Abstract
This study examines how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced university educators in Kazakhstan, focusing on post-pandemic teaching practices and professional identities. Interviews with ten instructors from five institutions revealed persistent use of digital tools, reimagined assessment practices, and increased teaching flexibility. Significant advancements in online instructional design and efforts to balance humanizing pedagogy with digitalization were observed. The pandemic catalyzed professional development, enhancing educators’ digital literacy and pedagogical strategies. Instructors reported a shift toward more empathetic, student-centered practices and rethought their professional identities. The study highlights the need to integrate pandemic-developed practices into long-term educational strategies and has implications for teacher education and professional development. It emphasizes the importance of comprehensive training programs fostering digital competencies, adaptability, and inclusive teaching approaches, while stressing the need for ongoing support for educators in navigating evolving roles.
Keywords
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted all aspects of human life, with education experiencing some of the most severe disruptions. According to a United Nations report (2020), the pandemic and related changes to the teaching and learning process affected 1.58 billion students across 200 countries at all levels of education. Governments implemented nationwide school closures, suspending in-person, campus-based education, as face-to-face learning was considered a threat (Murphy, 2020). As a result, educational institutions had to rapidly transition to emergency remote teaching (ERT) modalities midway through the academic term. In response, instructors adopted a range of readily available digital tools and platforms, while administrative personnel accelerated the digitalization of the educational process.
Although online and distance teaching is a widely practiced concept widely practiced in higher education, ERT differs significantly from traditional online teaching. While traditional online teaching is designed for a virtual environment from the onset, ERT is a quick, makeshift transition to an online delivery mode due to an emergency (Ferri et al., 2020). When educational institutions started ERT, many teachers and students were unprepared for remote teaching, facing challenges such as ineffective communication, difficulties in monitoring and assessing students’ learning, issues with content engagement, connectivity problems, and a heavy reliance on unstable mobile internet (Kohnke & Jarvis, 2021; Le Cor & Coutherut, 2020).
The partial reopening of educational institutions in 2021 presented another set of challenges. Social distancing and restrictive movement policies were put in place, further complicating the educational landscape (Ibna Seraj et al., 2022). During the pandemic, universities dynamically shifted between diverse instructional modalities, such as online, offline, synchronous, and asynchronous, in response to fluctuating infection rates. Some institutions even implemented hybrid approaches, accommodating both in-person and remote student participation simultaneously. These rapid reorientations in teaching modalities not only demanded flexibility, creativity, and resilience from teachers but also significantly impacted their teaching practices and professional self-perceptions (Broadbent et al., 2023; Su, 2023). Educators had to continually adapt their pedagogical approaches and redefine their roles. This led to far-reaching changes in curriculum design and teaching methodologies. Consequently, these adjustments refined their understanding of what it means to be a university teacher in this new, dynamic educational landscape.
These global trends in higher education were equally evident in Kazakhstan, where universities faced significant challenges in adapting to comprehensive online teaching, despite the extensive use of digital educational platforms before the pandemic. The change from predominantly online and blended learning during the pandemic to a primarily face-to-face educational mode post-pandemic raises important questions about the continued relevance and integration of strategies developed under crisis conditions (Abdrasheva et al., 2022). This transition not only affected teaching practices but also had implications for educators’ professional self-identity (Su, 2023)—their perception of themselves as teachers, including their roles, responsibilities, and competencies within the educational context (van Lankveld et al., 2017).
While existing literature has extensively explored the in-pandemic teaching experiences of university educators, including pedagogical adaptations, challenges, and the use of digital technology (Cheung, 2023; Le Cor & Coutherut, 2020; Mohamad Nasri et al., 2020; Oyedotun, 2020), a research gap remains concerning the sustained impact of these experiences on post-pandemic teaching practices and professional self-identities in higher education (González et al., 2023). This gap is particularly evident within the specific context of Kazakhstan as well.
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of in-pandemic teaching experiences on Kazakhstani university teachers’ post-pandemic teaching practices and professional identities. This study is guided by the theoretical frameworks of teacher identity development proposed by van Lankveld et al. (2017), Pishghadam et al. (2022), and Barkhuizen (2017) which posit that teacher identity is a dynamic construct influenced by personal experiences, professional contexts, and societal changes. This framework is particularly relevant in understanding how the pandemic has reshaped professional identities, encouraging educators to embrace new roles and responsibilities.
The significance and potential contributions of this study are manifold. First, it provides valuable insights into the lasting effects of the pandemic on higher education in Kazakhstan, a context that has received limited attention in the existing literature. Second, by examining the potentially notable impact of in-pandemic experiences on teaching practices and professional identity, this study aims to contribute to the developing understanding of the evolving roles and competencies of university educators in the post-pandemic era (Pishghadam et al., 2022). Third, the findings of this research have implications for university teachers, administrators, and policymakers navigating the challenges and opportunities of the post-pandemic educational landscape.
Literature Review
Contextual Background: Higher Education During the Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an unprecedented shift in higher education, with institutions worldwide transitioning to ERT. This sudden transition has exposed the limitations of pre-pandemic digital readiness and highlighted significant challenges in curriculum delivery, student engagement, and assessment practices (Ferri et al., 2020). Bokayev et al. (2021) noted that many universities, including those in Kazakhstan, were unprepared for such a comprehensive pivot to online education. Government directives led to the adoption of various instructional modes, such as synchronous and asynchronous online classes, hybrid models, and dynamic approaches to in-person education (Seilkhan et al., 2022).
Pedagogical Adaptations and Innovations
The move to ERT has necessitated significant pedagogical adaptations. Faculty members have had to redesign curricula and adapt course materials for online delivery, incorporating more videos, infographics, and interactive activities to maintain student engagement (Tóthová & Hennyeyová, 2018). Umaroh (2021) and Mahmood (2021) explored innovative teaching methods, such as flipped classrooms, mind mapping, and adaptive learning, to facilitate interaction and enhance the online learning experience. These adaptations have been critical in maintaining the quality of education and ensuring that learning objectives are met despite the abrupt transition to ERT.
Most universities worldwide have operated via conference hosting platforms, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Classroom, throughout the distance learning process (Cheung, 2023; Hew et al., 2020; Resdasari Prasetyo et al., 2021; Vijayan, 2021). Some instructors have added variety to courses by implementing virtual games and encouraging students to submit creative presentations and video projects related to the course topic (Kebritchi et al., 2017 as cited in Dhawan, 2020). These methods have required changes in curricula, necessitating planning and timing adjustments to incorporate interactive elements. Cheung (2023) argues that methodological adaptation is not always necessary and heavily depends on teaching philosophy, course objectives, and the instructor’s familiarity with technology. Dhawan (2020) notes the challenge of determining quality standards for emergency online lessons due to significant gaps in evaluations and guidelines for e-resources.
The pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technology in education, forcing educators to embrace digital tools and innovate their teaching methods (Ashour, 2024). Broadbent et al. (2023) argue that the crisis has spurred a long-overdue digital transformation in higher education, promoting the integration of technology into traditional teaching practices.
Assessment Practices
Assessment practices have been one of the most challenging aspects of ERT. Decisions have had to be made about the value of the assessment, the types of assessment, and their implementation without compromising the integrity of learning. Sutton (2020) reports that Eastern Illinois University offered students the option to take courses for credit or no credit instead of conventional letter grades to reduce stress and accommodate the disruptive impact of the pandemic on learning environments. Pandya et al. (2022) discovered considerable differences in the forms of assessment employed by faculty before and during the pandemic. With the onset of ERT, educators used fewer traditional assessment methods like written exams and oral evaluations, opting instead for alternative strategies such as virtual presentations and creative projects (Oyedotun, 2020). These forms of assessment were designed to measure authenticity and performance, providing a relief measure during rapid pedagogical adaptations.
