Exploring Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Blended Learning: Trends and Insights

Introduction

Blended learning (BL) has increasingly been discussed not only as a flexible instructional model but also as a means to advance equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in education. By integrating face-to-face and online modalities, BL can expand access, reduce barriers, and create more inclusive learning opportunities for diverse groups of students. BL is a versatile learning model that combines traditional face-to-face instruction with online learning experiences to cater to students’ individual learning needs. This model allows educators to combine online and face-to-face teaching methods in line with specific pedagogical goals (Hrastinski, 2019). BL has the potential to enhance students’ independent learning skills, boost academic success, and encourage greater student engagement (Kumar et al., 2021; Topping et al., 2022).

While there are various definitions and concepts of blended learning, including hybrid learning (HL), flipped learning (FL), in this study we define BL in general terms as a model where traditional face-to-face instruction is supported with online components to enhance the student engagement and learning experience. BL is particularly important for providing access and flexibility (Divjak et al., 2022). This model allows students to access learning materials and activities anytime and anywhere. Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of BL in ensuring learning continuity has been widely accepted (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2023; Divjak et al., 2022). BL has been found to be more effective compared to online learning alone, and under certain conditions even more effective than face-to-face learning (Topping et al., 2022). In BL students have the opportunity to both develop their digital skills and enrich their learning processes through access to various learning activities. Additionally, BL provides students with the potential to develop self-regulated learning skills thanks to the flexibility of tasks and student autonomy (Rienties et al., 2019; Topping et al., 2022). In addition, educators can increase interaction and make course content more inclusive by using digital tools in a BL environment (Divjak et al., 2022).

In the context of EDI, or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in mostly American contexts, BL has the potential to create equal opportunities in education (Kaspar, 2018), especially for those facing barriers to access. EDI has gained importance as part of efforts to make higher education more equitable, accessible, and inclusive for learners (Bayer et al., 2024; Kbaier et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2020). BL not only may benefit learners from diverse backgrounds, but also incorporates measures to support diversity and create a learning environment that embraces diversity. When BL activities are appropriately designed, students can learn at their own pace and participate in educational processes regardless of geographical or economic barriers (Topping et al., 2022). Blended learning approaches are being used to broaden access to education, making it more inclusive for diverse groups of learners who might otherwise face barriers such as geographical location or time constraints (Nguyen et al., 2020).

Although BL can create a positive environment and impression within the scope of the concepts of equity, diversity, and inclusion, this model may also have some limitations or adverse effects. For example, while blended learning environments stand out as powerful tools for overcoming geographical and economic barriers, design deficiencies in these environments can create new inequalities, such as digital divide (Iniesto & Bossu, 2023), social isolation (Wei et al., 2012), and sense of belonging (Dulfer et al., 2024). For this reason, it is crucial to examine who participates in BL and EDI studies, which methods and theoretical frameworks are used, and which related themes and global research networks dominate the field. Clarifying these aspects justifies the research questions and demonstrates how the study contributes to addressing inequalities in blended learning environments. Therefore, in this systematic literature review we aim to explore what the themes in academic literature at the intersection of BL and EDI are, and how do these themes vary in terms of theoretical/conceptual frameworks, research methods, and data collection tools.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)

The use of digital tools in education can exacerbate inequalities, especially for students lacking access to technology or internet infrastructure, such as those in rural areas. These disparities can prevent full participation in online learning. Additionally, online education’s flexibility may lead to decreased motivation and social isolation due to limited interpersonal interaction, weakening students’ sense of belonging and negatively impacting learning experiences (Dulfer et al., 2024; Wei et al., 2012). Therefore, ensuring digital access and optimizing user experience are essential in designing blended learning (BL) environments.

EDI consists of three interconnected dimensions that collectively aim to foster equitable learning: equality, diversity and inclusion. Equality focuses on eliminating barriers faced by disadvantaged groups in accessing educational resources. Open educational resources (OERs) are often highlighted as tools to enhance equality. However, technological barriers, like the digital divide, persist. Iniesto and Bossu’s (2023) note that while the principle of equality is theoretically addressed, practical issues like access limitations remain. Similarly, Lapum et al. (2022) emphasize that digital tools and thoughtful learning designs are crucial to promoting equal educational opportunities.

Diversity centers on representation within educational environments, highlighting the underrepresentation of certain groups. Studies such as Wolbring and Lillywhite’s (2021) and Meng (2024) reveal systemic barriers that limit participation by individuals with disabilities, women, and ethnic minorities. Addressing these gaps is critical to fostering diversity in education.

