Differences in Priorities and Background Characteristics Among Pre-Service Teachers Choosing Different Study Formats

Abstract

The shortage of qualified teachers across Europe has increased interest in flexible and decentralized pathways into teacher education. This study examines pre-service teachers’ background characteristics and programme-choice priorities when selecting between two study formats at a Norwegian university: a blended learning programme and a face-to-face campus-based programme. Survey data from 108 pre-service teachers revealed significant differences between the groups in age, place of residence, region of origin, prior teaching experience, current teaching employment, and confidence in securing a permanent teaching position. Campus-based students were younger, less experienced, and reported lower confidence in obtaining permanent employment than students in the blended learning programme. Three of fifteen choice-related factors differed significantly between study formats, most notably the importance assigned to programme organization, which was rated higher by blended-learning students. No differences were found for geographic location or for eleven content-related factors. In this sample, blended-learning students were more often from rural areas, and they placed greater value on organizational flexibility, suggesting that flexible formats may be particularly relevant for students balancing work, distance, or other commitments. However, this study is cross-sectional, based on a single institution, and cannot determine broader policy implications or effects on regional teacher supply. Longitudinal and multi-institutional research is needed to assess potential long-term outcomes.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

In autumn 2025, Nord University (Norway) offered 180 study places across its teacher education programmes (Tønnessen & Lystad, 2025). Only 127 pre-service teachers enrolled, leaving 53 places unfilled at the start of the academic year. This under-enrolment is particularly concerning due to the lack of qualified teachers in Norwegian schools, especially in rural communities and in Northern Norway (Statsforvalteren i Nordland, 2019; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). In addition, many teachers are leaving the profession, thus necessitating extraordinary recruitment measures in the Nordic countries, such as appointing individuals who lack adequate formal teacher education (Elstad, 2023b, p. 42).

The shortage of qualified teachers is not unique to Norway. It remains a pressing challenge across Nordic countries (Elstad, 2023b, p. 42), Europe (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2024), Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (McPherson & Lampert, 2025; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2024). These shortages are particularly evident in specific subject areas and rural regions. Although national projections suggest that the overall teacher supply may be sufficient to meet future needs (Falch & Strøm, 2025), it remains uncertain when and how this will be reflected in rural areas. This uncertainty is particularly relevant given the structural characteristics of the school system. For instance, 51% of all schools in Northern Norway enrol fewer than 100 pupils and are classified as rural (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024). Combined with the persistent need for qualified teachers (Statsforvalteren i Nordland, 2019), this condition underscores the importance of ensuring accessible and contextually relevant teacher education (Jordell, 2025).

Ensuring that all pupils have access to qualified teachers is a core educational goal across the Nordic countries. According to Elstad (2023a), a lack of teachers with adequate qualifications prevents this goal from being achieved. At a more international level, the recruitment and retention of qualified teachers is a persistent problem that has affected many countries for decades (McPherson & Lampert, 2025; See et al., 2020; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2024). Subjects like mathematics and physics experience the most severe shortages, largely because graduates in these disciplines are in high demand (See et al., 2020), and, in England, many teachers leave the profession within just five years (McPherson & Lampert, 2025). Here, despite the past decade’s strong emphasis on educational reforms aimed at improving teacher quality, considerably less attention has been paid to teacher workforce challenges, such as recruiting new teachers and retaining those already in the profession, particularly in the context of hard-to-staff schools, including in rural regions. Expanding alternative and more flexible pathways may contribute to improving overall teacher supply. By addressing the immediate need for relief teachers, such measures may lessen the burden on existing staff and mitigate further departures from the profession. Initiatives, such as providing teacher education opportunities close to the field of practice and local labour markets, for groups including recent graduates, individuals seeking career change, or pre-service teachers offered earlier certification, are presented as potentially relevant strategies.

McPherson and Lampert (2025) further contended that, in the context of chronic teacher shortage, greater emphasis must be placed on the nature of teachers’ work and the status of the teaching profession, rather than focusing solely on recruitment. Gunnes and Knudsen (2024) suggested nudging individuals with an interest in teaching toward entering the profession; however, they acknowledged that many uncertain variables must be considered in such calculations. These recent studies highlight that the issue has many unexplored facets, which also relate to geographical location and job opportunities/shortage of teachers, recommendations, subject-specific needs, and teacher qualifications for specific grade levels. According to Åstrand (2023), the greatest challenge is to organize teachers’ education so that it prepares pre-service teachers well, regardless of their backgrounds or previous qualifications, to teach at high levels when they graduate.

Traditionally, universities have offered teacher education as a face-to-face campus-based programme. However, blended learning programmes, defined as ‘the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences’ (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 96), are thought to increase student enrolment in teacher education. Previous studies have reported several positive outcomes of blended learning, such as enhanced engagement, overall satisfaction, and perceived convenience (Ateş Çobanoğlu, 2018; Ateş Çobanoğlu & Yurdakul, 2014; Bekele et al., 2025; Bernard et al., 2014; Chen & Chiou, 2014; Crawford, 2025; European Parliamentary Research Service, 2024; Gurevych & Kademiya, 2017; Lu et al., 2025; Owston et al., 2013). In contrast, Syversen et al. (2026) revealed that full-time students perceived their learning outcomes to have declined during periods of digital instruction compared to pre-pandemic levels, prompting some researchers to argue that students should spend more time on campus). This debate is particularly relevant given the aforementioned recruitment challenges.

A key question, therefore, is ‘what characterizes the students who choose traditional face-to-face campus-based programmes compared with those who opt for blended learning?’ Identifying such differences is crucial, as study format may shape who is able—and motivated—to enter teacher education. Against this backdrop, the present study examines differences in background characteristics and priorities among pre-service teachers who choose different study formats. Expanding alternative and more flexible pathways into teaching may help strengthen the overall teacher supply.

1.2. Norwegian Context

Nord University offers teacher education in both Northern Norway and Central Norway. It provides three distinct five-year integrated master’s programmes, each located at a separate campus. The MAGLU 1–10 programme located in Nesna is newly established, with its first cohort admitted in autumn 2025 (Kjeøy, 2024; Nord University, 2024). It marks a national first—the only master’s programme in Norway specifically designed to prepare future teachers for grades 1–10 (ages 6–16). The programme is delivered through a blended learning programme (Nord University, n.d.-c). Because blended learning is understood differently, Hrastinski (2019) highlighted the importance of defining blended learning in the context of different studies. In this study, we draw on the definition proposed by Garrison and Kanuka (2004) and the programme description provided by Nord University (n.d.-c). Blended learning is understood as a study format in which three to four weeks of mandatory online learning are thoughtfully integrated with three to four mandatory weeks of face-to-face campus-based learning distributed throughout each semester. Campus Levanger offers two face-to-face learning programmes: one for grades 1–7 and another for grades 5–10 (Nord University, n.d.-a, n.d.-d). Campus Bodø offers the same two teacher education programmes as Levanger, and the organization is delivered through both study formats. According to the programme description, students at Campus Bodø can choose between a blended learning programme and a face-to-face campus-based learning programme at the beginning of the semester (Nord University, n.d.-b, n.d.-e).

The MAGLU 1–10 education programme differs from the MAGLU 1–7 and 5–10 educational programme and highlights the opportunity for students to gain teaching competence in five subjects, compared to three or four in MAGLU 1–7 and two or three in MAGLU 5–10 (Kjeøy, 2024; Nord University, 2024). The MAGLU 1–10 educational programme qualifies for specific grade levels, having a mandatory practical/creative subject, a strong connection between the programme and practical training, where the master’s thesis is closely connected to practice. The educational programme focuses on pedagogic methods, where pre-service teachers learn how to teach outside the classroom and to combine practical activity with creativity and aesthetics, support pupils during transitions and learn about how to teach groups and classes of different ages. This focus is particularly relevant considering the findings of Bakken and Langørgen (2024), who indicated that graduates report limited preparedness for supporting students’ transitions between grade levels. Because it is teacher education for grades 1–10, learning through play and being able to adapt teaching to support pupils’ learning and development are emphasized in the study programme (Nord University, 2024). However, all three study programmes are subjected to the Regulations Relating to the Framework Plan for Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education (grades 1–7 and 5–10) (Regjeringen.no, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).

1.3. Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)

Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) was developed to understand how individuals develop career interests and make educational and career choices (Lent et al., 2002). According to this theory, self-efficacy and outcome expectations are central in shaping career-related interests (Lent et al., 2002). Outcome expectancy refers to what individuals believe the consequences of their actions will be (Bandura, 1997), and self-efficacy refers to ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’ (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). In the context of choosing teacher education, the two differ in that self-efficacy concerns the question ‘Do I believe that I can succeed as a student enrolled in teacher education?’, whereas outcome expectancy concerns ‘What do I think will happen if I choose teacher education?’ While self-efficacy and outcome expectancy shape students’ interest, goals determine whether they apply to teacher education. According to Lent et al. (2002), goals are important because they convert self-efficacy and outcome expectation into actual decisions.

Self-efficacy stems from mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasions, and psychological and affective states (Bandura, 1997). Mastery experiences are the strongest sources of self-efficacy, meaning that individuals’ past performance in a specific domain shapes their beliefs about their capability. Vicarious experiences influence individuals’ self-efficacy when they observe others, particularly those they identify with, succeed in a field. Verbal persuasions, such as encouragement from friends, family, and colleagues, also contribute to strengthening individuals’ self-efficacy. In addition, psychological and affective states, including stress, anxiety, and emotional reactions, further affect how individuals judge their ability to perform. Self-efficacy is important because it influences motivational, selective, affective, and cognitive processes (Bandura, 1997). For example, individuals with low self-efficacy tend to avoid challenging situations, whereas those with high self-efficacy are more likely to approach them with confidence and persistence. Furthermore, self-efficacy plays a significant role in career decision making (Hackett, 1995; Pajares & Miller, 1995). For instance, Pajares and Miller (1995) found that mathematics self-efficacy affects students’ choice of math-related majors.

1.4. Previous Research

In their review of 120 research studies, rural areas are mentioned only once in the context of ‘housing subsidies or offering rental accommodation at below-market rate for teachers willing to work in rural areas’ (See et al., 2020, p. 5), with examples drawn from both Australia and the United States. However, they emphasize that the evidence base for such incentive usage is limited and primarily built on small, descriptive studies. Their review does not consider studies where flexible education pathways or proximity to the workplace/the field of practice are presented as noteworthy aspects.

Pre-service teachers’ experiences related to different education programme formats have been widely studied (Ateş Çobanoğlu, 2018; Ateş Çobanoğlu & Yurdakul, 2014; Bekele et al., 2025; Bernard et al., 2014; Chen & Chiou, 2014; Crawford, 2025; European Parliamentary Research Service, 2024; Gurevych & Kademiya, 2017; Lu et al., 2025; Owston et al., 2013). The findings point to several positive outcomes, such as overall satisfaction, perceived convenience, engagement, and learning outcomes related to blended learning environments. This research also points to blended learning programmes as a means to ensure more inclusive and student-centred learning experiences by promoting autonomy and flexibility over the approach, place, and time of learning. A study demonstrated that even authentic, physical learning spaces could be integrated into a practice-based subject with meaningful results for students using blended learning (Nortvig et al., 2020). Ateş Çobanoğlu (2018) found that most pre-service teachers (70.4%) preferred blended learning to face-to-face campus-based learning. In their meta-analyses, Bernard et al. (2014) found that blended learning offers a small but meaningful advantage in student achievement compared to traditional instruction on campus. While the effect is not large, it is consistent across multiple meta-analyses and statistically significant. Furthermore, in a case study on pre teacher students in an Australian university, Crawford (2025) found that 96% of the students reported that the approach of a blended learning programme created an engaging environment to learn and that the online forums and learning activities provided opportunities for students to reflect and thoughtfully shape responses, particularly when they were not time limited. The students involved in this study also indicated that blended learning catered to a diverse range of learning preferences. In addition, many of the observed introverted participants expressed that this provided them with more opportunities to be included in the learning activities and contribute to the group in an overall positive way (Crawford, 2025).

In contrast, Syversen et al. (2026) found that full-time students in organizational and management studies perceived their learning outcomes to have worsened during digital teaching compared to pre-pandemic levels. Students at the same Norwegian university who were enrolled part-time, however, reported that the shift to digital teaching did not substantially affect their perceived learning outcomes. This group, typically older and more established, viewed digital teaching as affording flexibility and autonomy (Syversen et al., 2026).

In a large-scale study (n = 577), Owston et al. (2013) found that high-achieving pre-service teachers reported greater satisfaction with blended courses, expressed a preference for the blended learning format over fully face-to-face or online alternatives, and indicated that they found blended courses more convenient and engaging. They also stated that they learned core concepts better compared to traditional courses on campus. Conversely, lower-achieving students appeared to struggle more in blended environments, suggesting that the format may not equally support all learners. Considering this finding and the increased digital competence among teacher education programmes (Krumsvik, 2022), these findings underscore the importance of considering individual differences when implementing blended learning and highlight the potential value of offering students a choice between blended and campus-based programmes, particularly in challenging subject areas. Full-time campus programmes are less flexible for students with work or family commitments. However, we argue that full-time campus programmes may foster stronger social integration, peer collaboration, and professional identity formation, which are critical in teacher education. This is consistent with the findings of Syversen et al. (2026), who found that full-time students felt that they lacked social learning opportunities and the possibility to interact directly with classmates and teachers when their face-to-face campus-based programme shifted to digital delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, Syversen and other researchers argue that students should spend more time on campus.

Rushton et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review of how the concept of teacher identity formation has been applied across the literature. They described teacher identity formation as being influenced by a wide range of factors and socially constructed, shaped by discourse, narrative, and emotions, and affected by social and organizational contexts (Rushton et al., 2023, p. 3). The authors emphasized the importance of examining teacher identity from multiple perspectives and across specific domains, such as teacher education and changing educational landscapes (Rushton et al., 2023, p. 15). This is particularly relevant in relation to their category of ‘becoming a teacher’, given that many countries struggle with the recruitment and retention of teachers. However, their review does not consider different organizational models of teacher education programmes, such as blended, face-to-face campus-based formats, nor does it explore how these differing structures may shape the development of teacher identity. In any case, they argue that their review highlights significant gaps in the research on teacher identity and recommend that future work address the absence or marginalization of teacher identity in both research and teacher education programmes.

