Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology
Blended learning in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review of design features, student engagement, and learning outcomes
Ruilian Shi 1 2, Arumugam Raman 2 * , Mohan Rathakrishnan 2
More Detail
1 Baotou Teachers’ College of Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China
2 School of Education, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
* Corresponding Author
Open Access Full Text (PDF)
ARTICLE INFO

Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2026 - Volume 8 Issue 3, Article No: e48177
https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202648177

Article Type: Review Article

Published Online: 24 Oct 2026

Views: 6 | Downloads: 3

ABSTRACT
Abstract: Blended learning has become increasingly prominent in pre-service teacher education, yet evidence remains fragmented regarding how particular instructional design features relate to student engagement and learning outcomes. This systematic review synthesised empirical research on blended learning in pre-service teacher education, with particular attention to instructional design, engagement, and academic and professional outcomes. We identified studies through systematic database searching and screened them using predefined eligibility criteria. We coded eligible studies for methodological characteristics, instructional design features, forms of engagement evidence, outcome domains, and direction of findings, and appraised methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The synthesis identified six recurring and overlapping design themes, with alignment and sequencing, interaction and feedback, and autonomy and self-regulation particularly prominent. Engagement was represented inconsistently across the literature, ranging from direct measurement and proxy indicators to instances in which study authors invoked engagement without corresponding empirical indicators. Reported outcomes extended beyond academic achievement to include motivational, self-regulatory, technological, pedagogical, and professional dimensions. Although favourable findings were common, variation in research designs, measures, contexts, and methodological quality limits broad causal conclusions about blended learning effectiveness. The review indicates that blended learning in pre-service teacher education is better understood through the configuration and integration of its instructional components than as a uniform delivery model. Future research should more directly examine the pathways connecting instructional design, engagement, and academic and professional outcomes.
KEYWORDS
blended learning instructional design learning outcomes pre-service teacher education student engagement systematic review
SUPPLEMENTARY FILES
In-text citation: (Shi et al., 2026)
Reference: Shi, R., Raman, A., & Rathakrishnan, M. (2026). Blended learning in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review of design features, student engagement, and learning outcomes. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 8(3), e48177. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202648177
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Shi R, Raman A, Rathakrishnan M. Blended learning in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review of design features, student engagement, and learning outcomes. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2026;8(3), e48177. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202648177
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Shi R, Raman A, Rathakrishnan M. Blended learning in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review of design features, student engagement, and learning outcomes. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2026;8(3):e48177. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202648177
In-text citation: (Shi et al., 2026)
Reference: Shi, Ruilian, Arumugam Raman, and Mohan Rathakrishnan. "Blended learning in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review of design features, student engagement, and learning outcomes". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology 2026 8 no. 3 (2026): e48177. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202648177
In-text citation: (Shi et al., 2026)
Reference: Shi, R., Raman, A., and Rathakrishnan, M. (2026). Blended learning in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review of design features, student engagement, and learning outcomes. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 8(3), e48177. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202648177
In-text citation: (Shi et al., 2026)
Reference: Shi, Ruilian et al. "Blended learning in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review of design features, student engagement, and learning outcomes". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, vol. 8, no. 3, 2026, e48177. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202648177
REFERENCES
  • Amir-Behghadami, M., & Janati, A. (2020). Population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emergency Medicine Journal, 37(6), 387. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-209567
  • Ashraf, M. A., Yang, M., Zhang, Y., Denden, M., Tlili, A., Liu, J., Huang, R., & Burgos, D. (2021). A systematic review of systematic reviews on blended learning: Trends, gaps and future directions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1525–1541. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S331741
  • Bekele, A., Melese, W., & Sime, T. (2025). The impact of a blended learning approach on students’ academic achievement in Ethiopia: Jimma College of Teacher Education in focus. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(10), 5996–6006. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2491617
  • Bergdahl, N., Bond, M., Sjöberg, J., Dougherty, M., & Oxley, E. (2024). Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00493-y
  • Biberman-Shalev, L., Broza, O., & Chamo, N. (2023). Contextual changes and shifts in pedagogical paradigms: Post-COVID-19 blended learning as a negotiation space in teacher education. Education Sciences, 13(3), 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030275