Howard et al. (2022) utilized text mining to explore teachers’ experiences during the pandemic, revealing modifications in assessment practices and highlighting the need for flexibility and innovation. García-Morales et al. (2021) have highlighted that the crisis has necessitated a rethinking of traditional assessment methods, advocating for continuous assessment and formative feedback as more effective strategies in engaging students in remote learning contexts.
Teacher Professional Identity
Teacher professional identity (TPI) is not a fixed trait or a single status. Instead, it represents a dynamic, multifaceted process through which educators interpret who they are, what they do, and why they do it. Conceptually, it forms at the intersection of personal agency, interpersonal relationships, institutional expectations, and broader sociopolitical discourses. Identity does not emerge in isolation; it evolves through teaching experience, emotional commitment, and ongoing reflection.
In this study, TPI is defined as a developing configuration of self-understandings. These encompass beliefs, emotions, intentions, and self-positionings that university instructors use to make sense of their roles. They adapt these understandings in response to evolving pedagogical demands, institutional policies, and social conditions. This conceptualization was chosen to capture how changes in identities unfold over time and across contexts, particularly in the post-pandemic experiences of the educators. It aligns with the study’s central concern: how university instructors reconsidered both their teaching practices and their sense of professional self amid the disruptions caused by COVID-19. The definition serves as a precise and empirically grounded lens for analyzing how university educators in Kazakhstan negotiated institutional turbulence and evolving educational expectations (Beijaard et al., 2004, 2023; Sachs, 2001; Suárez et al., 2022).
Contemporary theories of TPI emphasize that identity is something teachers enact rather than possess. It takes shape through active participation in teaching, engagement with discourse, and involvement in institutional life (Barkhuizen, 2017; Sachs, 2001). These enactments are embedded within value-laden contexts. For example, many university environments continue to prioritize research over teaching, creating structural tensions for educators. While van Lankveld et al. (2017) highlighted internal drivers of identity such as competence, relatedness, and recognition, these psychological elements cannot be fully understood apart from the larger systems of power within which they operate. Sachs’s (2001) analysis of managerial discourses is particularly relevant, as it discusses how identity can become a contested space—one where legitimacy and professional authority are negotiated. The participants’ narratives in this study reflect such tensions, especially in how they responded to evolving institutional expectations and reclaimed their pedagogical agency within constrained conditions.
More recent scholarship presents TPI as inseparable from professional learning. From this perspective, identity is not merely influenced by learning but constitutes a learning process in itself. It involves cycles of reflection and adjustment, as teachers absorb new knowledge, confront dilemmas, and revise their beliefs and practices (Beijaard et al., 2023). However, this progression is not always steady or orderly. Pishghadam et al. (2022) offer a compelling framework that accounts for symbolic power and capital, helping to explain the emotional and ideological complexity of identity formation in turbulent settings. Their model disrupts more traditional developmental views by attending to how teachers internalize, challenge, or reinterpret change, often in highly personal ways. Within this study, such dimensions became visible in the ways instructors grappled with institutional narratives of innovation, resilience, and productivity.
An expanding body of research underscores the productive role professional tensions play in teacher identity development. Institutional pressures, including hierarchical structures, heavy workloads, and the prioritization of research over teaching, frequently prompt faculty to reassess their professional values and redefine their sense of purpose (van Lankveld et al., 2017). Discursive tensions stemming from language ideologies, neoliberal performance imperatives, and global-local normative misalignments similarly compel educators to navigate conflicting definitions of legitimate and effective teaching (Sachs, 2001). Vietnamese lecturers, for example, experienced shifts in professional identity as they reconciled state-mandated reforms with their pedagogical beliefs (French et al., 2023). In China, Zhai et al. (2024) report that teachers negotiated tensions between Confucian hierarchical values and student-centered approaches, integrating traditional cultural norms with institutional demands for autonomy and innovation. Regulatory tensions have also driven identity transformations. In Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, instructors within rigid policy contexts negotiated identities to reclaim professional agency despite severe constraints (Khushbokov, 2025). Lu and Tang (2025) similarly found that Chinese EFL academics navigating institutional reforms balanced traditional values, such as modesty and collectivism, with emerging discourses of performativity, fostering identities marked by increased assertiveness and strategic positioning. Conceptual frameworks like the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (Kaplan & Garner, 2017) and Activity Theory (Engeström, 2001) illustrate how these tensions foster transformative learning through periods of disequilibrium. Ecological perspectives further suggest institutional constraints function not simply as barriers but as conditions enabling agency development (Leijen et al., 2019). Collectively, this scholarship reframes tension from a threat to identity to a developmental catalyst prompting reflection, negotiation, and reconfiguration. Within this study, post-pandemic disruptions and institutional turbulence in Kazakhstan provide a critical context for examining how university instructors redefined their professional selves amid multilayered tensions.
There is growing recognition of the emotional and narrative dimensions of identity work. Teachers respond to institutional mandates not only cognitively but also emotionally. Emotions serve as both motivators and constraints, influencing how teachers sustain their sense of purpose (Beijaard et al., 2023; Pishghadam et al., 2022). Additionally, identity is narratively constructed. Educators continuously rebuild their professional selves through stories connecting experiences to their values and aspirations (Barkhuizen, 2017). These narratives reflect the cultural and institutional discourses in which they circulate. Sachs (2001) observes that dominant ideologies, such as neoliberalism’s performance imperative, contend with alternative discourses emphasizing collaboration and care, shaping acceptable forms of professionalism. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this discursive landscape, simultaneously creating and constraining possibilities for reimagining professional identity.
Rather than viewing these perspectives as separate, this study adopts an integrated conceptual framework. Drawing from sociocultural, psychological, narrative, and complexity theories (Barkhuizen, 2017; Beijaard et al., 2004, 2023; Pishghadam et al., 2022; Sachs, 2001; Suárez et al., 2022; van Lankveld et al., 2017), the framework makes room for differing emphases—from coherence to contradiction. This plurality allows for a nuanced analysis of how identity transformations unfold in times of crisis. The framework also allows for the exploration of both individual agency and systemic constraint, as well as the interplay of emotion and discourse. Through this approach, the study aimed to interpret how university instructors in Kazakhstan navigated educational upheaval and revised their professional identities in response to extraordinary circumstances.
The Kazakhstani Context
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kazakhstani universities transitioned to online and distance learning in mid-Spring 2020, following a government decree (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan [MoERK], 2020). This shift marked the beginning of a prolonged period of off-campus teaching until Spring 2022, challenging educators to navigate virtual education in real-time (Bokayev et al., 2021).
Universities adopted various instructional modes, including synchronous and asynchronous online classes, with some implementing hybrid models to balance in-person interaction and safety (Seilkhan et al., 2022). While 90% of Kazakhstani universities reportedly had digital educational platforms pre-pandemic, the transition exposed unpreparedness at various levels (Amirova et al., 2015). Faculty members were required to adapt curriculum, pedagogy, and methodology to meet the unique demands of virtual education (Guncaga et al., 2022). These micro-level adaptations occurred alongside broader institutional responses and evolving national professional development agendas, which shaped how educators navigated their changing roles (Tleuov, 2024).
The transition highlighted disparities in technology access among students, particularly affecting rural and low-income populations (Rakhmetov et al., 2022; Yausheva, 2020). This digital divide posed additional challenges for educators striving to provide an inclusive learning environment.
As universities reopened campuses in Spring 2022, they navigated social distancing measures through staggered schedules, reduced class sizes, and continued hybrid models. In-person education fully resumed during Fall 2022, with all pandemic-related restrictions ending on May 19, 2023.
