research title about hybrid learning

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2017

Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes

• Mugenyi Justice Kintu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-1168 1 , 2 ,
• Chang Zhu 2 &
• Edmond Kagambe 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  7 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

773k Accesses

239 Citations

36 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper investigates the effectiveness of a blended learning environment through analyzing the relationship between student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It is aimed at determining the significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness taking student characteristics/background and design features as independent variables and learning outcomes as dependent variables. A survey was administered to 238 respondents to gather data on student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. The final semester evaluation results were used as a measure for performance as an outcome. We applied the online self regulatory learning questionnaire for data on learner self regulation, the intrinsic motivation inventory for data on intrinsic motivation and other self-developed instruments for measuring the other constructs. Multiple regression analysis results showed that blended learning design features (technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support) and student characteristics (attitudes and self-regulation) predicted student satisfaction as an outcome. The results indicate that some of the student characteristics/backgrounds and design features are significant predictors for student learning outcomes in blended learning.

Introduction

The teaching and learning environment is embracing a number of innovations and some of these involve the use of technology through blended learning. This innovative pedagogical approach has been embraced rapidly though it goes through a process. The introduction of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online teaching and learning) initiatives is part of these innovations but its uptake, especially in the developing world faces challenges for it to be an effective innovation in teaching and learning. Blended learning effectiveness has quite a number of underlying factors that pose challenges. One big challenge is about how users can successfully use the technology and ensuring participants’ commitment given the individual learner characteristics and encounters with technology (Hofmann, 2014 ). Hofmann adds that users getting into difficulties with technology may result into abandoning the learning and eventual failure of technological applications. In a report by Oxford Group ( 2013 ), some learners (16%) had negative attitudes to blended learning while 26% were concerned that learners would not complete study in blended learning. Learners are important partners in any learning process and therefore, their backgrounds and characteristics affect their ability to effectively carry on with learning and being in blended learning, the design tools to be used may impinge on the effectiveness in their learning.

This study tackles blended learning effectiveness which has been investigated in previous studies considering grades, course completion, retention and graduation rates but no studies regarding effectiveness in view of learner characteristics/background, design features and outcomes have been done in the Ugandan university context. No studies have also been done on how the characteristics of learners and design features are predictors of outcomes in the context of a planning evaluation research (Guskey, 2000 ) to establish the effectiveness of blended learning. Guskey ( 2000 ) noted that planning evaluation fits in well since it occurs before the implementation of any innovation as well as allowing planners to determine the needs, considering participant characteristics, analyzing contextual matters and gathering baseline information. This study is done in the context of a plan to undertake innovative pedagogy involving use of a learning management system (moodle) for the first time in teaching and learning in a Ugandan university. The learner characteristics/backgrounds being investigated for blended learning effectiveness include self-regulation, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, attitude to blended learning, gender and age. We investigate the blended learning design features of learner interactions, face-to-face support, learning management system tools and technology quality while the outcomes considered include satisfaction, performance, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction. Establishing the significant predictors of outcomes in blended learning will help to inform planners of such learning environments in order to put in place necessary groundwork preparations for designing blended learning as an innovative pedagogical approach.

Kenney and Newcombe ( 2011 ) did their comparison to establish effectiveness in view of grades and found that blended learning had higher average score than the non-blended learning environment. Garrison and Kanuka ( 2004 ) examined the transformative potential of blended learning and reported an increase in course completion rates, improved retention and increased student satisfaction. Comparisons between blended learning environments have been done to establish the disparity between academic achievement, grade dispersions and gender performance differences and no significant differences were found between the groups (Demirkol & Kazu, 2014 ).

However, blended learning effectiveness may be dependent on many other factors and among them student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes. Research shows that the failure of learners to continue their online education in some cases has been due to family support or increased workload leading to learner dropout (Park & Choi, 2009 ) as well as little time for study. Additionally, it is dependent on learner interactions with instructors since failure to continue with online learning is attributed to this. In Greer, Hudson & Paugh’s study as cited in Park and Choi ( 2009 ), family and peer support for learners is important for success in online and face-to-face learning. Support is needed for learners from all areas in web-based courses and this may be from family, friends, co-workers as well as peers in class. Greer, Hudson and Paugh further noted that peer encouragement assisted new learners in computer use and applications. The authors also show that learners need time budgeting, appropriate technology tools and support from friends and family in web-based courses. Peer support is required by learners who have no or little knowledge of technology, especially computers, to help them overcome fears. Park and Choi, ( 2009 ) showed that organizational support significantly predicts learners’ stay and success in online courses because employers at times are willing to reduce learners’ workload during study as well as supervisors showing that they are interested in job-related learning for employees to advance and improve their skills.

The study by Kintu and Zhu ( 2016 ) investigated the possibility of blended learning in a Ugandan University and examined whether student characteristics (such as self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning, computer competence) and student background (such as family support, social support and management of workload) were significant factors in learner outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, knowledge construction and performance). The characteristics and background factors were studied along with blended learning design features such as technology quality, learner interactions, and Moodle with its tools and resources. The findings from that study indicated that learner attitudes towards blended learning were significant factors to learner satisfaction and motivation while workload management was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction. Among the blended learning design features, only learner interaction was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction.

The focus of the present study is on examining the effectiveness of blended learning taking into consideration learner characteristics/background, blended learning design elements and learning outcomes and how the former are significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

Studies like that of Morris and Lim ( 2009 ) have investigated learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes in blended learning. They however do not deal with such variables in the contexts of blended learning design as an aspect of innovative pedagogy involving the use of technology in education. Apart from the learner variables such as gender, age, experience, study time as tackled before, this study considers social and background aspects of the learners such as family and social support, self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning and management of workload to find out their relationship to blended learning effectiveness. Identifying the various types of learner variables with regard to their relationship to blended learning effectiveness is important in this study as we embark on innovative pedagogy with technology in teaching and learning.

Literature review

This review presents research about blended learning effectiveness from the perspective of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It also gives the factors that are considered to be significant for blended learning effectiveness. The selected elements are as a result of the researcher’s experiences at a Ugandan university where student learning faces challenges with regard to learner characteristics and blended learning features in adopting the use of technology in teaching and learning. We have made use of Loukis, Georgiou, and Pazalo ( 2007 ) value flow model for evaluating an e-learning and blended learning service specifically considering the effectiveness evaluation layer. This evaluates the extent of an e-learning system usage and the educational effectiveness. In addition, studies by Leidner, Jarvenpaa, Dillon and Gunawardena as cited in Selim ( 2007 ) have noted three main factors that affect e-learning and blended learning effectiveness as instructor characteristics, technology and student characteristics. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino ( 2001 ) showed the need for examining learner characteristics for effective instructional technology use and showed that user characteristics do impact on behavioral intention to use technology. Research has dealt with learner characteristics that contribute to learner performance outcomes. They have dealt with emotional intelligence, resilience, personality type and success in an online learning context (Berenson, Boyles, & Weaver, 2008 ). Dealing with the characteristics identified in this study will give another dimension, especially for blended learning in learning environment designs and add to specific debate on learning using technology. Lin and Vassar, ( 2009 ) indicated that learner success is dependent on ability to cope with technical difficulty as well as technical skills in computer operations and internet navigation. This justifies our approach in dealing with the design features of blended learning in this study.

Learner characteristics/background and blended learning effectiveness

Studies indicate that student characteristics such as gender play significant roles in academic achievement (Oxford Group, 2013 ), but no study examines performance of male and female as an important factor in blended learning effectiveness. It has again been noted that the success of e- and blended learning is highly dependent on experience in internet and computer applications (Picciano & Seaman, 2007 ). Rigorous discovery of such competences can finally lead to a confirmation of high possibilities of establishing blended learning. Research agrees that the success of e-learning and blended learning can largely depend on students as well as teachers gaining confidence and capability to participate in blended learning (Hadad, 2007 ). Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ) note in their research that 75% of students and 72% of teachers were lacking in skills to utilize ICT based learning components due to insufficient skills and experience in computer and internet applications and this may lead to failure in e-learning and blended learning. It is therefore pertinent that since the use of blended learning applies high usage of computers, computer competence is necessary (Abubakar & Adetimirin, 2015 ) to avoid failure in applying technology in education for learning effectiveness. Rovai, ( 2003 ) noted that learners’ computer literacy and time management are crucial in distance learning contexts and concluded that such factors are meaningful in online classes. This is supported by Selim ( 2007 ) that learners need to posses time management skills and computer skills necessary for effectiveness in e- learning and blended learning. Self-regulatory skills of time management lead to better performance and learners’ ability to structure the physical learning environment leads to efficiency in e-learning and blended learning environments. Learners need to seek helpful assistance from peers and teachers through chats, email and face-to-face meetings for effectiveness (Lynch & Dembo, 2004 ). Factors such as learners’ hours of employment and family responsibilities are known to impede learners’ process of learning, blended learning inclusive (Cohen, Stage, Hammack, & Marcus, 2012 ). It was also noted that a common factor in failure and learner drop-out is the time conflict which is compounded by issues of family , employment status as well as management support (Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2004 ). A study by Thompson ( 2004 ) shows that work, family, insufficient time and study load made learners withdraw from online courses.

Learner attitudes to blended learning can result in its effectiveness and these shape behavioral intentions which usually lead to persistence in a learning environment, blended inclusive. Selim, ( 2007 ) noted that the learners’ attitude towards e-learning and blended learning are success factors for these learning environments. Learner performance by age and gender in e-learning and blended learning has been found to indicate no significant differences between male and female learners and different age groups (i.e. young, middle-aged and old above 45 years) (Coldwell, Craig, Paterson, & Mustard, 2008 ). This implies that the potential for blended learning to be effective exists and is unhampered by gender or age differences.

Blended learning design features

The design features under study here include interactions, technology with its quality, face-to-face support and learning management system tools and resources.

Research shows that absence of learner interaction causes failure and eventual drop-out in online courses (Willging & Johnson, 2009 ) and the lack of learner connectedness was noted as an internal factor leading to learner drop-out in online courses (Zielinski, 2000 ). It was also noted that learners may not continue in e- and blended learning if they are unable to make friends thereby being disconnected and developing feelings of isolation during their blended learning experiences (Willging & Johnson, 2009). Learners’ Interactions with teachers and peers can make blended learning effective as its absence makes learners withdraw (Astleitner, 2000 ). Loukis, Georgious and Pazalo (2007) noted that learners’ measuring of a system’s quality, reliability and ease of use leads to learning efficiency and can be so in blended learning. Learner success in blended learning may substantially be affected by system functionality (Pituch & Lee, 2006 ) and may lead to failure of such learning initiatives (Shrain, 2012 ). It is therefore important to examine technology quality for ensuring learning effectiveness in blended learning. Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou ( 2011 ) investigated learner perceptions after a learning management system use and found out that the actual system use determines the usefulness among users. It is again noted that a system with poor response time cannot be taken to be useful for e-learning and blended learning especially in cases of limited bandwidth (Anderson, 2004 ). In this study, we investigate the use of Moodle and its tools as a function of potential effectiveness of blended learning.

The quality of learning management system content for learners can be a predictor of good performance in e-and blended learning environments and can lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor quality technology yields no satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of technology significantly affects satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001 ). Continued navigation through a learning management system increases use and is an indicator of success in blended learning (Delone & McLean, 2003 ). The efficient use of learning management system and its tools improves learning outcomes in e-learning and blended learning environments.

It is noted that learner satisfaction with a learning management system can be an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness. Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) noted that learners showed an appreciation to Moodle’s contribution in their learning. They showed positivity with it as it improved their understanding of course material (Ahmad & Al-Khanjari, 2011 ). The study by Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) used descriptive statistics to indicate improved learning by use of uploaded syllabus and session plans on Moodle. Improved learning is also noted through sharing study material, submitting assignments and using the calendar. Learners in the study found Moodle to be an effective educational tool.

In blended learning set ups, face-to-face experiences form part of the blend and learner positive attitudes to such sessions could mean blended learning effectiveness. A study by Marriot, Marriot, and Selwyn ( 2004 ) showed learners expressing their preference for face-to-face due to its facilitation of social interaction and communication skills acquired from classroom environment. Their preference for the online session was only in as far as it complemented the traditional face-to-face learning. Learners in a study by Osgerby ( 2013 ) had positive perceptions of blended learning but preferred face-to-face with its step-by-stem instruction. Beard, Harper and Riley ( 2004 ) shows that some learners are successful while in a personal interaction with teachers and peers thus prefer face-to-face in the blend. Beard however dealt with a comparison between online and on-campus learning while our study combines both, singling out the face-to-face part of the blend. The advantage found by Beard is all the same relevant here because learners in blended learning express attitude to both online and face-to-face for an effective blend. Researchers indicate that teacher presence in face-to-face sessions lessens psychological distance between them and the learners and leads to greater learning. This is because there are verbal aspects like giving praise, soliciting for viewpoints, humor, etc and non-verbal expressions like eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, etc which make teachers to be closer to learners psychologically (Kelley & Gorham, 2009 ).

Learner outcomes

The outcomes under scrutiny in this study include performance, motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction. Motivation is seen here as an outcome because, much as cognitive factors such as course grades are used in measuring learning outcomes, affective factors like intrinsic motivation may also be used to indicate outcomes of learning (Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013 ). Research shows that high motivation among online learners leads to persistence in their courses (Menager-Beeley, 2004 ). Sankaran and Bui ( 2001 ) indicated that less motivated learners performed poorly in knowledge tests while those with high learning motivation demonstrate high performance in academics (Green, Nelson, Martin, & Marsh, 2006 ). Lim and Kim, ( 2003 ) indicated that learner interest as a motivation factor promotes learner involvement in learning and this could lead to learning effectiveness in blended learning.

Learner satisfaction was noted as a strong factor for effectiveness of blended and online courses (Wilging & Johnson, 2009) and dissatisfaction may result from learners’ incompetence in the use of the learning management system as an effective learning tool since, as Islam ( 2014 ) puts it, users may be dissatisfied with an information system due to ease of use. A lack of prompt feedback for learners from course instructors was found to cause dissatisfaction in an online graduate course. In addition, dissatisfaction resulted from technical difficulties as well as ambiguous course instruction Hara and Kling ( 2001 ). These factors, once addressed, can lead to learner satisfaction in e-learning and blended learning and eventual effectiveness. A study by Blocker and Tucker ( 2001 ) also showed that learners had difficulties with technology and inadequate group participation by peers leading to dissatisfaction within these design features. Student-teacher interactions are known to bring satisfaction within online courses. Study results by Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that student-teacher interaction strongly related with student satisfaction and high learner-learner interaction resulted in higher levels of course satisfaction. Descriptive results by Naaj, Nachouki, and Ankit ( 2012 ) showed that learners were satisfied with technology which was a video-conferencing component of blended learning with a mean of 3.7. The same study indicated student satisfaction with instructors at a mean of 3.8. Askar and Altun, ( 2008 ) found that learners were satisfied with face-to-face sessions of the blend with t-tests and ANOVA results indicating female scores as higher than for males in the satisfaction with face-to-face environment of the blended learning.

Studies comparing blended learning with traditional face-to-face have indicated that learners perform equally well in blended learning and their performance is unaffected by the delivery method (Kwak, Menezes, & Sherwood, 2013 ). In another study, learning experience and performance are known to improve when traditional course delivery is integrated with online learning (Stacey & Gerbic, 2007 ). Such improvement as noted may be an indicator of blended learning effectiveness. Our study however, delves into improved performance but seeks to establish the potential of blended learning effectiveness by considering grades obtained in a blended learning experiment. Score 50 and above is considered a pass in this study’s setting and learners scoring this and above will be considered to have passed. This will make our conclusions about the potential of blended learning effectiveness.

Regarding knowledge construction, it has been noted that effective learning occurs where learners are actively involved (Nurmela, Palonen, Lehtinen & Hakkarainen, 2003 , cited in Zhu, 2012 ) and this may be an indicator of learning environment effectiveness. Effective blended learning would require that learners are able to initiate, discover and accomplish the processes of knowledge construction as antecedents of blended learning effectiveness. A study by Rahman, Yasin and Jusoff ( 2011 ) indicated that learners were able to use some steps to construct meaning through an online discussion process through assignments given. In the process of giving and receiving among themselves, the authors noted that learners learned by writing what they understood. From our perspective, this can be considered to be accomplishment in the knowledge construction process. Their study further shows that learners construct meaning individually from assignments and this stage is referred to as pre-construction which for our study, is an aspect of discovery in the knowledge construction process.

Predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Researchers have dealt with success factors for online learning or those for traditional face-to-face learning but little is known about factors that predict blended learning effectiveness in view of learner characteristics and blended learning design features. This part of our study seeks to establish the learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features that predict blended learning effectiveness with regard to satisfaction, outcomes, motivation and knowledge construction. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh ( 2004 ) examined online learning effectiveness factors and found out that time management (a self-regulatory factor) was crucial for successful online learning. Eom, Wen, and Ashill ( 2006 ) using a survey found out that interaction, among other factors, was significant for learner satisfaction. Technical problems with regard to instructional design were a challenge to online learners thus not indicating effectiveness (Song et al., 2004 ), though the authors also indicated that descriptive statistics to a tune of 75% and time management (62%) impact on success of online learning. Arbaugh ( 2000 ) and Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that high levels of learner-instructor interaction are associated with high levels of user satisfaction and learning outcomes. A study by Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) indicated that technology and learner interactions, among other factors, influenced learner satisfaction in blended learning.

Objective and research questions of the current study

The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in view of student satisfaction, knowledge construction, performance and intrinsic motivation and how they are related to student characteristics and blended learning design features in a blended learning environment.

Research questions

What are the student characteristics and blended learning design features for an effective blended learning environment?

Which factors (among the learner characteristics and blended learning design features) predict student satisfaction, learning outcomes, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction?

Conceptual model of the present study

The reviewed literature clearly shows learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features play a part in blended learning effectiveness and some of them are significant predictors of effectiveness. The conceptual model for our study is depicted as follows (Fig.  1 ):

Conceptual model of the current study

Research design

This research applies a quantitative design where descriptive statistics are used for the student characteristics and design features data, t-tests for the age and gender variables to determine if they are significant in blended learning effectiveness and regression for predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

This study is based on an experiment in which learners participated during their study using face-to-face sessions and an on-line session of a blended learning design. A learning management system (Moodle) was used and learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features were measured in relation to learning effectiveness. It is therefore a planning evaluation research design as noted by Guskey ( 2000 ) since the outcomes are aimed at blended learning implementation at MMU. The plan under which the various variables were tested involved face-to-face study at the beginning of a 17 week semester which was followed by online teaching and learning in the second half of the semester. The last part of the semester was for another face-to-face to review work done during the online sessions and final semester examinations. A questionnaire with items on student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes was distributed among students from three schools and one directorate of postgraduate studies.

Participants

Cluster sampling was used to select a total of 238 learners to participate in this study. Out of the whole university population of students, three schools and one directorate were used. From these, one course unit was selected from each school and all the learners following the course unit were surveyed. In the school of Education ( n  = 70) and Business and Management Studies ( n  = 133), sophomore students were involved due to the fact that they have been introduced to ICT basics during their first year of study. Students of the third year were used from the department of technology in the School of Applied Sciences and Technology ( n  = 18) since most of the year two courses had a lot of practical aspects that could not be used for the online learning part. From the Postgraduate Directorate ( n  = 17), first and second year students were selected because learners attend a face-to-face session before they are given paper modules to study away from campus.

The study population comprised of 139 male students representing 58.4% and 99 females representing 41.6% with an average age of 24 years.

Instruments

The end of semester results were used to measure learner performance. The online self-regulated learning questionnaire (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, & Lai, 2009 ) and the intrinsic motivation inventory (Deci & Ryan, 1982 ) were applied to measure the constructs on self regulation in the student characteristics and motivation in the learning outcome constructs. Other self-developed instruments were used for the other remaining variables of attitudes, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, satisfaction, knowledge construction, technology quality, interactions, learning management system tools and resources and face-to-face support.

Instrument reliability

Cronbach’s alpha was used to test reliability and the table below gives the results. All the scales and sub-scales had acceptable internal consistency reliabilities as shown in Table  1 below:

Data analysis

First, descriptive statistics was conducted. Shapiro-Wilk test was done to test normality of the data for it to qualify for parametric tests. The test results for normality of our data before the t- test resulted into significant levels (Male = .003, female = .000) thereby violating the normality assumption. We therefore used the skewness and curtosis results which were between −1.0 and +1.0 and assumed distribution to be sufficiently normal to qualify the data for a parametric test, (Pallant, 2010 ). An independent samples t -test was done to find out the differences in male and female performance to explain the gender characteristics in blended learning effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA between subjects was conducted to establish the differences in performance between age groups. Finally, multiple regression analysis was done between student variables and design elements with learning outcomes to determine the significant predictors for blended learning effectiveness.

Student characteristics, blended learning design features and learning outcomes ( RQ1 )

A t- test was carried out to establish the performance of male and female learners in the blended learning set up. This was aimed at finding out if male and female learners do perform equally well in blended learning given their different roles and responsibilities in society. It was found that male learners performed slightly better ( M  = 62.5) than their female counterparts ( M  = 61.1). An independent t -test revealed that the difference between the performances was not statistically significant ( t  = 1.569, df = 228, p  = 0.05, one tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means is small with effect size ( d  = 0.18). A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted on the performance of different age groups to establish the performance of learners of young and middle aged age groups (20–30, young & and 31–39, middle aged). This revealed a significant difference in performance (F(1,236 = 8.498, p < . 001).

Average percentages of the items making up the self regulated learning scale are used to report the findings about all the sub-scales in the learner characteristics/background scale. Results show that learner self-regulation was good enough at 72.3% in all the sub-scales of goal setting, environment structuring, task strategies, time management, help-seeking and self-evaluation among learners. The least in the scoring was task strategies at 67.7% and the highest was learner environment structuring at 76.3%. Learner attitude towards blended learning environment is at 76% in the sub-scales of learner autonomy, quality of instructional materials, course structure, course interface and interactions. The least scored here is attitude to course structure at 66% and their attitudes were high on learner autonomy and course interface both at 82%. Results on the learners’ computer competences are summarized in percentages in the table below (Table  2 ):

It can be seen that learners are skilled in word processing at 91%, email at 63.5%, spreadsheets at 68%, web browsers at 70.2% and html tools at 45.4%. They are therefore good enough in word processing and web browsing. Their computer confidence levels are reported at 75.3% and specifically feel very confident when it comes to working with a computer (85.7%). Levels of family and social support for learners during blended learning experiences are at 60.5 and 75% respectively. There is however a low score on learners being assisted by family members in situations of computer setbacks (33.2%) as 53.4% of the learners reported no assistance in this regard. A higher percentage (85.3%) is reported on learners getting support from family regarding provision of essentials for learning such as tuition. A big percentage of learners spend two hours on study while at home (35.3%) followed by one hour (28.2%) while only 9.7% spend more than three hours on study at home. Peers showed great care during the blended learning experience (81%) and their experiences were appreciated by the society (66%). Workload management by learners vis-à-vis studying is good at 60%. Learners reported that their workmates stand in for them at workplaces to enable them do their study in blended learning while 61% are encouraged by their bosses to go and improve their skills through further education and training. On the time spent on other activities not related to study, majority of the learners spend three hours (35%) while 19% spend 6 hours. Sixty percent of the learners have to answer to someone when they are not attending to other activities outside study compared to the 39.9% who do not and can therefore do study or those other activities.