Inclusion emphasizes creating environments where all learners can actively participate. However, inclusion often remains superficial, as Ely (2021) shows in their analysis of diversity statements, and frequently lack concrete implementation. This aligns with findings from Bakhshi et al. (2020) and Haug (2017), which argue that inclusivity needs actionable strategies to move beyond rhetoric.

Although systematic reviews (e.g., Georgiadou, 2016; Rossi & Brischetto, 2024; Wolbring & Nguyen, 2023) have explored EDI in various contexts, they have not systematically addressed its connection to blended learning (BL). Most rely on content analysis, with limited application of bibliometric methods. Bibliometric analysis identifies academic trends, key contributors, and research collaborations, offering insights into the development and impact of a field (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). This method analyzes the pace of development and level of impact of a particular field, revealing how research connections in the field are shaped in a broader context. Content analysis examines themes and research methods, highlighting gaps and future research needs (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Combining these methods provides a comprehensive approach to understanding the interplay between EDI and BL, addressing the multidimensional aspects of both concepts (Passas, 2024; Topal et al., 2020).

Literature Review

In the field, there is a substantial body of systematic reviews, bibliometric analyses, and scoping reviews focusing on BL, HL and FL. While many of these reviews address the topic from a general educational perspective, others concentrate on specific domains such as mathematics education, English language learning, nursing education, etc. To provide a broader overview and avoid excessive detail, this section highlights general reviews rather than subject-specific ones. A summary of the literature is presented in Table 1 below.

As illustrated in Table 1, research on BL and flipped learning FL has grown significantly over the last two decades, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic (Bozkurt, 2022; Lo, 2023). The reviews collectively emphasize recurring themes such as self-regulated learning strategies, student motivation, institutional readiness, and technological integration (Eggers et al., 2021; Alonso et al., 2025; Anthony et al., 2022), while also drawing attention to persistent challenges like equity gaps, digital skills, and workload concerns (Rasheed et al., 2020; Min & Yu, 2023). Although the majority of studies report positive effects on academic achievement, engagement, and intrinsic motivation (Daniel et al., 2024; Alonso et al., 2023; Kaya & Çebi, 2025), they also highlight methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, overreliance on self-reports, and a lack of cross-disciplinary and K–12 research (Xu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). Furthermore, bibliometric reviews reveal a concentration of studies in higher education and STEM contexts, with relatively limited exploration in underrepresented regions and disciplines (Castro-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Del Arco et al., 2022). Overall, the literature suggests that while BL and FL hold strong potential for improving learning outcomes, their success is contingent upon careful design, institutional support, and context-sensitive implementation (McCarthy & Palmer, 2023; Anthony et al., 2022). However, no review study has been identified that directly addresses BL within the explicit framework of EDI.

Our study aims to fill these gaps by bringing together content and bibliometric analysis methods. This study aims to reveal the impact of BL in the context of EDI and the research trends in this field. In particular, systematically examining how BL may support EDI and how thematic trends in the literature are shaped in this context will allow for a deeper understanding of this field. In this context, the research questions of this study can be listed as follows:

1. In terms of the identified literature at the intersection of blended learning (BL) and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), what are the main groups of participants (e.g., undergraduate, K12, staff), methods used (e.g., quantitative, experimental), and theoretical frameworks (e.g., constructivism, self-regulated learning) used

2. Which themes are prominent in the academic literature at the intersection of BL EDI?

3. Which countries, institutions, authors, and journals contribute to the literature on BL and EDI, and what is the structure of academic interactions and keyword trends in this context?

Methods

Identification of Studies

In line with recommendations from Costa et al. (2023), a systematic approach was undertaken to identify relevant studies for this research, combining content analysis and bibliometric analysis methods to ensure a comprehensive exploration of the literature. Identifying appropriate keywords was one of the most critical stages of the process. The Web of Science (WoS) database was used as the primary source for data collection, as it is widely recognized as a highly esteemed and comprehensive research platform covering multiple disciplines (Durak et al., 2024). Using WoS ensured access to high-quality, peer-reviewed publications, offered robust citation tracking to trace the impact and evolution of research trends, and provided a credible and reliable overview of the research landscape. A systematic data collection process was carried out following the PRISMA methodology (Page et al., 2021), ensuring transparency and rigor in the selection and analysis stages. This process has been visualized in Figure 1 in alignment with the PRISMA methodology.

Figure 1

In bibliometric analyses, the robustness of inclusion and exclusion criteria is crucial (Patino & Ferreira, 2018). This study ensured that these criteria were clearly defined and strictly applied, allowing only studies directly relevant to the research questions to be included. This rigorous selection process excluded studies that were irrelevant to the EDI concept or utilized in unrelated contexts, ensuring the reliability and focus of the analysis.

For the analysis, frequently used terms in the context of blended learning were scanned, and expressions such as blended learning, hybrid learning, hybrid teaching, flipped learning, and mixed learning were included in the keyword set. In the context of EDI, these keywords were combined with terms like equity, diversity, and inclusion using the conjunction AND to create a comprehensive search strategy. Publications retrieved through this systematic search were manually reviewed by three researchers to assess their relevance to the study’s scope. As shown in Figure 1, our initial search revealed 2350 publications through the WoS database. From an initial pool of 287 articles, manual evaluations identified 89 relevant studies.

Results

Content Analysis

In terms of RQ1, this section explored trends in research methods and models/designs, participants, data collection tools, variables, and patterns in keywords in studies focused on the studies. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the 89 articles by year.

Figure 2

According to Figure 2, the highest number of articles on BL and EDI was published in 2024, with a total of 16 publications. From 2016 onward, there was a gradual increase in the number of articles, reflecting a growing interest in the topic. This growth pattern may continue in the next years as more institutions prioritize inclusivity and innovative learning approaches.

Participants

According to Table 2, it became evident that undergraduate students were the most frequently studied group, appearing in 20 studies. Academics and staff followed closely, being featured in 13 studies. Graduate students were the focus of 9 studies, while. K12 students appeared in 8 studies. This distribution demonstrated a strong focus on higher education students, particularly undergraduates, while also reflecting a growing interest in diverse groups such as K12 students. In the online Appendix we have illustrated the detailed findings of the content analysis of participants, data collection tools, variables of interest, methods of design, and theoretical frameworks.

Table 2

Participant descriptions of included studies.

PARTICIPANTS	FREQUENCY	RANGE OF SAMPLE SIZE
Undergraduate Students	20	9–1623
Academics and Staff	13	20–666
Graduate Students	9	8–84
K12 Students	8	18–7,178
Other	3	–

Data Collection Tools

According to Table 3, it was clear that questionnaires/surveys were the most frequently used data collection tools, appearing in 30 studies. This indicated a strong emphasis on collecting direct responses from participants to understand their perspectives and experiences. Interviews followed as the second most common method, used in 24 studies, reflecting the importance of in-depth qualitative insights in exploring research questions. Document analysis was employed in 20 studies, followed by other more qualitative approaches.

Table 3

Data collection tools.

DATA COLLECTION TOOLS	FREQUENCY
Questionnaires/Surveys	30
Interviews	24
Document Analysis	20
Observations	11
Performance/Grade Data	4
Focus Groups	3
Video/Data Analytics	2
Other	5

[i] *One study may employ more than one data collection tools.

Variables/Research Interests

According to Table 4, the most frequently studied variable was Engagement, which was used in 16 studies, reflecting a strong emphasis on understanding how learners interact with and participate in educational activities. This was followed by Academic Outcome, examined in 5 studies. Similarly, Motivation appeared in 4 studies, underscoring the importance of exploring factors that drive learners to engage and succeed. Collaboration/Communication was analyzed in 3 studies, showing a moderate interest in group dynamics and interpersonal interactions within learning environments. Variables such as Technological Use were examined in 2 studies, reflecting emerging but less dominant themes. It was observed that some studies had multiple dependent variables, while others had none.

Table 4

Variables/research interests.

VARIABLES	FREQUENCY
Engagement	16
Academic outcome	5
Motivation	4
Collaboration/communication	3
Technological use	2
Other	3

[i] *One study may employ more than one variable.

Research Methods and Designs

According to Table 5, qualitative methods were the most commonly used, with a frequency of 23, were largely represented by Case Studies (16 studies), emphasizing in-depth contextual analysis.

Table 5

Frequencies of methods and models/designs.

RESEARCH METHODS	f	RESEARCH DESIGNS/MODELS	f
Quantitative	15	Survey	9
		Experimental	7
		Correlational	4
Qualitative	23	Case Study	16
		Descriptive	5
		Narrative	2
		Content Analysis	1
		Discourse Analysis	1
		Phenomenology	1
Mixed/Triangulation	20	Convergent parallel	15
		Explanatory sequential	3
		Embedded	2
Other/Theoretical/Descriptive	11	Systematic review	7
		Position paper	2
		Comparative	1
		Report	1
Network analytics/Digital/Innovative	3	Learning analytics	3
Practice Based	4	Design-based research	3
		Action research	1

[i] *One study may employ more than one research design/model.