While extensive research has explored the in-pandemic teaching experiences, there is a gap in understanding the long-term impact on post-pandemic teaching practices and professional identities (González et al., 2023; Rapanta et al., 2021). This study aims to address this gap by examining the enduring influence of in-pandemic experiences on Kazakhstani university educators’ teaching practices and professional self-identity.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
How have the in-pandemic teaching experiences of university instructors in Kazakhstan influenced their post-pandemic teaching practices?
In what ways have the in-pandemic teaching experiences reshaped the professional identities of university instructors in Kazakhstan?
Methods
Research Design
This study employed the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework to explore the lived experiences of university instructors in Kazakhstan during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. IPA was chosen for its ability to examine how individuals make sense of significant life experiences (Eatough & Smith, 2017). This approach allowed an in-depth exploration of how in-pandemic teaching influenced post-pandemic pedagogical practices and professional identities. The phenomenological nature of the study focused on participants’ subjective experiences and meaning-making processes, while the interpretative element allowed for nuanced analysis within the Kazakhstani higher education context.
Participants and Sampling
Purposeful sampling (Patton, 2017) was employed to select 10 university instructors identified as expert educators. From the universities in Almaty City, five institutions (three state and two private) were included to capture a diverse representation of in-pandemic teaching experiences within the local higher education context. Almaty offered ready access to a spectrum of state and private universities and served as a pragmatic starting point for this exploratory inquiry; nonetheless, the city’s comparatively robust infrastructure may not mirror conditions in rural or less-resourced regions. The selection criteria for participants included:
A minimum of 5 to 10 years of teaching experience in higher education
Active involvement in teaching before, during, and after the pandemic, including experience with ERT
Recognition for teaching excellence, such as teaching awards or consistently high student evaluations
Leadership roles within their departments or institutions
Demonstrated involvement in pedagogical innovation, particularly in response to pandemic challenges
Active engagement in professional development related to pandemic-era teaching
Experience in mentoring junior faculty or leading teaching development initiatives
Involvement in developing or implementing pandemic-related teaching policies at their institutions
The selection criteria were chosen for their relevance in exploring how the pandemic shaped teacher identity and practice. Mid-career educators with 5 to 10 years of experience offered the stability of established routines combined with the flexibility for meaningful change. Only those with continuous teaching across the pre-pandemic period, the emergency remote teaching phase, and the subsequent return to campus were included. This ensured longitudinal insights into how practices emerged, evolved, or were discarded, as well as how these decisions influenced professional self-conceptions. Recognition through awards or consistently high student evaluations confirmed pedagogical credibility and reflected van Lankveld et al.’s (2017) notion of a “sense of appreciation” as integral to identity work. Leadership roles positioned participants at the intersection of policy and practice, revealing how institutional authority shaped their professional self-perception. Evidence of pedagogical innovation and sustained engagement in professional development demonstrated reflective adaptability and commitment to growth, while mentoring junior colleagues underscored the collaborative dimensions of identity construction. Finally, involvement in developing or implementing pandemic-related teaching policies placed these educators within system-level change, highlighting the interplay between institutional discourse and individual agency (Rapanta et al., 2021).
Two participants were selected from each Almaty-based institution to ensure equal representation across the selected universities. The sample size of 10 was determined based on the principles of data saturation (Guest et al., 2006), allowing for a deep exploration of the phenomena while ensuring that the data collection reached a point where additional interviews were unlikely to yield significant new insights. However, the geographical concentration limits the transferability of findings beyond metropolitan contexts. The main participant information is provided in Table 1 below.
Summary of Participant Information.
Data Collection
Semi-structured, in-depth interviews served as the primary data collection method. Overall, 10 interviews were conducted over the course of the study. The interview guide, consisting of open-ended questions, was developed based on existing literature on teacher identity and in-pandemic teaching practices. It was piloted with two educators not included in the final sample, allowing for refinement before use. The guide explored instructors’ teaching experiences during the pandemic, the influence on their post-pandemic teaching practices, and the perceived impact on their professional development and self-identity.
Data collection took place over 3 months: January–March 2023. Each participant was interviewed for 60 to 90 min in person. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and transcribed verbatim. Follow-up interviews were conducted with three participants to further explore key themes that emerged during initial analysis.
Data Analysis
The study employed IPA as outlined by Eatough and Smith (2017) to examine the lived experiences of participants and interpret their meaning-making processes. I conducted the analysis manually to maintain closeness to the data and ensure a deep understanding of each participant’s unique experience.
The analysis process followed the iterative steps characteristic of IPA:
Close reading and re-reading of individual transcripts, noting initial observations and reflections
Developing emergent themes for each case, focusing on descriptive and conceptual comments
Searching for connections across emergent themes within each participant’s account
Moving to the next case and repeating steps 1 to 3, bracketing ideas from previous cases
Looking for patterns across cases to identify superordinate themes
Developing a narrative account that interprets the participants’ experiences, interspersed with verbatim extracts
To enhance analytical transparency and confirmability, I shared coding strategies, emerging themes, and interpretative insights with the Principal Investigator (PI) of the larger state-funded research project in which this study was embedded. The PI, an experienced qualitative researcher, reviewed these materials as part of the project’s internal quality assurance and reporting process to the Ministry of Education. This collaborative element helped refine thematic development and ensured alignment with the broader aims of the research project, while maintaining analytical independence.
The final themes were interpreted in light of the research questions, extracting meaningful insights that allowed for a profound understanding of participants’ experiences and perspectives regarding their teaching practices and professional identities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. The idiographic nature of IPA was preserved by presenting both shared themes and unique experiences. This allowed individual voices not to get lost in the analysis of the group.
Ethical Considerations
At the time of data collection (January–March 2023), my institution had not yet established a formal Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB was later formally constituted in Fall 2024. Consequently, ethical oversight for this study was guided explicitly by the principles outlined in the Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research provided by the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018). The participants received an information sheet outlining the study’s objectives, their participation, and guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity. Voluntary, informed consent was acquired before the interviews, and participants were advised of their right to withdraw at any given time. Data were securely maintained and accessible solely to the researcher to safeguard the participants’ privacy and confidentiality. Anonymity was preserved using pseudonyms.
Given the potentially sensitive nature of discussing institutional responses to the pandemic, participants were assured that the focus was on their subjective experiences and perspectives rather than evaluating their institutions. Cultural considerations specific to the Kazakhstani context, such as respecting hierarchical structures within institutions, were considered throughout the research process.
For transparency, it is important to acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of this manuscript. Grammarly was used for proofreading and improving the clarity of the writing. ChatGPT and AI-powered Research Rabbit platform were consulted for guidance on the structure of the paper and for identifying relevant literature. However, it is crucial to note that AI was not used to generate content, conduct data analysis, or interpret results. All substantive content, including the analysis and interpretation of data, was performed solely by me as the researcher. The use of AI tools was limited to enhancing the clarity and organization of the human-generated content and to support the literature review process.
Findings and Discussion
The data revealed a durable double impact: lecturers have altered classroom practice while simultaneously reshaping how they understand their professional identities. This integrated section presents the study’s results and commentary. Two thematic clusters frame the narrative: post-pandemic teaching practices and rethinking professional identity. Each cluster is divided into concise sub-sections; each illustrated with representative interview excerpts (participants coded P1 to P10). All quotations are researcher-translated from Russian or Kazakh and retain the participants’ intended meanings while protecting anonymity. After each theme, I situate the evidence within current scholarship to clarify its contribution to post-pandemic higher-education pedagogy.