The usability of the online system, tools and resources was below average as shown in the table below in percentages (Table  3 ):

However, learners became skilled at navigating around the learning management system (79%) and it was easy for them to locate course content, tools and resources needed such as course works, news, discussions and journal materials. They effectively used the communication tools (60%) and to work with peers by making posts (57%). They reported that online resources were well organized, user friendly and easy to access (71%) as well as well structured in a clear and understandable manner (72%). They therefore recommended the use of online resources for other course units in future (78%) because they were satisfied with them (64.3%). On the whole, the online resources were fine for the learners (67.2%) and useful as a learning resource (80%). The learners’ perceived usefulness/satisfaction with online system, tools, and resources was at 81% as the LMS tools helped them to communicate, work with peers and reflect on their learning (74%). They reported that using moodle helped them to learn new concepts, information and gaining skills (85.3%) as well as sharing what they knew or learned (76.4%). They enjoyed the course units (78%) and improved their skills with technology (89%).

Learner interactions were seen from three angles of cognitivism, collaborative learning and student-teacher interactions. Collaborative learning was average at 50% with low percentages in learners posting challenges to colleagues’ ideas online (34%) and posting ideas for colleagues to read online (37%). They however met oftentimes online (60%) and organized how they would work together in study during the face-to-face meetings (69%). The common form of communication medium frequently used by learners during the blended learning experience was by phone (34.5%) followed by whatsapp (21.8%), face book (21%), discussion board (11.8%) and email (10.9%). At the cognitive level, learners interacted with content at 72% by reading the posted content (81%), exchanging knowledge via the LMS (58.4%), participating in discussions on the forum (62%) and got course objectives and structure introduced during the face-to-face sessions (86%). Student-teacher interaction was reported at 71% through instructors individually working with them online (57.2%) and being well guided towards learning goals (81%). They did receive suggestions from instructors about resources to use in their learning (75.3%) and instructors provided learning input for them to come up with their own answers (71%).

The technology quality during the blended learning intervention was rated at 69% with availability of 72%, quality of the resources was at 68% with learners reporting that discussion boards gave right content necessary for study (71%) and the email exchanges containing relevant and much needed information (63.4%) as well as chats comprising of essential information to aid the learning (69%). Internet reliability was rated at 66% with a speed considered averagely good to facilitate online activities (63%). They however reported that there was intermittent breakdown during online study (67%) though they could complete their internet program during connection (63.4%). Learners eventually found it easy to download necessary materials for study in their blended learning experiences (71%).

Learner extent of use of the learning management system features was as shown in the table below in percentage (Table  4 ):

From the table, very rarely used features include the blog and wiki while very often used ones include the email, forum, chat and calendar.

The effectiveness of the LMS was rated at 79% by learners reporting that they found it useful (89%) and using it makes their learning activities much easier (75.2%). Moodle has helped learners to accomplish their learning tasks more quickly (74%) and that as a LMS, it is effective in teaching and learning (88%) with overall satisfaction levels at 68%. However, learners note challenges in the use of the LMS regarding its performance as having been problematic to them (57%) and only 8% of the learners reported navigation while 16% reported access as challenges.

Learner attitudes towards Face-to-face support were reported at 88% showing that the sessions were enjoyable experiences (89%) with high quality class discussions (86%) and therefore recommended that the sessions should continue in blended learning (89%). The frequency of the face-to-face sessions is shown in the table below as preferred by learners (Table  5 ).

Learners preferred face-to-face sessions after every month in the semester (33.6%) and at the beginning of the blended learning session only (27.7%).

Learners reported high intrinsic motivation levels with interest and enjoyment of tasks at 83.7%, perceived competence at 70.2%, effort/importance sub-scale at 80%, pressure/tension reported at 54%. The pressure percentage of 54% arises from learners feeling nervous (39.2%) and a lot of anxiety (53%) while 44% felt a lot of pressure during the blended learning experiences. Learners however reported the value/usefulness of blended learning at 91% with majority believing that studying online and face-to-face had value for them (93.3%) and were therefore willing to take part in blended learning (91.2%). They showed that it is beneficial for them (94%) and that it was an important way of studying (84.3%).

Learner satisfaction was reported at 81% especially with instructors (85%) high percentage reported on encouraging learner participation during the course of study 93%, course content (83%) with the highest being satisfaction with the good relationship between the objectives of the course units and the content (90%), technology (71%) with a high percentage on the fact that the platform was adequate for the online part of the learning (76%), interactions (75%) with participation in class at 79%, and face-to-face sessions (91%) with learner satisfaction high on face-to-face sessions being good enough for interaction and giving an overview of the courses when objectives were introduced at 92%.

Learners’ knowledge construction was reported at 78% with initiation and discovery scales scoring 84% with 88% specifically for discovering the learning points in the course units. The accomplishment scale in knowledge construction scored 71% and specifically the fact that learners were able to work together with group members to accomplish learning tasks throughout the study of the course units (79%). Learners developed reports from activities (67%), submitted solutions to discussion questions (68%) and did critique peer arguments (69%). Generally, learners performed well in blended learning in the final examination with an average pass of 62% and standard deviation of 7.5.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness ( RQ 2)

A standard multiple regression analysis was done taking learner characteristics/background and design features as predictor variables and learning outcomes as criterion variables. The data was first tested to check if it met the linear regression test assumptions and results showed the correlations between the independent variables and each of the dependent variables (highest 0.62 and lowest 0.22) as not being too high, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in our model. From the coefficients table, the VIF values ranged from 1.0 to 2.4, well below the cut off value of 10 and indicating no possibility of multicollinearity. The normal probability plot was seen to lie as a reasonably straight diagonal from bottom left to top right indicating normality of our data. Linearity was found suitable from the scatter plot of the standardized residuals and was rectangular in distribution. Outliers were no cause for concern in our data since we had only 1% of all cases falling outside 3.0 thus proving the data as a normally distributed sample. Our R -square values was at 0.525 meaning that the independent variables explained about 53% of the variance in overall satisfaction, motivation and knowledge construction of the learners. All the models explaining the three dependent variables of learner satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction were significant at the 0.000 probability level (Table  6 ).

From the table above, design features (technology quality and online tools and resources), and learner characteristics (attitudes to blended learning, self-regulation) were significant predictors of learner satisfaction in blended learning. This means that good technology with the features involved and the learner positive attitudes with capacity to do blended learning with self drive led to their satisfaction. The design features (technology quality, interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation and social support), were found to be significant predictors of learner knowledge construction. This implies that learners’ capacity to go on their work by themselves supported by peers and high levels of interaction using the quality technology led them to construct their own ideas in blended learning. Design features (technology quality, online tools and resources as well as learner interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation), significantly predicted the learners’ intrinsic motivation in blended learning suggesting that good technology, tools and high interaction levels with independence in learning led to learners being highly motivated. Finally, none of the independent variables considered under this study were predictors of learning outcomes (grade).

In this study we have investigated learning outcomes as dependent variables to establish if particular learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features are related to the outcomes for blended learning effectiveness and if they predict learning outcomes in blended learning. We took students from three schools out of five and one directorate of post-graduate studies at a Ugandan University. The study suggests that the characteristics and design features examined are good drivers towards an effective blended learning environment though a few of them predicted learning outcomes in blended learning.

Student characteristics/background, blended learning design features and learning outcomes

The learner characteristics, design features investigated are potentially important for an effective blended learning environment. Performance by gender shows a balance with no statistical differences between male and female. There are statistically significant differences ( p  < .005) in the performance between age groups with means of 62% for age group 20–30 and 67% for age group 31 –39. The indicators of self regulation exist as well as positive attitudes towards blended learning. Learners do well with word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets and web browsers but still lag below average in html tools. They show computer confidence at 75.3%; which gives prospects for an effective blended learning environment in regard to their computer competence and confidence. The levels of family and social support for learners stand at 61 and 75% respectively, indicating potential for blended learning to be effective. The learners’ balance between study and work is a drive factor towards blended learning effectiveness since their management of their workload vis a vis study time is at 60 and 61% of the learners are encouraged to go for study by their bosses. Learner satisfaction with the online system and its tools shows prospect for blended learning effectiveness but there are challenges in regard to locating course content and assignments, submitting their work and staying on a task during online study. Average collaborative, cognitive learning as well as learner-teacher interactions exist as important factors. Technology quality for effective blended learning is a potential for effectiveness though features like the blog and wiki are rarely used by learners. Face-to-face support is satisfactory and it should be conducted every month. There is high intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction as well as good performance in examinations ( M  = 62%, SD = 7.5); which indicates potentiality for blended learning effectiveness.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Among the design features, technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support are predictors of learner satisfaction while learner characteristics of self regulation and attitudes to blended learning are predictors of satisfaction. Technology quality and interactions are the only design features predicting learner knowledge construction, while social support, among the learner backgrounds, is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation as a learner characteristic is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation is the only learner characteristic predicting intrinsic motivation in blended learning while technology quality, online tools and interactions are the design features predicting intrinsic motivation. However, all the independent variables are not significant predictors of learning performance in blended learning.

The high computer competences and confidence is an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness as noted by Hadad ( 2007 ) and this study finds learners confident and competent enough for the effectiveness of blended learning. A lack in computer skills causes failure in e-learning and blended learning as noted by Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ). From our study findings, this is no threat for blended learning our case as noted by our results. Contrary to Cohen et al. ( 2012 ) findings that learners’ family responsibilities and hours of employment can impede their process of learning, it is not the case here since they are drivers to the blended learning process. Time conflict, as compounded by family, employment status and management support (Packham et al., 2004 ) were noted as causes of learner failure and drop out of online courses. Our results show, on the contrary, that these factors are drivers for blended learning effectiveness because learners have a good balance between work and study and are supported by bosses to study. In agreement with Selim ( 2007 ), learner positive attitudes towards e-and blended learning environments are success factors. In line with Coldwell et al. ( 2008 ), no statistically significant differences exist between age groups. We however note that Coldwel, et al dealt with young, middle-aged and old above 45 years whereas we dealt with young and middle aged only.

Learner interactions at all levels are good enough and contrary to Astleitner, ( 2000 ) that their absence makes learners withdraw, they are a drive factor here. In line with Loukis (2007) the LMS quality, reliability and ease of use lead to learning efficiency as technology quality, online tools are predictors of learner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Face-to-face sessions should continue on a monthly basis as noted here and is in agreement with Marriot et al. ( 2004 ) who noted learner preference for it for facilitating social interaction and communication skills. High learner intrinsic motivation leads to persistence in online courses as noted by Menager-Beeley, ( 2004 ) and is high enough in our study. This implies a possibility of an effectiveness blended learning environment. The causes of learner dissatisfaction noted by Islam ( 2014 ) such as incompetence in the use of the LMS are contrary to our results in our study, while the one noted by Hara and Kling, ( 2001 ) as resulting from technical difficulties and ambiguous course instruction are no threat from our findings. Student-teacher interaction showed a relation with satisfaction according to Swan ( 2001 ) but is not a predictor in our study. Initiating knowledge construction by learners for blended learning effectiveness is exhibited in our findings and agrees with Rahman, Yasin and Jusof ( 2011 ). Our study has not agreed with Eom et al. ( 2006 ) who found learner interactions as predictors of learner satisfaction but agrees with Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) regarding technology as a predictor of learner satisfaction.

Conclusion and recommendations

An effective blended learning environment is necessary in undertaking innovative pedagogical approaches through the use of technology in teaching and learning. An examination of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes as factors for effectiveness can help to inform the design of effective learning environments that involve face-to-face sessions and online aspects. Most of the student characteristics and blended learning design features dealt with in this study are important factors for blended learning effectiveness. None of the independent variables were identified as significant predictors of student performance. These gaps are open for further investigation in order to understand if they can be significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness in a similar or different learning setting.

In planning to design and implement blended learning, we are mindful of the implications raised by this study which is a planning evaluation research for the design and eventual implementation of blended learning. Universities should be mindful of the interplay between the learner characteristics, design features and learning outcomes which are indicators of blended learning effectiveness. From this research, learners manifest high potential to take on blended learning more especially in regard to learner self-regulation exhibited. Blended learning is meant to increase learners’ levels of knowledge construction in order to create analytical skills in them. Learner ability to assess and critically evaluate knowledge sources is hereby established in our findings. This can go a long way in producing skilled learners who can be innovative graduates enough to satisfy employment demands through creativity and innovativeness. Technology being less of a shock to students gives potential for blended learning design. Universities and other institutions of learning should continue to emphasize blended learning approaches through installation of learning management systems along with strong internet to enable effective learning through technology especially in the developing world.

Abubakar, D. & Adetimirin. (2015). Influence of computer literacy on post-graduates’ use of e-resources in Nigerian University Libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. From http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/ . Retrieved 18 Aug 2015.

Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1 (4), 746–752.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning . Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-basedMBAcourses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63 (4), 9–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Askar, P. & Altun, A. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-Leader Krakow , 2008.

Astleitner, H. (2000) Dropout and distance education. A review of motivational and emotional strategies to reduce dropout in web-based distance education. In Neuwe Medien in Unterricht, Aus-und Weiterbildung Waxmann Munster, New York.

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self regulation in online and blended learning environments’. Internet and Higher Education, 12 (1), 1–6.

Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48 (6), 29–31.

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a predictor for success in online learning. International Review of Research in open & Distance Learning, 9 (2), 1–16.

Blocker, J. M., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using constructivist principles in designing and integrating online collaborative interactions. In F. Fuller & R. McBride (Eds.), Distance education. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 32–36). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 457 822.

Cohen, K. E., Stage, F. K., Hammack, F. M., & Marcus, A. (2012). Persistence of master’s students in the United States: Developing and testing of a conceptual model . USA: PhD Dissertation, New York University.

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between participation, demographics and academic performance. The Electronic Journal of e-learning, 6 (1), 19–30.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1982). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Available from selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2016.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems success: A Ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

Demirkol, M., & Kazu, I. Y. (2014). Effect of blended environment model on high school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13 (1), 78–87.

Eom, S., Wen, H., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4 (2), 215–235.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 95–105.

Goyal, E., & Tambe, S. (2015). Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (2), 14–22.

Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement. International Education Journal, 7 (4), 534–546.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development . Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hadad, W. (2007). ICT-in-education toolkit reference handbook . InfoDev. from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.301.html . Retrieved 04 Aug 2015.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in web-based distance education. Educause Quarterly. 3 (2001).

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Top 10 challenges of blended learning. Available on cedma-europe.org .

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30 , 249–261.

Kelley, D. H. & Gorham, J. (2009) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37 (3), 198–207.

Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2011). Adopting a blended learning approach: Challenges, encountered and lessons learned in an action research study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1), 45–57.

Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14 (3), 181–195.

Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, L. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (1), 16–39.

Kwak, D. W., Menezes, F. M., & Sherwood, C. (2013). Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–136.

Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. J. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31 (4), 423–439.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learner outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.

Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5 (3), 340–350.

Loukis, E., Georgiou, S. & Pazalo, K. (2007). A value flow model for the evaluation of an e-learning service. ECIS, 2007 Proceedings, paper 175.

Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5 (2), 1–16.

Marriot, N., Marriot, P., & Selwyn. (2004). Accounting undergraduates’ changing use of ICT and their views on using the internet in higher education-A Research note. Accounting Education, 13 (4), 117–130.

Menager-Beeley, R. (2004). Web-based distance learning in a community college: The influence of task values on task choice, retention and commitment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (9-A), 3191.

Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11 , 185–200.

Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E. & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analysing CSCL process. In Wasson, B. Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, V. (eds), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp 333–342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.

Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22 (1), 85–99.

Oxford Group, (2013). Blended learning-current use, challenges and best practices. From http://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf . Accessed on 17 Mar 2016.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46 (6–7), 335–342.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Mannual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: OUP McGraw-Hill.

Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 207–217.

Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators . New York, USA: Sloan-C.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401–426.

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47 (2), 222–244.

Rahman, S. et al, (2011). Knowledge construction process in online learning. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 8 (2), 488–492.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Computers & Education, 6 (1), 1–16.

Sankaran, S., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in Web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28 (3), 191–198.

Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49 (2), 396–413.

Shraim, K., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16 (3), 159–173.

Shrain, K. (2012). Moving towards e-learning paradigm: Readiness of higher education instructors in Palestine. International Journal on E-Learning, 11 (4), 441–463.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics’. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 59–70.

Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning: research perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Education and Information Technologies, 12 , 165–174.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306–331.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Thompson, E. (2004). Distance education drop-out: What can we do? In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning Through Teaching (Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, pp. 324–332). Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to drop-out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (3), 115–127.

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–137.

Zielinski, D. (2000). Can you keep learners online? Training, 37 (3), 64–75.

Download references

Authors’ contribution

MJK conceived the study idea, developed the conceptual framework, collected the data, analyzed it and wrote the article. CZ gave the technical advice concerning the write-up and advised on relevant corrections to be made before final submission. EK did the proof-reading of the article as well as language editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mountains of the Moon University, P.O. Box 837, Fort Portal, Uganda

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Edmond Kagambe

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Ixelles, Belgium

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Chang Zhu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mugenyi Justice Kintu .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C. & Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Download citation

Received : 13 July 2016

Accepted : 23 November 2016

Published : 06 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Blended learning effectiveness
• Learner characteristics
• Design features
• Learning outcomes and significant predictors

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Exploring Student and Teacher Experiences in Hybrid Learning Environments: Does Presence Matter?

Annelies raes.

1 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven Campus Kulak Kortrijk, Etienne Sabbelaan 51 - box 7800, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium

2 Itec, Imec Research Group at KU Leuven, Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

3 CIREL (Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche en Education de Lille) (ULR 4354), Université de Lille, Villeneuve-d´Ascq, France

The global pandemic forced us to rethink education to fight Covid-19 and apply social distancing during lectures. Luckily, we could rely on earlier research into distance education in general, and more specifically, into synchronous hybrid learning. During synchronous hybrid learning both on-site and remote students are connected and taught synchronously in what we call at our university the ‘hybrid classroom’ or ‘hybrid lecture hall’. In order to further substantiate this potential new normal, research is needed to investigate the influencing factors of engagement and learning in these new environments from a student and teacher perspective. In this study, two different hybrid learning designs and practices are explored and analysed through the lens of the activity-centred analysis and design (ACAD) framework. Next to this more qualitative approach, this study also presents quantitative results on the effect of the level of presence (on-site versus remote, with or without interaction) on conceptual and affective outcomes. In terms of the student perspective, this study did not find any significant differences between physical and remote presence regarding conceptual understanding, yet significant differences were found in regard of affective engagement in favour of the on-site students and remote students having the opportunity to interact. In line with the ACAD framework, our research found that successful learning and teaching activities are interrelated with set, epistemic, and social design decisions.

Background of the Study

Over the course of the last 15 years, more attention has been devoted towards learning and teaching spaces, with many researchers claiming that flexible spaces better meet the needs of a diverse student population (Amoroso 2014 ; Joy et al. 2013 ; Wang et al. 2018 ). JISC, a not-for-profit company in the UK that was set up to provide computing support for education, suggested in their report ( 2006 ) that a learning space should be able to motivate learners and promote learning as an activity, support collaborative as well as formal practice, provide a personalized and inclusive environment, and be flexible in the face of changing needs.

In line with this, the European University Association (European University Association 2021 ) imagines future universities to be without walls, meaning that universities will be open and engaged in society whilst at the same time retaining their core values. They will provide an open, transformative space for common knowledge production through research, education, innovation and culture. It is stated that together with other societal stakeholders, they will shape the future of a knowledge-driven society (European University Association 2021 : 5).

These transformative spaces are also conceptualized as postdigital learning spaces, aiming to open up institutional spaces to form universities beyond traditional dichotomies (O’Bryrne and Pytash 2015 ). This means that in postdigital learning and teaching, physical environments merge with digital environments. As stated by Feenberg ( 2019 ), within postdigital learning spaces, the digital will be integrated and inherent in the everyday actions, interactions and experiences of teaching and learning.

In line with this societal and educational transition, KU Leuven, one of Europe’s oldest universities located in Belgium, started in 2016 with the research project TECOL (see: https://www.kuleuven-kulak.be/tecol ) to investigate how technology could be integrated to support future-proof teaching and learning. As KU Leuven is a multi-campus university spread across nine different cities, the project aimed to investigate how the various educational programs across the different campuses could become more flexible. In addition, the project aimed to investigate how the university would be able to better support expertise exchange and connectivity irrespective of place, in order to create a more open and multidisciplinary approach in which students get acquainted with different perspectives.

Creating hybridity starts with technical solutions and set-ups, and within the research and development project Lecture + (see https://www.imec-int.com/en/what-we-offer/research-portfolio/lecture ), a technological solution has been co-created and accordingly been called the hybrid classroom. The hybrid classroom connects both on-site students and individual remote students during synchronous teaching and learning (see Fig.  1 ). This classroom is operational since 2017 and aims to provide the pedagogical freedom to reach students and teachers from any place in the world, increasing societal access to education as well as improving the quality of education, as knowledge now transcends the boundaries of the classroom.

