Post-Pandemic Teaching Practices and Professional Identity: Adaptations of Kazakhstani University Instructors

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).

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.