Regarding the importance of gender, Ateş Çobanoğlu (2018) suggested that previous experience in online learning contributes most to predicting pre-service teachers’ satisfaction with blended learning; however, being male contributed to this prediction. Lu et al. (2025) found that smaller class sizes and specialized courses enhanced satisfaction in blended learning and achieved high student evaluations or satisfaction according to three outcomes: professionalism, pedagogical skills, and learning outcomes. However, research on how pre-service teachers within different programmes differ based on background characteristics and factor prioritization related to choosing their education is lacking.

A recent report from the University of South-Eastern Norway showed that 38% of students chose a blended learning programme, whereas 62% enrolled in face-to-face campus-based programmes (Lindquist et al., 2025). In addition, students enrolled in a blended learning programme were significantly older (mean age > 28 years) than students in face-to-face campus-based programmes (mean age = 24.5 years). Furthermore, Lindquist et al. (2025) reported higher dropout rates among students in face-to-face campus-based programmes compared with those enrolled in the blended learning programme. The findings reported in this study are based on data from a different geographical context, specifically the University of South-Eastern Norway, and should therefore not be assumed to generalize to the context of the present study.

An analysis conducted by Fidjeland and Hovdhaugen (2022) on the factors influencing students’ choice of study location indicated that personal interests and future job opportunities are considered highly important. This supports the assumption that students make informed decisions regarding their education. Although proximity to home was not a decisive factor for the majority in that study, a notable exception was found among the oldest student group (>28). In addition, institutions that primarily recruit from their region also had students that report proximity to home as an important factor.

Regarding motivation, previous research has primarily explored pre-service teachers’ motivation to pursue a teaching career by examining factors such as intrinsic motivation (Heinz, 2015; Watt & Richardson, 2012), social utility value (Dæhlen & Abrahamsen, 2008), and perceived teaching competence (Nesje et al., 2018). Watt and Richardson (2012) studied motivation for choosing the teaching profession in an international comparative survey that also included Norwegians. They found that intrinsic and altruistic motivational factors were the most important considerations in choosing a teaching profession. According to Heinz (2015), intrinsic motivation is described as interest in activities typical of the teaching profession, uninfluenced by external rewards. Activities can include the joy of teaching and working with children and young people. It can also include using one’s creativity and having an interest in the subjects one is supposed to teach. Altruistic motivation is about the profession being perceived as socially useful, making a difference, and contributing to the development of children and young people (Dæhlen & Abrahamsen, 2008).

Two studies among pre-service secondary school teachers in Norway (Brandmo & Nesje, 2017) and Sweden (Bergmark et al., 2018) found that subject interest was likely the most prominent motivator for choosing a teaching career. However, in their investigation of Portuguese and Swedish pre-service teachers, Flores and Niklasson (2014) found that the recruitment process may be supported if the information about the design, content, and aims of the teacher education programme is clarified and made explicit to potential students. Recent findings from a nationwide survey among a sample of young people in Norway aged 16–25 by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions’ Youth Barometer (Aspøy et al., 2025) revealed that young people value secure working conditions, and 70% stated that the possibility of a permanent job is very important. Moreover, given that job security is recognized as an important motivational factor in choosing a teaching career (Brandmo & Nesje, 2017; Fidjeland & Hovdhaugen, 2022), we find it relevant to examine whether this factor varies among pre-service teachers enrolled at the three different types of study organizations.

To the best of our knowledge, no studies have investigated differences in additional priorities and background characteristics among pre-service teachers choosing different study formats. Such knowledge is essential for attracting and retaining students in teacher education, especially in regions like Northern Norway, where the shortage of qualified teachers remains a persistent challenge. This knowledge is particularly important, considering the newly developed MAGLU 1–10 programme (established August 2025), a full-time blended learning programme, introduced at a time when several Norwegian researchers argue that students should spend more time on campus (University of Inland Norway, 2026). This study aims to investigate the importance of programme organization related to the recruitment of pre-service teachers and background factors of students choosing different teacher education programmes with different organizational models. Furthermore, it examines which factors are important in pre-service students’ selection of different teacher education programmes. The research questions in this study are as follows:

RQ1: How do background characteristics (gender, age, work experience, region of origin, place of residence, confidence in obtaining a permanent teaching position, and the proportion of employment as a teacher at the time of enrolment) differ among pre-service teachers across different study formats (blended learning and face-to-face campus-based)?

RQ2: To what extent do pre-service teachers enrolled in different study formats report differences in the importance of programme organization; geographic location; recommendations from friends, family, or colleagues; and content-related factors when choosing their teacher education?

To address RQ1 and RQ2, we developed several hypotheses grounded in the existing literature as well as in SCCT. Previous studies have shown that male pre-service teachers report greater satisfaction with blended learning formats (Ateş Çobanoğlu, 2018) and that students enrolled in blended learning programmes tend to be significantly older than those in face-to-face campus-based programmes (Lindquist et al., 2025). In line with RQ1, we therefore propose the following hypothesis:

H1A. 

There are significant differences in the distribution of gender and age among pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning versus campus-based study formats.

Furthermore, Fidjeland and Hovdhaugen (2022) found that future job opportunities are an important factor when students choose where to study. Considering the current shortage of qualified teachers in Norwegian schools, particularly in rural areas and in Northern Norway (Statsforvalteren i Nordland, 2019; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017), regional background and place of residence may influence students’ decisions about study format. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1B. 

There are significant differences in region of origin and place of residence between pre-service teachers across blended learning and campus-based study formats.

According to previous research, job security is an important motivational factor when choosing a teaching career (Brandmo & Nesje, 2017; Fidjeland & Hovdhaugen, 2022). Given the documented shortage of qualified teachers in rural areas of Norway (Statsforvalteren i Nordland, 2019; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017) and the opportunity that blended learning formats provide for pre-service teachers to study while remaining in their local communities, work-related background variables may differ across study formats. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1C. 

There are significant differences in work experience, the proportion of teacher employment at the time of enrolment, and confidence in obtaining a permanent teaching position between pre-service teachers in blended learning and campus-based study formats.

Lindquist et al. (2025) found that 38% of pre-service teachers chose a blended learning programme, whereas 62% enrolled in face-to-face campus-based programmes. Although their study did not examine the importance assigned to programme organization, Syversen et al. (2026) found that full-time students whose programmes shifted to digital teaching reported a lack of social learning opportunities, whereas older, part-time students perceived digital teaching as offering greater flexibility and autonomy. These findings suggest that students’ ratings of the importance assigned to programme organization may differ across study formats. Furthermore, within SCCT, such evaluations can be understood as outcome expectancy influencing educational choices. In line with RQ2, we therefore propose the following hypothesis:

H2A. 

When choosing their teacher education programme, pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ significantly in their ratings of the importance assigned to programme organization.

Bandura (1997) identifies verbal persuasion as a source of self-efficacy. Recommendations from friends, family, or colleagues may therefore influence students’ self-efficacy within a particular study format as well as their expectations about likely outcomes. For example, Hackett (1995) found that self-efficacy plays a significant role in career decision making. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2B. 

When choosing their teacher education programme, pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ significantly in their ratings of importance assigned to recommendations from friends, family, or colleagues.

Pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning programmes tend to be older than those in face-to-face campus-based programmes (Lindquist et al., 2025), and proximity to home is particularly important for the oldest student group when choosing study programmes (Fidjeland & Hovdhaugen, 2022). Within SCCT, such considerations can be linked to outcome expectations regarding convenience, feasibility, and life circumstances. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2C. 

When choosing their teacher education programme, pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ significantly in their ratings of the importance assigned to geographic location.