Hybrid classroom implemented at KU Leuven, Campus Kulak Kortrijk ©imec

Creating Conceptual Clarity

Although our university decided to conceptualize the concept of merging on-site and remote students at the same time as synchronous hybrid teaching and learning, many more concepts can be found in the literature that tries to capture the phenomenon of merging modes. Irvine ( 2020 ) emphasized the importance of focusing on the meaning of concepts in order to create a shared understanding for the future of our academic discourse. She provided an overview of the main terms, including hyflex, multi-access, (synchronous) blended and (synchronous) hybrid. The HyFlex (hybrid-flexible) model was developed by Beatty ( 2007 , 2019 ) and is described as a combination of hybrid, i.e. combining both online and face-to-face modalities, and flexible, as students may choose whether or not to attend face-to-face sessions. With support from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Irvine introduced the multi-access learning model at the 2009 AACE EdMedia Conference and then expanded on the idea in a 2013 article (Irvine et al. 2013 ; Irvine 2020 ). The model identifies four levels of access: (1) face-to-face, (2) synchronous online, (3) asynchronous online and (4) open access. Hybrid and blended both refer to combining modes (Lakhal et al. 2017 ), but the term synchronously has later been added (see e.g. Shi et al. 2021 ; Zydney et al. 2020 ) as without this specification blended or hybrid are also used to describe learning scenarios operationalizing online and offline as dichotomies in which learning takes place either online or offline. Ladd ( 2020 ) (Dean of the San Francisco campus) for example mentioned in his article that he is reserving the term ‘hybrid’ for educational experiences where the students in a class group are either all online or all face-to-face in a classroom together. To describe a classroom which has both people online and in-person at the same time, Ladd ( 2020 ) put forth the term ‘concurrent classroom’. Other less common terms are synchromodal (Bell et al. 2014 ) and dual-mode teaching, meaning that both online and classroom-based instruction is provided in a course at the same time. The term dual-mode is used within CETL (Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning) at the University of Hong Kong. Recently, Nørgård ( 2021 ) also introduced the concept of hybridity, meaning that both physical and digital forms take place synchronously, for example through learning interactions that unfold as a coherent experience of being in multiple places at once.

Related Studies

Engagement within hybrid teaching and learning settings.

Although creating hybridity starts with technological solutions and set-ups, this is only one of the conditions creating the user experience within a certain setting, as no form of technology has the capacity to change practice (Stahl et al. 2014 ). In line with Goodyear et al. ( 2021 ), learning space is conceptualized as the ecosystem of learners, teachers, pedagogical practices, digital and material resources, buildings and furniture. This perspective aims to investigate the interrelations within this ecosystem. In that sense, it is crucial to investigate how people think about hybrid models of learning and teaching and to investigate how hybrid teaching and learning is experienced by both teachers and learners.

One of the main reasons why learning experience has been receiving much more attention over the last decade is that student engagement is regarded as one of the top factors affecting student performance (Furlong and Christenson 2008 ; Fredricks et al. 2004 ). Based on previous research and as shown in Fig.  2 , we can state that engagement involves three dimensions: (1) behavioural (e.g. attending lectures, asking question, participation in quizzes), (2) emotional (e.g. feelings of interest, sense of belonging, boredom, frustration or enjoyment) and (3) cognitive engagement (e.g. learning outcomes, metacognition and self-regulated learning). This three-component model has been used by several researchers in the past (e.g. Dobbins and Denton 2017 ; Gobert et al. 2015 ). In our research, we are particularly interested in unravelling emotional or affective engagement within the new learning spaces.

Three component model of engagement (Fredricks et al. 2004 )

As literature stresses that student engagement is influenced by contextual variations such as learning environments (Bond and Bedenlier 2019 ; Fredericks et al. 2004 ; Raes et al. 2020 ; Shi et al. 2021 ) or teacher strategies (Heilporn et al. 2021 ), it is important to investigate how student engagement as an affective learning outcome is influenced both by the design of the synchronous hybrid learning environment as well as by the type of participation, given that students can access the hybrid classrooms in different ways (see Figs.  3 , ​ ,4 4 and ​ and5 5 ).

Hybrid classroom@KU Leuven, Campus Kulak Kortrijk

Hybrid classroom from the perspective of the remote participant

Hybrid lecture hall@KU Leuven, Campus Kulak Kortrijk

Previous research focusing on student engagement in hybrid classrooms is scarce (Raes et al. 2019 ; Lakhal et al. 2017 ; Miller et al. 2021 ), but the existing literature is consistent in that they all report that although hybrid education provides a lot of benefits, including flexibility, it brings many challenges, which are both pedagogical and technological in nature. The main pedagogical challenge reported in previous literature is that on-site students and remote students experience the lesson differently in the hybrid synchronous situation (Beatty 2007 , 2019 ; Szeto 2014 ; Zydney et al. 2019 ), although the Research & Development field strives for designing and implementing both pedagogical strategies and technological systems that enact comparable learning experiences (Butz et al. 2016 ; Butz and Stupnisky 2017 ; Cain et al. 2016 ). Previous research shows that remote learners feel a significant sense of distance towards their teacher and their face-to-face classmates (Ramsey et al. 2016 ). A qualitative study conducted by Olt ( 2018 ) concluded that the experience of the remote participant can be explained and understood by the concept of ‘ambiguity’ in regard to group membership, functionality of technology, and place. Also, Huang et al. ( 2017 ) showed that the remote students felt excluded from the chief class, because they were physically separated from the face-to-face class, especially when the remote class encounters technical difficulties without immediate support. In the study of Weitze et al. ( 2013 ), remote students indicated that it is difficult to alert the teacher that they want to answer a question, which makes them feel frustrated and uninvolved. Therefore, it is important to take this into consideration in the design of the classes and to be aware that remote students need to feel more invited into the class activity.

Designing for Effective Teaching and Learning

As stressed above, learning experience, and student engagement more particularly, is influenced by contextual variation. That same idea is shared by the founders of the activity-centred analysis and design (ACAD) framework (Carvalho and Goodyear 2014 ; Goodyear et al. 2021 ). Previous research has provided evidence on the fact that the way a learning environment is designed and which tools are provided matters for learning (Carvalho et al. 2020 ). The ACAD framework acknowledges the physical, epistemic and social situatedness of learning and conceptualizes this as set, epistemic and social design. Set design includes the specific tools, artefacts and learning space used to support learning and teaching. Epistemic design is related to the tasks or activities students are asked to do in service of learning, and social design is related to how students are grouped or how networks or communities are built. ACAD has previously been used to analyse emergent learning activity in both online and place-based spaces for networked learning. In this study, it will be used to describe the design of two synchronous hybrid learning practices and to analyse the results for student outcomes within these new settings.

Previous research within the context of hybrid education stresses that the loss of visual and audible cues, which normally are observable for the on-site students, impacts the learning and teaching experience (Weitze et al. 2013 ). In order to compensate for this loss and to mitigate for perceived distancing effects, it has been argued that teachers should frequently pause for questions throughout the lecture and be attentive to student responses (Heilporn et al. 2021 ; McGovern and Barnes 2009 ). In addition to this, students who attend the class remotely should perceive the same audio quality as students who are present face-to-face since the audio component has been found to be decisive for the success (Bower et al. 2015 ; Cunningham 2014 ). Irvine et al. ( 2013 ) found that synchronous hybrid tools that mimic face-to-face delivery can help students maintain closer connections with peers. This means that next to audio quality, good video quality and an optimal framing of the teacher are challenges for the set design.

Research Objective and Research Questions

In this paper, I present the results of an exploration of learning and teaching experiences within synchronous hybrid environments. Although the concept of the synchronous hybrid learning spaces had been developed before the pandemic happened, this study describes the exploration of two types of design which have been tested during the Covid-19 pandemic. As displayed in Figs.  3 and ​ and4, 4 , we differentiate between three levels of presence in the synchronous learning environment, i.e. (1) face-to-face or on campus, (2) remote, visible on the screen in the classroom and full interaction possible; (3) remote, following through livestream, not visible for the teacher and peers, not able to interact.

From a student perspective, I aimed to answer the following research questions:

• How does the level of presence (i.e. physical or remote presence) affect students’ conceptual understanding?
• How does the level of presence affect students’ emotional or affective engagement during learning?
• According to students, what are the determining factors to be engaged during synchronous hybrid lectures?

From a teacher perspective, this study aimed to investigate to following research question:

• 4. What are teachers’ experiences during hybrid teaching and how does space affect their practice?

It has been claimed that it is important to investigate both the teacher perspective as well as the student perspective since what teachers do in their courses is linked with student engagement (Heilporn et al. 2021 ), but what teachers do or can do is also related to where they teach, i.e. the teaching space.

This study attempts to bridge this knowledge gap by presenting the student and teacher results of the exploration of two different postdigital learning spaces, where students engage with learning through different modes and with different levels of presence in the learning environment.

Methodology

Research design, participants and procedure.

This study is part of a larger university innovation, research and development project which is inspired on design-based research methodology in order to get a better theoretical understanding of effective teaching and learning in our new learning spaces and in order to be able to define evidence-based design-guidelines. The design-based research approach is frequently used in educational research conducted in authentic learning settings (McKenney and Reeves 2019 ). Design-based research (DBR) intends to produce new theories, artefacts and practices that account for and potentially impact learning and teaching in naturalistic settings (Barab and Squire 2004 ). It is characterized by its use of iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis and redesign. As this paper presents teaching and learning in two different hybrid learning environments with differences in set-up and measured variables, this study needs to be viewed as a first exploration of these settings with the same research questions in mind.

In what follows, I focus firstly on the design in the two hybrid learning environments using the ACAD framework. This is followed by a description of the methodology.

Case Design Analysis 1: Problem-Based (Group) Learning in the Hybrid Classroom

The first case is visualized in Figs.  3 and ​ and4 4 displaying the hybrid classroom from the perspective of the on-site student and the remote student. Data has been collected within the course on Biostatistics attended by third-year bachelor students within the Faculty of Medicine at KU Leuven, Campus Kulak Kortrijk. Within this course, 45 third-year bachelor students participated in the study. The teacher is a female professor who has been teaching this course for 5 years. She is open to innovation and has been involved in teacher-researcher collaboration since 2017, within the context of the larger research project. The data collection within the course on Biostatistics was organized in September 2020. In the hybrid classroom, students can follow the course on-site and at the same time, remote students can connect synchronously. In this case, students were randomly divided over the two conditions (on-site versus remote presence).

Epistemic Design

The learning activity organized in the hybrid classroom was built on the theory of delayed instruction or productive failure (Kapur 2016 ). The lecture started with a collaborative problem solving (CPS) task which was designed in line with the content of the lecture. Students were asked to set up a survey to evaluate the psychosocial wellbeing of students at campus. The focus of the task was not on how to formulate the questions of the survey, but rather on how to select the method of data collection, how to select a good sample, how to deal with randomness, how to deal with non-response, and how to solve the problem of over-and under-sampling through weights. In the second part of the lecture, the teacher taught the theory on sampling methods and bias in research including the input of the students.

Social Design

Group learning was mainly integrated in the first part of the lecture. The remote students formed groups based on the screen on which they were displayed. On-site students formed groups based on their seating. In the second part of the lecture, the teacher interacted with both on-site and remote students by launching several polls.

The hybrid classroom facilitates launching quizzes and polls by using the Wacom tablet. By means of the same Wacom the teacher can start and end break-sessions. After launching a quiz or poll, the answers of the remote students become visible on the screens. Also, the names of the remote students are visible on the screens which means that the teacher can easily address to a certain remote student. As a remote participant, it is possible to choose between different sources (e.g. whiteboard, teacher camera, teacher content), and it is possible to ask questions in the chat. As a remote student, it is possible to raise your hand, to share your content, to mute or unmute yourself and to turn off your camera. Because of a ceiling microphone remote students can easily hear on-site students talking.

Case Design Analysis 2: Hybrid Lecture Hall

The second case is visualized in Fig.  5 and consists of two lectures given within the same hybrid lecture hall, taught by two different professors within the Faculty of Law. Participants included 75 first-year bachelor students within the course on Contract law and 38 s-year bachelor students within the course on Family law. The Contract Law course is taught by a male professor and Family Law by a female professor. For both professors, it was the first time they participated in research within the context of the larger research project on learning spaces. Nevertheless both teachers were among the first users of the hybrid lecture hall. The data collection within the hybrid lecture hall was organized in March 2021.

Both lectures could be described as theoretical sessions focusing on knowledge transmission. Both teachers asked oral questions during the lecture, without using polling software.

Students had been asked to subscribe in advance and they could indicate how they would follow the course, choosing between three options: on-site, remote on-screen with interactivity or remote through livestream. Places for option 1 and option 2 were restricted because of Covid-19 restrictions. No group work or break-out sessions were integrated in the sessions.

Up to 60 students can follow the course remotely by being displayed on the screen in front. Students could also choose to follow the course synchronously through livestream. Students who followed the session through livestream could not connect to the on-site students or the remote students visible on the screens. Remote students visible on the screens could easily answer the teacher’s questions. Answers of remote students were audible through the boxes. As the hybrid lecture hall does not have a ceiling microphone, when on-site students answered to questions, this was not audible for remote students, unless the teacher passed on his/her microphone.

The three teachers who were responsible for the courses agreed to participate in the study to investigate student and teacher experiences during hybrid education. Their participation included data collection from their students and also required them to give an interview themselves. The research project ‘Measuring and optimizing students’ engagement in remote and (hybrid) virtual classrooms’ has been evaluated and approved by the Social and Societal Ethics Committee of the university (G- 2018 06 1264). In line with our research protocol, students could voluntarily participate in the study by signing an informed consent. A week before the start of the course, students were informed about the objectives of the study by means of a 5-min video, which had been shared on the learning management platform. In addition to this video, informed consents have been collected in advance of the first survey. Participants were informed that they were going to be videotaped, that data from self-reports and from the learning platform was going to be collected, and that all data was going to be processed anonymously. Students were asked permission to be photographed during the courses.

Data Collection and Measures

As explained earlier, the set-up and data collection for both cases were slightly different, but within both cases the main objective was to investigate differences in student experiences regarding the level of presence (on-site versus remote) and to unravel the determining factor for student engagement. Below, the measured variables are described per case analysis. In both cases, a mixed-method approach has been used which implies the combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods (Cohen et al. 2011 ). This approach strengthens the inferences in the analysis of student experiences in this new learning space.

Case Design Analysis 1

To answer research questions 1 to 3 focusing on the student perspective, quantitative data has been collected through a pre- and post-test. The pre-test aimed to measure prior knowledge on sampling methods and bias. The post-test aimed to measure the gain in conceptual knowledge and measured students’ intrinsic motivation, experienced relatedness and perceived value of past learning activities by means of validated scales based on the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 1985 ). At the end of the post-test, students could add open thoughts about the course and they were asked for suggestions for improvement.

Case Design Analysis 2

In terms of the courses given at the Faculty of Law, we were only able to conduct a post-intervention survey measuring student engagement, yet in this setting, we explored different scales to get a better sense of the emotional engagement in this new learning space. Next to the scales borrowed from the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 1985 ), case study 2 included the Eduflow scales Flow and Cognitive Absorption (Heutte et al. 2016 ) and a measurement of Sense of Presence (Barfield and Weghorst 1993 ; Dinh et al. 1999 ) and Sense of Belonging (Yorke 2016 ). The list of variables is presented in Table ​ Table1, 1 , providing sample items for the different variables and the accompanying reliability scores. The Cronbach’s alphas regarding the different subscales indicate that the scales were reliable. At the end of the course, students could complete the digital survey supported by Qualtrics software in about 15 min by means of their smartphone or their personal computer. Qualitative data consisted of open answers given by the students at the end of the questionnaire, where they were asked about the determining factors for student engagement and about whether they had any open suggestions for improvement.

Sample items for the different variables measured in the case analyses

a Conceptual understanding has been measured in pre- and post-test to measure learning gain

b This variable has only been measured in case analysis 1

c These variables have only been measured in case analysis 2

To answer research question 4 focusing on the teacher perspective, a semi-structured interview has been organized with each teacher separately in order to get insight into their experiences and thoughts about hybrid teaching and learning.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data has been analysed by means of the statistical software package SPSS. As we were particularly interested in possible differences between conditions, independent t -tests and ANOVAs have been conducted regarding the different dependent variables (see Table ​ Table1), 1 ), including learning setting as a fixed factor. One sample t -test has been used to investigate if scores significantly differed from the neutral score. Regarding case study 1, where next to affective engagement also cognitive understanding has been measured, an analysis of covariance has been carried out to investigate the effect of the learning setting on learning gain.

Qualitative data including both written answers from students and teachers’ transcribed interviews have first been analysed inductively. Content analysis was used to generate common experiences and valuable feedback regarding their experience of learning and teaching in the hybrid classroom and to give a deeper insight into the quantitative data. Subsequently, students’ answers about the determinants for engagement have been clustered based on the ACAD framework, allowing us to better analyse the connections between design elements and students’ engagement.

How Does the Level of Presence Affect Students’ Conceptual Understanding?

The first research question could only be tested in the first experiment, which included the third-year bachelor students who had participated in the pre-test-post-test design. With regard to students’ conceptual understanding, an analysis of covariance revealed no differences between both conditions. This means that all students achieved significant learning gains and that remote and on-site students scored equally on the post-test (after controlling for pre-test scores) (see Table 2 ).

Conceptual understanding between remote and on-site students (Case analysis 1)

How Does the Level of Presence Affect Students’ Engagement during Learning?

Regarding students’ affective engagement, significant differences were found when comparing the different learning settings in both experiments. Table ​ Table3 3 presents the results revealed in case analysis 2 comparing three different levels of presence.

Comparison of affective engagement scales in the different learning settings

Mean scores presented in bold with an asterisk do significantly differ from the neutral score (i.e. 4 for variables 1 to 6 measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and 50 for variables 7 and 8 measured on a scale 1–100)

On-campus students showed to experience high levels of affective engagement operationalized as 1. enjoyment, 2. relatedness, 3. pressure, 4. value, 5. autotelic experience, 6. cognitive absorption, 7. sense of belonging and 8. sense of presence. Regarding on-site students ( N  = 58), all means significantly differ from the neutral score. As for remote students, significant differences were found between visible and invisible remote students with significant higher engagement scores for students who were visible on the screens compared to students following the course through livestream.

Based on these findings and based on additional qualitative comments, we can state that the feature of the remote setting, i.e. being displayed in the classroom and being able to interact with the teacher, influences students’ engagement.

It’s easy to follow the lesson and it’s good to see other students as well. Because you turn on the camera and interact, you are obliged to be more attentive than you would be when following any other type of class remotely. (remote student, case analysis 1)

The results for sense of presence and sense of belonging show that it is easier to realize a sense of presence, conceived as a feeling of being in the classroom, than to create a sense of belonging, conceived as a feeling of being close and connected to your peers. It is important to note that during case analysis 2 no group work or breakout sessions were organized, whereas this was the case in case analysis 1. Qualitative data from this first analysis reveals that group work (as part of social design) might have influenced the sense of belonging.

I found it useful to work together in small groups online. You feel less alone and there is a good interaction with the professor. (remote student visible on screen with interaction, case analysis 1)

Moreover, qualitative feedback indicates that remote students were surprised that being at a physical distance did not preclude affective presence and connectivity:

Even though I was not physically present, I felt connected to the fellow students. (remote student visible on screen with interaction, case analysis 1)

Unfortunately, during case analysis 1, we did not collect scores for sense of presence and sense of belonging.

According to Students, What are the Determining Factors for Engagement during Synchronous Hybrid Lectures?

By means of an open question, all participants of case analysis 2 were asked to answer the following question: ‘What is, according to you, the most determining factor for engagement during the synchronous course?’. Ninety-six students answered this question and all answers were analysed and categorized based on the ACAD framework (Goodyear et al. 2021 ). Task or student activity-related answers were categorized under Epistemic Design. Answers related to the learning space, the set-up, and the features of the space, were categorized under Set Design. Finally, answers referring to peers and the community of learners were categorized under Social Design.

As displayed in Fig.  6 , 34 out of 96 (35%) students referred to the epistemic design as the most determining factor for engagement during a course, 31 (33%) referred to the set design, and 7 referred to social design. Some of the answers could be categorized under two categories. The following citation for example is both linked to set and social design:

Personally, what is determining for me, is feeling the ‘atmosphere’ in the auditorium, at home you cannot hear the conversation that is going on between your peers that are physically present at campus, that makes me feel excluded as a remote student. (remote student visible on screen with interaction, case analysis 2)

Students’ answers categorized based on the ACAD framework (Goodyear et al. 2021 )

A combination of set and epistemic design has been found as well, in the following statement:

What is determining for me, is being present in the room and experiencing a real-life lecture and being able to interact with the teacher who can ask you a question anytime. (remote student through livestream, case analysis 2)

How Does the Teaching Space Affect Teaching Practice?

Next to investigating students’ engagement in hybrid settings, additionally, this study sought to gain insight into the way in which teachers experience hybrid teaching and how space affects their practice. The results are given based on three 1-hour interviews with the professors who taught in the new learning context. These teachers have not only been teaching in the hybrid classroom and hybrid lecture hall shown respectively in Figs.  3 , ​ ,4 4 and ​ and5, 5 , but also used other solutions during the past year. At some times, strict lockdown requirements prevented students and teachers from coming to the campus altogether. During these times, teachers used systems like Blackboard (BB) Collaborate or Teams, both of which are provided at the institution and could be used from any place. Given the fact that these teachers have taught in many settings, they could easily come up with an answer to the question of what affects their teaching practice. Each interview started with an overview of the (anonymized) results collected in cooperation with their students. Next, it was stated that in the remaining time, we would focus on the teaching space instead of the learning space.

When comparing their teaching experience in the hybrid classroom/lecture hall with their experience using alternative systems (i.e. Teams and/or BB Collaborate), designed to teach from home, actually seeing the students was mentioned as the main advantage of the design of the hybrid classroom and hybrid lecture hall. Teachers mentioned that, in the alternative systems, students can see the presenting teacher in combination with the slides, but the teacher is not always able to see the students, or only a small number of them. Most of the time, they argue, students turn off their camera and their microphone. Teachers reveal that although it was indicated that students could ask questions using the chat, interaction was nearly non-existent.

One of the teachers described teaching from home and sitting behind the screen as cold and detached. That teacher also taught several classes just before the Christmas period in an empty auditorium, to which students were connected through livestream. That teacher mentioned that she had shared her feeling of loneliness with the students and once brought Christmas lights to decorate her desk to improve the astrosphere. According to that teacher, this small change to the teaching space really made a difference both for the students and the teacher. She also added that she even prefers livestream teaching over teaching behind a desk, as during livestream recording within an auditorium, students can at least see the posture of the teacher within the teaching environment and not only their face. In line with this, another teacher mentioned that (s)he likes to use a lot of gestures during teaching which do not come across as well when teaching behind a screen.

All the teachers revealed that teaching feels much more natural and intuitive in the hybrid classroom/hybrid lecture hall, because they have space to walk around, they are able to write something on a whiteboard, and, most importantly, they can interact with their students because they are visible on the screens. The teachers mentioned that they often tend to interact with their students based on their facial expressions: ‘You can see it on their faces if they do not understand something’. One of the teachers pointed out that when teaching a course without seeing your students, it is very difficult to evaluate the quality of your course. The teacher stated the following: ‘you are only able to evaluate your own performance, but it is so much nicer to get something in return and to feel and see to what extent your message has arrived and been understood by your students’.

When asking the teachers what would be their ideal scenario for a future without restrictions, the three teachers were all looking forward to teaching again in the auditorium with all students present. One of the teachers revealed that (s)he missed the crowded auditoria, sometimes so full that students even had to sit on the stairs. ‘This gives you the kick and the adrenaline you need to give a good performance; whether you are a speaker, athlete, teacher, or actor, having an audience is very important to perform’.

In all three of the interviews, the value and limitations of recording sessions was briefly discussed. A shared observation at our university, but also at universities worldwide, is that synchronous learning activities are attracting less and less students as students seem to prefer to watch lesson recordings. All teachers revealed that they agree that in some case recordings can be useful, for example for students who cannot attend the course if they combine work and study. Still, watching asynchronous recordings should not be seen as an equal alternative for attending the synchronous course.

Discussion and Conclusion

Looking into the literature on hybrid learning environments, it is generally viewed as both engaging and relevant due to its high level of flexibility (Nørgård 2021 ). More and more researchers claim that the nature and structure of future universities will be hybrid to better deal with changing contexts (Miller et al. 2021 ). This will entail that physical and digital learning and research environments must be designed in a holistic way in order to accommodate the different needs of a diverse university community. Hybrid learning environments allowing learners to attend synchronous online courses at home, at work or when traveling, are not new in the field. The last 15 years, new educational models have been proposed such as HyFlex learning and teaching conceptualized by Beatty ( 2007 , 2019 ) and multi-access education conceptualized by Irvine et al. ( 2013 ). Yet to be able to make thoughtful design decisions, more empirical research is needed about how these new learning spaces are experienced by both students and teachers, as the latter has often been neglected in previous research. Moreover, research is needed to inform pedagogy in these postdigital learning spaces. This paper aimed to fill this knowledge gap by both studying the learning and the teaching space through the lens of the ACAD framework. Since one of the key components for optimal experience is engagement, this study first investigated this multidimensional construct by quantitatively using different theoretical constructs. Second, by means of a qualitative approach, this study shed light on the determining factors to foster engagement during hybrid teaching and learning.

This research revolved around four research questions, three of them focusing on the student perspective, one of them focusing on the teacher perspective. Regarding the student perspective, this study did not find any significant differences between the levels of presence (i.e. physical and remote presence) in terms of conceptual understanding, yet significant differences were found regarding affective engagement, including intrinsic motivation, relatedness, experienced pressure, cognitive absorption, autotelic experience, sense of presence and sense of belonging. These findings are in line with previous research claiming that on-site students and remote students experience courses differently in the hybrid synchronous situation (Beatty 2007 ,  2019 ; Szeto 2014 ; Zydney et al. 2019 ). Nevertheless, this study provided both quantitative and qualitative evidence that the design of the learning space really does matter to the remote experience. Students following the course through livestream without interaction or visibility to the teachers had the lowest engagement scores. Next, the qualitative data in relation to research question 3 showed that one out of three students referred to the set design as being determinant for being engaged during synchronous courses. This is in line with what previously has been claimed by Irvine et al. ( 2013 ), namely that synchronous hybrid tools that mimic face-to-face delivery can help students maintain closer connections. Yet, it is also known that having the innovative infrastructure will not guarantee anything. In line with the ACAD framework, successful learning is interrelated with set, epistemic and social design decisions, and this was also reflected in the results of this study. Two-thirds of the students indicated that the actions of the teacher during the course (epistemic design) and having the feeling that you are not alone (social design) are the most important for engendering engagement. Nonetheless, social design and epistemic design are closely interrelated with set design, as a certain teaching space can better support interaction and sense of belonging. Regarding our fourth research question, it has been explored how teachers experienced the teaching space, as those experiences have drastically changed over the course of the past year. The teachers expressed that they felt lucky to have experienced the new teaching spaces as they believe that the spaces supported them in qualitative teaching, and they believe that the facilities of the new spaces serve to engage both staff and students (Joy et al. 2013 ). Yet, we should be realistic in the sense that not every space will have all the facilities included. Next, when having huge student groups, the livestream option will still be used in future education. In these settings it will be important to incorporate live engagement, e.g. through polls and/or quizzes. Previous research has shown that using quizzes is effective for increasing engagement (Raes et al. 2020 ). This means that to design supportive hybrid learning and teaching it is crucial to take into consideration pedagogical, social and technical elements as being part of the epistemic, social and set design of a learning and teaching space.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Several limitations should be noted in this study. First of all, the case design analyses should be seen as explorations within the new settings and not as experiments which are comparable and generalizable. The differences between the cases do not allow the study to make generalizations to other postdigital learning spaces. Second, the present study only investigated academic performance in the first case analysis. It will be important to include academic performance in future research studies to investigate if our finding can be replicated. Although just a first step in investigating teaching and learning experiences in new synchronous hybrid learning settings, this paper highlights the importance of both the level of presence and the design of the space to support effective learning and teaching in hybrid learning spaces.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the professors and students from KU Leuven, campus Kulak Kortrijk for their participation and their thoughtful feedback regarding this research.

This study was carried out within imec’s Smart Education research programme, with support from the Flemish government and funding from KU Leuven University. This project was also supported by the French government through the Programme Investissement d’Avenir (I-SITE ULNE / ANR-16-IDEX-0004 ULNE) managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche.

Declarations

This research involves human participants, but this research project has been reviewed and approved by the Social and Societal Ethics Committee https://ppw.kuleuven.be/home/onderzoek/SMEC ). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

The author declares no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Amoroso, C. (2014). Hybrid by Choice. Increasing Engagement in a High Enrollment Course. Hybrid Pedagogy, 20 May.  https://hybridpedagogy.org/hybrid-choice-increasing-engagement-high-enrollment-course/ . Accessed 14 November 2021.
• Barab S, Squire K. Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2004; 13 (1):1–14. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barfield W, Weghorst S. The sense of presence within virtual environments: A conceptual framework. In: Salvendy G, Smith M, editors. Human-computer interaction: Applications and case studies. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1993. pp. 699–704. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beatty BJ. Hybrid classes with flexible participation options – If you build it, how will they come ? Paper presented at the 2007 Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Convention (October) CA: Anaheim; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-Flexible Course Design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes . EdTech Books.
• Bell, J., Sawaya, S., & Cain, W. (2014). Synchromodal classes: Designing for shared learning experiences between face-to- face and online students. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 5 (1). 10.14434/ijdl.v5i1.12657.
• Bond M, Bedenlier S. Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 2019; 2019 (1):1–14. doi: 10.5334/jime.528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bower M, Dalgarno B, Kennedy GE, Lee MJW, Kenney J. Design and Implementation Factors in Blended Synchronous Learning Environments: Outcomes from a Cross-Case Analysis. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butz NT, Stupnisky RH. Improving student relatedness through an online discussion intervention: The application of self-determination theory in synchronous hybrid programs. Computers and Education. 2017; 114 :117–138. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butz NT, Stupnisky RH, Pekrun R, Jensen JL, Harsell DM. The Impact of Emotions on Student Achievement in Synchronous Hybrid Business and Public Administration Programs: A Longitudinal Test of Control-Value Theory*. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2016; 14 (4):441–474. doi: 10.1111/dsji.12110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cain, W., Bell, J., & Cheng, C. (2016). Implementing robotic telepresence in a synchronous hybrid course. In Proceedings of IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2016. (pp. 171–175). New York: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 10.1109/ICALT.2016.79.
• Carvalho L, Goodyear P. The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho L, Nicholson T, Yeoman P, Thibaut P. Space matters: framing the New Zealand learning landscape. Learning Environments Research. 2020; 23 (3):307–329. doi: 10.1007/s10984-020-09311-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research Methods in Education. 7. London: Routledge; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the Disembodied: Othering and Activity Systems in a Blended Synchronous Learning Situation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15 (6). 10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1793.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale - self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19 (2), 109–134. 10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.
• Dinh HQ, Walker N, Song C, Kobayashi A, Hodges LF. Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality. 1999; 1999 :222–228. doi: 10.1109/VR.1999.756955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbins, C., & Denton, P. (2017). MyWallMate: An Investigation into the use of Mobile Technology in Enhancing Student Engagement. TechTrends , 61 (6), 541–549. 10.1007/s11528-017-0188-y.
• European University Association. (2021). Universities without walls. A vision for 2030. Brussels: European University Association. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/universities without walls a vision for 2030.pdf . Accessed 14 November 2021.
• Feenberg A. Postdigital or Predigital? Postdigital Science and Education. 2019; 1 (1):8–9. doi: 10.1007/s42438-018-0027-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74 (1):59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Furlong MJ, Christenson SL. Engaging students at school and with learning: A relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools. 2008; 45 (5):365–368. doi: 10.1002/pits.20302. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobert JD, Baker RS, Wixon MB. Operationalizing and Detecting Disengagement Within Online Science Microworlds. Educational Psychologist. 2015; 50 (1):43–57. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2021). Activity-Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD): Core purposes, distinctive qualities and current developments. Educational Technology Research and Development , 0123456789. 10.1007/s11423-020-09926-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., & Bélisle, M. (2021). An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 18 (1). 10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Heutte, J., Fenouillet, F., Martin-Krumm, C., Boniwell, I., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2016). Proposal for a conceptual evolution of the flow in education (EduFlow) model . Presented at 8th European Conference on Positive Psychology (ECPP2016), Angers, France. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01470857 . Accessed 14 November 2021.
• Huang, Y., Shu, F., Zhao, C., & Huang, J. (2017). Investigating and analyzing teaching effect of blended synchronous classroom. In Proceedings of 6th International Conference of Educational Innovation Through Technology (EITT) (pp. 134–135). New York: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 10.1109/EITT.2017.40.
• Irvine, V. (2020). The Landscape of Merging Modalities. Educause Review, 4, 40–58. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/10/the-landscape-of-merging-modalities . Accessed 9 May 2021.
• Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (2013). Realigning Higher Education for the 21st-Century Learner through Multi-Access Learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , 9 (2).
• JISC. (2006). Designing Spaces for Effective Learning A guide to 21st century learning space design.  http://www.online-conference.net/jisc/content/designspaces.pdf . Accessed 14 November 2021.
• Joy M, Foss J, King E, Sinclair J, Sitthiworachart J, Davis R. Incorporating Technologies into a Flexible Teaching Space. 2013 doi: 10.1111/bjet.12040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur M. Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning. Educational Psychologist. 2016; 51 (2):289–299. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladd, T. (2020). Optimizing concurrent classrooms: Teaching students in the room and online simultaneously. Forbes, 19 June.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedladd/2020/06/19/optimizing-concurrent-classrooms-teaching-students-in-the-room-and-online-simultaneously/#50645ba93451 . Accessed 14 November 2021.
• Lakhal, S., Bateman, D., & Bédard, J. (2017). Blended Synchronous Delivery Mode in Graduate Programs: A Literature Review and Its Implementation in the Master Teacher Program. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10 . 10.22329/celt.v10i0.4747. [ CrossRef ]
• Miller AN, Sellnow DD, Strawser MG. Pandemic pedagogy challenges and opportunities: instruction communication in remote, HyFlex, and BlendFlex courses. Communication Education. 2021; 70 (2):202–204. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2020.1857418. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGovern, N., & Barnes, K. (2009). Lectures from My Living Room: A Pilot Study of Hybrid Learning from the Students’ Perspective. In F. L. Wang, J. Fong, L. Zhang, & V. S. K. Lee (Eds.), Hybrid Learning and Education (pp. 284–298). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-03697-2_27.
• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting Educational Design Research . New York: Routledge.
• Nørgård, R. T. (2021). Theorising hybrid lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology . 10.1111/bjet.13121.
• O’Byrne, W. I., & Pytash, K. E. (2015). Hybrid and Blended Learning: Modifying Pedagogy Across Path, Pace, Time, and Place. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59 (2), 137-140. 10.1002/jaal.463.
• Olt PA. Virtually There: Distant Freshmen Blended in Classes through Synchronous Online Education. Innovative Higher Education. 2018; 43 (5):381–395. doi: 10.1007/s10755-018-9437-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2019). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23 (3), 269–290. 10.1007/S10984-019-09303-Z.
• Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Depaepe, F. (2020). Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers and Education , 143 . 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682.
• Ramsey, D., Evans, J., & Levy, M. (2016). Preserving the seminar experience. Journal of Political Science Education, 12 (3), 256–267. 10.1080/15512169.2015.1077713.
• Shi, Y., Tong, M., & Long, T. (2021). Investigating relationships among blended synchronous learning environments, students’ motivation, and cognitive engagement: A mixed methods study. Computers and Education , 168 . 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104193.
• Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, revised version (pp. 479–500). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Szeto E. A Comparison of Online/Face-to-face Students’ and Instructor’s Experiences: Examining Blended Synchronous Learning Effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 116 :4250–4254. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, Q., Huang, C., & Quek, C. L. (2018). Students’ perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 34 (1), 1–13. 10.14742/ajet.3404.
• Weitze, C. L., Ørngreen, R., & Levinsen, K. (2013). The Global Classroom Video Conferencing Model and First Evaluations. I M. Ciussi & M. Augier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on E-Learning: SKEMA Business School, Sophia Antipolis France, 30-31 October 2013 (pp. 503-510). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International.
• Yorke M. The development and initial use of a survey of student ‘belongingness’, engagement and self-confidence in UK higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2016; 41 (1):154–166. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.990415. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zydney JM, McKimm P, Lindberg R, Schmidt M. Here or There Instruction: Lessons Learned in Implementing Innovative Approaches to Blended Synchronous Learning. TECHTRENDS. 2019; 63 (2):123–132. doi: 10.1007/s11528-018-0344-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zydney, J. M., Warner, Z., & Angelone, L. (2020). Learning through experience: Using design based research to redesign protocols for blended synchronous learning environments. Computers and Education , 143 . 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103678.

• Open access
• Published: 12 July 2024

Hybrid teaching after COVID-19: advantages, challenges and optimization strategies

• Xiaoran Wang 1   na1 ,
• Jiangheng Liu 2   na1 ,
• Shuwei Jia 1   na1 ,
• Chunmei Hou 1 ,
• Runsheng Jiao 1 ,
• Yan Yan 1 ,
• Tengchuang Ma 2 ,
• Ying Zhang 1 ,
• Yanyan Liu 1 ,
• Haixia Wen 1 ,
• Yu-Feng Wang 3 ,
• Hui Zhu 1 &
• Xiao-Yu Liu 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  753 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

182 Accesses

Metrics details

In the post-pandemic era of higher education, hybrid teaching has emerged as a prevalent approach and is anticipated to persist as a defining trend in the future teaching reforms worldwide. However, despite its widespread adoption, certain limitations have become apparent. The objective of this study is to identify the genuine factors that impact students’ performance, explore strategies that teachers can employ to enhance their teaching effectiveness and enhance students’ academic self-efficacy.

The study was performed among undergraduate medical students enrolled in Physiology course at Harbin Medical University in 2020 and 2022. Since 2020, influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, a hybrid teaching method based on an established offline teaching model called BOPPPS was implemented. A questionnaire was performed in both 2020 and 2022 to evaluate students’ satisfaction and efficiency of our hybrid teaching. A comparison was also carried out on the final examination scores of students majoring in Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacy across the years 2020 to 2022.

The final examination scores of students in 2022 were significantly lower than those in 2020 and 2021 both in Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacy majors. There was also a decrease of the score in students of Clinical Pharmacy in 2021 compared to 2020. The questionnaire indicated that over half (52.0%) of the students in 2022 preferred offline teaching method, in contrast to 39.1% in 2020. There were obvious changes in students from 2020 to 2022 about the disadvantages of hybrid teaching, the improvement of students’ learning ability and the duration of students’ autonomous learning. Through cross statistical analysis, online learning styles, learning ability improvement and students’ learning burden have been identified as the primary factors influencing their preference for future teaching method.

Conclusions

Hybrid teaching is still a necessary trend in the future teaching reform base on its multiple advantages. However, in order to improve the teaching outcomes and foster students’ participation and learning initiatives, it is imperative to undertake additional reforms in the future teaching process.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The adoption of hybrid teaching, characterized as a combined approach encompassing both online and face-to-face instructional methods, has proliferated globally during the pandemic of COVID-19. Although digital teaching has existed for decades, its widespread adoption during this crisis was unprecedented due to various advantages such as location flexibility, convenient lecture recording, efficient communicating and prompting feedback mechanisms [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Multiple studies have found that hybrid teaching method supported by learning management systems and innovative features like online quizzes, can be as effective as traditional face-to-face classes, particularly in fostering independent and autonomous learning [ 4 , 5 ].

However, along with the wide application of hybrid teaching, challenges have emerged in the form of heightened self-motivational demands, reliance on consistent internet access, and health concerns related to screen-induced eyestrain [ 6 ]. Moreover, researchers have found that hybrid teaching cannot significantly improve student engagement in academic activities in China and USA [ 7 ]. Furthermore, the normalization of the COVID-19 epidemic has been found to affect students’ mental health which is positively correlated with learning burnout [ 8 ]. A study in China has found that the prevalence of academic burnout among nursing students stands at 31.5% and students with low academic self-efficacy are more susceptible to learning burnout [ 9 ]. Given the inevitability of hybrid teaching in the post-pandemic era, it is necessary to figure out what teachers can do to enhance hybrid teaching effectiveness and students’ academic self-efficacy.

Physiology, a cornerstone of medical science, provides a basic understanding of healthy human body functions and plays an important role as a link between preclinical courses and subsequent clinical courses [ 10 ]. Amidst the COVID-19, a hybrid approach was implemented for the Physiology curriculum in our university and we received many good comments from students [ 11 ]. Nevertheless, with the in-depth development of hybrid teaching, some complaints from students have gradually emerged. Therefore, this study aims to investigate students’ preferences towards hybrid teaching, conduct an in-depth analysis of factors influencing these preferences and propose strategies for improving instructional methods and enhancing students’ academic self-efficacy.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Department of Physiology at Harbin Medical University. The procedures of this study adhered to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. This project was deemed non-human-subjects research by the Institutional Review Board of the Harbin Medical University according to “ethical review measures for life sciences and medical research involving human beings” (Order No. 11 of the National Health and Family Planning Commission of China, December 2016). Due to the online survey approach, the written informed consent could not be received. Therefore, verbal informed consent for survey was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institutional Review Board of Harbin Medical University and obtained from each participate. All data collected from the participants were kept anonymous to protect their privacy.

Study subjects

This study involved undergraduate medical students who were part of the cohorts beginning in 2019 and 2021, and subsequently participated in the Physiology course offered at Harbin Medical University during the first semesters of 2020 and 2022, respectively. The students were enrolled in the majors of Pharmacy (a four-year program), Clinical Pharmacy (a five-year program) and Basic Medicine along with Clinical Medicine (seven /eight-year long-term systems) and they all had received systematic pre-college education under the same guideline and passed the requirements of entrance examination. In the Physiology learning, all participants had received standardized instructional methodologies from the faculty of Physiology Department. Notably, the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020 marked a significant shift in teaching modalities. For the majority of students, this was their first exposure to online teaching. Contrastingly, by 2022, the students had prior experience with online learning, either during high school education or during their initial semester at the university journey. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to evaluate student perceptions of our hybrid teaching modality. We aim to utilize this feedback to enhance the teaching method and improve the teaching effectiveness.

Hybrid teaching method

BOPPPS, standing for Bridge-in, Objective, Pre-assessment, Participatory learning, Post-assessment and Summary, is a widely used offline teaching model. HBOPPPS teaching modality, an innovative hybrid teaching method introduced in 2019, cleverly incorporates online instructional techniques into the BOPPPS framework [ 11 ]. In the process of promoting HBOPPPS hybrid teaching model, our team constructed an online learning resource for students, including course-associated micro-lecture videos (85 in total, 5  ∼  10 min/video) based on the textbook of Physiology (Ting-Huai Wang, People’s Medical Publishing House, 9th Ed), course-associated science stories, lectures delivered by renowned doctors, virtual simulation experiments and chapter tests ( https://www.xueyinonline.com/detail/235823098 ).

Prior to the class, students were provided with a comprehensive course guidance through the “Xuexi Tong” mobile application. This guidance encompassed an introduction to the course objectives, the key knowledge to be mastered, and the goals for fostering abilities. Subsequently, during and following the lecture, students had access to a variety of interactive elements through the online application, including sign-in procedures, multi-choice questions, quick response questions, task allocation and summaries.

Data collection

Prior to data collection, a power analysis was conducted to determine an appropriate sample size that would provide adequate statistical power to detect meaningful differences in our study outcomes. Based on the power analysis, we aimed to collect data from at least 158 total participants to achieve a power of 0.8 with an alpha level of 0.05. A total of 128 and 200 valid questionnaires were collected in 2020 and 2022 respectively from students enrolled in four different majors (Table  1 ). In order to evaluate the relative efficacy of our teaching methods, we collected the final exam scores of Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacy students who were the main participants in the questionnaires. All data was available in the supplemental file 1 .

Data analysis

All analysis was performed using SigmaStat program (SPSS 19, Chicago, IL). Comparisons of the final scores between different years were performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni or Dunnett T3 test, as appropriate. After the completion of data collection and the subsequent statistical analysis, effect sizes (ES) were reported to facilitate the interpretation of the findings. Utilizing the free software G*Power 3.1 [ 12 ], the ES values were calculated to ensure that our study was sufficiently powered (1 − β = 0.8) to detect significant differences (α = 0.05) among the analyzed variables. Comparative analysis of proportions was executed utilizing the chi-square test. Data are expressed, as mean ± SEM and P  < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Student preferences for future teaching modalities

By 2022, hybrid-teaching method, which combined online and offline teaching, had been employed in Physiology teaching at Harbin Medical University for about 4 years for the reason of COVID-19 pandemic. In the process of implementing hybrid teaching, the effect of online teaching and the feedback from students on this modality has been in dispute. To gain a clearer understanding of students’ true opinions, questionnaires were performed in both 2020 and 2022.

First, we compared students’ preferences for Physiology teaching methods post-pandemic. Beyond our expectation, the preference of choosing online teaching remained relatively unchanged, while the rate of choosing hybrid teaching method decreased largely from 2020 to 2022, albeit without reaching statistical significance (53.9% in 2020 vs. 42.0% in 2022, P  = 0.07) (Fig.  1 ). This result suggested that students may not be fully satisfied with the hybrid teaching approach. It was imperative for us to delve deeply into the reasons behind this dissatisfaction.

Choices of students for their favorite teaching methods. A . Students from 2020. B . Students from 2022. No, number of students

Students’ scores in the past three years

Generally, final exam score is a crucial metric for assessing teaching efficiency. To evaluate the impact of Hybrid teaching method, final exam scores were compared among the past 3 years (2020  ∼  2022) from four-year and five-year students. The final exam was composed of two parts, i.e. subjective and objective questions. However, the final examination of 2022 had to be performed on a mobile App and it was only consisted of single-choice questions (i.e., objective questions). This modification was carried out as a national precautionary measure in response to the ongoing preventative measures against COVID-19. Therefore, we compared the objective scores of students major in Pharmacy and Clinical pharmacy separately from 2020 to 2022 as a representative. Our results showed that the average score of students in 2022 decreased significantly compared to those in 2020 and 2021, both in Pharmacy and Clinical pharmacy students (Pharmacy: 70.7 ± 1.27% in 2020, n  = 92; 70.9 ± 1.58% in 2021, n  = 85; 59.5 ± 1.28% in 2022, n  = 94, ES = 0.591, P  < 0.01 in ANOVA; Clinical pharmacy: 71.2 ± 1.5% in 2020, n  = 86; 76.2 ± 1.23% in 2021, n  = 88; 60.3 ± 1.47% in 2022, n  = 88, ES = 0.596, P  < 0.01 in ANOVA, see Fig.  2 ). This observed decline in academic performance may indicate the teaching effect gradually decreased with the extension of hybrid teaching time.

Scores of students’ final examination in the past three years. * P  < 0.05, ** P  < 0.01, compared to 2020; ## P  < 0.01 compared to 2021

Advantages and disadvantages of online teaching

To figure out why students’ confidence in hybrid teaching gradually waned over the years, we analyzed related data from questionnaires from 2020 to 2022. Our results showed an obvious increase in the ratio of students thinking that it was convenience for recording the teaching content (62.5% in 2020 vs. 75.0% in 2022, Fig.  3 A), despite insignificant differences in evaluation advantages of hybrid teaching. Besides, there were also decreases in “Broaden horizon (37.5% in 2020 vs. 28.0% in 2022)”, “Convenient for interaction and communication (35.2% in 2020 vs. 27.0% in 2022)” and “Increase of information gain (53.1% in 2020 vs. 44.5% in 2022)” (Fig.  3 A).

To find out whether the advantages can effect students’ choices, we conducted a crossover statistic which can illustrate the relationship between students’ preferences for teaching methods and their perceived advantages (Fig.  3 B). While the results did not reveal any significant statistical differences, a notable trend emerged that students who thought it was convenient for interaction and communication preferred hybrid teaching method.

Effect of advantages on the choice of students. A . Advantages of online teaching suggested by students of 2020 and 2022. B . Crossover statistics illustrating the relationship between students’ preferences for teaching methods and their perceived advantages in 2022. The numbers next to the bar chart represent the number of students participating

Analysis of disadvantages about hybrid teaching revealed significant differences between the results of 2020 and 2022. There was an obvious decrease in the option of “Internet resources cannot be distinguished good or bad” (54.7% in 2020 vs. 35% in 2022, see Fig.  4 A) and students in 2022 who chose this option tended to choose hybrid teaching method (41.4% in offline, 4.3% in online and 54.2% in hybrid teaching, see Fig.  4 B). There was also a clear increase in the option of “Unable to communicate with teachers face to face” (35.9% in 2020 vs. 45.5% in 2022, see Fig.  4 A) and students in 2022 who chose this option tended to choose offline teaching method (54.0% in offline, 4.0% in online and 33.0% in hybrid teaching, see Fig.  4 B). These results highlight the crucial role of face to face communication with teachers in influencing students’ choices.

Effect of disadvantages on the choice of students. A . Disadvantages of online teaching suggested by students of 2020 and 2022. B . Crossover statistics illustrating the relationship between students’ preferences for teaching methods and their perceived disadvantages in 2022. ES = 0.138, * P  < 0.05, comparison among all groups by Chi-squared test for R×C table. The numbers next to the bar chart represent the number of students participating

Fondness for styles of hybrid teaching

In 2020 to 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly influenced the teaching styles adopted in our courses, resulting in various hybrid teaching approaches. We surveyed the relationship between different hybrid teaching styles and the choice of learning method in students of 2022. The data revealed that most of the students who liked live class tended to choose offline teaching method (63.8%) and students who liked recorded lectures preferred hybrid teaching method (71.4%). The remaining students showed similar preferences for hybrid and offline teaching (Fig.  5 ).

Crossover Statistics illustrating the preferences for different hybrid learning styles of students in 2022 and their preferences for the three teaching methods. ES = 0.261, * P  < 0.05, comparison among all groups by Chi-squared test for R×C table. The numbers next to the bar chart represent the number of students participating

Improvement of learning ability

Since the hybrid teaching method was designed to improve students’ autonomous learning ability, we assessed effects of our hybrid teaching on their learning ability. Unfortunately, the result revealed a significant increase in the proportion of students who thought that hybrid teaching didn’t help improving their learning ability (17.2% in 2020 vs. 29.0% in 2022) and a decrease in the ratio of students who thought that hybrid teaching improved autonomous learning ability greatly (43.0% in 2020 vs. 34.0% in 2022)(Fig.  6 A). There was also a significant difference in the cross-analysis. Students who thought hybrid teaching didn’t help improving learning ability preferred offline teaching compared to students who thought hybrid teaching help improving learning ability (69.0% in students who thought a little help, 40.5% in students who thought same with usual and 50.0% in students who thought great improvement, P  < 0.05 in Fisher’s Exact Test, see Fig.  6 B).

Effect of learning ability improvement on the choice of students. A . Improvements of learning ability suggested by students of 2020 and 2022. B . Crossover statistics illustrating the relationship between students’ preferences for teaching methods and improvements of learning ability in 2022. ES = 0.171; ES = 0.244, * P  < 0.05, comparison among all groups by Chi-squared test for R×C table. The numbers next to the bar chart represent the number of students participating

Duration of autonomous learning

Upon the survey of 2020 and 2022, there was a significant difference in the duration of students’ autonomous learning. The ratio of students spending 10  ∼  30 min in autonomous learning increased in 2022 (35.9% in 2020 vs. 52.5% in 2022) and ratios of students spending 30  ∼  60 min and 1  ∼  2 h decreased (Fig. 7 A). Although there was no difference between learning duration and students’ choices in the cross-analysis, it was noteworthy that student spending 30  ∼  60 min on autonomous learning preferred hybrid teaching method, while student spending 10  ∼  30 min on autonomous learning tended to prefer offline teaching method (Fig. 7 B).

Effect of autonomous learning duration on the choice of students. A . Duration of autonomous learning suggested by students of 2020 and 2022. B . Crossover statistics illustrating the relationship between students’ preferences for teaching methods and autonomous learning duration in 2022. ES = 0.182, * P  < 0.05, comparison among all groups by Chi-squared test for R×C table. The numbers next to the bar chart represent the number of students participating

Burden of learning

Burden of learning refers to the combination of workload, stress levels, and overall demands experienced by students during the learning process, which is a crucial factor influencing students’ preferences for teaching methods [ 13 ]. A high symptom burden from the acute stress response according to the COVID-19 pandemic is common among healthcare students [ 14 ]. We analyzed the relationship between learning burden and the choice of learning method in students of 2022. Our findings revealed that students who felt increased learning burden from hybrid teaching method preferred to choose offline teaching (Strongly increased, 75.0%; Increased 58.8%), while students who thought online teaching didn’t increase or reduce their learning burden preferred to choose hybrid teaching (Reduced, 50.0%; Fair, 52.3%) (Fig.  8 A).

So where did the burden originate and whether the duration of autonomous learning played an important role? From the survey, we could see there was no significant difference between the duration of autonomous learning and learning burden. Unexpectedly, the smallest ratio of students choosing “hybrid teaching strongly increased learning burden” was among those who spent 30  ∼  60 min in autonomous learning. This observation underscores that learning duration may not be the sole or decisive factor influencing the learning burden (Fig. 8 B).

Effect of learning burden on the choice of students in 2022. A . Crossover statistics illustrating the relationship between students’ preferences for teaching methods and their learning burden. B . Relationship between autonomous learning duration and learning burden. ES = 0.261, * P  < 0.05, comparison among all groups by Chi-squared test for R×C table. The numbers next to the bar chart represent the number of students participating

Dropping of students’ scores

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted most universities to adopt a hybrid teaching approach, which has generally been well-received [ 11 , 15 , 16 ]. However, our findings indicated a concerning decline in students’ performance, particularly in objective exam components, when assessments were conducted via a mobile application platform. This observation aligns with our previous work [ 11 ], which demonstrated that hybrid teaching can enhance performance in subjective exam sections. Since students surveyed in 2020 and 2022 were from different cohorts but received Physiology teaching from the same team and same method, this decline suggests that certain aspects of the hybrid teaching approach may require further refinement. The aim of our study was to explore these areas for potential improvement and to identify the factors contributing to the observed changes in performance, with the goal of enhancing the hybrid teaching model.

The integration of online teaching into hybrid teaching has presented both opportunities and challenges. In the questionnaire, we surveyed the advantages and disadvantages of online teaching. Our survey findings revealed that while the perceived advantages remained relatively stable between 2020 and 2022, there was a notable increase trend in the number of students preferring recorded lectures. This preference aligns with the flexibility students seek to learn at their own pace, as evidenced by previous researches [ 17 , 18 ]. Additionally, the convenience of sharing resources through online platforms was another advantage highlighted by our respondents. Despite these benefits, the preference for hybrid teaching was not uniformly increased, indicating that other factors might influence students’ preferences. Students who perceived online teaching as facilitating better interaction and communication, and as a means to broaden their perspectives, were more inclined towards hybrid learning. This suggests that while certain aspects of online teaching are valued, the integration into a hybrid model must be carefully considered to enhance its overall appeal and effectiveness.

Identifying the disadvantages of online teaching is crucial for improving hybrid teaching quality. The 2022 survey responses indicated a diminished concern regarding the quality of online educational resources compared to the perceptions in 2020. This shift in students’ attitude could imply a growing adaptability to online materials or a potential desensitization to the variability in resource quality. Interestingly, those students who acknowledged this limitation still preferred hybrid teaching, suggesting a deeper engagement with our hybrid teaching modality. Furthermore, two significant challenges faced by students in 2022 were identified “the teaching speed was too fast to follow” and “unable to communicate with teachers face to face”. These issues align with global trends observed in online education [ 16 ], where the absence of direct communication are frequently cited as drawbacks. The perception of a rapid teaching pace can be attributed to multiple factors, including the integration of multiple disciplines in hybrid teaching, fixed teaching hours of Physiology by school, and the varying abilities of students themselves. Addressing these specific issues is crucial to optimizing the hybrid teaching experience.

Styles of online teaching

In the practical application, there are diverse styles of online teaching, including some related online micro lectures, live lectures and recorded lectures, which can be combined flexibly. The survey data from our study indicated a clear preference among students for different modalities of online instruction, which significantly influences their preference for different teaching methods. Students who favored live lectures, which offer a dynamic and interactive experience akin to in-person classes, were more inclined towards traditional offline teaching. Conversely, those who preferred recorded lectures, appreciated for their flexibility and ability to review material at any time, showed a greater preference for hybrid learning. This result was consistent with a research from Egypt where more than half of students (63%) agreed that online recorded video tutorials (e.g., YouTube) were the most effective form of online medical education [ 19 ]. Another group of students in 2022 who appreciated the combination of micro lectures, recorded lectures and face to face communications did not show obvious bias for either offline or hybrid teaching method [ 20 ]. These insights suggest that students’ engagement and satisfaction with hybrid teaching can be optimized by offering a varied and flexible approach to online instruction which are tailored to the content and needs of the course.

Learning duration and burden

Our questionnaire data highlighted the impact of perceived learning burden on students’ preferences for teaching methods. Approximately half of the students reported that hybrid teaching heightened their learning burden, whereas the remaining half perceived either no significant impact or even a reduction in their burden. Interestingly and logically, students who perceived a reduction or no change in their learning burden due to hybrid teaching tended to prefer this teaching method. Conversely, those who experienced an augmented burden preferred traditional offline teaching.

The survey also explored the relationship between the duration of autonomous learning and perceived learning burden. It was found that more than half of the students in 2022 spent about 10  ∼  30 min on autonomous learning and half of these students felt no change or even a reduction in the learning burden. Only students spending 1  ∼  2 h on autonomous learning, accounting for 12% of the total in 2022, felt an increased learning burden. The reduced time spent on autonomous learning by students in 2022 might be attributed to the widespread implementation of hybrid teaching, which was time-consuming. These results suggests that the duration of self-directed study is not directly proportional to the perceived learning burden, and other factors, such as the learning environment and the student’s mindset, may exert a greater influence.

The influence of learning burden on the choice of teaching method underscores the need for a nuanced approach to curriculum design. While it is tempting to consider reducing homework or learning difficulty to alleviate students’ burden, it is essential to balance this against the potential benefits of challenging work in enhancing learning abilities. This balance is a topic that warrants further exploration and discussion.

Learning ability

The purpose of teaching reform is to encourage active learning rather than passively receiving knowledge. Our survey data indicated that the majority of students reported an enhancement in their learning ability as a result of the hybrid teaching approach. However, a notable subset of students did not share this sentiment.

Notably, as 2022 marked the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which students encountered hybrid teaching across various subjects, the initial enthusiasm waned and the cumulative pressure from multiple subjects became evident. This trend was reflected in the data, indicating a decrease in the perceived benefits of hybrid teaching.

Empirical evidence from our study suggests that the perception of hybrid teaching’s effectiveness directly correlates with students’ preferences for educational methods. Students who perceived hybrid teaching as beneficial overwhelmingly preferred this mode of instruction, while those who did not perceive benefits were more likely to prefer offline teaching. This underscores the critical role of learning ability enhancement in shaping students’ educational preferences and the need to continuously refine our teaching strategies to meet these evolving needs.

Future directions for research

While the current study provides valuable insights into hybrid teaching methodologies and their effectiveness, there is ample scope for further exploration, particularly in the post-COVID-19 era. Given the pivotal role of hybrid teaching in teaching reform, enhancing students’ acceptance and recognition of this approach is paramount. Future research endeavors should build upon the existing findings by exploring the following avenues:

Curriculum Reorganization: Our data suggests that students’ preferences for hybrid learning methods align with a curriculum that incorporates micro-lectures, recorded presentations, and interactive learning activities. Future studies could investigate the effect of reorganizing curricula to prioritize the integration of basic and clinical knowledge, as well as the optimal utilization of school network resources, such as renowned faculty lectures and virtual simulation classrooms. The effectiveness of these changes can be assessed through student performance and feedback analysis.

Development of an Online Teaching Library: Based on the hybrid teaching modality, future research could focus on constructing a comprehensive online teaching library. This library should include basic resources (e.g., course outlines, key concepts, and teaching objectives), advanced resources (e.g., online case studies, clinical simulations, and group projects), and evaluative resources (e.g., pre- and post-lecture assessments). The effectiveness of the library can be determined by analyzing the correlation between student engagement with the resources and their academic performance.

Cultivation of Medical Innovation Talents: In accordance with the objectives of education reform, future research endeavors to cultivate individuals endowed with a profound knowledge foundation, significant potential for innovation, and robust clinical capabilities. Given that active learning can elevate academic performance and decrease dropout rates [ 21 ], a potential area of research could be to construct an online platform showcasing exemplary student work, such as presentations, mind maps, and educational videos, on stimulating peer engagement and collaborative learning.

Integration of Emerging Technologies: The potential role of emerging technologies, such as game-based learning [ 22 ], simulation tools, and virtual reality [ 23 ], in alleviating psychological pressures and fostering interactive learning environments merits further investigation. Additionally, the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, exemplified by platforms such as ChatGPT [ 24 , 25 ] could introduce novel opportunities for refining both the teaching and learning processes.

The present study is focused on examining whether students favor hybrid teaching methodologies and suggesting ways to refine teaching techniques and amplify their overall efficacy. Hybrid teaching method has proven to be an effective teaching model, particularly in enhancing the effectiveness of Physiology teaching. However, over the past four years, a number of challenges have been encountered and require urgent attention to be solved. Nevertheless, there remains much room for improvement and further exploration to enhance our teaching methods in the future. It is, therefore, our ongoing task to identify and address these issues as we strive to optimize the hybrid teaching experience.

Data availability

Data is provided within the supplementary information files.

Kivlehan E, Chaviano K, Fetsko L, Javaid S, Chandan P, Rojas AM, et al. COVID-19 pandemic: early effects on pediatric rehabilitation medicine training. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2020;13:289–99.

Google Scholar  

Hertling SF, Back DA, Eckhart N, Kaiser M, Graul I. How far has the digitization of medical teaching progressed in times of COVID-19? A multinational survey among medical students and lecturers in german-speaking central Europe. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:387.

Article   Google Scholar  

Wei J, Yun Z, Zhang Y, Mei X, Ba L, Peng H, et al. The status of e-learning, personality traits, and coping styles among medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1239583.

Yamamoto K, Akiyoshi K, Kondo H, Akioka H, Teshima Y, Yufu K, et al. Innovations in online classes introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and their educational outcomes in Japan. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23:894.

Coyne E, Rands H, Frommolt V, Kain V, Plugge M, Mitchell M. Investigation of blended learning video resources to teach health students clinical skills: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;63:101–7.

Singh HK, Joshi A, Malepati RN, Najeeb S, Balakrishna P, Pannerselvam NK, et al. A survey of E-learning methods in nursing and medical education during COVID-19 pandemic in India. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;99:104796.

Cao W. A meta-analysis of effects of blended learning on performance, attitude, achievement, and engagement across different countries. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1212056.

Zhu P, Xu T, Xu H, Ji Q, Wang W, Qian M et al. Relationship between anxiety, depression and learning burnout of nursing undergraduates after the COVID-19 epidemic: the mediating role of academic self-efficacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20(5):4194.

Kong LN, Yang L, Pan YN, Chen SZ. Proactive personality, professional self-efficacy and academic burnout in undergraduate nursing students in China. J Prof Nursing: Official J Am Association Colleges Nurs. 2021;37:690–5.

Lu C, Xu J, Cao Y, Zhang Y, Liu X, Wen H, et al. Examining the effects of student-centered flipped classroom in physiology education. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23:233.

Liu XY, Lu C, Zhu H, Wang X, Jia S, Zhang Y, et al. Assessment of the effectiveness of BOPPPS-based hybrid teaching model in physiology education. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:217.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.

Guse J, Weegen AS, Heinen I, Bergelt C. Mental burden and perception of the study situation among undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study and comparison of dental and medical students. BMJ open. 2021;11:e054728.

Li Y, Wang Y, Jiang J, Valdimarsdóttir UA, Fall K, Fang F, et al. Psychological distress among health professional students during the COVID-19 outbreak. Psychol Med. 2021;51:1952–4.

Goudarzi H, Onozawa M, Takahashi M. Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing online teaching on pre-clinical medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24:66.

Abualadas HM, Xu L. Achievement of learning outcomes in non-traditional (online) versus traditional (face-to-face) anatomy teaching in medical schools: a mixed method systematic review. Clin Anat. 2023;36(1):50–76.

Parkes RSV, Barrs VRD. Interaction identified as both a challenge and a benefit in a Rapid switch to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Vet Med Educ. 2021;48:629–35.

Mahdy MAA, Sayed RKA. Evaluation of the online learning of veterinary anatomy education during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown in Egypt: students’ perceptions. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15:67–82.

Mortagy M, Abdelhameed A, Sexton P, Olken M, Hegazy MT, Gawad MA, et al. Online medical education in Egypt during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide assessment of medical students’ usage and perceptions. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:218.

Cheung BHH, Foo DCC, Chu KM, Co M, Lee LS. Perception from students regarding online synchronous interactive teaching in the clinical year during COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23:5.

Williams AE, O’Dowd DK. Seven practical strategies to add active learning to a science lecture. Neurosci Lett. 2021;743:135317.

Koelewijn G, Hennus MP, Kort HSM, Frenkel J, van Houwelingen T. Games to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education: a scoping review. Med Educ Online. 2024;29:2316971.

Lewis KO, Popov V, Fatima SS. From static web to metaverse: reinventing medical education in the post-pandemic era. Ann Med. 2024;56:2305694.

Leng L. Challenge, integration, and change: ChatGPT and future anatomical education. Med Educ Online. 2024;29:2304973.

Magalhães Araujo S, Cruz-Correia R. Incorporating ChatGPT in Medical Informatics Education: mixed methods study on student perceptions and experiential integration proposals. JMIR Med Educ. 2024;10:e51151.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This work was supported by Key Project of “14th Five-Year” Plan of Heilongjiang Province Education Science under Grant (GJB1423199, GJB1423200); Medical Education Research Projects (2023B085) of Medical Education Branch of the Chinese Medical Association; Higher Education Teaching Reform Project of Heilongjiang Province Education Department under Grant (SJGY20220276, SJGY20210529, SJGY20210530, SJGY20220279); Key commissioned project of educational science research of Harbin Medical University (XWT202215).