Post-Pandemic Teaching Practices
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated shifts in teaching practices, compelling educators to adopt new methods and tools. This section explores how these changes have persisted in the post-pandemic era, focusing on the continued use of digital tools, the evolution of assessment practices, and flexibility in teaching approaches.
Continued Use of Digital Tools
Professors have adopted many digital tools during the pandemic, and they have continued to use them after the pandemic ended. They recognized the value of digital tools for accessibility and flexibility. All participants acknowledged the integration of digital tools such as Zoom, Moodle, Padlet, and Microsoft Teams, which became essential during the pandemic. For instance, P2 noted:
I realized that virtual office hours and committee meetings are not only convenient but also save a lot of time. The goal is to meet with students and attend to their needs, right? I can still do that online. […] Tools like Padlet and online discussion forums on Moodle have become integral to our teaching practices. I learned to use them more effectively during the pandemic, and I don’t see why I should suddenly stop using them if they still help me engage the students and achieve my learning goals.
While P2’s experience reflects a broader trend, not all participants embraced digital tools equally. For instance, educators in disciplines requiring lab-based or practice-oriented instruction (e.g., engineering, fine arts) expressed skepticism about the pedagogical sufficiency of online formats, citing limitations in replicating embodied learning experiences.
The continued use of digital tools post-pandemic, as highlighted by P2’s quote above, resonates with the findings of Mottiar et al. (2022), who emphasized the crucial role of digital tools in facilitating education during the pandemic. Furthermore, Imran et al. (2023) stressed the importance of digital tools in enhancing accessibility and inclusiveness in education, ensuring sustained engagement. This trend is further supported by Broadbent et al. (2023), who observed a significant increase in online learning activities post-pandemic, including pre-recorded videos, online interaction, self-paced content, and Q&A sessions, indicating a move toward more flexible approaches. These findings build upon the earlier work of Barkhuizen (2017), who, even before the pandemic, had already identified the potential for digital tools to enhance the overall teaching and learning experience in higher education, suggesting that the pandemic accelerated the adoption and integration of these tools into teaching practices.
The persistent use of digital tools post-pandemic, as evidenced by the participants’ experiences and corroborated by recent studies (Broadbent et al., 2023; Imran et al., 2023; Mottiar et al., 2022), signifies a salient adjustments in educational practices. This shift represents a broader trend toward integrating technology into higher education, which had already been identified by Barkhuizen (2017) and Bovill (2020) before the pandemic. The integration of digital tools has not only facilitated the continuation of education during crises but has also improved overall efficiency and accessibility. The findings suggest that this change in the educational landscape, where digital tools play a critical role in enhancing teaching and learning experiences, is likely to be permanent.
Reimagining Assessment Practices
One of the salient themes that emerged from the data is the university instructors’ changing approaches to assessment. Some of the assessment practices adopted during the pandemic have become a permanent part of their post-pandemic teaching. One of the challenges that arose during the in-pandemic ERT was the difficulty in “engaging students in learning throughout the semester” (P1) and “monitoring their progress of mastery of the content and skills” (P8) through traditional standardized high-stakes formative assessments, such as midterms and final exams. Additionally, because classes and exams were conducted online, it was more difficult than before to “guarantee the integrity of the assessment” (P2). The COVID pandemic appears to have compelled academics to amend their assessment strategies due to the forced move to online learning because what they had was “no longer fit for purpose” (P9):
It [pre-pandemic assessment] did not work anymore. If you really cared about student learning, then you had to change things up. I mentioned about open-book exams and continuous assessments through smaller quizzes on Kahoot, online portfolios on Padlet, projects, even home tasks on Moodle forum. […] These tools were practical, easy to design, and convenient for monitoring engagement and uptake. I did not have to worry much about plagiarism and cheating. Now, even after returning to campus, I have retained these practices […] because I believe they offer a better evaluation of their progress and understanding.
The data suggest a redirection from high-stakes, closed-book exams toward low-stakes, open-book exams, allowing students to refer to study materials and resources while answering questions. This shift was accompanied by an increased use of continuous assessment, which involves more regular and systematic formative assessment of student performance and progress throughout a course, as well as group assessments, quizzes, and multiple-choice questions. Participants viewed these approaches as a pragmatic response to the changed environment, acknowledging the challenges of conducting traditional exams online. They employed these new assessment practices to enhance student engagement in the online environment and prevent plagiarism.
However, this reorientation was not uniformly embraced. A few instructors, particularly those with limited prior exposure to digital assessment, expressed unease about the pedagogical integrity of open-book exams and frequent quizzes. As P7 noted informally, “Sometimes I feel like we are assessing fragments, not mastery.”
This pattern is consistent with multiple strands of scholarship. Simon et al. (2022) reported a marked turn toward formative assessments and open-book examinations, a move designed to protect academic integrity while sustaining student engagement. Building on Davis’s Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), in which perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use jointly shape uptake (Davis, 1989), Gabbiadini et al. (2023) concluded that both constructs predict lecturers’ willingness to keep using digital assessment platforms. Their findings align with Davis’s original proposition that tools viewed as both valuable for performance and straightforward to operate are more likely to be retained. Complementing these insights, Broadbent et al. (2023) identified a post-pandemic rise in authentic, scaffolded assessment tasks, signaling an ongoing transition toward holistic and supportive evaluation practices that foster deeper learning outcomes.
The evolution of assessment practices toward continuous and scaffolded methods reflects a broader trend in higher education that addresses the challenges of online learning and enhances the evaluation of student learning outcomes. This shift suggests a more adaptable and student-centered approach to assessment, aligning with long-standing educational goals accelerated by the pandemic. Moreover, it indicates a move toward more equitable evaluation methods that consider diverse student needs, aligning with global trends emphasizing inclusivity and fairness in assessment (Broadbent et al., 2023; García-Morales et al., 2021).
While P9’s experience highlights the benefits of these new assessment methods, it is important to consider potential challenges and limitations. The reorientation to open-book exams and continuous assessment may lead to concerns about academic rigor and consistency across different courses and instructors (Uijtdehaage & Schuwirth, 2018). Furthermore, the heavy reliance on digital tools for assessment could potentially disadvantage students with limited access to technology or those who struggle with digital literacy (Ndibalema, 2021). Additionally, the increased frequency of assessments in a continuous model might lead to higher workloads for both students and instructors, potentially causing stress and burnout. There’s also a risk that focusing too heavily on frequent, smaller assessments could fragment learning and discourage deeper, more holistic understanding of course material (Harland & Wald, 2021).
Moreover, while these new methods may reduce certain forms of academic dishonesty, they may also give rise to new challenges in ensuring academic integrity in online and open-book environments. As Guangul et al. (2020) note, maintaining assessment security in online settings remains a significant concern for many educators.
Despite these potential drawbacks, the benefits of more flexible and varied assessment methods, as described by P9 and supported by recent literature, seem to outweigh the challenges for many educators. However, ongoing evaluation and refinement of these new assessment practices will be crucial to ensure they effectively support student learning and maintain academic standards in the long term.
Flexibility in Teaching Approaches
The interview data revealed that university instructors have become more flexible in their teaching approaches post-pandemic. Participants reported a notable change in their teaching practices, incorporating a variety of instructional methods that were previously underutilized or not fully understood. For instance, P6 described feeling like a “Swiss knife,” having gained confidence in using flipped classrooms, asynchronous teaching, and hybrid learning:
It [approach to teaching] has completely changed. I am a different teacher now. I feel like a Swiss knife. I know how to use flipped classrooms, asynchronous teaching, hybrid learning. My classes are more interesting, more practical now. We had a lot of PDs about those before [the pandemic], but they never entered my practice. The pandemic made me use them more consistently. […] There were many occasions after we returned to campus when some students would request continuing their education online. So, I had students in the classroom and online at the same time. It was challenging to design lessons and assessments, but it was something we did, and I can do it again if necessary. […] The way I taught before the pandemic seems so rigid and … maybe primitive. […] I have also suggested designing some post-graduate courses and even programs in a hybrid way. I think there would be a lot of demand for it.