Previous research has found that subject interest is among the strongest motivations for choosing a teaching career, underscoring the role of content-related considerations (Bergmark et al., 2018; Brandmo & Nesje, 2017). Recent findings also suggest that young people value secure pathways (Aspøy et al., 2025), which may influence how they evaluate different programme characteristics, including content-related factors. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2D. 

When choosing their teacher education programme, pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ significantly in the ratings of importance assigned to content-related factors.

2. Method

This study is part of a larger research project aimed at evaluating and investigating the development of the teacher education programme 1–10 at Nord University. To address the research questions in this study, the study employed a descriptive–comparative design, in which differences between pre-service teachers enrolled in two study formats (blended learning and face-to-face campus-based) were examined using questionnaires. This design is appropriate for describing group differences at a single point in time and identifying patterns in background characteristics and factor prioritization. Ethical approval was in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements, and in accordance with the guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences and the humanities (National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, 2021). The Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT) assessed that the processing of personal data in the project was in accordance with data protection regulations (reference number: 348385). All participants provided written consent in accordance with the regulations of SIKT.

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of pre-service teachers who were registered at the start of the teacher education programme at three campuses, namely Bodø, Nesna, and Levanger, on 20 August 2025. The applicant sample comprised 50 pre-service teachers from Campus Nesna enrolled in the MAGLU 1–10 programme, which is organized as a blended learning programme. A total of 41 pre-service teachers from Campus Bodø enrolled in the MAGLU 1–7 and MAGLU 5–10 programmes, which are offered as a blended learning programme and a face-to-face campus-based programme, and 52 pre-service teachers from Campus Levanger enrolled in the MAGLU 1–7 and MAGLU 5–10 programmes, which are delivered as face-to-face campus-based programmes. Of these, 41 pre-service teachers at Campus Nesna, 36 at Campus Bodø, and 42 at Campus Levanger attended the university during the first week of study. A total of 108 pre-service teachers, 63 from the blended learning programme and 45 from the face-to-face campus-based programme, completed the questionnaire. This corresponds to a response rate of 75% of registered pre-service teachers and 90% of those who attended.

2.2. Questionnaire Development

No existing validated instrument was available for measuring pre-service teachers’ reasons for choosing among these specific teacher education formats. Therefore, the questionnaire items were newly developed for this study based on programme descriptions, SCCT, prior research on student motivation, and institutional knowledge of the MAGLU 1–10 programme. The questionnaire was developed through several meetings, during which the questions were discussed among the four authors and other researchers who were involved in the research group related to the MAGLU 1–10 programme. The questionnaire consisted of multiple sections, among which ‘general information’ and ‘choice of education programme’ were used in this study. The following variables were included in the present study: Organizational format of the programme: (1) Blended learning programme and (2) face-to-face campus-based programme. Gender: Participants indicated their gender with the following options: (1) male, (2) female, (3) other, or (4) prefer not to disclose. However, all participants selected either male or female. Age: ‘How old are you?’ Response options were (1) 20 years or younger, (2) 21–25 years, (3) 26–29 years, (4) 30–39 years, and (5) 40 years or older. Prior teaching experience: ‘How much experience do you have working with children or youth in schools?’ Response options were (1) 0 years, (2) less than 1 year, (3) 1–2 years, (4) 3–5 years, and (5) more than 5 years. Place of residence: ‘How would you characterize your place of residence?’ with options (1) large city, (2) small city/town, and (3) rural area/village. Region of origin: ‘Which region of the country are you from?’ with options (1) Northern Norway, (2) Mid-Norway, (3) Western Norway, (4) Eastern Norway, and (5) Southern Norway. Percentage of current work as a teacher: ‘What percentage of your current work is as a teacher or substitute in a school?’ Response options ranged from 0% to 100% in 10% increments. Confidence regarding future employment: ‘How confident are you that you will be able to obtain a permanent teaching position in a school after graduation?’ Responses were recorded on a scale from 0 (‘not confident at all’) to 10 (‘very confident’).

The questionnaire included 15 items assessing the importance of various factors when choosing the education programme. In this study, 12 of these were content-related factors referred to as pedagogical, practical, and curricular elements explicitly emphasized in the MAGLU programme descriptions, as well as three content-related factors related to the geographic location of the programme, recommendations from others, and organizational formats of the programme. These factors were each measured using a single 0–10 scale (where 0 represented ‘not important at all’ and 10 represented ‘very important’) introduced with the prompt: ‘When you chose this education, how important was the following to you?’ These questions were related to geographic location of the programme, gaining teaching competence in multiple subjects, recommendations from friends/family/colleagues, organizational format of the programme, qualification for specific grade levels, having a practical/creative subject, strong connection between the programme and practical training, practice-relevant master’s thesis, learning to teach outside the classroom, combining practical activity with creativity and aesthetics, supporting students during transitions (e.g., from kindergarten to school or between school levels), teaching groups of different ages, teaching classes of different ages, learning through play, and adapting teaching to support learning and development. Consistent with this study’s aim to compare the salience of specific programme attributes across study formats, all 12 content-related items were analyzed as single-item indicators, rather than aggregated into subscales. This approach preserves the distinctiveness of each construct (e.g., learning through play versus connection to practice) and prevents the masking of potentially meaningful differences between study formats. Because each item represented a unique pedagogical priority, it was treated as an independent variable measured on a 0–10 importance scale. Since these were single-item measures, internal consistency reliability could not be calculated; instead, reliability was supported through clearly defined response anchors (0 = ‘not important at all’, 10 = ‘very important’), consistent item phrasing, and a structured development process.

Given the modest sample size (n = 108), the theory-driven design, and the intention to retain construct specificity, we did not conduct exploratory or confirmatory factor analyses to impose latent groupings. Organizational factors (programme organization), recommendations, and geographic location were likewise analyzed separately using the same 0–10 scale or categorical response options.

Content validity was addressed through iterative development. All questionnaire items were drafted and refined over several meetings by a research group consisting of teacher education researchers and subject matter experts. The relevance and clarity of each item were evaluated in relation to the aims of this study and programme descriptions. A small pilot test with one colleague and three pre-service teachers was conducted to assess comprehensibility, resulting in minor wording adjustments.

The questionnaire was developed specifically for this study because no validated instrument exists for examining differences in background characteristics and programme choice priorities across teacher education formats. Items were generated through iterative discussions among the research team and informed by the programme descriptions of the MAGLU 1–10 model, the relevant literature on student motivations, and the specific organizational features of teacher education programmes. Although the questionnaire underwent expert review and limited pilot testing with four individuals (one colleague and three pre-service teachers), this process offers only preliminary evidence of content validity. Because most constructs were measured with single-item indicators, internal consistency reliability cannot be estimated, and the breadth of each construct may not be fully captured. While we selected well-established Likert response scales to support measurement quality, the absence of established psychometric testing represents a methodological limitation that future work should address.