Author information

Xiaoran Wang, Jiangheng Liu and Shuwei Jia contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

School of Basic Medical Sciences, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, 150081, China

Xiaoran Wang, Shuwei Jia, Chunmei Hou, Runsheng Jiao, Yan Yan, Ying Zhang, Yanyan Liu, Haixia Wen, Hui Zhu & Xiao-Yu Liu

Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang, 150086, China

Jiangheng Liu & Tengchuang Ma

International Translational Neuroscience Research Institute, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, 310053, China

Yu-Feng Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

X.Y.L., X.R.W., J.H.L., S.W.J., C.M.H. and R.S.J. contributed to the study conception and design; X.R.W., J.H.L. and S.W.J. wrote the first draft; Y.Y., Y.Z., Y.Y.L., H.X.W., T.C.M., Y.F.W. contributed to the revision of the paper; H.Z. and X.Y.L. contributed to the interpretation of data and revision of the paper. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hui Zhu or Xiao-Yu Liu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

The role of the funding body

The funding bodies supporting the execution of the designed study did not directly participate in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, X., Liu, J., Jia, S. et al. Hybrid teaching after COVID-19: advantages, challenges and optimization strategies. BMC Med Educ 24 , 753 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05745-z

Download citation

Received : 10 April 2024

Accepted : 03 July 2024

Published : 12 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05745-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Hybrid teaching
• Online teaching
• Physiology education
• Teaching model

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

A Practical Research of Hybrid Learning Mode in Teaching and Research Activities

• Conference paper
• Cite this conference paper

• Sen Wang 19  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 8595))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Hybrid Learning and Continuing Education

2662 Accesses

2 Citations

Along with the further improvement of education system in China and the deepening reform of new curriculum, teachers’ professional quality has become critical to survive and succeed in the education industry. As the most effective means of improving teachers’ professional quality, teaching and research activity has become the second biggest task for a teacher in addition to the lecture. However, the effect of traditional teaching and research activities are not ideal, owing to the limitation in time, content and resources. In this article, we revealed the disadvantages of traditional teaching and research activities, and analyzed the advantages of teaching and research activities in hybrid learning mode. Our practical research also indicates that the hybrid leaning mode can improve the effectiveness of teaching and research activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Research on Mixed Teaching Scheme of Human Resource Management Tool Courses Based on Learning Experience

Trends in Teaching/Learning Research Through Analysis of Conference Presentation Articles

Developments in Business Chinese Teaching and Research: An Overview and Perspectives

He, K.K.: From the Blending Learning to See the New Development of Education. Technology Theory, Electrochemical Education Research 3, 1–6 (2004)

Google Scholar  

Li, K., Zhao, J.H.: The Principle and Application of the Hybrid Learning Mode. Electrochemical Education Research 7(2) (2004)

Lv, S.L.: Blended Learning in Information Technology and Curriculum Integration of Enlightenment. Education Information Reference (2004)

Wu, Q.E.: A Hybrid Learning Action Research. The Academic Journal of Guangzhou Radio and TV University 3 (2008)

Tang, J.Y.: Look from the National Fine Course Policy in Higher Vocational Colleges Construction. China Educational Technology 21 (2006)

Li, K.D., Zhao, J.H.: The Principle and Application of the Hybrid Learning Mode. E-education Research 7 (2004)

Shen, L.Y.: The Investigation of the Network Curriculum Development Situation at Home and Abroad. Exam Week 10, 13–15 (2008)

Tian, S.S., Fu, G.S.: Preliminary Study of Blended Learning. E-education Research 7, 8–9 (2004)

Li, Y.M., Feng, W.L.: Experience of Research-oriented Teaching Mode. The Chinese University Reaching 8, 7–8 (2003)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Educational Science, East China Normal University, 3663 North Zhong Shan Road, Shanghai, China, 200062

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Simon K. S. Cheung

City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Joseph Fong  & Lam For Kwok  & 

East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

Jiping Zhang

Caritas Institute of Higher Education, Hong Kong, SAR, China

Reggie Kwan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Wang, S. (2014). A Practical Research of Hybrid Learning Mode in Teaching and Research Activities. In: Cheung, S.K.S., Fong, J., Zhang, J., Kwan, R., Kwok, L.F. (eds) Hybrid Learning. Theory and Practice. ICHL 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8595. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08961-4_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08961-4_8

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-08960-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-08961-4

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

International Bureau of Education

A Comparative Study on Hybrid Learning now available

The COVID-19 lockdown disrupted all levels of education. Faced with the challenge of providing continuous, sustainable and relevant learning, policymakers and educators sought alternatives; in many countries, this took the shape of hybrid learning, incorporating face-to-face and remote classes.  However, the initial optimism about replacing physical classes with virtual lessons diminished as complex interconnected issues emerged. The array of hybrid learning responses prompted UNESCO-IBE to initiate research into this new mode. This resulting comparative study is a step to formalise what we know and facilitate the sharing of experiences and peer-learning on how each school or country addressed hybrid learning.

The initial phase of this study gathered case studies from Argentina, Lithuania, Mozambique, Malaysia, Namibia and the Philippines reflecting UNESCO-IBE’s interregional perspective. The research aimed to examine factors influencing hybrid learning implementation during the lockdown, with a subsequent focus on developing and validating a practical Hybrid Learning Framework for Schools. The cross-case analysis was designed not to rank or compare, but to understand and connect different scenarios, contexts and strategies. 

Expanding on UNESCO-IBE’s Hybrid Education, Learning and Assessment (HELA) project, this comparative study, Phase I, focuses on current hybrid learning practices and influencing factors, while Phases II and III will concentrate on using the information gathered to create and validate a Hybrid Learning Framework for Schools. Hybrid learning is not just a response to pandemics but also serves as a viable solution for other scenarios where full school attendance is difficult. Aligned with UNESCO-IBE’s overarching vision of a comprehensive, personalized, and democratized curriculum accessible to all, hybrid learning facilitates inclusive education across diverse regions, overcoming geographic and temporal limitations. The approach aims to unlock the unique potential of every learner, fostering a more flexible and versatile educational environment.

Related items

• Guidelines and tools
• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

More on this subject

Other recent articles

Article The personal story of Shabas Velibekov: Life of a Lezgin in Kyrgyzstan, who promotes cultural dialogue in his village and calls for overall social cohesion 12 July 2024

The Design of Hybrid Teaching Environments: 10 Questions Answered

Hybrid teaching has the potential to transform higher education. But questions remain.

Hybrid teaching allows for a more bespoke learning experience, one in which students can work at their own pace and have access to a variety of resources online. At the same time, they can still engage in face-to-face discussions and activities with their peers and instructors during in-person classes. In addition, hybrid teaching models can increase access to higher education. By offering online components, hybrid teaching allows institutions to reach students who may not be able to attend classes in person due to geographical, time, or financial constraints.

Hybrid teaching has also had an impact on the type of learning environment that students prefer. As a result, colleges and universities should be developing spaces for student-centered, social, and active learning.

Overall, hybrid teaching has the potential to transform the way we think about and deliver higher education. While this model may not be suitable for every subject or every institution, it is certainly a viable and promising option for many. The following questions are based on my own research, my professional experience, and the views of other educators. Footnote 1

1. What Are the Key Principles for Creating Hybrid Learning Spaces?

The first principle is inclusivity . This principle focuses on breaking down the barriers that separate remote and in-room students. At City, University of London, we began by thinking about an equitable model, Footnote 2 but an inclusive model is more appropriate. Lecturers need to ensure that everyone is seen, is heard, can share content, and has equal ability to participate.

The second principle is approach and planning . The physical environment can provide cues and specify preparation by incorporating supportive learning spaces and inclusive technologies and by reinforcing the institutional plans and effective communication.

The third principle is social connections . Social contacts bring people, technology, and place together to facilitate learning.

The fourth principle is sensitivity to presence inequality , so online and on-site students can contribute equally.

The fifth principle is flexibility , my favorite word. This term highlights how important it is for learning spaces to easily adapt to different modes of teaching and learning.

The final principle—although this list is not exhaustive—is engagement , a vital consideration when designing hybrid learning spaces. (More on this later.)

A relatively small amount of literature exists researching hybrid teaching. One reference for us at City was a review of the literature written prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Footnote 3 Led by Annelies Raes and colleagues from KU Leuven in Belgium, this review influenced the development of our own practice and forms of academic support.

Design principles for creating hybrid learning spaces include embedding agency, student voice, codesign, connection, authenticity, and active learning into the DNA of teaching, learning, and assessment. Communicating clearly, thinking through the activity, and keeping technology simple are also important design principles for space-agnostic learning. Footnote 4

Absorbing the lessons of the pivot to online learning during the pandemic, Alexandra Mihai of The Educationalist offers very pertinent advice about time on campus. She suggests: "Use classroom time for the activities where the teacher really brings added value" and "use student colleagues' presence as an asset." Footnote 5 This should guide the more practical responses in rethinking our learning environment. The most effective design will depend on the specific needs of the institution and the goals of the hybrid learning model. However, after collaborating on the design of a number of hybrid teaching spaces, I can suggest a few key considerations:

Flexibility: Hybrid learning spaces, like any other spaces in higher education, should be designed to accommodate a range of teaching and learning styles, as well as different modalities (e.g., in-person, remote, asynchronous). This may include flexible seating arrangements (City has a number of these Footnote 6 ), movable furniture, and an educational technology setup that supports a variety of teaching and learning methods. Making do with existing technology or simply adding a webcam to the space is not sufficient.

Accessibility: Hybrid learning must be designed to be accessible to all students, regardless of their location or ability. This may necessitate making use of assistive technologies, captioning or transcription services, and on-campus physical accommodations that support students with disabilities.

Technology: Hybrid learning spaces should be equipped with high-quality and appropriate technology that supports effective communication and collaboration between in-person and remote learners. This includes high-speed connectivity, videoconferencing tools with interactive benefits, capturing visualisers and whiteboards, and remote access to software and learning materials.

2. What Is the Best Way to Set Up Technology for Hybrid Teaching?

Firstly, course material as well as the design of the classroom must be carefully evaluated, alongside the demands of both in-person and online students, when setting up technology for hybrid teaching. The quantity of cameras, monitors, and microphones needed will vary depending on the size of the class, the nature of the activities, and the technology budget available. I would advise having at least two cameras in the classroom, one focused on the lecturer and the other on the entire classroom, including the whiteboard or other sources, to enable effective hybrid teaching. Additionally, LCD screens are required for online students to be visible so they can participate in class discussions and activities. Effective hybrid teaching also demands clear and consistent audio. Additional technologies may be required, such as software and hardware for interactive exercises, as well as online forums for debate and working on course material. To ensure that the technology matches the needs of the course and the students and is installed and configured properly for best performance, instructors should engage with IT and AV professionals as well as educational technologists—this is where I became involved.

For an effective hybrid teaching room, optimizing the location of cameras, microphones, and screens is essential to ensure that both in-person and remote learners have a high-quality learning experience.

• Cameras should be placed in a location that allows remote learners to see their lecturer and any presentation materials. A front-mounted camera with a wide-angle lens can capture an all-inclusive view of the students in class, including the lecturer on the move. Additionally, a rear-mounted camera with PTZ (pan, tilt, zoom) control will provide an alternative view of the front of the classroom and would favor the whiteboard or projection screen. The eye-line is vital here: to allow for a more natural two-way dialogue, the camera should be next to the rear-mounted screen.
• Microphones should be placed in a location that allows remote learners to hear the instructor and any questions or comments from in-person students. A wireless lapel microphone worn by the instructor can provide high-quality audio, while ceiling-mounted omnidirectional microphones can capture audio from the entire classroom. These need to be programmed to mute when not required.
• A large projection screen or high-definition monitor should be placed at the front of the classroom, with any presentation materials displayed using a computer or visualiser (document camera). LCD screens must be placed in a location that allows in-person learners to see their fellow students online (in gallery or speaker view), as well as any shared presentation content, and that allows remote learners to see the same materials via videoconferencing software. At City we have found that rear-mounted LCD screens are important for the instructor to see the gallery view above those in the room. This enables the instructor to look from the front at all the students, both those online and those in class. We have referred to the work of KU Leuven in this development. Footnote 7

In addition to these general guidelines, the specific placement of cameras, microphones, and screens will depend on the layout of the classroom and the specific technology being used. I recommend that administrators or instructors consult with AV professionals to ensure that the hybrid teaching room is properly designed and equipped for effective hybrid learning.

The most effective videoconferencing tool for hybrid teaching will depend on the specific needs of the institution and the lecturers. It is important to consider factors such as ease of use, compatibility with other tools and platforms, and the specific features and functionality that are required for effective hybrid teaching. At City, University of London, we use Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Both have features such as screen sharing, breakout rooms, virtual backgrounds, polling, and recording capabilities. Footnote 8

3. How Should In-House Teams Support Hybrid Teaching?

IT/AV technical teams play a critical role in supporting hybrid teaching classrooms, alongside the valuable assistance provided by educational technologists and learning developers. These teams are necessary to provide the following practical services, which facilitate hybrid teaching:

• Set up and maintain equipment to ensure that all the necessary tools, such as cameras, microphones, speakers, and displays, are ready and in good working condition. Technical teams should also be on hand to troubleshoot any technical issues that may arise before sessions.
• Provide technical support during class. Support teams should be available while the class is in session, to provide practical support to both the lecturer and any students tyring to connect to the session. This includes monitoring the audio and video quality, troubleshooting any issues that arise, and providing guidance on how to use the equipment and conferencing software. Footnote 9
• Ensure accessibility. All support staff should ensure that the hybrid teaching setup is accessible to all students, including those with disabilities. This may involve providing closed captioning, sign language interpretation, or other accommodations on campus as needed.
• Maintain security and privacy. IT support should ensure that the hybrid teaching setup is secure and that the privacy of all is protected. This may involve using secure videoconferencing software, implementing password protection, or taking other measures as needed.

4. How Should Academic Staff Be Supported in Hybrid Teaching?

Supporting academic staff in hybrid teaching requires a collaborative approach and thoughtful and determined planning. Teaching in a synchronous hybrid environment calls for a set of skills and strategies different from those used when teaching in a traditional in-person or fully online environment. Lecturers need to be able to balance the needs of both in-person and remote students, while ensuring that both groups are receiving an equal and engaging learning experience. They also need to be able to design, manage, and assess instructional approaches that accommodate the different learning styles and needs of their students, regardless of students' location.

There are several best practices for hybrid teaching. One is to deliver content in a way that considers when, how, and why the content is being taught. Footnote 10 Another is to build the course around what students need to learn and plan effective interactions. Footnote 11 Differentiating activities for in-class and online students, making use of simple-to-use tools, and fostering a learner-centered approach are also important. The seminal article "Place and Space in the Design of New Learning Environments" highlights the importance of the interactions among academics, students, and their shared content. Footnote 12

Here are some key positions to consider:

• Professional development : Provide ongoing professional development opportunities for academic staff to help them develop the skills and knowledge they need to teach in a hybrid environment. This could include pedagogic training, instructional strategies for successful implementation, Footnote 13 and best practices for managing hybrid courses.
• Access to technology : Ensure that academic staff have access to training and opportunities to experiment with essential technology and tools to facilitate hybrid teaching. These tools could include hardware, software, and online platforms for delivering content, facilitating discussion, and assessing student learning.
• Collaboration and networking : Encourage collaboration and networking among academic staff to share ideas and best practices for teaching in a hybrid environment. These interactions could occur via online forums, peer-to-peer mentoring, and communities of practice (CoP). City has recently set up a CoP with practicing academic staff and educational developers.
• Flexibility and support : Recognize the many challenges that come with teaching in a hybrid environment and offer flexibility and support for academic staff. This might include workload adjustments, in-class support from colleagues or graduate teaching assistants, access to educational technology support staff, and opportunities for feedback and reflection with course managers.
• Feedback and evaluation : Provide regular feedback and evaluation to academic staff to help them improve their teaching and course design in a hybrid environment. This could include student feedback, peer review, and institutional evaluations.

By providing these types of support, higher education management can help academic staff feel confident and prepared to teach in a hybrid environment and, ultimately, foster successful learning outcomes for students.

5. Can Hybrid Teaching Be Adopted for Both Small- and Large-Group Teaching?

Hybrid teaching can be adopted for both small and large group teaching in seminar rooms and lecture halls, but the implementation may differ depending on the size of the class and the course content.

During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, City colleagues conducted a literature review of hybrid teaching; this led to our institutional approaches and resulting academic guidance. Footnote 14 In small classes, hybrid teaching can allow for more personalized learning experiences, better interactions, and greater flexibility for students. In these cases, lecturers can facilitate discussion and collaboration between students both in person and online, while also providing opportunities for individual feedback and support.

In larger classes, hybrid teaching can help to overcome the limitations of traditional lecture-based teaching by providing more opportunities for interaction. Academics can use online tools, such as polling software and chat functions, to facilitate real-time discussion and peer-to-peer learning even with a large group of students. However, implementing hybrid teaching in large lecture halls does come with greater challenges, particularly with managing technology and ensuring that all students are engaged. The other significant factor is that, facing profound social and cultural changes in the wake of the pandemic, we need to enhance class time to improve the student's experience of being on campus. Lecture-based teaching with didactic delivery of information has been rightly questioned before, and now many wonder if this format is suitable for higher education. A student-centered approach provides application of information through discussion, collaborative and interactive activities, and appropriate assignments. Footnote 15

At City, University of London, we adopted the word inclusive as part of the name for our hybrid teaching project. Students must have access to the necessary tools and resources for hybrid education, and this may require additional teaching staff, as well as training for both lecturers and students, to ensure a more equitable and effective adoption of a new pedagogic approach for this type of teaching.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted many institutions to explore alternative models of teaching and learning, and it is likely that some of these changes will continue. Colleges and universities may continue to adopt blended learning and flipped classroom models that incorporate both in-person and online learning experiences. This could help address some of the challenges associated with large lecture classes and provide opportunities for more personalized and interactive teaching. Footnote 16

6. How Can Student Engagement Be Encouraged in Hybrid Teaching?

Engaging students in a hybrid teaching environment requires deliberate planning and the use of effective strategies. The following are some promising techniques that we collected from our own practice at City and from our literature review: Footnote 17

• Active learning : Incorporate activities that require active participation, such as group discussions, collaborative projects, and practical activities. Yes, online activities can work. This helps empower students in the learning process.
• Clear expectations : Clearly state your expectations for participation, assignments, and deadlines. This encourages students to stay focused and on track.
• Interactive technology : Use interactive technology—such as online discussion boards, videoconferencing, and online polls—to facilitate engagement and collaboration.
• Feedback : Provide regular feedback on students' progress and offer opportunities for students to reflect on their own learning. This encourages students to stay motivated and to be invested in the learning process.
• Personalization : Customize learning by offering choice in assignments and assessments and allowing students to explore topics of interest.
• Support : Offer support through office hours, online forums, and individual feedback. Students need to feel connected and supported in their learning, especially since their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Clear communication : Communicate frequently and clearly with students, providing updates on course content, expectations, and changes.

7. Why Is Hybrid Teaching So Important for Inclusivity and Accessibility?

Hybrid teaching is important for inclusivity and accessibility for several reasons:

• Flexibility : Hybrid teaching allows students to choose whether to attend class in person or remotely. This key benefit can increase access for students for a number of reasons. Those who have mobility or transportation issues are able to participate in courses, as are those who work and cannot attend classes on campus, students who live overseas, and those who have medical conditions that make it difficult to attend in person. Footnote 18
• Accessibility : Hybrid teaching can also increase accessibility for students who have disabilities. For example, students who are deaf or hard of hearing can benefit from closed captioning or sign language interpretation, which can be more easily provided in a hybrid teaching environment.
• Personalized learning : Hybrid teaching can provide opportunities for personalized learning, which can benefit students who learn at different paces or in different ways. For example, students who need more time to process information or who prefer to learn at their own pace can watch recorded lectures and participate in online discussions.
• Simplicity : The adoption of hybrid teaching and the integration of new tools for learning should always be appropriate to the educational goals of each institution, especially when designing modalities for an inclusive and accessible learning experience. Footnote 19
• Increased participation : Hybrid teaching can also increase participation for students who are withdrawn or who might be uncomfortable speaking in front of a large group. In an online environment, students can participate in discussions through chat or other tools, which can help them feel more comfortable.
• Mitigation of external factors : Hybrid teaching can help mitigate external factors that might impact a student's ability to attend class regularly. For example, if a student has a sick family member, or if they live in an area with inclement weather, they can still attend class remotely without missing out on important material.

8. What Can Higher Education Do to Support Students' Transition from Remote to In-Person Learning?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on students' psychological needs. It disrupted the normal routine of students' lives, causing uncertainty, fear, and anxiety. Nearly all students experienced some challenges to their mental health and well-being as a result of the pandemic.

The pandemic forced many students to participate in remote learning, which limited their opportunities to interact with peers and lecturers in person. Being socially isolated led to a complex mixture of feelings, including loneliness, stress, frustration, anxiety, and in some cases depression. For students, as for many of us, the pandemic created a climate of uncertainty and fear, and this strain has been compounded by concerns about academic performance, financial pressures, and family illness. Studies suggest that the pandemic has generally had a negative impact on students' mental health, their perceived quality of education, and their lifestyle. Footnote 1 Pandemic-related stress also negatively affected students' learning performance. In higher education, 'many students had to adapt to new learning environments, such as remote learning or hybrid models, while being in lockdown and unable to travel home. The pandemic required many students to spend more time than ever before learning new technologies and ways of working, which has contributed to increased stress levels, eye strain, and other physical and mental health concerns. Footnote 21

The return to in-person learning on campus presents other challenges for students:

• Mental health: The pandemic left an unpalatable legacy for many students, and some may still be experiencing physical and mental health issues, such as long-term COVID-19 symptoms, anxiety, and depression, as well as concerns for their financial future. Colleges and universities should up their game to highlight mental health resources and communicate about those support services that help students to cope with these lasting issues.
• Social adjustment : After many months of remote learning and social isolation, some students may still be struggling with the adjustment to in-person social interactions on campus. Colleges and universities can help support social adjustment by creating opportunities for students to connect with each other and to rebuild a sense of community.
• Educational adjustment : Students almost certainly face academic adjustment challenges now that most have returned to face-to-face teaching. This may include getting used to a new schedule, adapting to evolving course modalities, adjusting to new learning environments, all the while being more mindful of their health and well-being.

9. What Types of Learning Spaces Should Be Developed Post-Pandemic?

Now that the pandemic is effectively over, we should reconsider our approach to learning spaces. First, by being forward-thinking with our academic aims and objectives, we should focus on what type of future-proofed learning environment we should be developing. In essence, by reframing the campus as a hybrid social environment and activity-based workspace, we must look at the modalities needed for delivering effective and appropriate pedagogies. We need to listen to what students want and see how they occupy the campus post-pandemic, while keeping in mind what employers are looking for in our graduates. A progressive approach would be to create new spaces that are designed with different zones for hybrid, group, and individual study and not just replicate the campus with traditional large and expensive lecture theatres. All of us in higher education should take these considerations into account when listening to the needs of students, and then develop learning environments accordingly. Footnote 22

Below are some key requirements based on what we now know and believe to be important:

• Versatility : I hesitate to use the word flexible, as it is not always clear what this term means in this context. Nevertheless, designing and developing flexible learning spaces—ones that can easily be adapted to accommodate changing educational needs—is critical. This should include more group-based, power-enabled, and active learning furniture layouts, as well as appropriate technology that supports hybrid teaching and learning.
• Social learning spaces : Students may be craving more opportunities for collaboration and social interaction with their peers. This is not a new theory, Footnote 23 but the pandemic sharpened the focus on its importance for higher education. Creating more social learning spaces that encourage teamwork can help students to feel engaged and connected. Footnote 24 Informal spaces, such as lounges or common areas, can foster a sense of community and belonging among students, while also providing them with a space where they can work and collaborate outside of the classroom.
• Outdoor spaces : The pandemic highlighted the importance of outdoor spaces for learning and recreation. Footnote 25 More outdoor learning spaces at colleges and universities would allow for fresh air and opportunities for outdoor physical activity.
• Mental health and wellness : Creating learning spaces that prioritize mental health, such as quiet spaces for reflection and meditation, can help support students' well-being. Footnote 26
• Health and safety : Learning spaces should continue to facilitate cleanliness and hygiene best practices. This could include touchless classroom technologies, improved air-filtration systems, and ongoing cleaning procedures.