Other participants’ experiences were similar to those of P6, highlighting the substantive impact of the pandemic on their teaching practices. The forced move to online learning during the pandemic compelled instructors to adopt and consistently use teaching methods that they had previously been exposed to but had not fully incorporated into their repertoire. This experience led to increased confidence and proficiency in using these methods, enabling instructors to be more adaptable and responsive to diverse student needs. P6’s account also suggests that the pandemic has led to a lasting change in teaching approaches, with instructors recognizing the value of flexibility and the potential for hybrid learning to meet the evolving needs of students. It is worth noting, however, that the capacity to adopt flexible methods varied across departments. Some instructors from traditionally lecture-heavy disciplines such as economics and law found it more difficult to restructure their content meaningfully within hybrid or flipped formats, citing institutional inertia and student resistance.
The increased flexibility in teaching approaches aligns with the findings of several recent studies. For instance, Ibna Seraj et al. (2022) noted the effectiveness of blended learning and flipped classrooms in maintaining student engagement. Similarly, Stankovska et al. (2022) emphasized the importance of creating flexible learning environments that accommodate diverse student needs. Ratten (2023) highlighted the trend toward hybrid learning models, combining face-to-face and online instruction, while Resdasari Prasetyo et al. (2021) stressed the need for balancing synchronous and asynchronous teaching methods to cater to different learning preferences.
The incorporation of flexible teaching approaches illustrates a shift toward dynamic and adaptable educational practices. The integration of synchronous and asynchronous methods, as well as hybrid models, reflects a commitment to meeting diverse student needs and preferences. This flexibility is essential for maintaining student engagement and ensuring access to quality education regardless of circumstances (Bovill, 2020; Ibna Seraj et al., 2022; Resdasari Prasetyo et al., 2021; Stankovska et al., 2022). The continuation of these practices highlights the enduring impact of the pandemic on teaching strategies and underscores the importance of adaptability in education.
While increased flexibility in teaching approaches offers numerous benefits, it also presents challenges. The implementation of hybrid and flexible learning models can increase workload for educators, who must prepare materials for multiple modalities (Ratten, 2023). Additionally, maintaining consistent quality across different teaching formats can be difficult, potentially leading to inequitable learning experiences (Stankovska et al., 2022). There is also a risk of “flexibility fatigue,” where constant adaptation may lead to stress and burnout among both educators and students (Li et al., 2021). Furthermore, the digital divide may exacerbate educational inequalities, as not all students have equal access to the technology required for flexible learning approaches (Ibna Seraj et al., 2022). These challenges highlight the need for careful implementation and ongoing support in adopting flexible teaching strategies.
Advancements in Online Instructional Design
In the middle of the spring semester in 2020, the pandemic forced Kazakhstani universities to transition their classes online abruptly, with professors having to adapt over the weekend. Participants reported that, initially, the focus was on survival, using the available tools to get through each day of classes. The interview data revealed that university professors faced significant challenges during the ERT period.
Participants described the ERT period as a time of “survival” and “fighting fires daily” (P1, P3, P9, and P10), with little opportunity to reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching practices. P1 noted that they “used the same slides, same activities, same assessment practices” despite the shift to online learning, resulting in a “soulless” classroom experience. This sentiment aligns with the concept of ERT, which refers to the temporary adjustment of instructional delivery to an alternate mode due to crisis circumstances, as opposed to well-planned online learning experiences (Bond et al., 2021).
However, the data also revealed that university professors actively sought out professional development (PD) opportunities to enhance their online teaching skills. Many professors attended online PD courses during the summer following the first pandemic semester, which focused on designing online courses and utilizing digital tools. After participating in these PDs, professors reported a change in their approach to designing classes for the online environment. P3 highlighted the differences between online and face-to-face teaching, emphasizing the need for content pacing, interaction mechanisms, and adapted activities and exams:
Some of the principles are the same but the specifics are different. Pacing of the content, for example. Long lectures with text-heavy slides are not effective for online teaching. You need to break down content into smaller chunks. […] Prepare the interaction mechanisms thoroughly in advance. You don’t think about those much in a [physical] classroom. But in online courses you integrate forums, live chats, breakout rooms so that they can interact as they would in a face-to-face setting.
The interview data suggests that university professors developed a deeper understanding of how to structure and organize online learning experiences effectively. The participants stressed the importance of creating an engaging and interactive learning environment, rather than simply putting content online. They also highlighted the need for differentiating curriculum design and materials development for online and offline classes, suggesting that this should be emphasized more in teacher education programs.
These findings align with recent research on the advancements in online instructional design during the pandemic. Rapanta et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of adapting pedagogical approaches and designing interactive learning activities to foster student engagement in online learning environments. Similarly, Jiang (2021) highlighted the need for instructors to develop new skills and competencies in online course design, such as creating multimedia content, facilitating online discussions, and providing timely feedback. The shift toward more deliberate and effective online instructional design practices is further supported by Tartavulea et al. (2020), who noted that the pandemic has accelerated the adoption of innovative teaching methods and technologies in higher education.
The advancements in online instructional design reflect a change in the approach to online teaching. Educators have moved from simply transferring traditional lectures to an online format to designing interactive and engaging online learning experiences. This finding aligns with Ibna Seraj et al. (2022), who noted that the pandemic accelerated the adoption of innovative instructional design practices. Resdasari Prasetyo et al. (2021) also found that balancing synchronous and asynchronous teaching methods became integral to effective online instructional design during the pandemic.
Developing advanced online instructional design skills among educators represents an evolution in teaching practices. The ability to create engaging and interactive online learning environments enhances the overall effectiveness of education and supports student engagement and learning outcomes. This shift is supported by literature, which highlights the importance of innovative instructional design in maintaining student engagement and achieving educational goals in an online setting (Bovill, 2020; Ibna Seraj et al., 2022; Resdasari Prasetyo et al., 2021).
It is important to note that the adoption and effectiveness of these online instructional design advancements may vary across disciplines and institutional contexts. STEM fields, for instance, may face unique challenges in translating hands-on laboratory experiences to online environments (Bond et al., 2021). Conversely, humanities courses might more readily adapt to discussion-based online formats. Institutional factors such as resource availability, technological infrastructure, and organizational culture can also significantly influence the implementation of advanced online instructional design (Jiang, 2021). Smaller institutions or those in resource-constrained settings may struggle to provide the necessary support and training for these advancements. Therefore, while the overall trend toward improved online instructional design is clear, its manifestation and impact differ based on specific disciplinary and institutional contexts.
Humanizing Pedagogy and Digitalization of Education
The rapid transition to online learning during the pandemic led to a realignment in the focus of education, with digitalization taking center stage. The interview data revealed that, initially, university professors were primarily concerned with logistical issues, survival, and the successful conduct of daily classes. P10 shared, “It was a race against time. We were under pressure to arm ourselves with as many digital tools, platforms, and applications as possible as soon as possible. There was no time for reflection or rethinking our teaching approaches.”
Participants reported attending numerous seminars and professional development sessions that focused on different digital tools. However, according to the participants, these sessions often emphasized the tools themselves rather than how they could enhance pedagogy or help achieve learning goals. P4 noted:
Zoom, breakout rooms, online forums, doodles, Slack, Trello, etc. became buzzwords. If someone mentioned a new tool, others rushed to find out what it was and how to use it. Many of the digital tools replicated one another, and there was so much overlap in functionality. It was a bit confusing and overwhelming.