Mixed/triangulation methods appeared in 20 studies were largely represented by Convergent Parallel designs appeared in 15 studies, followed by Explanatory Sequential in 3, reflecting a preference for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches for comprehensive insights. Quantitative methods, used in 15 studies, predominantly employed Survey designs (9 studies) and Experimental designs (7 studies), indicating a focus on data-driven measurements and causal relationships.

Bibliometric Analysis

Overview of the Current State of Research

In terms of RQ3, the research on BL and EDI comprised 89 studies published across 63 journals, reflecting an annual growth rate of 11%. Each document received an average of 17.88 citations (range 0 to 158), indicating some substantial academic influence. A total of 297 authors contributed to these studies, with only 16 single-authored works, emphasizing the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of research in this field. The average number of co-authors per document was 3.4, and 13% of the studies involved international co-authorship, reflecting a modest level of international collaboration in BL and EDI research.

As indicated in the Online Appendix Table 1 research on BL and EDI is predominantly led by Anglo-Saxon countries like the USA, Australia, and the UK. The prominence of these countries aligns with their established policies and cultural focus on equity and diversity, which are central to the EDI concept. Emerging contributions from China and Spain reflect increasing recognition of these issues globally, highlighting a growing commitment to addressing inclusion and diversity in educational systems across different cultural contexts.

Leading Journals, Institutions and Authors

In terms of leading journals, as indicated in the Online Appendix Figure 2 Computers & Education (n = 5), Education and Information Technologies (n = 5), and Education Sciences (n = 5) each published the same number of articles, making them the top contributors in terms of publication count, while in terms of citations Computers & Education (n = 307) was the most cited journal, followed by Internet and Higher Education (n = 183).

Figure 3 highlights the most cited articles in BL and EDI research, showcasing their total citation counts and average citations per year. The article by Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) stands out with the highest total citations, reflecting its substantial impact in the field. In the Online Appendix Figures 4 and 5, we illustrated the co-citation network of key studies and thematic mapping in BL and EDI research.

Figure 3

Analysis of Keywords

Figure 4 presents a keyword co-occurrence analysis for research on BL and EDI. The analysis highlighted the most commonly used terms and their interconnections, providing insights into the thematic focus of the field.

Figure 4

BL, higher education, and online learning are central terms, reflecting the primary focus of research in the field. Keywords such as inclusion, student diversity, and equity demonstrate the integration of EDI concepts into BL studies. The presence of COVID-19 as a significant node indicated the influence of the pandemic in shaping recent research priorities, particularly in exploring blended and online learning approaches. Additionally, terms like flipped classroom, learning analytics, and universal design for learning highlight methodological and pedagogical considerations, while active learning and technology showcase the emphasis on innovative practices in education.

Conclusion and Discussion

This study makes a unique contribution by being among the first to systematically analyze the intersection of BL and EDI using bibliometric and content analysis. The identification of 89 studies in this emerging field highlights its developmental stage, limiting comparisons and generalizations with existing literature.

In terms of RQ1, the content analysis revealed several critical trends in BL and EDI research, emphasizing the diversity of participants and methods employed in the studies. Studies predominantly target higher education undergraduates, reflecting accessibility and relevance in this context (Anthony et al., 2019). The inclusion of special needs groups and K12 students, though less frequent, suggests a growing recognition of the need to address inclusivity and diversity across broader educational contexts. Yet, this concentration on higher education raises questions about whether current research sufficiently captures the realities of learners in less-resourced or marginalized schooling contexts.

The reliance on questionnaires, surveys, and interviews highlights a focus on participant perspectives and experiences, reflecting the exploratory nature of BL and EDI research. However, the limited use of innovative tools like video or data analytics suggests a need for methodological diversification to capture real-time interactions in BL environments. This methodological gap signals an area of debate, as reliance on self-reported perceptions may overlook the more complex, and sometimes contradictory, dynamics of inclusion in practice.

In terms of variables, the focus on engagement and academic outcomes as key variables reflects researchers’ priorities in understanding how BL fosters participation, performance, and equity. The lower emphasis on collaboration, communication, and professional development highlights an opportunity for future research to delve deeper into group dynamics and educator training, crucial for creating inclusive learning environments. From a practical perspective, this finding suggests that professional development for educators should not only focus on technical BL design but also on cultivating inclusive communication and collaborative skills.

The methodological findings reveal a balanced use of mixed, qualitative, and quantitative approaches, showcasing the interdisciplinary nature of BL and EDI research. The frequent use of mixed methods reflects the need to capture both broad trends and detailed insights (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The dominance of case studies in qualitative research aligns with Merriam’s (2010) emphasis on contextual understanding in education.

