turned to colleagues for help, including informal WhatsApp groups for sharing resources and troubleshooting and in-person demonstrations of more efficient ways to work with technology.

The interview themes supported the addition of an equity subsystem containing three nested considerations. Digital access concerns the practical conditions that enable or prevent engagement, including reliable devices, connectivity, software and guidance. Participation barriers include rigid schedules, competing responsibilities, unclear communication and delivery arrangements that do not suit all learners. Flexible learning opportunities concern whether recorded material, choice and institutional flexibility provide similar benefits across the student body. The authors describe CABLS + E as both an analytical and strategic framework, but emphasize that it is diagnostic and reflective rather than prescriptive. It is intended to prompt questions about who benefits, under what conditions and why.

The findings remain bounded by the study design and scope. The qualitative sample was small and purposive, drawing on one institution and one Initial Teacher Education program, so the findings were not presented as representative of all higher-education students or staff. Equity was treated specifically in relation to the intentional design and support of blended learning, rather than broader social or structural determinants such as socioeconomic disadvantage, cultural issues or institutional admissions practices. The paper reports only the qualitative component of the larger project; a quantitative phase is to be reported separately. Within these limits, the review and interviews consistently indicate that blended learning flexibility does not by itself ensure equitable participation.

Subject of Research: Equity-focused framework for blended learning in higher education

Article Title: Equity in blended learning through the CABLS + E framework

Article References: Murphy, P., Chapman, S., & Lambert, K. (2026). Equity in blended learning through the CABLS + E framework. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02126-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02126-0

Keywords: blended learning, higher education, equity, digital access, student participation, flexible learning, framework review, qualitative interviews, teacher education, Western Australia, blended, learning