As the pandemic progressed, teachers began to recognize the importance of aligning digital tools with humanizing pedagogy. P8 shared:
I later realized that digital tools must indeed align with and reflect humanizing pedagogy. Those principles need to be at the core, helping us choose the necessary digital tools. It’s about using technology for improving pedagogy, not just for the sake of it.
Participants emphasized the significance of authentic communication, interaction, respect for students’ voices, privacy, and identities, empathy, compassion, emotional support, and creating a safe learning environment.
P9 stressed the importance of these principles, stating, “It’s about being a role model and leader for the students, creating a strong community so that they feel they belong there, and being flexible and accommodating to students’ needs. These are more important, especially during online education.” Some participants felt that during the pandemic, these principles became peripheral, with greater recognition given to teachers who knew many digital tools. P9 continued her reflection:
Yes, digitalization is important, but to what extent? We need to get the priorities straight. Technology serves our pedagogical goals and values, not the other way around. We’re here to make a profound impact on human beings that we teach and not to showcase our digital skills.
These findings align with recent research on the importance of humanizing pedagogy in online education. Pacansky-Brock et al. (2020) highlight the need for a “humanized approach” to online teaching, which prioritizes empathy, presence, and awareness of students’ diverse needs and experiences. Similarly, Pacansky-Brock et al. (2023) argue that effective online teaching requires a focus on building community, fostering interaction, and creating a sense of belonging among students.
The shift toward recognizing the importance of humanizing pedagogy in the context of digitalization is further supported by the work of Stommel (2020), who stressed the need for critical digital pedagogy that centers on human relationships and social justice. Stommel (2020) argued that in the context of education, digital tools should serve human needs and interactions, and that both the digital and human aspects should be guided by the core purpose of education: to empower students to develop critical thinking skills and become actively engaged members of society.
This shift points to a more thoughtful and strategic approach to using technology in education. It is not merely about adopting digital tools but about integrating them to align with pedagogical goals and enhance student learning outcomes. This perspective aligns with Rapanta et al. (2021), who emphasized the importance of pedagogization over digitalization in higher education. They suggested that strategic decision-making at the institutional level is essential for successful curriculum and assessment design post-pandemic.
The evolution from mere digitalization to the pedagogization of educational technology reflects a deeper understanding and more sophisticated use of these tools. This approach emphasizes the alignment of technological tools with pedagogical objectives, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes. Literature supports this perspective, highlighting the strong potential of thoughtful and strategic integration of technology in educational practices (Bovill, 2020; Rapanta et al., 2021). Moreover, the findings underscore the need for a more holistic approach to evaluating and recognizing teaching excellence in the digital age. Rather than prioritizing technological proficiency alone, institutions must value and reward educators who effectively integrate humanizing pedagogy with digital tools (Olszewska et al., 2023).
Rethinking Professional Identity
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the professional identity of university instructors, compelling them to adapt to unprecedented challenges and redefine their roles in the educational landscape. This section explores how these experiences have led teachers to reconsider their professional identities. The term “rethinking” here indicates a process of reflection and potential change, rather than a complete overhaul. It encompasses how teachers are reevaluating their roles, responsibilities, and self-perception considering their pandemic experiences. The following subsections examine three key aspects of this identity shift: embracing new roles and responsibilities, the enhanced role of carers and nurturers, and navigating psychological processes in teacher identity formation.
Embracing New Roles and Responsibilities
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid expansion of university instructors’ professional roles and responsibilities, compelling them to reconfigure their self-identities as educators. This adjustment manifested in various dimensions, from technological adaptation to emotional support provision. P2’s reflection encapsulates this multifaceted shift:
I found myself not just teaching but also troubleshooting technical issues, creating engaging digital content, and providing emotional support to students in ways I hadn’t before. I was like, ‘What on earth is going on?’ It made me question what it truly means to be an educator in this age.
This sentiment reverberates throughout the data, indicative of a profound rethinking of the educator’s role in contemporary higher education. The necessity for technological proficiency emerged as a recurring theme, as exemplified by P7:
I used to consider myself a traditional lecturer. I am good at teaching. I am a different teacher when I am in the classroom with students than I am before a camera. I hated all that technology stuff. But the pandemic forced me to become tech-savvy. I always saw myself as an energetic, dynamic teacher. I had to learn to keep being that teacher on digital platforms and it changed my perception of my professional self.
P7’s experience illuminates the complex interplay between technological adaptation and pedagogical identity. The forced migration to digital platforms catalyzed a re-evaluation of teaching methodologies and self-perception, demonstrating educators’ capacity to maintain pedagogical dynamism despite novel environmental constraints.
This metamorphosis of professional identity aligns with Rapanta et al.’s (2021) proposition that ERT during the pandemic has the potential to bridge the chasm between online and in-person instruction, fostering a more seamless integration of physical and digital tools for meaningful learning. Pishghadam et al.’s (2022) conceptual framework for teacher identity development offers a valuable lens through which to interpret these findings. Their model posits that teacher identity is shaped by an intricate interplay of subjective experiences, professional contexts, and broader societal changes. This framework resonates with the current study’s findings, as participants articulated how the pandemic prompted a reassessment of their professional identities. P4’s reflection exemplifies this process:
The challenges of the pandemic made me question what it truly means to be a teacher. I had to balance being an educator, a mentor, and a supporter in ways I hadn’t considered before. […] Yes, of course I always knew that besides being a teacher and researcher I also needed to be a mentor and a facilitator and a supporter. But these aspects of my identity came to the fore only during the pandemic.
This perspective aligns with Pishghadam et al.’s (2022) emphasis on the dynamic and evolving nature of teacher identity. While their framework focuses on identity through symbolic power, emotioncy, and discourse, our results highlight the unexpected importance of everyday technological adaptation, which their model underemphasizes. For instance, participants’ identities were not merely reimagined through abstract ideologies or emotional capital but through hands-on confrontation with digital tools and pedagogical constraints.
The data and analysis presented here reveal a reconfiguration of educator identity in response to the pandemic’s challenges. This encompasses technological adaptation, role expansion, and a reassessment of what it means to be an educator in the digital age. These findings contribute to our understanding of the malleable nature of professional identity in higher education and point to the need for institutional support in navigating these evolving roles and responsibilities (Gabbiadini et al., 2023; Tleuov, 2024).
Enhanced Role of Carers and Nurturers
The pandemic not only expanded educators’ technological roles, as evidenced in the previous section, but also appears to have amplified their function as carers and nurturers. This was evident in an increased focus on student well-being and the provision of personalized support. P3’s reflection points to this adjustment:
The pandemic made me realize that my role was not limited to teaching. I would constantly find myself concerned about my students’ emotional and mental well-being. When I rewatched the video recordings of the Zoom classes I saw how I’d often ask students whether they and their families were ok, and told them to be strong, that this would all soon pass. I felt at the time that their welfare was more important than education. […] I checked on some students who I felt looked upset or distressed.
This account illustrates a recalibration of educators’ priorities. While academic achievement remained crucial, the pandemic necessitated a more holistic approach to education. Instructors became increasingly attuned to their students’ emotional and psychological states, recognizing the interdependence of effective learning and well-being. This shift signifies a broader reconceptualization of the educator’s role, integrating both academic instruction and emotional support.
Su’s (2023) research aligns with this finding, positing that professional identity is a continuous, context-dependent process that influences teachers’ behaviors and well-being. Heightened attention to caring roles during the pandemic exemplifies this evolving aspect of professional identity. Hascher et al. (2021) suggest that this movement toward a more comprehensive and supportive learning environment may have lasting implications for higher education.