2.3. Data Collection

To avoid pre-service teachers being influenced by the start of the programme or by comments from staff, data were collected at the start of the programme at all campuses during class time. To ensure consistency throughout the process, a written protocol was developed and followed by all involved. The survey was administered in person in the classroom using paper questionnaires to increase the response rate. The pre-service teachers were informed verbally (and in writing on the first page of the questionnaire) that the purpose of the project was to investigate what motivates first-year students in the master of Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education (MAGLU) to choose teacher education. They were also informed about the type of data being collected; that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential; and that they could withdraw at any time without consequences.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All variables analyzed were used in the same format as collected, with two exceptions made to ensure adequate group sizes for statistical comparison. Age was recoded from five categories into three (≤20, 21–25, ≥26). No composite indices were created, and each content-related factor remained a separate variable, reflecting its conceptual independence in the teacher-education programme descriptions. Other background variables (gender, region of origin, place of residence, proportion of current teaching work, and confidence in securing permanent employment) were analyzed in their original categorical or numerical form.

Most study variables were ordinal (Likert-type) or categorical. Preliminary Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests indicated non-normal distributions (p < 0.05). Accordingly, non-parametric tests were used (O’Donoghue, 2012). Mann–Whitney U tests were used to examine differences between pre-service teachers at the two study formats within variables with three or more reply options (independent samples, non-normal/ordinal outcomes). For associations between categorical variables, we used chi-square tests of independence. We report effect sizes alongside p-values: Cramér’s V for chi-square tests (V ≈ 0.10/0.30/0.50 denoting small/medium/large) and the rank-biserial correlation r for Mann–Whitney U (|r| ≈ 0.10/0.30/0.50 denoting small/medium/large), following conventional thresholds. All tests used a two-tailed α = 0.05. Analyses were pre-specified as exploratory; given multiple comparisons across 15 choice factors, we emphasize effect sizes and interpret near-threshold p-values cautiously.

Effect sizes were interpreted according to Cohen’s (1988) conventional thresholds (0.10 = small, 0.30 = medium, 0.50 = large). All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05, and the results are presented as means, medians, and standard deviations.

2.5. Group Comparability and Analytical Considerations

The blended learning and face-to-face campus-based groups are not directly comparable in a strict experimental sense. Students were enrolled in different campuses (Nesna, Bodø, Levanger) and, in some cases, different programme structures (MAGLU 1–10 vs. MAGLU 1–7 and 5–10). These institutional and programmatic differences may contribute to variation in background characteristics beyond study format alone. For example, the blended cohort was drawn primarily from the MAGLU 1–10 programme located at Campus Nesna, whereas the campus-based cohorts were enrolled at Levanger and Bodø. As such, observed differences between formats, such as age, region of origin, or employment status, may also reflect contextual differences between campuses, local recruitment patterns, and programme designs rather than effects of study format per se. Our analyses therefore describe associations, not causal effects, and interpretations are made with these structural differences in mind.

The sample size (n = 108) is moderate and limits statistical power, especially for detecting small effects or examining subgroup differences across multiple campuses and programmes. Furthermore, this study involves a series of Mann–Whitney U and chi-square tests across 15 factors, increasing the risk of a Type I error. Although we report effect sizes to support interpretation (e.g., large differences for programme organization; small differences for several content-related factors), results, particularly those with p-values near 0.05, should be interpreted cautiously and replicated in larger, multisite samples.

3. Results

3.1. Background Variables and Differences Between Study Formats

First, a chi-square test was conducted to test H1A, which states that gender and age would differ between pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning and campus-based study formats. The results showed no significant association between study format and gender (χ² = 0.909, p = 0.340, Cramér’s V = 0.092). To further assess H1A, a Mann–Whitney U-test was performed for age, revealing a significant difference between the two study formats (U = 850.00, p < 0.001, r = −0.359). As listed in Table 1, pre-service teachers at the face-to-face campus-based programme stood out with the highest number of younger students, with 51% aged 20 years or younger. In contrast, the blended learning programme enrolled comparatively older students, with only 25% aged 20 years or younger.

Table 1. Descriptive background data of pre-service teachers who completed the questionnaire.

Background Variables	Blended Learning Programme (n, %)	Face-to-Face Campus-Based Programme (n, %)	Total (n, %)
Gender
Female	46 (73%)	29 (64%)	75 (69%)
Male	17 (27%)	16 (36%)	33 (31%)
Age
20 years or younger	16 (25%)	23 (51%)	39 (36%)
21–25 years	22 (35%)	18 (40%)	40 (37%)
26–29 years	4 (6%)	3 (7%)	7 (6%)
30–39 years	15 (24%)	0 (0%)	15 (14%)
40 years or older	6 (10%)	1 (2%)	7 (6%)
Region of origin
Northern Norway	51 (81%)	6 (14%)	57 (54%)
Mid-Norway	10 (16%)	29 (67%)	39 (37%)
Western Norway	1 (2%)	2 (5%)	3 (3%)
Eastern Norway	0 (0%)	5 (12%)	5 (5%)
Southern Norway	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	2 (2%)
Place of residence
Large city	4 (6%)	7 (16%)	11 (10%)
Small town/urban area	28 (44%)	27 (63%)	55 (51%)
Rural area/village	31 (49%)	11 (26%)	42 (39%)
Experience working with children in schools
No experience	16 (26%)	19 (43%)	35 (33%)
Less than 1 year	14 (23%)	13 (30%)	27 (25%)
1–2 years	17 (27%)	7 (16%)	24 (23%)
3–5 years	7 (11%)	5 (11%)	12 (11%)
More than 5 years	8 (13%)	0 (0%)	8 (8%)

To test H1B, which states that the region of origin and place of residence would differ between pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning and campus-based study formats, chi-square tests were conducted. Significant associations were found between study format and place of residence (χ² = 48.053, p < 0.001, Cramér’s V = 0.673), as well as between study format and region of origin (χ² = 48.053, p < 0.001, Cramér’s V = 0.673). Approximately 81% of the pre-service teachers enrolled in the blended learning programme were from Northern Norway, whereas 67% of the pre-service teachers in the face-to-face campus programme were from Mid-Norway (see Table 1). Table 1 also reveals that more pre-service teachers in the blended learning programme lived in rural areas (49%), compared to campus-based students (26%).

H1C, which states that the work experiences, proportion of teacher employment at the time of enrolment, and confidence in obtaining a permanent teaching position differ between pre-service teachers in blended learning and campus-based study formats, was examined using Mann–Whitney U-tests. Mann–Whitney U-tests showed significant differences in experience working with children and youth in schools (U = 973.00, p = 0.009, r = −0.252), confidence in getting a permanent position (U = 883.00, p < 0.001, r = 0.329), and percentage of your job as a teacher at the time (U = 877.00, p < 0.001, r = 0.396). As listed in Table 1, the face-to-face campus-based programme has the highest number of students (43%) without experience working with children and youth in schools. The pre-service teachers in this study format also had lower confidence (mean = 7.7, median = 8.0, SD = 1.6) in getting a permanent position than students in the blended learning programme (Mean = 8.7, median = 9.0, SD = 1.7), and worked less as teachers (mean = 2.3%, median = 0, SD = 10.5%) at the time than students in the blended learning programme (Mean = 22.3%, median = 0, SD = 34.6%). The effect size of the gender association is trivial. In contrast, place of residence and region of origin show strong associations with study format. Among continuous/ordinal comparisons, age, confidence in obtaining a permanent position, and percentage of current work as a teacher were medium-sized differences. In contrast, the effect size of prior experience working in schools was small to medium.

