This paper presents a comprehensive methodological framework for evaluating blended learning in vocational contexts through multi-stakeholder qualitative inquiry. Drawing on an evaluative case study of vocational English training in Saudi Arabia’s oil and gas industry, the study demonstrates how systematically gathering perspectives from learners at different stages (current students and post-academic trainees) alongside their instructors (teachers and technical trainers) generates developmental insights into learning progression and skill transfer through a multi-cohort cross-sectional design. Grounded in Social Constructivism and Situated Learning theories, the research utilised semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and email-based qualitative questionnaires, analysed through systematic coding and theme development. The research produced a five-dimensional evaluation framework encompassing modality integration, skills development, learning environment, technology effectiveness, and implementation effectiveness. This framework fills critical methodological gaps by moving beyond single-source evaluations and purely quantitative assessment towards comprehensive multi-perspective inquiry. The study discusses methodological considerations including insider researcher positioning, trustworthiness strategies, and ethical dimensions specific to workplace-based educational research. The framework offers transferable guidance for researchers and practitioners seeking to evaluate technology-enhanced vocational education programmes comprehensively while honouring the experiential knowledge of multiple stakeholder groups. The paper’s primary contribution is methodological, grounded in and demonstrated through original empirical inquiry: it shows how theoretical frameworks can guide systematic multi-stakeholder evaluation whilst maintaining responsiveness to contextual particularities.
Mohammad Ahmad Alsayed Mohammad (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: