Higher Education (HE) has a key responsibility in addressing the grand sustainability challenges of our time and higher educational institutions (HEIs) are looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprints (Helmers et al, 2021) as well as taking measures for adaptation to mitigate the impact of natural disasters (Mackey et al., 2012). During the COVID-19 pandemic, most HEIs made a rapid transition to, so-called, emergency remote teaching (Marinoni et al., 2020). This transition revealed deficiencies in existing infrastructure and the availability of devices for online learning, and teacher training  (Marinoni et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2021). The rapid transition to online learning showed the direction higher education (HE) can take to adapt and increase their resilience when confronted with disastrous situations (Mackey et al., 2012). A blended learning design, allowing for both on and offline forms of instruction and learning, not only provides opportunities to be resilient but has an additional positive spin-off in that it may also contribute to sustainability by lowering the carbon emissions of students commuting to campus (Versteijlen et al., 2017). According to Caird et al. (2015), distance-based HE teaching models (distance, online) achieve carbon reductions of 83 per cent in comparison with on-campus models (in-class, ICT-enhanced), largely due to student commuting.

When designing a blended learning configuration the considerations underlying a student’s decision to commute to campus should be considered. It seems that students make reasoned choices that depend on their attitude toward the learning activities they are supposed to attend in line with the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Versteijlen et al., 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, students experienced the transition implications to emergency remote teaching, probably affecting their attitude towards online learning and commuting to the HEI. Van Wee et al. (2019) assume that such a trigger may cause an attitude change in what students know (i.e. cognitive process), feel (i.e. affective process) or do (i.e. behavioural process).

While there seem to be benefits of blended learning in realizing both resilience and a lower carbon footprint, which many HEIs aspire to, a key assumption is that a blended learning study programme should maintain, or ideally improve, educational quality. Blended learning needs a pedagogical approach that acknowledges that blended learning is more than a fusion of online and in-class learning and teaching  (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Laurillard, 2013). Nortvig et al.(2018) stated, that factors such as, “educator presence in online settings, interactions between students, teachers and content, and deliberate connections between online and offline activities and between campus-related and practice-related activities” (Nortvig et al., 2018, p. 53) are indicators for good education.

The objective of this research is to develop and evaluate pedagogical design principles for, what we will call, a sustainable blended learning study programme and to evaluate students' travel behaviour as a result. The term ‘sustainable’ points to an efficient educational organisation that reduces student commute to and from campus to two days per week while not compromising educational quality. Since government restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic changed the blend to mainly online education, we included in the objective the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the student’s attitude regarding online learning and educational travel.

This objective is achieved by answering the following research questions:

RQ1.   How did the design team experience developing a sustainable blended learning study programme?

RQ2.   How do students and lecturers evaluate learning and teaching during the implementation of the blended learning design?

RQ3.   What cognitive, affective and behavioural processes may cause an attitude change in students toward educational travel in the circumstance of a reduction of in-class activities?

The Educational Design Research (EDR) approach is chosen to study the development and implementation of sustainable blended learning and teaching. According to McKenney and Reeves (2018), EDR can be defined “as a genre of research in which the iterative development of solutions to practical and complex educational problems also provides the context for empirical investigation, which yields theoretical understanding that can inform the work of others” (McKenney & Reeves, 2018, p. 21). We chose this methodology because of its strong connection to educational practice, contributing to more practical relevance (Van den Akker et al., 2006). We designed and evaluated one prototype of a sustainable blended learning unit. Our model contains three main stages (iterative and flexible) in which the knowledge stream leads to theoretical understanding and the practice stream to a maturing intervention. RQ1 is answered in the stage ‘Curriculum Design and Construction’, and RQ2 and RQ3 in the stage ‘Implementation and Reflection’. In the first stage, Analysis and Exploration, it was decided to design an economic business minor at Avans University of Applied Sciences. The previous minor was outdated and the lecturers opted for a full redesign to a blended curriculum. Initial design principles were developed based on two studies about student travel behaviour (Versteijlen et al., 2017; Versteijlen et al., 2021) and a literature review of blended learning. In the second stage, Design and Construction, a team of eight educational practitioners with different backgrounds designed the minor from November 2019 to June 2020 in monthly sessions of approximately 6 hours. During this stage, the initial design principles were further developed in dialogue with the design team. In support of this team, each principle was supplemented with context, interventions (learning activities), mechanisms that may be triggered by the interventions mentioned, and potential outcomes (extracted from the scientific literature). The interventions were divided between on-campus and online activities. The design and construction stage was evaluated in June 2020 by interviewing three members of the design team. In the third stage, Evaluation and Reflection, the blended minor, which started with 26 fourth-year students, has been evaluated among the minor students by a baseline and final measurement survey, and two focus groups. Afterwards, interviews were held with the three associated lecturers.

The initial design principles evolved throughout the design process and resulted in principles with concrete implementation possibilities. These were used to check the design and inspired ideas for learning activities. The lecturer’s workload model based on traditional face-to-face teaching complicated the estimation of load hours to be allocated to unscheduled online activities. The minor was evaluated based on how teachers and students perceived the implementation according to the design principles. Some observations: 1. Aiming at self-regulation in a student’s learning process. The students stated that they had no trouble managing their own time and appreciated studying anywhere and anytime. Still, the lecturers showed reservations about their students’ self-managing skills. 2. Fostering a sense of community. Online team meetings created a sense of community for the students. 3. Facilitating interaction and discussion among fellow students and with the lecturer. The lecturers did not stimulate asynchronous online discussions as a follow-up of in-class discussions due to a failing workload model. 4. Activating knowledge transfer. The students appreciated the guest lectures from professionals and their research activities but were less satisfied with the workshops from fellow students. 5. Offering authentic, scaffolded and theory-based practice. The students became intrinsically motivated by working on real-world issues and creating value for the stakeholders. 6. Collaborating for self-responsible and self-directed learning. Working in a team stimulated students’ learning and the online meetings are experienced as productive. The COVID-19 restrictions may have been a trigger for an attitude change of students toward educational travel. Experiencing advantages of online learning (e.g. time savings due to less travel and productive online meetings) may influence their motivation to attend classes if an online alternative is available. Also, an additional reason to choose a car appeared, namely, it is easier and less expensive to borrow a car (from parents) commuting occasionally.

Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-474. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 Bliuc, A., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance. Computers & Education, 56(3), 856-864. Caird, S., Lane, A., Swithenby, E., Roy, R., Potter, S., 2015. Design of higher education teaching models and carbon impacts. . International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16, 96–111. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines John Wiley & Sons. Helmers, E., Chang, C.C. & Dauwels, J. Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I—objective comparison by standardized metrics. Environmental Sciences Europe 33, 30 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6. Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology Routledge. Mackey, J., Gilmore, F., Dabner, N., Breeze, D., & Buckley, P. (2012). Blended learning for academic resilience in times of disaster or crisis. Marinoni, G., Van ’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of covid-19 on higher education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report, McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research Routledge. Nortvig, A., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing E-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 16(1), 46-55. UNESCO. (2021). COVID-19: Reopening and reimagining universities. ().UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378174 Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research Routledge. Van Wee, B., Witlox, F., 2021. COVID-19 and its long-term effects on activity participation and travel behaviour: A multiperspective view. Journal of Transport Geography 95, 103144. Versteijlen, M., Salgado, F. P., Groesbeek, M. J., & Counotte, A. (2017). Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 80-89. Versteijlen, M., van Wee, B., & Wals, A. (2021). Exploring sustainable student travel behaviour in The Netherlands: balancing online and on-campus learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(8), 146-166.