Towards excellent inclusive online/offline learning environments in higher education

Abstract

This dissertation investigates how inclusion in blended higher education is understood, how it is structured through educational design, and how it is shaped by educators’ intentions. It addresses a central assumption in contemporary higher education: that the flexibility and accessibility associated with blended higher education naturally support inclusion. Yet the relationship between blended education and inclusion is far from self-evident. This dissertation shows that inclusion in blended higher education does not emerge automatically from flexibility or technology, but takes shape through the interplay of conceptual interpretations, design-oriented structuring, and educators’ intention formation, each embedded within broader normative and institutional conditions. The dissertation follows a multi-study design consisting of the co-design study (Study 1.1), the qualitative TPB study (Study 1.2), the systematic literature review (Study 2), the quantitative TPB study (Study 3), and a critical book chapter on HyFlex education. Together, these studies examine inclusion in blended higher education from qualitative, quantitative, review-based, and conceptually critical perspectives. The synthesis of the dissertation reveals two overarching patterns. A first pattern concerns how inclusion is interpreted and translated into educational design in blended higher education. The co-design study (Study 1.1) shows that students and educators associate inclusion with participation, accessibility, support, belonging, and, for some, reasonable adjustments. At the same time, these meanings are not always clearly aligned. In practice, inclusion is therefore often translated into design-oriented responses. The systematic literature review (Study 2) shows that higher education research relies strongly on frameworks such as Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning to structure inclusion, yet these approaches are often implemented only partially, measured unevenly, and insufficiently linked to clearly defined outcomes. The critical book chapter further shows that flexibility alone does not ensure inclusion: while flexible participation may create opportunities, it may also intensify barriers, uncertainty, and inequality. Together, these findings suggest that design-oriented frameworks are important because they help translate inclusion into educational design. At the same time, they show that substantial work remains in how inclusion in blended higher education is conceptualised, implemented, and evaluated, as the meaning of inclusion often remains implicit, design principles are applied unevenly, and the relationship between inclusive design choices and their outcomes is not always clearly established. A second pattern concerns how educators’ inclusive intentions are formed. The qualitative studies (Study 1.1 and 1.2) show that inclusive intentions are rarely entirely absent, but often remain conditional, fragile, and negotiated. Educators weigh inclusion against concerns such as fairness, academic standards, feasibility, student autonomy, and professional preparation. The quantitative TPB study (Study 3) deepens this picture by showing that attitudes, self-efficacy, and subjective norms all contribute to explaining inclusive intentions in blended higher education, with self-efficacy emerging as particularly important. In addition, educators who position themselves more strongly as inclusive professionals report stronger inclusive intentions. At the same time, perceived institutional inclusivity does not emerge as an additional direct predictor once the other belief-related components are taken into account. Together, these findings show that inclusive intention formation is shaped not simply by policy rhetoric, but by how educators interpret their professional role, their room for action, and the expectations surrounding their practice. Taken together, these two patterns show that inclusion in blended higher education cannot be understood through conceptual interpretations, design-oriented structuring, or intentional processes in isolation. Rather, inclusion takes shape through the interaction between how it is understood, how it is pedagogically structured, and how educators position themselves in relation to inclusive practice. The dissertation’s main theoretical contribution lies in showing that TPB components in professional contexts such as blended higher education are not best understood as decontextualised individual cognitions, but as contextually embedded interpretations. Inclusive intention formation is therefore approached not as a simple linear result of attitudes, norms, and control, but as a situated and negotiated process shaped by professional meaning-making. The practical relevance of this dissertation lies not in offering a simple list of techniques, but in making visible the conditions and processes that enable or hinder inclusive action in blended higher education. The findings suggest that inclusive higher education requires more than individual goodwill, isolated professional development, or technical design adaptations. What is needed is a sharper shared language around inclusion, more collective explicitation of normative judgements and compromises, and stronger support for educators in their professional judgement and in translating inclusive intentions into practice. In sum, this dissertation argues that inclusion in blended higher education is not a fixed outcome of policy, technology, or design. It is continually interpreted, structured, and negotiated through the interplay of educational design, institutional conditions, and intentional professional action. By examining these processes together, the dissertation contributes to a more critical and integrated understanding of inclusion in blended higher education.