  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  • Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001
  • Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Heinemann, A. (2021). A scoping review of research instruments for measuring student engagement: In need for convergence. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100099
  • Cabı, E., & Türkoğlu, H. (2025). The impact of a learning analytics based feedback system on students’ academic achievement and self-regulated learning in a flipped classroom. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 26(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v26i1.7924
  • Carrillo, C., & Assuncao Flores, M. (2023). Online teaching and learning practices in teacher education after COVID-19: Lessons learnt from the literature. Journal of Education for Teaching, 49(5), 869–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2153018
  • Chen, C. Y. (2024). Flipped classroom with case-based learning for improving preservice teachers’ classroom management learning outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 152, 104785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104785
  • Cheng, Z., Yang, F., & Zhu, C. (2026). Understanding teacher workload in blended learning: Insights through the job demands-resources model. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 24(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.24.1.4465
  • Cubacub, P. D. C., & Jimenez, E. C. (2025). The role of blended learning in enhancing student engagement: Evidence from high schools in Micronesia. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 6(3), Article 33074. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202533074
  • Danişman, Ş. (2026). Generative AI supported practicum experiences contribute to the pedagogical reasoning and professional identity development of preservice mathematics teachers. E-Learning and Digital Media. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530261465688
  • Danişman, Ş., & Evran Acar, F. (2026). Artificial intelligence use and cognitive resource allocation: Nonlinear associations with mental workload and perceived performance. Journal of Intelligence, 14(8), Article 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence14080154
  • Dolmaci, A., & Acar, F. E. (2025). Development of a twenty-first century skills curriculum through the flipped learning approach. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1666. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05925-2
  • Eggers, J. H., Oostdam, R., & Voogt, J. (2021). Self-regulation strategies in blended learning environments in higher education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6453
  • Eren, E., & Dökme, I. (2022). An effective intervention with a blended learning environment for improving cognitive learning and spiritual meaning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17(4), 991–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10083-3
  • Erol, T., & Celik, S. (2022). Flipped classrooms: Designed and implemented with colleagues collaboration. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 19(3), 13. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.3.12
  • Fidan, M. (2023). The effects of microlearning-supported flipped classroom on pre-service teachers’ learning performance, motivation and engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 12687–12714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11639-2
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  • Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
  • Gu, J., Tang, L., Liu, X., & Xu, J. (2022). Promoting pre-service teacher students' learning engagement: Design-based research in a flipped classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 810275. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810275
  • Günbatar, M. S. (2021). Evaluation of the problem based flipped classroom instruction process in the framework of Community of Inquiry. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 46–68. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v9i2.6690
  • Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
  • Han, H., & Røkenes, F. M. (2020). Flipped classroom in teacher education: A scoping review. Frontiers in Education, 5, 601593. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.601593
  • Han, H., Rokenes, F., & Krumsvik, R. (2025). The flipped classroom's impact on students' motivation and engagement. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 20(3), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.18261/njdl.20.3.3
  • Hayward, D. V., Mousavi, A., Carbonaro, M., Montgomery, A. P., & Dunn, W. (2022). Exploring pre-service teachers engagement with live models of universal design for learning and blended learning course delivery. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420973216
  • Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
  • Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-180221
  • Hujjatusnaini, N., Corebima, A. D., Prawiro, S. R., & Gofur, A. (2022). The effect of blended project-based learning integrated with 21st-century skills on pre-service biology teachers’ higher-order thinking skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 11(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v11i1.27148
  • Jong, M. S. Y. (2023). Flipped classroom: Motivational affordances of spherical video-based immersive virtual reality in support of pre-lecture individual learning in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09334-1
  • Kaya, O. N., & Aydemir, S. (2025). A new learning environment for improving pre-service science teachers’ views of nature of science: Triple blended learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 30(6), 7387–7455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13014-1
  • Kesler, M., Kaasinen, A., & Kervinen, A. (2024). Teaching science outdoors: Supporting pre-service teachers’ skill development with the help of available mobile applications. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111218