In terms of RQ2, the thematic analysis underscores the pivotal role of BL in advancing EDI while exposing persistent challenges. Digital Accessibility and Equity reveals BL’s potential to enhance educational access for disadvantaged groups through digital resources and innovative program designs (e.g., Richwine et al., 2022). However, disparities in infrastructure and uneven access to technology continue to hinder its transformative potential, necessitating targeted policy reforms and equitable resource allocation. Similarly, Cultural and Gender Diversity highlights the value of integrating inclusive practices, such as equitable representation in course content and sensitivity to systemic disparities, as demonstrated in studies addressing diverse student cohorts (e.g., Vincent-Ruz et al., 2024).

The findings on Inclusive Pedagogical Practices emphasize adaptive strategies, such as flipped classrooms and multimedia-rich learning materials, which cater to diverse learning needs (e.g., Andujar & Nadif, 2022). However, effective implementation requires robust institutional support and enhanced educator training. Furthermore, Hybrid Learning and Inclusion showcases the unique flexibility of combining online and face-to-face modalities, enabling broader participation while highlighting the need for strategies to overcome collaboration challenges in hybrid environments (e.g., Fabian et al., 2024). Lastly, Technology Integration for EDI demonstrates the potential of emerging technologies, including virtual reality and AI-enhanced tools, to transform learning environments by addressing physical and logistical barriers (e.g., Bond & Cawood, 2021). However, ethical considerations and equitable access remain critical areas for further exploration. The findings highlight the potential of BL in supporting EDI while also pointing to the efforts needed to create more inclusive and effective learning environments. While BL models offer significant opportunities to implement inclusive strategies and foster equitable educational settings, realizing this potential fully requires careful planning, innovative policy development, and sustained research efforts. The flexibility and adaptability of BL can serve as a powerful tool to advance diversity and inclusion goals in education, but addressing existing limitations and challenges will require ongoing commitment and targeted interventions.

In terms of RQ3, the relatively small number of publications on BL and EDI suggests that this field is still emerging, potentially due to the relatively recent recognition of the importance of integrating these concepts and the challenges of addressing EDI within the BL context. The predominance of contributions from mostly Anglo-Saxon countries highlight the need for greater global engagement. Expanding international collaborations could enhance the diversity of perspectives and provide richer insights into how BL and EDI are implemented across various cultural and educational contexts, addressing challenges such as varying educational policies, technological infrastructure, and cultural approaches to equity and diversity. Future comparative work across regions with differing resources would be especially valuable to test the transferability of BL × EDI practices and to reveal context-specific challenges.

The thematic mapping created with R Studio highlights foundational themes like “flipped classroom” and “online learning,” which serve as key building blocks for BL and EDI research. Emerging themes such as “equity” and “resources” suggest new avenues for exploration, emphasizing the field’s evolving nature. Keyword analysis identifies core terms like “blended learning,” “higher education,” and “inclusion,” with the prominence of “COVID-19” reflecting the pandemic’s impact on advancing blended and online learning practices.

The study offers valuable insights but is constrained by the limited number of publications, which narrows the scope of the bibliometric analysis. Future research could expand the dataset, explore deeper connections among themes, and utilize advanced network analysis to map collaborations among authors, institutions, and countries. Longitudinal studies could reveal the evolution of BL and EDI themes over time, while comparative analyses across cultural and educational contexts could identify global best practices for equity and inclusion. Equally, drawing on critical perspectives that question the assumed inclusivity of BL would sharpen future debates. Integrating practitioner perspectives and fostering cross-sector collaboration would further bridge the gap between theory and practice, enhancing the study’s relevance to academic and practical stakeholders.

Data Accessibility Statement

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

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This study is linked to the following SDG(s): Quality education (SDG 4), Gender equality (SDG 5), and Reduced inequalities (SDG 10).

Additional File

The additional file for this article can be found as follows:

Author Notes

Based on Academic Integrity and Transparency in AI-assisted Research and Specification Framework (Bozkurt, 2024), the authors of this paper acknowledge that the paper was reviewed, edited, and refined with the assistance of ChatGPT 4o, complementing the human editorial process. The human authors critically assessed and validated the content to maintain academic rigor. The authors also assessed and addressed potential biases inherent in the AI-generated content. The final version of the paper is the sole responsibility of the human authors.

Ethics and Consent

Ethical approval was not applicable for this study, as it involved the analysis of previously published literature and did not include human participants, personal data, or any intervention requiring ethical review.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Author Contributions (CRediT)

Gürhan Durak: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review and editing. Serkan Çankaya: Methodology, investigation, validation, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review and editing. Semiral Öncü: Data curation, investigation, formal analysis, writing – review and editing. Bart Rienties: Supervision, conceptualization, project administration, writing – review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.