The data also reveal a trend toward more individualized student support. P10 remarked:
During the pandemic, I realized I became more caring of each student’s unique circumstances. […] I offered more personalized assistance upon request, extended deadlines. Never did I make such concessions. […] Showing personal attention impacted relationships and connections strongly. […] I am a nurturer of individual growth now.
This tailored approach facilitated stronger connections with students and addressed their distinct needs. It reflects an acknowledgment of the diverse challenges students faced during the pandemic, including limited technological access, familial responsibilities, and mental health issues. By offering customized assistance and flexibility, educators demonstrated a commitment to equitable education, striving to support all students’ success despite challenging circumstances. This approach also strengthened teacher-student relationships, fostering a supportive and understanding educational environment.
González et al.’s (2023) findings resonate with this adaptation, noting that teachers developed greater empathy toward students’ situations during the pandemic. This empathy proved crucial in providing the necessary support for student success in challenging times. Mahbub et al. (2022) propose that this move toward personalized support and empathy has the potential to foster a more inclusive learning environment that addresses diverse student needs.
The influence of classroom practices and interactions on teacher identity formation, as noted by Golzar (2020), is particularly relevant in the pandemic context. P6’s observation illuminates this point:
The necessity to adapt my teaching practices to online formats and ensure that students remained engaged and supported made me rethink my approach to teaching. It was challenging, but it also made me more aware of the importance of being flexible and responsive to students’ needs.
This perspective aligns with Golzar’s (2020) focus on the adaptability and responsiveness required in contemporary teaching practices, reflecting the dynamic nature of teacher identity development. Suárez et al. (2022) argue that identity work intensifies during educational disruptions, leading to re-evaluations of roles and values. Current findings suggest a change in the hierarchy of teacher responsibilities, highlighting care and nurture, which are usually overlooked in university settings. This reprioritization complicates Beijaard et al.'s (2004) tripartite model of subject matter, pedagogy, and didactics, suggesting that emotional labor should be considered a distinct identity component in contemporary TPI frameworks.
The pandemic also necessitated increased flexibility and understanding from educators. P1’s account vividly illustrates this:
I would force my students to switch on their cameras. This was a directive we had agreed on. Then I saw one of them joining the Zoom class sitting on a toilet lid in the bathroom because it was a small apartment. […] Another student was lulling her baby sister. I could see that they were embarrassed when I insisted that they switch their cameras on. I felt ashamed of myself. From that moment on I was flexible with that camera policy and with deadlines. Students were juggling numerous responsibilities. I had to be more understanding and accommodating.
This narrative exemplifies how educators adapted their policies to better support students’ diverse circumstances. It points to a broader trend in education toward more empathetic and student-centered approaches. By recognizing the unique challenges faced by students, teachers adjusted their expectations and practices to create a more inclusive and supportive learning environment. This adaptability not only facilitated students’ academic success but also reinforced the importance of empathy and understanding in education.
Stankovska et al. (2022) suggest that the adoption of flexible and understanding approaches by educators may reorient higher education, promoting a more inclusive learning environment that accommodates diverse student needs and circumstances. However, Kabilan and Annamalai (2022) caution that sustaining these changes requires institutional prioritization of both student and educator well-being, along with the provision of necessary resources to foster a culture of empathy and understanding.
Navigating Psychological Processes in Teacher Identity
Building upon the modifications in roles and responsibilities discussed earlier, this section examines how the pandemic influenced the psychological processes underlying educators’ professional identities. Drawing on van Lankveld et al.’s (2017) framework, which identifies appreciation, connectedness, competence, and commitment as key processes in teacher identity formation, we analyze how these elements were implicated in the data.
Appreciation emerged as a pivotal factor in sustaining positive professional identities. P1’s experience illustrates this:
Receiving a teaching award at the end of 2021 was a heartwarming moment for me. I felt appreciated and acknowledged for my hard work during the pandemic. It kinda was a confirmation that I was indeed a good teacher after all hahaha.
Conversely, P4 noted: “Being undervalued by the chair and dean despite all my hard work made me doubt myself as a teacher.”
These contrasting narratives reveal the complex role of recognition in shaping educators’ self-perception and motivation. While acknowledgment reinforces professional identity, its absence can erode commitment and efficacy. This aligns with Su’s (2023) findings on the impact of professional identity on instructional quality, though our data suggests that external validation may play a more significant role than previously recognized. van Lankveld et al. (2017) describe appreciation as a psychologically internalized process shaped by institutional feedback. While the findings support this, they introduce a dialectical nuance: the same institutional space that withholds recognition (as in P4’s case) can provoke identity dissonance that fuels reflective reconsideration. This dynamic reveals how absence of appreciation may not only diminish identity but paradoxically catalyze its reconfiguration. This insight suggests viewing appreciation as not only support, but also occasionally a prompt for professional re-evaluation.
The pandemic also appears to have fostered enhanced connectedness among educators, as P3 observed:
I’ve actually expanded my network during the pandemic by connecting with teachers from different departments and other universities. Engaging with peers has been eye-opening. We’ve been through similar teaching challenges. We share our experiences and ideas. It builds mutual trust. […] I relied on this network to deal with classroom issues during the pandemic and personal issues as well.
This expanded network provided crucial support, mitigating isolation, and fostering community. The exchange of experiences facilitated professional growth through collaborative innovation, echoing Su’s (2023) emphasis on professional communities in identity formation. However, our findings suggest that these connections may be more fluid and cross-institutional than previously considered.
Maintaining competence emerged as a central challenge. P5 reflected:
Competence is not something you achieve and forget about. It is a process that involves ongoing learning and adjustment. […] As educators, we must stay current and be willing to adapt. The pandemic provided that chance. […] It’s not about whether others see and applaud you. Above all, it’s important that you yourself feel competent. You prove it to yourself.
This perspective reflects the dynamic nature of teaching competence, particularly salient amidst rapid technological and pedagogical adaptations. While González et al. (2023) noted increased adaptability among educators during the pandemic, our findings suggest that this adaptability is intrinsically linked to self-perceived competence, adding a new dimension to understanding teacher resilience.
Beijaard et al. (2023) suggest that resilience during professional transitions stems from teachers’ capacity to reflectively integrate challenges into evolving self-conceptions. The data nuance this by suggesting that self-perceived competence and moral obligation, rather than institutional support or discursive alignment, were often the drivers of persistence. This challenges the idea that resilience is primarily socially scaffolded, offering instead a more agentic, introspective account of identity continuity amid disruption.
Commitment to the teaching profession was reinforced for many educators, as exemplified by P8:
I thought about taking a leave until we were back on campus. I was exhausted. But then I’d feel bad about it. Doctors gave oaths and they were not backing down. I committed to this job, so I had to go on. I’m glad I did.
This narrative reveals how intrinsic values motivated teachers to persevere through challenges. While Hascher et al. (2021) linked teacher well-being to resilience, our findings suggest that professional commitment may serve as a mediating factor between well-being and resilience, offering a more nuanced understanding of teacher persistence in crisis contexts.
These findings extend our understanding of teacher identity formation, suggesting that these psychological processes are dynamically responsive to contextual changes. The pandemic accelerated shifts in these processes, compelling educators to reconfigure their professional identities more rapidly than in typical circumstances. Yet, not all identity shifts were affirming. A few educators expressed uncertainty about the longevity of these adaptations. One participant from the STEM field, for instance, described the pandemic-induced changes as “temporary survival strategies” rather than genuine professional transformation.
The study reveals the complex interplay of psychological processes shaping teacher identity during the pandemic. It outlines how appreciation, connectedness, competence, and commitment were affected and adapted, providing a framework to support educator resilience and effectiveness during crises and beyond. However, it also raises questions about the long-term sustainability of the rapid identity reconceptualization observed, suggesting a need for ongoing investigation as the higher education landscape continues to evolve after the pandemic.
Conclusion
Main Conclusions of the Study
The research among the 10 Kazakhstani instructors studied suggests marked adaptations in teaching practices, characterized by both the integration of digital tools and increased flexibility in instructional approaches. Participants reported continued use of digital tools after the pandemic, recognizing their value for accessibility, and enhancing student engagement. This shift appears to mark an important, though context-specific, adjustment in pedagogical approach, with instructors embracing more varied teaching methods such as flipped classrooms and hybrid learning models. This flexibility not only demonstrates the adaptability of educators but also signifies a move toward more student-centered, responsive teaching practices.
Alongside these changes in teaching methods, the study uncovers an evolution in assessment practices. There appears to be a reorientation toward more continuous, formative, and technology-enhanced assessment methods. This change reflects a broader trend in higher education toward more adaptable and student-centered evaluation approaches, aligning with the need for more frequent and diverse forms of feedback in online and hybrid learning environments.
The study also indicates that university instructors’ professional identities during the pandemic were not simply extended to accommodate additional responsibilities. Rather, they appear to have been actively reconstructed through ongoing negotiation with pedagogical limitations, affective demands, and evolving institutional discourses. Drawing on a socioculturally grounded and dynamic conceptualization of teacher professional identity, the findings suggest that instructors developed new self-understandings across three interrelated dimensions: engagement with unfamiliar professional tasks, intensified emotional labor, and shifting psychological processes.
Technological demands placed on educators appear to have catalyzed a reconsideration of what constitutes teaching competence. For many participants, digital proficiency moved from a peripheral concern to a central element of their professional self-perception. This process did not involve mere functional adjustment. Rather, it often entailed deeper reflection on pedagogical authenticity, presence, and perceived legitimacy, particularly among those who had previously grounded their teaching identity in face-to-face interaction. These findings may contribute to refining Pishghadam et al.’s (2022) model, which tends to underemphasize the increasing symbolic value of technological fluency in contemporary academic settings.
Equally important was the emergence of the educator as a carer and emotional facilitator. Traditional frameworks such as Beijaard et al.’s (2004) tripartite model give limited attention to emotional labor, which this study suggests may have become a core component of professional identity under crisis conditions. Participants frequently described responding to student distress, adapting policies to accommodate individual needs, and redefining professional responsibility through affective engagement. These practices not only challenge the prevailing emphasis on performative metrics in higher education but also reveal how care and empathy can become structurally induced responses to institutional neglect and pedagogical disruption.
The findings also raise critical questions about the utility of van Lankveld et al.’s (2017) psychological framework. While appreciation, connectedness, competence, and commitment remain relevant, the data indicate that these processes may not operate in straightforward or uniformly positive ways. For instance, a lack of institutional recognition did not always demoralize. In some cases, it prompted reflective reassessment, leading educators to reaffirm their own values and standards. Similarly, experiences of connectedness extended beyond immediate colleagues and involved forming lateral support networks across institutions and disciplines. These dynamics point to the need for a more fluid and context-sensitive understanding of identity-related psychological processes.
It is also worth noting the temporal dimension of identity development. Drawing on Barkhuizen’s (2017) generational lens, the data suggest that crisis-driven pedagogical narratives, especially those involving adaptation, emotional support, and digital innovation, may gradually become normative reference points for future educators. Although speculative, such a pattern could influence how professional identity is socialized and enacted in the coming years.
In sum, the pandemic appears to have prompted a complex, sometimes contradictory, reworking of professional identity among university educators. This identity work was mediated by institutional pressures, personal ethics, and emotional entanglements. While these findings offer a nuanced account of how professionalism is enacted under extraordinary conditions, they also raise concerns about the sustainability of these developments. Without broader structural change or recognition, the reconstructed identities documented here may remain provisional or become sources of future strain. Consequently, there is a need for institutions to revisit dominant assumptions about academic professionalism, viewing it not as a fixed set of competencies but as an evolving and contextually negotiated practice.
Implications of the Study
The findings suggest that instructors have begun integrating pandemic-era technologies into more relational, student-centered practices while reconfiguring aspects of their professional identities. To support this shift, universities might adopt an integrated digital-pedagogy framework aligning infrastructure with pedagogical renewal. Reliable access to digital resources, robust technological systems and sequenced training in digital literacy and advanced online design remain important (Mottiar et al., 2022). However, technical capacity alone is unlikely to suffice. In line with Pacansky-Brock et al.’s (2023) emphasis on humanizing pedagogy, professional development could prioritize empathy-rich online teaching to ensure technology enhances rather than diminishes instructor presence. Building on Røe et al.’s (2022) observation that active digital learning thrives when design, feedback, alignment, and flexible spaces advance together, and responding to Santoveña-Casal and López’s (2023) call for sustainable pedagogical models, three priorities arise: create cross-faculty Digital Pedagogy Hubs pairing technologists with disciplinary mentors; integrate digital-literacy and social-presence indicators into program reviews to evaluate infrastructure investments by pedagogical impact; and secure recurrent funding for platform renewal and analytics support. These steps could help translate early innovations into enduring, human-centered digital practices.
The findings also suggest that pandemic teaching led instructors to adopt new roles such as technologist, counselor, and community facilitator, reshaping psychological processes underlying professional identity. To consolidate these changes, universities might formally recognize these expanded functions within workload models and promotion criteria, signaling that digital mediation and pastoral care are legitimate academic responsibilities (van Lankveld et al., 2017). Structured reflective practices, including department-level monthly circles facilitated by teaching centers, could support faculty in analyzing critical incidents, exchanging strategies, and collaboratively authoring narratives of growth, an approach central to identity consolidation (Pishghadam et al., 2022). Additionally, resilience workshops integrating cognitive reappraisal with rehearsals of technology-rich pedagogy may further embed adaptability into instructors’ professional repertoires, following Beijaard et al.’s (2023) model. Progress could be evaluated using validated Teacher Professional Identity Scale scores and early-career faculty retention data, providing evidence for institutional decisions. Together, symbolic recognition, communal reflection, and resilience training offer a coherent strategy to sustain pandemic-shaped professional identities.
Limitations of the Study
The conclusions of the study derive from 10 instructors across five Kazakhstani universities and should be read as context-bound, exploratory insights rather than generalizable claims. The use of self-reported data may introduce potential biases, including social desirability bias and limitations in recall accuracy. Additionally, the focus on the immediate post-pandemic period constrains insights into the long-term implications. These methodological constraints may have resulted in an incomplete understanding of the pandemic’s effects on teaching practices and professional identities within diverse educational settings. Another limitation is geographic concentration: all 10 participants teach in Almaty. Rural or under-resourced institutions may face quite different technological constraints and pedagogical realities. Future studies should incorporate instructors from other regions to capture the full spectrum of post-pandemic teaching conditions across Kazakhstan.
Footnotes
Author Note
I hereby confirm that this manuscript, “Post-Pandemic Teaching Practices and Professional Identity: Adaptations of Kazakhstani University Instructors,” is my original work, presenting novel research conducted by me. All information, ideas, and quotations from other sources used in this study have been properly cited and credited to their original authors, ensuring full compliance with academic integrity standards and avoiding any form of plagiarism.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the framework of the Kazakhstan Government Grant for 2022–2024, Budget program #217, “Development of Science,” sub-program 102 “Grant funding of scientific research,” Project: IRN #AP13068362 “Responses to COVID-19 and post-pandemic strategies of Higher Education Institutions in Kazakhstan.”
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.