  • Kitching, N. (2026). ‘I’ll do it tomorrow’: Supporting the engagement of primary pre-service teachers through blended, inquiry-based learning. Irish Educational Studies, 45(1), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2024.2394396
  • Kouhia, A., & Härkki, T. (2023). Advanced student motivation in craft teacher education: Learning new yarn crafts at university study courses. FormAkademisk, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.5384
  • Ma, K., Zhang, J., Chutiyami, M., Liang, L., & Dong, J. (2023). Effectiveness of blended teaching in pre-service teacher education: A meta-analysis. Distance Education, 44(3), 495–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2155617
  • Menggo, S., & Darong, H. C. (2022). Blended learning in ESL/EFL class. LLT Journal: Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 25(1), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i1.4159
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  • Mohafa, L. G., Makhechane, M., & Qhobela, M. (2026). Pre-service physical science teachers’ self-efficacy for sustainable digital pedagogy: Evidence from teaching practice after emergency blended learning. Sustainable Education and Digital Transformation, 1(2), e43696. https://doi.org/10.33902/SEDT.202643696
  • Mualim, M., Margana, M., Widyantoro, A., Nguyen, H. H., Khristianto, K., Faisal, F., & Roiyasa, N. (2025). Evaluating INSTALL as an instructional model to enhance EFL pre-service teachers’ TPACK: A case of three Indonesian universities. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1580173. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1580173
  • Özüdoğru, M. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions related to the distance teacher education learning environment and community of inquiry. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021472945
  • Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  • Ramos, A. M., Lee, H., & Mabuan, R. A. (2025). Exploring the relationship among pre-service teachers' e-learning readiness, learning engagement, and learning performance in HyFlex learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 26(2), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v26i2.8165
  • Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
  • Reffiane, F., Sudarmin, Wiyanto, & Saptono, S. (2022). The effectiveness of hybrid learning model using Ethno-STEM approach to develop critical thinking skills (CrTS). International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 14(1), 1242–1250. https://doi.org/10.9756/int-jecse/v14i1.221142
  • Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
  • Schmid, R., Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R., Pickup, D., & Abrami, P. (2023). A meta-analysis of online learning, blended learning, the flipped classroom and classroom instruction for pre-service and in-service teachers. Computers & Education Open, 5, 100142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100142
  • Seoane, R. C., & Jiménez, J. E. (2022). Effectiveness of online and blended delivery methods on pre-service teachers' knowledge and beliefs for writing instruction. Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(2), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1963191
  • Short, C. R., Graham, C. R., Holmes, T., Oviatt, L., & Bateman, H. (2021). Preparing teachers to teach in K-12 blended environments: A systematic mapping review of research trends, impact, and themes. TechTrends, 65(6), 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00626-4
  • Sun, F. R., Hu, H. Z., Wan, R. G., Fu, X., & Wu, S. J. (2022). A learning analytics approach to investigating pre-service teachers’ change of concept of engagement in the flipped classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(2), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1660996
  • Şahin, Ş., Boyacı, Z., Ökmen, B., Danişman, Ş., Eriş Hasırcı, H. M., & Kılıç, A. (2020). Determining visions related to the flipped learning. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(3), 62–84. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.600312
  • Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  • Tumelius, R., & Kuure, L. (2024). Pre-service teachers' professional vision and agency emerging in orchestrating language learning in a hybrid space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 1554–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2092154
  • Wang, T., & He, H. (2023). Pre-service teachers' task engagement in flipped Chinese language and culture learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.323649
  • Wang, Z., Chen, X., Zhao, H., Xu, Y., & Wang, P. (2025). How does the online discussion intervention influence learners' engagement, emotions, and motivation in a blended learning environment? Learners' need for cognition matters. BMC Psychology, 13(1), 1122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03466-6
  • Yeh, Y. C., Wang, C. M., Ting, Y. S., & Chiang, J. L. (2025). A visible thinking approach for pre-service teacher training: Effects and mechanisms for professional development in creativity instruction. Teaching Education, 36(3), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2025.2485230
  • Yıldırım, M., & Turgut, Y. E. (2025). The effect of the flipped classroom model on pre-service teachers' academic achievement, self-regulated learning skills, and classroom engagement. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202535543
  • Yudt, K. E., Sawyer, B. E., & Shera, S. B. (2024). Preservice elementary teachers' mathematical achievement and attitudes: A study of blended learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 27(3), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09565-0
  • Yurtseven Avci, Z., Ergulec, F., Misirli, O., & Süral, I. (2022). Flipped learning in information technology courses: Benefits and challenges. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(5), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1986623
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.