3.2. Differences Between Study Formats in Perceived Importance of Factors

To test H2A, which states that pre-service teachers in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ in the importance they assign to programme organization, a Mann–Whitney U-test was conducted. The results revealed a significant difference between the two study formats in the perceived importance of programme organization (U = 689.500, p < 0.001, r = −0.461). As listed in Table 2, pre-service teachers in the blended learning format rate programme organization as more important (mean = 9.2) than those in the campus-based formats (mean = 7.3). Furthermore, a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to test H2B, which states that pre-service teachers in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ in the importance they assign to recommendations from friends, family, or colleagues. The results revealed a significant difference between the two study formats (U = 1004.500, p = 0.009, r = −0.050), with the pre-service teachers in campus-based format rating recommendations as more important (mean = 5.2) than those in blended learning formats (mean = 3.3).

Table 2. Descriptive data on influencing factors for educational choice across study formats and overall (Scale: 0 = not important at all, and 10 = very important).

Influencing Factors	Blended Learning			Face-to-Face Campus-Based
	Mean	Median	SD	Mean	Median	SD
Programme organization	9.2	10	1.3	7.3	8.0	2.5
Recommendation from friends/family/colleagues
Geographic location	3.3	3.0	3.0	5.2	5.0	2.9
Content-related factors	6.7	7.0	3.0	6.8	7.0	2.5
Teaching competence in multiple subjects	7.1	8.0	2.1	7.5	8.0	1.7
Qualification for specific grade levels	8.2	8.0	1.9	7.5	8.0	2.0
Practical/creative subject	6.2	7.0	3.2	5.7	5.0	3.5
Strong connection to practice	7.4	8.0	2.2	8.5	9.0	1.9
Practice-relevant master’s thesis	8.4	9.0	2.2	8.4	9.0	2.0
Teaching outside the classroom	7.1	7.0	2.2	7.0	7.0	2.0
Combining practical, creative, aesthetic	7.5	8.0	2.0	7.3	7.0	2.3
Supporting students during transitions	9.3	10.0	1.0	8.9	9.5	1.3
Teaching groups of different ages	8.3	9.0	1.9	8.1	8.0	1.8
Teaching classes of different ages	7.8	9.0	2.5	7.5	8.0	2.1
Learning through play	9.0	10.0	1.4	8.6	9.0	1.7
Teaching to support learning/development	9.4	10.0	1.1	9.2	10.0	1.4

H2C, which states that pre-service teachers in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ significantly in their ratings of importance assigned to geographic location, was tested by using a Mann–Whitney U-test. The results revealed no significant differences in perceived importance between pre-service teachers across study formats (p > 0.05). Similarly, H2D, which states that pre-service teachers in blended learning and campus-based study formats differ significantly in their ratings of importance assigned to content-related factors, was tested using Mann–Whitney U-tests. The results revealed that for 11 out of 12 factors, there were no significant differences in perceived importance between pre-service teachers across study formats (p > 0.05). These content-related factors included teaching competence in multiple subjects, learning how students are supported during transitions, having a practical/creative subject, strong connection to practice, practice-relevant master’s thesis, teaching in the local community, teaching through practical/creative methods, teaching groups of different ages, teaching classes of different ages, learning through play, and adapting teaching to support learning and development. However, there was a significant difference between the content-related factor concerning qualification for specific grade levels (U = 1077.000, p < 0.045, r = 0.194), with the pre-service teachers in blended learning format rating qualification for specific grade levels as more important (mean = 8.2) than those in blended learning formats (mean = 7.5).

Table 2 presents pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the importance of various influencing factors in their choice of education, broken down by organizational study format and overall. The effect sizes related to the difference in the perceived importance of programme organization are large (r = −0.461) and the most substantial among the 15 choice factors examined. Differences for qualification for specific grade levels are small (r = 0.194) and for recommendations from others are negligible (r = −0.050), despite nominal statistical significance. Given multiple comparisons, these smaller effects should be interpreted with caution and require replication.

3.3. Summary of Central Findings

Although the full set of descriptive statistics is presented above, the central findings can be summarized as follows. For RQ1, the most substantial differences between study formats were observed for place of residence, region of origin, and age, with large or medium effect sizes (Cramér’s V ≈ 0.67; r ≈ 0.36), which indicate meaningful variation between groups. In addition to these larger differences, medium-sized effects were also observed for confidence in obtaining a permanent teaching position (r ≈ 0.33) and the proportion of current teacher employment (r ≈ 0.40), while prior work experience in schools showed a small-to-medium effect (r ≈ 0.25). These findings indicate that, although not as pronounced as regional and demographic differences, several professional background variables also varied meaningfully between study formats.

For RQ2, among the 15 factors examined, 3 showed statistically significant differences: programme organization (large effect, r = 0.46), recommendations from others (very small effect, r ≈ 0.05), and qualification for specific grade levels (small effect, r ≈ 0.19). Of these, the difference in the perceived importance of programme organization was by far the most substantial. These results indicate that while many factors were rated similarly across groups, a few structural and content-related considerations distinguished between blended learning and campus-based students.

4. Discussion

Regarding RQ1, a primary finding was that there were no significant differences between the pre-service teachers at blended learning and face-to-face campus-based programmes in terms of gender. However, significant differences were observed in age, region of origin, place of residence, confidence in getting a permanent position, percentage of one’s job as a teacher at the time, and experience working with children and youth in schools. The face-to-face campus-based programme had the highest number of younger students with the least experience, whereas the blended learning programme had relatively older students than the other programmes. This pattern is consistent with findings reported by Lindquist et al. (2025), who demonstrated that pre-service students enrolled in a blended learning programme were significantly older than those in a face-to-face campus-based programme. One possible explanation—not directly tested in this study—is that younger pre-service teachers tend to prefer face-to-face campus-based study formats, whereas older students may be more inclined to choose blended learning programmes due to the flexibility they provide. This interpretation is supported by Syversen et al. (2026), who found that full-time students, who were younger than part-time students, were less satisfied when their programmes shifted to digital teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. These younger full-time students reported a lack of social learning opportunities, whereas older part-time students viewed digital teaching more positively, perceiving it as offering greater flexibility and autonomy. According to SCCT, self-efficacy and outcome expectations shape educational choices (Lent et al., 2002). Although our study did not measure these constructs directly, the observed age differences may be consistent with this framework. For example, older students may believe that they can succeed academically when study formats offer greater flexibility, and they may expect positive outcomes such as better opportunities to manage economic and family obligations alongside their studies. In contrast, younger students’ self-efficacy and outcome expectations may be shaped by different concerns. For them, opportunities for social interaction, peer support, and collaborative learning may be more important. Although our data does not measure social learning preferences or campus presence directly, the age-related patterns in our sample are consistent with the possibility that different student groups may value different aspects of programme organization. Future research should examine these mechanisms more explicitly. Both Fidjeland and Hovdhaugen (2022) and Brandmo and Nesje (2017) found that personal interests and future job opportunities were considered vital factors influencing students’ choice of study location. Additionally, the survey from Youth Barometer revealed that young people value secure working conditions, and 70% state that the possibility of a permanent job is very important (Aspøy et al., 2025).

