Development and Validation of a Blended Teaching Design and Teaching Strategy Scale for Technology Education

Blended teaching has become an important instructional approach in higher education, particularly in technology-related programs where students need to develop both theoretical understanding and practical skills. However, there is a lack of specialized instruments for assessing teachers' competencies in designing and implementing blended teaching in the technology education context. This study aimed to develop and validate a Blended Teaching Design and Strategy Scale based on an integrated theoretical framework combining the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM) and Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge with Collaborative Learning (TPACK-CL). An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed. First, qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 technology program teachers to inform item generation. Then, a quantitative survey involving 224 teachers from three polytechnics in Guangdong Province, China was conducted to test the instrument's psychometric properties. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were used to examine the scale's reliability and validity. The final scale consists of 48 items across two subscales: the teaching design subscale includes four dimensions (triggering event, exploration, integration, resolution) with 20 items, and the teaching strategy subscale includes eight dimensions (technological knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, technological pedagogical and content knowledge, and collaborative learning) with 28 items. Reliability analysis showed strong internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha of 0.899 for the design subscale and 0.889 for the strategy subscale. Validity analysis confirmed good construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The findings demonstrate that the developed scale is a reliable and theoretically grounded instrument for assessing blended teaching practices in technology education. This instrument can support teacher professional development, inform institutional training initiatives, and contribute to research on effective blended teaching implementation.

Blended teaching, scale development and validation, blended teaching design, blended teaching strategies, technology education

1. Mulenga, R., & Shilongo, H. (2025). Hybrid and blended learning models: innovations, challenges, and future directions in education. Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 4(1), 1-13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Agbi, A., & Yuangsoi, P. (2022). Enhancement of critical thinking skills in students using mobile-blended learning with a collaborative inquiry-based approach. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies, 9-20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ogbuanya, T. C., & Shodipe, T. O. (2022). Workplace learning for pre–service teachers’ practice and quality teaching and learning in technical vocational education and training: key to professional development. Journal of Workplace Learning, 34(4), 327-351. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Mushtaq, D., & Iqbal, Z. (2024). Hybrid pedagogies: Assessing the effectiveness of blended and flipped learning in digital learning environments. International Journal of Emerging Knowledge Studies, 3(09), 662-669. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dakhi, O., JAMA, J., & IRFAN, D. (2020). Blended learning: a 21st century learning model at college. International Journal Of Multi Science, 1(08), 50-65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Johnson, N., & Seaman, J. (2021). 2021 special topics report: The growth of online learning and digital learning resources in canadian post-secondary education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ustun, A. B., & TRACEY, M. W. (2021). An innovative way of designing blended learning through design-based research in higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 126-146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bruggeman, B., Tondeur, J., Struyven, K., Pynoo, B., Garone, A., & Vanslambrouck, S. (2021). Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 48, 100772. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bhadri, G. N., & Patil, L. R. (2022). Blended learning: An effective approach for online teaching and learning. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 53-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Islam, M. K., Sarker, M. F. H., & Islam, M. S. (2022). Promoting student-centred blended learning in higher education: A model. E-Learning and Digital Media, 19(1), 36-54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Müller, F. A., & Wulf, T. (2021). Blended learning environments that work: An evidence-based instructional design for the delivery of qualitative management modules. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100530. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Singh, J., Evans, E., Reed, A., Karch, L., Qualey, K., Singh, L., & Wiersma, H. (2022). Online, hybrid, and face-to-face learning through the eyes of faculty, students, administrators, and instructional designers: Lessons learned and directions for the post-vaccine and post-pandemic/COVID-19 world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(3), 301-326. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Altrichter, H. (2020). The concept of quality in action research: Giving practitioners a voice in educational research. In Qualitative voices in educational research (pp. 40-55). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Liu, Y. H, Miao, Y. F, & Li, J. (2023). Exploration of Teaching Reform in Cold and Heat Source Equipment and System Course. Journal of Anhui University of Technology Social Sciences Edition, 40(1), 90-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Zhang, Y., & Yu, L.-K. (2024). Designing and Implementing Student-Centered Blended Learning. Modern Education and Practice, 4(11). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ashraf, M. A., Mollah, S., Perveen, S., Shabnam, N., & Nahar, L. (2022). Pedagogical applications, prospects, and challenges of blended learning in Chinese higher education: A systematic review. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 772322. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Min, W., & Yu, Z. (2023). A systematic review of critical success factors in blended learning. Education Sciences, 13(5), 469. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. González, L. F. M., & Quiroz, V. G. (2019). Instructional design in online education: A systemic approach. European Journal of Education, 2(3), 43-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ho, Y. (2024). Enhance adult students' online knowledge construction: Exploring effective instructional designs and addressing barriers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(4), 1675-1689. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Stenbom, S., & Cleveland-Innes, M. F. (2024). Introduction to the community of inquiry theoretical framework. In The Design of Digital Learning Environments (pp. 3-25). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lie, A., Tamah, S. M., & Gozali, I. (2023). Appropriating TPACK in Preparation for Hybrid Learning: Innovations in Teaching Practices. MexTESOL Journal, 47(3), n3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Patel, R. (2024). Collaborative learning in engineering: Developing teamwork and problem-solving skills. Bulletin of Engineering Science, Technology and Industry, 2(3), 100-106. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Fonseca, A. P., Zegers, C., & Firoozi, S. (2024). Collaborative Learning Ecosystems: Enhancing Communities of Practice in Digital Spaces. International Journal of Strategy and Organisational Learning, 1(2), 128-144. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach: Sage publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2024). Sequential mixed methods design. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sürücü, L., Yıkılmaz, İ., & Maşlakçı, A. (2022). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in quantitative research and practical considerations. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(2), 947-965. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Kyriazos, T., & Poga-Kyriazou, M. (2023). Applied psychometrics: Estimator considerations in commonly encountered conditions in CFA, SEM, and EFA practice. Psychology, 14(5), 799-828. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Beri, N., & Sharma, L. (2021). Development of TPACK for teacher-educators: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(1), 1397-1418. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Yang, X. (2023). A historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning. TechTrends, 67(4), 718-728. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. JO, O., & TR, H. (2023). Reliability and Validity Study on Work Safety Culture Questionnaire (WSCQ) among Government Office Workers using Information Motivation and Behavior (IMB) Model. IIUM Medical Journal Malaysia, 22(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Schrepp, M. (2020). On the Usage of Cronbach's Alpha to Measure Reliability of UX Scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 15(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American journal of Applied Mathematics and statistics, 9(1), 4-11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sureshchandar, G. S. (2023). Quality 4.0–a measurement model using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 40(1), 280-303. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational research methods, 25(1), 6-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Drobisz, J. (2017). The Effects of Arousal Presented by a Pedagogical Agent on English Language Learners' Situational Interest, Cognitive Load and Reading Comprehension in Online Reading Tasks. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Ustun, A. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2020). An effective way of designing blended learning: A three phase design-based research approach. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1529-1552. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Sukirman, S., Masduki, Y., Suyono, S., Hidayati, D., Kistoro, H. C. A., & Ru’iya, S. (2022). Effectiveness of blended learning in the new normal era. Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN, 2252(8822), 8822. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Swerzenski, J. D. (2021). Why teaching technology must adapt to our teaching. Communication Education, 70(2), 211-213. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Lacaste, A. V., Cheng, M. M., & Chuang, H. H. (2022). Blended and collaborative learning: Case of a multicultural graduate classroom in Taiwan. PloS one, 17(4), e0267692. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study