The pre-service teachers in our study were largely recruited from the same county as the institution, although the young students at the full-time campus programme had lower confidence in getting a permanent position. While this pattern may be consistent with proximity playing a role in some students’ decisions, our data do not directly assess the importance of geographic closeness. We did not measure social integration or identity formation, but one possible explanation is that campus presence could relate to social integration and identity formation, which in turn might affect confidence. Future research should examine this factor explicitly. Our findings, that older students attending the blended learning programme had more teaching experience and were more confident in getting a permanent teaching position after the study, are in line with findings from Fidjeland and Hovdhaugen (2022) and Brandmo and Nesje (2017). Moreover, Lindquist et al. (2025) found that students in blended learning programmes were significantly older than students in face-to-face campus-based programmes. The blended learning programme recruited older pre-service teachers who lived in the same region as the campus, allowing students to live at home to continue their jobs. This may be an important point to recognize, as maintaining a healthy and sustainable teaching workforce in both rural and urban contexts is essential. Older students in our sample reported more experience and higher confidence. Whether this reflects further progress in identity formation remains an open question for qualitative or longitudinal research. Rushton et al. (2023) argued that processes of teacher identity development are linked to persistent challenges related to teacher recruitment and retention.

Owston et al. (2013) found that high-achieving students reported greater satisfaction with blended learning courses and that they expressed a preference for the blended learning format over fully face-to-face or online alternatives. Furthermore, Lindquist et al. (2025) reported higher dropout rates among students enrolled in face-to-face campus-based programmes compared with those in blended learning programmes, suggesting that greater flexibility may support student retention. The finding that differences between organizational formats and gender were not significant contrasts with Ateş Çobanoğlu (2018), who found that being a male is a predictor of student satisfaction in blended learning. However, Ateş Çobanoğlu (2018) also found that prior online-learning experience is the strongest predictor. This may suggest that both female and male students in our study have comparable prior experience with online learning because, for example, of the widespread use of digital instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. This interpretation aligns with Bandura’s (1997) theory, which posits that mastery experience represents the most important source of self-efficacy. Because self-efficacy, in turn, influences educational choices (Bandura, 1997; Hackett, 1995; Lent et al., 2002; Pajares & Miller, 1995), it is possible that both female and male students who choose blended learning formats do so because they previously experienced success with digital instruction.

Our findings suggest that age and teaching experience differ systematically across programme formats. In our sample, face-to-face campus-based programmes attracted earlier-stage entrants with limited experience as schoolteachers, whereas blended learning formats attracted older and more experienced candidates, although we do not have knowledge of the pre-service teachers’ achievement level. Local recruitment dominance, with students choosing a programme within their county, suggests regional pipelines and that the programmes serve local school systems. Content-related factors were perceived as equally important across study formats. This is somewhat unexpected, given that the MAGLU 1–10 programme explicitly emphasizes components such as mandatory practical/creative subjects, a close integration with practice, outdoor and activity-based pedagogy, support for pupils during transitions, mixed-age teaching, learning through play, and adaptive instruction (Nord University, 2024). Nevertheless, students in both formats reported similar levels of importance for these elements.

On the other hand, all three study programmes relate to the regulations pertaining to the Framework Plan for Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education (Regjeringen.no, n.d.-a, n.d.-b), and these areas can be interpreted as important. Another explanation for the lack of difference here may be that the students did not know much about this, or that other variables, such as location and study organization, were more important.

An interesting finding was that in our sample, more pre-service teachers in the blended learning programme came from rural areas, compared to campus-based students. This is an important finding because it suggests that blended learning programmes may play a role in access for students living outside urban centres. However, broader datasets would be needed to gauge the size of that role. Findings from Syversen et al. (2026) revealed that full-time students perceived their learning outcomes to have worsened during periods of digital teaching compared with pre-pandemic levels, and they reported a lack of social learning opportunities and reduced possibilities for direct interaction with peers and instructors. In contrast, this pattern did not apply to part-time students, who were typically older and more established. Rural students may face geographical, economic, or logistical barriers that make full-time campus attendance difficult. According to SCCT, such structural barriers can, therefore, weaken students’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy and influence which study pathways they perceive as realistic or attainable (Lent et al., 2002). These findings suggest that flexible formats may improve access to teacher education for students in rural areas. However, this interpretation is speculative and would require direct measurement of these mechanisms to determine whether such formats influence regional teacher distribution or reduce inequalities.

Several researchers have argued that students should spend more time on campus (Syversen et al., 2026), and we recommend further research on whether pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning programmes would pursue teacher education if such flexible study formats were not available. This question is particularly important given that 58% of the pre-service teachers in our sample, who were from Northern Norway and from rural areas, chose a blended learning format. In Northern Norway, 51% of all schools have less than 100 pupils (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024). Schools and municipalities in rural Northern Norway have expressed a need for qualified teachers who are prepared to teach pupils of all ages in several subjects at high levels, which aligns with the blended programme format for MAGLU 1–10. Future recruitment processes should be supported by information about the design, content, and aims of teacher education programmes, as suggested by Flores and Niklasson (2014), to be able to nudge individuals with an interest in teaching into the profession, according to Gunnes and Knudsen (2024).

The main finding related to RQ2 was that there were significant differences between pre-service teachers at different organization study formats in the perceived importance of recommendations from others, programme organization, and teaching competence in multiple subjects. Students in the face-to-face campus-based programme rated recommendations from others as significantly more important than students in the blended learning programme. One interpretation is that younger students may be less certain about their educational choice, and that recommendations from friends, family, or colleagues may therefore play a more prominent role in shaping their self-efficacy compared to older students, who may already have teaching experiences—a more influential source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). This interpretation is consistent with Bandura (1997), who identifies verbal persuasion as a source of self-efficacy, and one that can influence educational decisions (Hackett, 1995; Lent et al., 2002). However, this interpretation should be regarded as tentative. Confirming it would require direct measurement of the underlying mechanisms and additional empirical evidence on whether such formats exert any influence. More research is needed to better understand pre-service teachers’ educational choices in line with SCCT.

Conversely, students in the blended learning programme rated qualification for specific grade levels as significantly more important than their campus-based peers. A possible explanation could be that pre-service teachers in the face-to-face campus-based programme are younger and have less teaching experience than those enrolled in blended learning programmes. This interpretation aligns with findings from RQ1, which showed that pre-service teachers in the blended learning programme were significantly older and had more experience working with children and youth in schools. Such experience may contribute to a greater familiarity with, or attention to, the relevance of grade-level qualifications, although our data do not directly measure these mechanisms. This should be further investigated.

The most striking result of this study may be the significant difference in how pre-service teachers across organizational formats perceive the importance of programme organization. Students enrolled in the blended learning programme rated programme organization as substantially more important than those in the face-to-face campus-based programme. This finding shows that the two groups differ in how strongly they prioritize structural aspects of the study programme. Because the questionnaire did not measure motivational factors or underlying mechanisms, we cannot determine why these differences occur. However, one possible interpretation—outside the scope of the present data—is that features such as programme flexibility may be more salient for some student groups than others. Although we did not assess self-efficacy, outcome expectations, or other SCCT constructs directly, this pattern is consistent with the idea that contextual conditions may shape how students evaluate programme characteristics. Lent et al. (2002) emphasize the role of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy as important factors shaping educational choices and complement prior research emphasizing internal and altruistic motivations as central to career choice (Watt & Richardson, 2012) while also suggesting that contextual factors warrant further investigation. Further research is needed to examine these mechanisms explicitly. Our analyses reveal that students across the two organizational formats differ in how strongly they value programme structure. Programme organization exhibited a large difference (r ≈ 0.46), whereas other differences were small (e.g., r ≈ 0.19) and should be interpreted cautiously, particularly given multiple comparisons.

The finding related to the importance of blended learning is interesting in light of previous research pointing to several positive outcomes according to overall satisfaction, perceived convenience, engagement, and learning outcomes related to blended learning environments (Ateş Çobanoğlu, 2018; Ateş Çobanoğlu & Yurdakul, 2014; Bekele et al., 2025; Bernard et al., 2014; Chen & Chiou, 2014; Crawford, 2025; European Parliamentary Research Service, 2024; Gurevych & Kademiya, 2017; Lu et al., 2025; Owston et al., 2013). This research suggests that blended learning programmes are a good strategy to ensure more inclusive and student-centred learning experiences by promoting autonomy and flexibility. Although our study did not measure the specific reasons behind students’ evaluations, blended formats are often designed to support individuals who combine study with work or other responsibilities, which may help explain why organizational features were particularly salient for this group. In our sample, blended-learning students also reported higher rates of employment at the time of enrolment, which is compatible with this interpretation, though our design does not allow causal conclusions.

In contrast, campus-based students typically participate in more structured, full-time study environments, which may make programme flexibility less central to their decision-making. However, because we did not assess students’ motivations or constraints directly, this remains speculative. Prior studies have shown that younger full-time students value social interaction on campus, whereas older or part-time students tend to appreciate the flexibility of digital or blended formats (Syversen et al., 2026). Such findings suggest that organizational features may be evaluated differently depending on students’ life circumstances (Lent et al., 2002), but our data cannot test these mechanisms. Together, these observations indicate that programme organization is valued differently across study formats, while highlighting the need for future research that directly examines how students’ work situations, preferences, and outcome expectations shape these evaluations.

Programme organization was vital to many respondents. Whether it is a key determinant of perceived quality warrants direct measurement. This finding indicates that teacher education institutions should better align their structures with the realities of diverse student populations. Giving teachers at these institutions knowledge of how to teach within blended learning programmes could be important. This argument is further supported by Bernard et al. (2014), who found that blended learning provides a modest advantage in student achievement compared with face-to-face campus-based programmes. In addition, a recent report indicates that dropout rates among students enrolled in blended learning programmes are slightly lower than those observed in face-to-face campus-based programmes (Lindquist et al., 2025). In contrast, full-time students reported that their learning outcomes declined during periods of digital instruction compared with pre-pandemic conditions (Syversen et al., 2026). However, this study is limited in that learning outcomes were self-reported (perceived) rather than measured with objective performance indicators. Therefore, Syversen et al. (2026) recommend more research with other indicators of learning outcomes. Consistent with the exploratory nature of our analyses across multiple factors, we emphasize effect sizes. Here, programme organization demonstrated a large difference, whereas several other differences were small or negligible, and should be viewed as tentative pending replication.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study

This study has several strengths but also some weaknesses. A major strength is the relatively high response rate of 90% among those pre-service teachers who attended the study on the first days of the programme. People’s decreasing willingness to participate in surveys has increasingly worried social scientists/scholars, who fear that low participation rates may distort the findings (Hellevik, 2015). Furthermore, the questionnaire was developed through several meetings with a group of experts in teaching and researchers at the teacher education programme at Nord University. Additionally, a pilot study was conducted to test whether the questionnaire was easy to understand.

However, this study has several limitations that warrant caution in interpretation. First, the sample size was moderate (n = 108) and drawn from a single university using a stratified sample (Johannessen et al., 2025), which constrains statistical power and limits external validity and the generalizability of the findings. However, the response rate was high, and, considering gender, age, previous teaching experience, and other background variables, the present results are likely representative of pre-service teachers at other universities, but this cannot be stated with certainty. Second, the questionnaire was newly developed for this context. Most constructs were captured with single items, which limits the assessment of internal consistency and may under-represent construct breadth. Although items underwent expert review and pilot testing and we employed standard Likert scaling, these steps cannot substitute for full psychometric validation. However, we argue that the questions and the reply options have a high face validity (Holden, 2010), which should not lead to different interpretations of the questions. We also used validated Likert scales proven to increase research quality (Østerås et al., 2008). These steps help support the face validity of the items. However, reliability cannot be fully established due to the use of single-item measures and the absence of psychometric validation. Third, our cross-sectional design also prevents conclusions about developmental changes or causal relationships, and all measures were self-reported and may be influenced by social desirability or contextual factors. Fourth, although we used nonparametric tests given nonnormality, we conducted multiple pairwise comparisons across 15 factors without familywise error correction. Consequently, marginal p-values (e.g., p ≈ 0.045; r ≈ 0.19) should be treated as tentative and in need of replication. Fifth, self-selection into study formats likely reflects prior constraints and preferences (e.g., employment, place of residence). Because these determinants were not randomized or instrumented, observed group differences may reflect selection bias rather than study format effects. Sixth, all measures were self-reported and obtained in a single session, introducing risk of common method variance, social desirability, and context effects (e.g., early semester impressions). Seventh, the sampling frame and analytic approach do not account for clustering by campus or potential regional labour market heterogeneity that could correlate with both programme availability and student characteristics (e.g., rural residence, current teaching employment). Eighth, the observed group differences may reflect not only the organizational format of the programmes but also institutional and regional characteristics. These contextual differences limit the direct comparability of the groups and indicate that results should be interpreted as associations and not effects attributable solely to study format.

5. Conclusions

This study examined differences in background characteristics and programme-choice priorities among pre-service teachers enrolled in blended learning and face-to-face campus-based teacher education programmes. The results revealed clear distinctions between the two groups. Students in the blended learning programme were generally older, more often from rural areas, more frequently from Northern Norway, and more likely to have prior teaching experience and current employment in schools. They also expressed greater confidence in obtaining a permanent teaching position. Campus-based students, by contrast, tended to be younger, more urban, and less experienced. Although most content-related factors were rated similarly across formats, programme organization emerged as a key differentiator, and blended-learning students valued organizational flexibility significantly more than campus-based students.

The findings suggest that students’ life circumstances—such as age, employment, and residence—are reflected in how they evaluate programme structure. The mechanisms underlying these evaluations were not measured in this study, and therefore the reasons for these differences cannot be determined. Nevertheless, the observed patterns are compatible with the view that flexible study structures may be particularly meaningful for students who combine study with work or who live at a distance from campus. At the same time, because this study was cross-sectional and based on a single institution, broader implications for recruitment, retention, regional equity, or workforce development cannot be inferred and require further research.

The practical implications of the findings are relevant for teacher education institutions and policy discussions. Offering multiple organizational formats, particularly flexible or blended options, may support access for student groups who are older, employed, or living in rural or remote areas. For regions experiencing persistent teacher shortages, such formats may help remove logistical barriers to entering teacher education, although this cannot be concluded from the present study. This is especially important considering unfilled teacher study places (Tønnessen & Lystad, 2025) and the ongoing shortage of qualified teachers (Statsforvalteren i Nordland, 2019; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017; European Parliamentary Research Service, 2024). Also, teacher institutions considering using blended models should recognize that organizational clarity, predictable scheduling, and flexible structure appear especially important for certain student groups.

Future research should explore how programme structure relates to long-term outcomes such as completion, entry into the teaching profession, and retention—particularly in rural regions. Qualitative and longitudinal designs would be valuable for examining how students’ motivations, constraints, and expectations influence their programme choices and subsequent trajectories. Multi-institutional studies would also enable stronger conclusions about how organizational formats relate to broader educational or regional patterns.