10. How Can Hybrid Learning Provide a New Skill Set for Graduates?

Today's workplace requires certain skills and knowledge that the hybrid learning experience can help develop:

• Digital literacy : Digital technologies are being adopted across many industries. As a result, graduates need to be proficient in using these digital tools and platforms, such as videoconferencing, online collaboration tools, and project management software. Footnote 27
• Remote work skills : The trend toward remote work is likely to continue, with hybrid work becoming firmly established, especially for those in professional careers. Students moving into the workforce need to be able to work independently, manage their time effectively, and communicate clearly and professionally in virtual environments. Footnote 28
• Resilience and adaptability : Graduates need to be able to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances and to cope with stress and uncertainty. Adaptations to the hybrid teaching and learning experience made during the COVID-19 pandemic may become standard in the workplace, which shows the importance of building skills in flexibility and self-assurance.
• Interpersonal skills : Good interpersonal skills—such as empathy, communication, and collaboration—have always been vital for graduates. The shift to hybrid learning during and since the pandemic has highlighted the importance of a diverse skill set that combines traditional academic abilities with digital competencies.
• Critical thinking and problem-solving : These attributes are crucial, more so now that we are witnessing workplaces that are becoming increasingly hybridized and that are adapting to the rise of artificial intelligence systems. Graduate students who can navigate the challenges and opportunities of this new hybrid learning and working landscape will be better equipped to excel in their studies and future career.

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, higher education grappled with substantial issues in addressing complex financial and sociopolitical circumstances. Now, college and university leaders are pondering how to adjust to an unpredictable future. A viable strategy that involves prioritizing students' learning needs today, allayed with the growth of hybrid teaching and mulitimodal working, could become the optimal approach. The pandemic underscored the opportunities, value, and challenges associated with hybrid teaching in higher education. Now is the time for institutions to adapt and offer lifelong skills development alongside hybrid teaching and learning activities to enable graduates to become more resilient and better equipped for the workplace of 2023 and beyond.

• These views were gathered from numerous sources: James Rutherford, "How Have City Staff and Students Experienced ISLA?" Inclusive Synchronous Learning Activities, City, University of London website, August 15, 2023; online/hybrid discussions with educators at Imperial College London, Kings College London, Durham University, and University of St Andrews (Scotland) all during 2021; surveys of the UK Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF) and SCHOMS in 2023; and guests on my co-hosted podcast series , Teaching Here and There, 2021–2023. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text. ↩
• James Rutherford, "Background to ISLA," Inclusive Synchronous Learning Activities, City, University of London website, March 28, 2021. Jump back to footnote 2 in the text. ↩
• Annelies Raes et al., "A Systematic Literature Review on Synchronous Hybrid Learning: Gaps Identified," Learning Environments Research 23, no. 3 (2020). Jump back to footnote 3 in the text. ↩
• Peter Bryant, "Making the Most of the Spaces We Have: Design Principles for Successful Hybrid and Hyflex Learning," Co-Design Research Group (blog), October 8, 2021. Jump back to footnote 4 in the text. ↩
• Alexandra Mihai, "Wrapping up 2021...," The Educationalist , December 21, 2021. Jump back to footnote 5 in the text. ↩
• "Flexible Learning Spaces," City, University of London website, 2020, accessed March 6, 2023. Jump back to footnote 6 in the text. ↩
• See image in Annelies Raes, "Exploring Student and Teacher Experiences in Hybrid Learning Environments: Does Presence Matter?" Postdigital Science and Education 4, no. 1 (January 2022). Jump back to footnote 7 in the text. ↩
• "ISLA (Inclusive Synchronous Learning Activities) Guide: Using ISLA with Zoom," EdtechGuides, City, University of London website, 2023. Jump back to footnote 8 in the text. ↩
• Ibid. Jump back to footnote 9 in the text. ↩
• "Best Practices for Hybrid Instruction," Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning (CITL), University of South Florida, 2023, accessed March 7, 2023. Jump back to footnote 10 in the text. ↩
• "Best Practices in Hybrid Teaching," College of Natural Sciences, Colorado State University, November 6, 2020. Jump back to footnote 11 in the text. ↩
• Peter Jamieson et al., "Place and Space in the Design of New Learning Environments," Higher Education Research and Development 19, no. 2 (July 2000). Jump back to footnote 12 in the text. ↩
• "Hybrid/HyFlex Teaching and Learning," Columbia University Center for Teaching and Learning website, 2023, accessed March 9, 2023. Jump back to footnote 13 in the text. ↩
• Jane Secker, "Researching the Challenges and Opportunities of Hybrid Teaching," Learning at City (website), City, University of London, November 9, 2021. Jump back to footnote 14 in the text. ↩
• Jeremy Parker, David Sutton, and John Loase, "Hybrid Instruction: A Study into Usage of Lecture and Student-Centered Learning During Class Time," International Journal for Innovation Education and Research 9, no. 3 (2021). Jump back to footnote 15 in the text. ↩
• Morton Winther Bülow, "Designing Synchronous Hybrid Learning Spaces: Challenges and Opportunities," in Hybrid Learning Spaces , ed. Einat Gil et al. (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022), 135–63. Jump back to footnote 16 in the text. ↩
• Secker, "Researching the Challenges and Opportunities." Jump back to footnote 17 in the text. ↩
• Jodie Penrod, "Hybrid Learning and Space Reimagination: Optimizing Access and Equity to Promote Student Success,"   EDUCAUSE Review , February 22, 2023. Jump back to footnote 18 in the text. ↩
• Mihai, "Wrapping up 2021..." Jump back to footnote 19 in the text. ↩
• Nishita Gadi et al., "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Lifestyle and Behaviours, Mental Health and Education of Students Studying Healthcare-related Courses at a British University," BMC Medical Education 22, no. 1 (2022). Jump back to footnote 20 in the text. ↩
• Michal Wilczewski, Oleg Gorbaniuk, and Paola Giuri, "The Psychological and Academic Effects of Studying from the Home and Host Country during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021). Jump back to footnote 21 in the text. ↩
• James Rutherford, "Developing Student Skills for the Future: Give Them Space," Learning at City, June 9, 2023. Jump back to footnote 22 in the text. ↩
• Etienne Wenger and Beverly Wenger-Trayner, Learning to Make a Difference: Value Creation in Social Learning Spaces (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020). Jump back to footnote 23 in the text. ↩
• Bülow, "Designing Synchronous Hybrid Learning Spaces." Jump back to footnote 24 in the text. ↩
• Sarai Pouso et al., "Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial for mental health," Science of The Total Environment 756 (2021): 143984. Jump back to footnote 25 in the text. ↩
• Tianhua Chen and Mike Lucock, "The mental health of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online survey in the UK," PLOS ONE 17, no. 1 (2022): e0262562. Jump back to footnote 26 in the text. ↩
• Elisabetta Lando, "Digital Literacy Skills and Online Student Groups: Learning at City," Learning at City (blog), February 2, 2023. Jump back to footnote 27 in the text. ↩
• Travis Bogard, "7 Tips for Successfully Managing a Hybrid Work Environment: Succeeding at Hybrid Is Thinking Distributed," Medium, April 21, 2021. Jump back to footnote 28 in the text. ↩

James Rutherford is Senior Educational Technologist at City, University of London.

© 2023 James Rutherford

• Vol 5, No 4 (2021)

The Effectiveness of Hybrid Learning in Improving of Teacher-Student Relationship in Terms of Learning Motivation

Doi: 10.28991/esj-2021-01288

Full Text: PDF

Adnan, and Arsad Bahri. “Beyond Effective Teaching: Enhancing Students’ Metacognitive Skill through Guided Inquiry.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 954 (January 2018): 012022. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012022.

Aguirre, Julia M., Erin E. Turner, Tonya Gau Bartell, Crystal Kalinec-Craig, Mary Q. Foote, Amy Roth McDuffie, and Corey Drake. “Making Connections in Practice: How prospective elementary teachers connect to children's mathematical thinking and community funds of knowledge in mathematics instruction.” Journal of Teacher Education 64, no. 2 (December 5, 2012): 178–192. doi:10.1177/0022487112466900.

Alexander, Mystica M., John E. Lynch, Tamara Rabinovich, and Phillip G. Knutel. "Snapshot of a Hybrid Learning Environment." Quarterly Review of Distance Education 15, no. 1 (2014).

Arnawa, I. Made. "Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pembuktian Mahasiswa Dalam Aljabar Abstrack Melalui Pembelajaran Berdasarkan Teori Apos." PhD diss., Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, (May 2006).

Bärenfänger, Olaf. "Learning management: A new approach to structuring hybrid learning arrangements." Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 2, no. 2 (2005): 14-35.

Borba, Marcelo C., Petek Askar, Johann Engelbrecht, George Gadanidis, Salvador Llinares, and Mario Sánchez Aguilar. “Blended Learning, e-Learning and Mobile Learning in Mathematics Education.” ZDM 48, no. 5 (June 28, 2016): 589–610. doi:10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4.

Bowen, William G., Matthew M. Chingos, Kelly A. Lack, and Thomas I. Nygren. "Online learning in higher education: Randomized trial compares hybrid learning to traditional course." Education next 13, no. 2 (2013): 58-65.

Hutajulu, Masta, and Eva Dwi Minarti. “Meningkatkan Kemampuan Advanced Mathematical Thinking Dan Habits Of Mind Mahasiswa Melalui Pendekatan Keterampilan Metakognitif.” JES-MAT (Jurnal Edukasi Dan Sains Matematika) 3, no. 2 (October 4, 2017): 177-194. doi:10.25134/jes-mat.v3i2.690.

Yoon, Caroline, Michael O.J. Thomas, and Tommy Dreyfus. “Gestures and Insight in Advanced Mathematical Thinking.” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 42, no. 7 (October 15, 2011): 891–901. doi:10.1080/0020739x.2011.608861.

Chen, Wei, Zhendong Niu, Xiangyu Zhao, and Yi Li. “A Hybrid Recommendation Algorithm Adapted in e-Learning Environments.” World Wide Web 17, no. 2 (September 16, 2012): 271–284. doi:10.1007/s11280-012-0187-z.

Chen, You-Shyang, and Ching-Hsue Cheng. “Assessing Mathematics Learning Achievement Using Hybrid Rough Set Classifiers and Multiple Regression Analysis.” Applied Soft Computing 13, no. 2 (February 2013): 1183–1192. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2012.10.013.

Chirino-Barceló, Violeta, and Arturo Molina. “Critical Factors in Defining the Mobile Learning Model: An innovative process for hybrid learning at the tecnologico de Monterrey, a Mexican University.” Handbook of Research on Mobility and Computing (2011): 774–792. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-042-6.ch048.

Cremers, Petra H. M., Arjen E. J. Wals, Renate Wesselink, and Martin Mulder. “Design Principles for Hybrid Learning Configurations at the Interface between School and Workplace.” Learning Environments Research 19, no. 3 (May 23, 2016): 309–334. doi:10.1007/s10984-016-9209-6.

Cribbs, Jennifer D., and Sandra M. Linder. "Teacher Practices and Hybrid Space in a Fifth-Grade Mathematics Classroom." Mathematics Educator 22, no. 2 (2013): 55-81.

Doering, Aaron. “Adventure Learning: Transformative Hybrid Online Education.” Distance Education 27, no. 2 (August 2006): 197–215. doi:10.1080/01587910600789571.

Herlina, Elda, and Stain Batusangkar. "Advanced Mathematical Thinking and the Way to Enhance It." Journal of Education and Practice 6, no. 5 (2015): 79-88.

Dreyfus, Tommy. “Advanced Mathematical Thinking Processes.” Advanced Mathematical Thinking (2002): 25–41. doi:10.1007/0-306-47203-1_2.

Dubinsky, Ed. “Reflective Abstraction in Advanced Mathematical Thinking.” Advanced Mathematical Thinking (2002): 95–126. doi:10.1007/0-306-47203-1_7.

Fernández, Ceneida, Salvador Llinares, and Julia Valls. “Learning to Notice Students’ Mathematical Thinking through on-Line Discussions.” ZDM 44, no. 6 (May 15, 2012): 747–759. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0425-y.

Ferrari, Pier Luigi. “Abstraction in Mathematics.” Edited by L. Saitta. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 358, no. 1435 (July 29, 2003): 1225–1230. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1316.

Gadanidis, George, and Vince Geiger. “A Social Perspective on Technology-Enhanced Mathematical Learning: From Collaboration to Performance.” ZDM 42, no. 1 (September 15, 2009): 91–104. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0213-5.

Gecer, Aynur, and Funda Dag. "A blended learning experience." Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 12, no. 1 (2012): 438-442.

Bertens, Kees. “Sejarah Filsafat Yunani.” Kanisius, (1987).

Bocheński, J. M. “Philosophy” (1963). doi:10.1007/978-94-010-3620-7.

Rumbianingrum, Wahyu, and Candra Wijayangka. "Pengaruh literasi keuangan terhadap pengelolaan keuangan UMKM." Almana: Jurnal Manajemen dan Bisnis 2, no. 3 (2018): 156-164.

Davis, H. T. “The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Charles Sanders Peirce , Charles Hartshorne , Paul Weiss.” Isis 19, no. 1 (April 1933): 217–220. doi:10.1086/346736.

C. Ghiffar, MAN, Nurisma, E., Kurniasih, C., & Bhakti, “Blended Learning Based Learning Model in Improving Critical Thinking Skills to Face the Industrial Revolution Era 4.0.,” Natl. Educ. Semin. 1, no. 1, (2018): 85–94,.

Halmos, P. R. “The Heart of Mathematics.” The American Mathematical Monthly 87, no. 7 (August 1980): 519–524. doi:10.1080/00029890.1980.11995081.

Hartarto, Airlangga. "Making Indonesia 4.0." Kementerian Perindustrian RI. Jakarta (2018).

Li, Wenjing, Tahseen Ahmed Bhutto, Wang Xuhui, Qamaruddin Maitlo, Abaid Ullah Zafar, and Niaz Ahmed Bhutto. “Unlocking Employees’ Green Creativity: The Effects of Green Transformational Leadership, Green Intrinsic, and Extrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (May 2020): 120229. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120229.

Gatti, Lucia, Markus Ulrich, and Peter Seele. "Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students' learning outcomes." Journal of cleaner production 207 (2019): 667-678. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.130.

Lamberts, Koen. “A Hybrid Model of Learning to Solve Physics Problems.” European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2, no. 2 (April 1990): 151–170. doi:10.1080/09541449008406202.

Piaget, Jean. “Part I: Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget Development and Learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2, no. 3 (September 1964): 176–186. doi:10.1002/tea.3660020306.

K Thorne, Kaye. Blended learning: how to integrate online & traditional learning. Kogan Page Publishers, (2003).

Jamison, Andrew, Anette Kolmos, and Jette Egelund Holgaard. “Hybrid Learning: An Integrative Approach to Engineering Education.” Journal of Engineering Education 103, no. 2 (April 2014): 253–273. doi:10.1002/jee.20041.

Hannula, Jani. “Characteristics of Teacher Knowledge Produced by Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers: The Case of Open-Ended Problem-Based Learning.” Lumat: International Journal of Math, Science and Technology Education 7, no. 3 (December 11, 2019). doi:10.31129/lumat.7.3.391.

Harahap, Fauziyah, Nanda Eska Anugrah Nasution, and Binari Manurung. "The Effect of Blended Learning on Student's Learning Achievement and Science Process Skills in Plant Tissue Culture Course." International Journal of Instruction 12, no. 1 (2019): 521-538. doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12134a.

Huang, Ying, and Tahar Kechadi. “An Effective Hybrid Learning System for Telecommunication Churn Prediction.” Expert Systems with Applications 40, no. 14 (October 2013): 5635–5647. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.04.020.

Hudiono, B. “The role of multi-representational discourse learning in developing mathematical abilities and representational power in junior high school students.” (2005). UPI Bandung Dissertation, Indonesia.

Husamah, Husamah. “Blended Project Based Learning: Metacognitive Awareness of Biology Education New Students.” Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) 9, no. 4 (November 1, 2015): 274–281. doi:10.11591/edulearn.v9i4.2121.

Isnarto, I., W. Wahyudin, D. Suryadi, and J. A. Dahlan. "Students’ proof ability: Exploratory studies of abstract algebra course." International Journal of Education and Research 2, no. 6 (2014): 215-228.

Kashefi, Hamidreza, Zaleha Ismail, and Yudariah Mohammad Yusof. “Obstacles in the Learning of Two-Variable Functions through Mathematical Thinking Approach.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 8 (2010): 173–180. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.024.

M Kebritchi, Mansureh, Atsusi Hirumi, and Haiyan Bai. “The Effects of Modern Mathematics Computer Games on Mathematics Achievement and Class Motivation.” Computers & Education 55, no. 2 (September 2010): 427–443. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.007.

Kiviniemi, Marc T. “Effects of a Blended Learning Approach on Student Outcomes in a Graduate-Level Public Health Course.” BMC Medical Education 14, no. 1 (March 11, 2014): 1–7. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-47.

Klašnja-Milićević, Aleksandra, Boban Vesin, Mirjana Ivanović, and Zoran Budimac. “E-Learning Personalization Based on Hybrid Recommendation Strategy and Learning Style Identification.” Computers & Education 56, no. 3 (April 2011): 885–899. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.001.

Klimova, Blanka Frydrychova, and Jaroslav Kacetl. “Hybrid Learning and Its Current Role in the Teaching of Foreign Languages.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182 (May 2015): 477–481. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.830.

Kusnandi and Utari Sumarmo “Learning Mathematics with abductive-deductive strategies to develop the ability to prove to students”. UPI Bandung Dissertation, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia (2008).

Margolinas, Claire. "Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI study 22." In ICMI Study 22. (2013).

Braver, Todd S., Marie K. Krug, Kimberly S. Chiew, Wouter Kool, J. Andrew Westbrook, Nathan J. Clement, et al. “Mechanisms of Motivation–cognition Interaction: Challenges and Opportunities.” Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 14, no. 2 (June 2014): 443–472. doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0.

Nardi, Elena. "From advanced mathematical thinking to university mathematics education: A story of emancipation and enrichment." In CERME 10. (2017).

Noble, Elizabeth, Kaitlyn A. Ferris, Melanie LaForce, and Huifang Zuo. “A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding PBL Experiences in Inclusive STEM High Schools.” European Journal of STEM Education 5, no. 1 (June 21, 2020): 02. doi:10.20897/ejsteme/8356.

Osorio Gómez, Luz Adriana, and Josep M. Duart. “A Hybrid Approach to University Subject Learning Activities.” British Journal of Educational Technology 43, no. 2 (March 17, 2011): 259–271. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01175.x.

Pantziara, Marilena, and George N. Philippou. “Students’ Motivation in the Mathematics Classroom. Revealing Causes and Consequences.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13, no. S2 (January 9, 2014): 385–411. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9502-0.

Ramakrisnan, Prasanna, Yuraidza Bt Yahya, Mohd Nor Hajar Hasrol, and Azlan Abdul Aziz. “Blended Learning: A Suitable Framework For E-Learning In Higher Education.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 67 (December 2012): 513–526. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.356.

Rasmussen, Klaus, and Masami Isoda. “The Intangible Task – a Revelatory Case of Teaching Mathematical Thinking in Japanese Elementary Schools.” Research in Mathematics Education 21, no. 1 (December 10, 2018): 43–59. doi:10.1080/14794802.2018.1555714.

Juteau, Aimie-Lee, Isabelle Cossette, Marie-Pier Millette, and Patricia Brosseau-Liard. “Individual Differences in Children’s Preference to Learn From a Confident Informant.” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (September 3, 2019). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02006.

Singh, Harvey. “Building Effective Blended Learning Programs.” Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (2021): 15–23. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7607-6.ch002.

Schukajlow, Stanislaw, K. Rakoczy, and R. Pekrun. “Emotions and Motivation in Mathematics Education: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Contributions.” ZDM 49, no. 3 (May 13, 2017): 307–322. doi:10.1007/s11858-017-0864-6.

Suda, Katie J., Jana M. Sterling, Alexander B. Guirguis, and Sunil K. Mathur. “Student Perception and Academic Performance after Implementation of a Blended Learning Approach to a Drug Information and Literature Evaluation Course.” Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 6, no. 3 (May 2014): 367–372. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2014.02.017.

Star, Jon R, Jason A Chen, Megan W Taylor, Kelley Durkin, Chris Dede, and Theodore Chao. “Studying Technology-Based Strategies for Enhancing Motivation in Mathematics.” International Journal of STEM Education 1, no. 1 (October 1, 2014). doi:10.1186/2196-7822-1-7.

Sujanem, R, S Poedjiastuti, and B Jatmiko. “The Effectiveness of Problem-Based Hybrid Learning Model in Physics Teaching to Enhance Critical Thinking of the Students of SMAN.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1040 (June 4, 2018): 012040. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1040/1/012040.

Dubinsky, Ed, and David Tall. “Advanced Mathematical Thinking and the Computer.” Advanced Mathematical Thinking (2002): 231–248. doi:10.1007/0-306-47203-1_14.

Torff, Bruce, and Rose Tirotta. “Interactive Whiteboards Produce Small Gains in Elementary Students’ Self-Reported Motivation in Mathematics.” Computers & Education 54, no. 2 (February 2010): 379–383. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019.

Tsai, August. “A Hybrid E-Learning Model Incorporating Some of the Principal Learning Theories.” Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal 39, no. 2 (March 1, 2011): 145–152. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.145.

Tseng, Kuo-Hung, Chi-Cheng Chang, Shi-Jer Lou, and Wen-Ping Chen. “Attitudes towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in a Project-Based Learning (PjBL) Environment.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23, no. 1 (March 3, 2011): 87–102. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x.

Turner, Julianne C., and Debra K. Meyer. "Understanding motivation in mathematics: what is happening in classrooms?." In Handbook of motivation at school, Routledge, (2009): 541-566.

Van Velzen, Joke H. “Eleventh-Grade High School Students’ Accounts of Mathematical Metacognitive Knowledge: Explicitness and Systematicity.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 14, no. 2 (October 22, 2015): 319–333. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9689-3.

Vaughan, Norman, and D. Randy Garrison. “Creating Cognitive Presence in a Blended Faculty Development Community.” The Internet and Higher Education 8, no. 1 (January 2005): 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001.

Watson, Anne. “Instances of Mathematical Thinking among Low Attaining Students in an Ordinary Secondary Classroom.” The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 20, no. 4 (January 2001): 461–475. doi:10.1016/s0732-3123(02)00088-3.

D. Xu and S. S. Jaggars, “Online and Hybrid Course Enrollment and Performance in Washington State Community and Technical Colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 31,” (2011).

Zhang, Wenbin, and Jianwu Wang. “A Hybrid Learning Framework for Imbalanced Stream Classification.” 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress) (June 2017). doi:10.1109/bigdatacongress.2017.70.

Vollmer, Rachel L., and Amy R. Mobley. “Parenting Styles, Feeding Styles, and Their Influence on Child Obesogenic Behaviors and Body Weight. A Review.” Appetite 71 (December 2013): 232–241. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.015.

Marius-Costel, Esi. "The Didactic Principles and Their Applications in the Didactic Activity." Online Submission 7, no. 9 (2010): 24-34.

Bintara, Idvan Aprizal, Tatang Herman, and Aan Hasanah. “Didactical Design Realistic Mathematics Education Based on Green Mathematics in Direct & Indirect Proportions Concept at Junior High School.” Proceeding International Conference on Science and Engineering 3 (April 30, 2020): 555–560. doi:10.14421/icse.v3.562.

De Azevedo, Hilton Jose Silva, Adriane Foohs, Gilson Sato, and Faimara do Rocio Strauhs. “Pedagogic Coherence in Virtual Didactic Authoring Communities.” 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (October 2009). doi:10.1109/fie.2009.5350635.

Heyder, Anke, Anne F. Weidinger, Andrei Cimpian, and Ricarda Steinmayr. “Teachers’ Belief That Math Requires Innate Ability Predicts Lower Intrinsic Motivation Among Low-Achieving Students.” Learning and Instruction 65 (February 2020): 101220. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101220.

Sumiati, T, N Septiani, S Widodo, and J Caturiasari. “Building Children’s Learning Motivation through Positive Reinforcement in Science and Math Classroom.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1318 (October 2019): 012023. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1318/1/012023.

Bernardo, Allan B. I. “Sociocultural Dimensions of Student Motivation.” Asian Education Miracles (November 19, 2018): 139–154. doi:10.4324/9781315180625-9

Ervynck, Gontran. “Mathematical Creativity.” Advanced Mathematical Thinking (2002): 42–53. doi:10.1007/0-306-47203-1_3.

Maya, Jesús, and Jesús Maraver. “Teaching-Learning Processes: Application of Educational Psychodrama in the University Setting.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 11 (June 1, 2020): 3922. doi:10.3390/ijerph17113922.

• There are currently no refbacks.

Ayu Aristika Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No.229, Bandung City, Jawa Barat 40154, Indonesia

. Darhim Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No.229, Bandung City, Jawa Barat 40154, Indonesia

Dadang Juandi Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No.229, Bandung City, Jawa Barat 40154, Indonesia

. Kusnandi Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No.229, Bandung City, Jawa Barat 40154, Indonesia

Ital Publication

Affiliated Societies

European High-tech and Emerging Research Association (EUHERA)

Journal Imprint

Indexing and Abstracting

Journal Membership

Last updated: May 14, 2023

Digital Preservation

National Central Library of Florence

Social Media

Tweets by EUHERA

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians
• Focus and Scope
• Section Policies
• Open Access Policy

Submissions

• Online Submissions
• Author Guidelines
• Copyright Notice
• Privacy Statement
• Author Fees
• Journal Sponsorship
• About this Publishing System

ISSN: 2610-9182

• Skip to main content
• Skip to header right navigation
• Skip to after header navigation
• Skip to site footer

Leading Learning

The Community for Learning Leaders

Hybrid vs. Blended Learning: The Difference and Why It Matters

I’m an old English major who most days manages to live with the linguistic inanities that result from rapid-fire, auto-corrected, emoticon-laden communications. Maybe you know how I feel. Maybe you don’t. 😉

But at times words matter, no matter how you feel about grammar, good usage, and the other elements of style. Case in point is the important distinction between hybrid learning and blended learning.

Given that “hybrid events” has emerged as a major trend, its more important that ever to understand the difference between hybrid learning vs blended learning.

(Note: Be sure to also check out our free executive briefing on blended learning .)

Defining Hybrid and Blended Learning

As with many terms used in e-learning (including e-learning itself), blended and hybrid are not used to mean the same thing by all people, so I want to start by explaining what I mean by those terms.

• Hybrid learning is an educational approach where some individuals participate in person and some participate online. Instructors and facilitators teach remote and in-person learners at the same time using technology like video conferencing.
• With blended learning , instructors and facilitators combine in-person instruction with online learning activities. Learners complete some components online and do others in person.

Both types of learning involve a mix of in-person and online learning, but the who differs in the two scenarios. With hybrid learning, the in-person learners and the online learners are different individuals. With blended learning, the same individuals learn both in person and online.

The definitions I offer here build on the dictionary definitions of hybrid and blended . A hybrid is something heterogeneous—e.g., a heterogeneous learner group in which a subset learns in person and a subset learns online. Something blended combines its separate constituents to the point where they can’t be distinguished—the learners aren’t differentiated; they all learn the same way, through both online and in-person activities.

I’ve encountered some instances of people using sequential and parallel to make the distinction I’ve described— sequential for what I define as blended learning, and parallel for what I term simply hybrid. But the fundamental hybrid vs. blended distinction remains—these are different beasts that deserve different names.

Here are a few examples to make sure we’re on the same page. Based on the definitions provided above, are the following examples hybrid or blended? Take a few seconds after you read through each scenario to decide whether it’s an example of hybrid or blended learning.

• Before attending a seminar about engaging in difficult conversations, learners are asked to view a video on body language.

Hybrid or blended?

• At the annual conference, roughly 80 percent of registrants watch the keynoter from seats in front of the stage in the hotel ballroom, while the others catch her remarks via a livestream.
• The facilitator moves through the exam prep content, answering questions from learners raising their hands in the classroom and from learners submitting questions through online video conferencing software.
• Once they complete a self-paced online module on design thinking , learners are paired with a mentor who oversees their work on a pitch for a new product idea, before they regroup in an online meeting to debrief what they learned through the project.

Scenarios 1 and 4 are examples of blended learning, and 2 and 3 reflect hybrid approaches.

With a shared understanding of the fundamental differences of hybrid learning vs blended learning, let’s look at the benefits and limitations of each, and I’ll give you the bad news first.

Need Help Figuring It Out?

At Tagoras, the parent company of Leading Learning, we are experts in the global market for continuing education, professional development, and lifelong learning. We can help you assess your learning events portfolio, determine opportunities for blended and hybrid learning, and articulate a strategy for moving forward.

Contact us today for a complimentary initial consultation .

The Limitations of Hybrid vs Blended Learning

In a context where learning is the goal, hybrid is hard to pull off. The main exception is in the case of pure lecture, which works much the same whether you’re in the same room with the lecturer or viewing a talking head on your computer screen—but we know that a 100-percent-lecture approach is not very effective for true learning .

A key reason hybrid is hard is that it requires the instructor or facilitator to pay attention to the different—and potentially conflicting—needs of two groups of learners. That means you’ve at least doubled the skill set required for good instruction and facilitation of the experience—the presenter has to be good delivering online and good at delivering in person, and she has to do them both at the same time. That’s a tall order.

What works best for on-site learners—handling rock specimens the instructor brings into the classroom to see Mohs Hardness Scale in action—may exclude the participation of online learners. And what works well for online learners—doing independent research on a historical leader to deduce leadership traits and reporting back to the group—may not work for in-person learners who don’t have devices with them or are in classrooms without good wifi access. This can all lead to the watering down of instructional approaches and a tendency to settle on lowest-common-denominator approaches that work fine for both the in-person and online learners—but not all that well for either.

Or the instructor prioritizes the needs of one group over the other—so the online students passively view the more engaging in-classroom experience, or the in-classroom learners feel they may as well not have come, given the instructor’s focus on the remote audience.

The main drawback of blended is that it can be hard to enforce completion of work before the start of the next component. If you’ve ever assigned pre-reading, you probably know what I mean—some folks show up having dutifully prepared, and others stroll in, oblivious there was even something they were supposed to do. That leaves the instructor with the tough choice of spending time recapping the content to get everyone up to speed (cutting into time allocated for other content) or proceeding as planned, knowing that some learners will be left behind. So blended learning ups the ante on getting buy-in and commitment from the learners—they need to understand and believe in the importance of each component of the learning experience so they’ll be motivated to complete it. And complete it on time.

You can also argue that blended learning requires the same double skill set as hybrid learning. But there are two critical differences:

• The instructors don’t have to teach well online and in person at the same time . They have the benefit of focusing on one at a time.
• The sequential approach makes it possible for different instructors to handle different components—one expert shapes the production of self-paced video assets, and another facilitates in-person sessions.

The Benefits of Blended Learning

Done well, blended learning can support good metalearning principles in a way neither purely online nor purely in-person learning can. A spaced learning approach that uses only in-person delivery would likely be a logistical nightmare and cost-prohibitive. Peer-to-peer and informal learning can take longer and require more scaffolding if they’re done through an online-only approach.

Blended learning allows for the ability to determine instructional formats based on what works best for the particular situation, given the content, the learners’ needs, and the objectives and goals for the particular learning experience. The flipped classroom concept—where learners are introduced to new content and concepts on their own through online materials and then brought together to review and ask questions with one another and an instructor—is a prime example of blended learning and one that showcases blended’s potential for maximizing the value of the time learners spend together.

Blended learning also offers greater potential for personalization than hybrid learning. It’s easy to imagine a scenario in which some common content is covered in in-person sessions, but then the exercises and activities that take place before the next classroom meeting are tailored to the specific skills and interests of the individual learners and the needs of their organizations.

The Future for Hybrid Learning vs Blended Learning

As you’ve probably gathered by this point, I’m more bullish on the future of blended than hybrid. But I don’t doubt there are situations where hybrid learning makes sense—for example, a time-sensitive need to get out information about a new regulation when the timeline and costs associated with offering it twice (once for in-person attendees and once for online learners) aren’t justified. And I can imagine that technology may make hybrid more viable and effective in the future—augmented reality, for example, seems to have obvious applications for hybrid learning.

But, in the near term, I see blended as an approach much more aligned with the learning imperative of learning businesses. When the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us and gathering in person for learning is once more a practical option, I hope one of the positive takeaways will be a more judicious choice of delivery methods. When we gather in person to learn, let’s do it with purpose and intent. And, when it makes sense, let’s supplement and extend and enhance the learning with online experiences.

That’s the promise of blended learning, and that’s why this old English major wants you to know that it’s not a matter of mere semantics (as if semantics were mere anyway!). Blended and hybrid are two distinct approaches—and the one you choose has significant implications for your learners and the impact your learning business can achieve.

• 5 Keys to Taking Your In-Person Professional Education Event Digital
• An Essential Guide to Andragogy for Learning Businesses
• The New Blended Learning

Reader Interactions

March 23, 2022 at 4:08 pm

Thanks Celisa – This is helpful; however, do you have a recommendation for terminology to use in a course that is all online and is a mix of synchronous and asynchronous instruction?

March 23, 2022 at 6:34 pm

Hi, Gayle, thanks for the question. Some folks would consider that a type of blended learning because you’re still mixing (blending) two modes, just asynchronous and synchronous in this case versus online and in-person as I’m talking about in this article (though purists tend to reserve the term “blended learning” for the mix of online and in-person). If you want to use “blended,” to be a little clearer, you could call it “blended online learning.” Also, some call what you’re describing “bichronous online learning.” But I don’t think that term is likely to be familiar to many learners. 😉 In any case, though, I don’t think you can count on a succinct term alone to convey what you mean. You’ll need to pick your preferred term and then define it. So many terms in learning are like that–open to interpretation. And, rather than feeling disappointed by the lack of clarity, maybe we should view that as freedom to choose what we feel is most appropriate. 🙂

August 16, 2022 at 12:07 pm

Hi Celisa I found your article very helpful in defining these two terms that are both growing in popularity and usage. Just a point of clarity, I have been assuming that hybrid learning was as you described, but that the audiences do not have to be attending at the same time. In other words, some people from an organisation may attend face to face learning while others get the same learning content, but in an online format that they can attend at a time suited to them. If I understand your point correctly, this is actually blended learning?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for those who enjoy learning about flags, their place in society past and present, and their design characteristics

The flag of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia which I bought there during my last visit

Zhukovsky International Airport

Zhukovsky International Airport, formerly known as Ramenskoye Airport or Zhukovsky Airfield - international airport, located in Moscow Oblast, Russia 36 km southeast of central Moscow, in the town of Zhukovsky, a few kilometers southeast of the old Bykovo Airport. After its reconstruction in 2014–2016, Zhukovsky International Airport was officially opened on 30 May 2016. The declared capacity of the new airport was 4 million passengers per year.

Sygic Travel - A Travel Guide in Your Pocket

More interesting places

• Privacy Policy
• STOCK 360° TRAVEL VIDEOS

• Newsletters

IE 11 Not Supported

Opinion: what project 2025 could mean for education, from abolishing the u.s. department of education to cutting title i funding and certifying teachers based on ideology, a controversial proposal from a conservative think tank would upend public education nationwide..

ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

• Cutting federal funding for schools that are “pushing critical race theory or gender ideology on our children,” and opening civil rights investigations into them for race-based discrimination.
• Barring trans youth from sports leagues that correlate with their self-identification rather than their assigned sex.
• Creating a body that certifies teachers who “embrace patriotic values.”
• Rewarding districts that do away with teacher tenure.
• Adopting a parents’ bill of rights.
• Having parents directly elect school principals, instead of electing school boards who then hire and supervise principals.

IMPACT ON STUDENT LOANS

Scientific research, can project 2025 happen.

Assistant Clinical Research Coordinator, Emergency Medicine (0.5 FTE, Hybrid Opportunity)

🔍 school of medicine, stanford, california, united states.

Please note this position is 0.50 FTE (20 hours a week), will be based on the Stanford campus and is a hybrid (working on-site and working from home) subject to operational need.

The Department of Emergency Medicine is seeking an Assistant Clinical Research Coordinator to perform administrative support duties related to the collection of data and/or the coordination of studies. The ACRC will work under supervision of the principal investigator and study supervisor.

Duties include: 

• Schedule and/or call subjects for appointments; contact participants with reminders or other requirements. 
• Prepare, distribute, and process questionnaires. 
• Perform clerical duties in the preparation of regulatory documents. Maintain all forms and documents, including consent forms and master subject logs. File all appropriate correspondence. 
• Assist with the screening, recruiting, and obtaining consent of study participants. Review medical records and/or perform telephone or in-person interviews to gather data, as needed. 
• Administer standard study questionnaires and tests, score test measurements and questionnaires, and code data for computer entry. Perform quantitative review of forms, tests, and other measurements for completeness and accuracy.
• Extract data from source documents for research studies as directed. Collect data and complete case report forms.
• Process study compensation payments and thank you letters to subjects upon completion of trial activities. Assist with post-study activities, as needed.

* - Other duties may also be assigned.

DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:

• Communication skills to work with participants with low health literacy.
• Proficiency with Microsoft office.
• Ability to drive to field sites in East San Jose.
• Strong interpersonal skills.
• Spanish fluency.
• Prior survey administration and research experience is highly desired, but most skills (especially qualitative) will be taught.

EDUCATION & EXPERIENCE (REQUIRED):

Two year college degree and one year of relevant experience or an equivalent combination of experience, education, and training.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES (REQUIRED):

General knowledge of medical terminology.

CERTIFICATIONS & LICENSES:

Must possess valid CA driver’s license.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS*:

• Frequently stand, walk, twist, bend, stoop, squat and use fine light/fine grasping. 
• Occasionally sit, reach above shoulders, perform desk based computer tasks, use a telephone and write by hand, lift, carry, push, and pull objects that weigh up to 40 pounds.
• Rarely kneel, crawl, climb ladders, grasp forcefully, sort and file paperwork or parts, rarely lift, carry, push, and pull objects that weigh 40 pounds or more.

* - Consistent with its obligations under the law, the University will provide reasonable accommodation to any employee with a disability who requires accommodation to perform the essential functions of his or her job.

WORKING CONDITIONS:

• Position may at times require the employee to work with or be in areas where hazardous materials and/or exposure to chemicals, blood, body fluid or tissues and risk of exposure to contagious diseases and infections.
• May require extended or unusual work hours based on research requirements and business needs.

WORK STANDARDS:

• Interpersonal Skills: Demonstrates the ability to work well with Stanford colleagues and clients and with external organizations.
• Promote Culture of Safety: Demonstrates commitment to personal responsibility and value for safety; communicates safety concerns; uses and promotes safe behaviors based on training and lessons learned.
• Subject to and expected to comply with all applicable University policies and procedures, including but not limited to the personnel policies and other policies found in the University's Administrative Guide, http://adminguide.stanford.edu .

The expected pay range for this position is $25.48 to $31.25 per hour. Stanford University provides pay ranges representing its good faith estimate of what the university reasonably expects to pay for a position. The pay offered to a selected candidate will be determined based on factors such as (but not limited to) the scope and responsibilities of the position, the qualifications of the selected candidate, departmental budget availability, internal equity, geographic location and external market pay for comparable jobs.

At Stanford University, base pay represents only one aspect of the comprehensive rewards package. The Cardinal at Work website ( https://cardinalatwork.stanford.edu/benefits-rewards ) provides detailed information on Stanford’s extensive range of benefits and rewards offered to employees. Specifics about the rewards package for this position may be discussed during the hiring process.

The job duties listed are typical examples of work performed by positions in this job classification and are not designed to contain or be interpreted as a comprehensive inventory of all duties, tasks, and responsibilities. Specific duties and responsibilities may vary depending on department or program needs without changing the general nature and scope of the job or level of responsibility. Employees may also perform other duties as assigned.

Consistent with its obligations under the law, the University will provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees with disabilities. Applicants requiring a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application or hiring process should contact Stanford University Human Resources at [email protected] . For all other inquiries, please submit a contact form .

Stanford is an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law.

• Schedule: Part-time
• Job Code: 1012
• Employee Status: Regular
• Requisition ID: 103998
• Work Arrangement : Hybrid Eligible

My Submissions

Track your opportunities.

Similar Listings

 School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States

📁 Research

Post Date: Jan 29, 2024

Post Date: Aug 05, 2022

Post Date: Mar 11, 2022

Global Impact We believe in having a global impact

Climate and sustainability.

Stanford's deep commitment to sustainability practices has earned us a Platinum rating and inspired a new school aimed at tackling climate change.

Medical Innovations

Stanford's Innovative Medicines Accelerator is currently focused entirely on helping faculty generate and test new medicines that can slow the spread of COVID-19.

From Google and PayPal to Netflix and Snapchat, Stanford has housed some of the most celebrated innovations in Silicon Valley.

Advancing Education

Through rigorous research, model training programs and partnerships with educators worldwide, Stanford is pursuing equitable, accessible and effective learning for all.

Working Here We believe you matter as much as the work

I love that Stanford is supportive of learning, and as an education institution, that pursuit of knowledge extends to staff members through professional development, wellness, financial planning and staff affinity groups.

School of Engineering

I get to apply my real-world experiences in a setting that welcomes diversity in thinking and offers support in applying new methods. In my short time at Stanford, I've been able to streamline processes that provide better and faster information to our students.

Phillip Cheng

Office of the Vice Provost for Student Affairs

Besides its contributions to science, health, and medicine, Stanford is also the home of pioneers across disciplines. Joining Stanford has been a great way to contribute to our society by supporting emerging leaders.

Denisha Clark

School of Medicine

I like working in a place where ideas matter. Working at Stanford means being part of a vibrant, international culture in addition to getting to do meaningful work.

Office of the President and Provost

Getting Started We believe that you can love your job

Join Stanford in shaping a better tomorrow for your community, humanity and the planet we call home.

• 4.2 Review Ratings
• 81% Recommend to a Friend

View All Jobs

ChatGPT: Disruptive or Constructive?

Thursday, Jul 18, 2024 • Jeremiah Valentine : [email protected]

What is Chat GPT?

ChatGPT is a popular emerging technology using Artificial Intelligence. GPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer, which describes an AI program that looks for patterns in language and data learning to predict the next word in a sentence or the next paragraph in an essay. The website has a friendly interface that allows users to interact with AI in a n efficient conversational tone . ChatGPT provides another opportunity for students, instructors, researchers, workers, and others to find practical solutions to everyday and complicated problems.

At the root of this conversation is Artificial Intelligence. I plan to explore applicable uses of AI and ChatGPT in the classroom , entrepreneurial potential uses, and applications in industry .

Everyday Uses of Artificial Intelligence

The use of Artificial I ntelligence varies based on the user and their end goal. While many individuals will use certain programs or websites to meet specific objectives , many companies and apps have begun to utilize this emerging technology to better meet their customer's needs.

Duolingo is a popular foreign language learning application that I use to supplement my Spanish studies . The app uses Artificial Intelligence to assess users' knowledge and understanding as they interact with the program , thus streamlining users learning outcomes.

As another example, Khan Academy is a free online resource that helps teachers and students learn any level of math or other grade school topics for free. They have created Khanmigo , using AI. The model acts as a tutor that helps work through a problem while not directly providing the answer. It can assist in writing an essay or solving a complex math problem step by step.

These everyday applications continue a trend of companies implementing this new technolog y into students and teachers' lives . . This new AI technology also allows business professionals to enhance aspects of their processes.

Entrepreneurs, A.I. and the Advantages

While AI already provides companies and organizations with new ways to interact with and better support their customers, AI could also provide emerging industries and entrepreneurs with new paths to business success. 

According to Entrpreneur.com, most businesses currently use AI for customer service purposes , however , AI could also help entrepreneurs create effective spreadsheets cataloging useful data with accuracy that can be incredibly specific or broad. Specifically with customer service, AI can quickly find what a customer needs and solve their problems efficiently. It could also analyze how effective marketing campaigns are influencing customers’ purchases.

As I researched for more information about this topic, I found an article in The Journal of Business Venturing Insights published in March 2023, sharing different techniques business students can use ChatGPT as an asset to generate entrepreneurial business pitches. The article titled “ The Artificially Intelligent Entrepreneur” written by Cole Short, an Assistant Professor of Strategy at Pepperdine University, and Jeremy C. Short, a UTA alumni and Professor at the University of North Texas at Denton, showcased different elevator pitch scenarios.

Students and entrepreneurs study CEOs who have impacted an industry dynamically; the CEO's mentality is an asset . I had the opportunity to question Dr. Jeremy Short on how he arrived at the initial question of using AI as a CEO archetype business consultant. An archetype is a symbol, term, or pattern of behavior which others have replicated or emulated.

He responded, “ We used this existing framework and selected a CEO from each archetype and used ChatGPT to create elevator pitches, social media pitches, and crowdfunding pitches. The strength of ChatGPT is based largely on the creativity of the prompt, which is where we aim as authors.”

CEO Archetypes and Prompt Engineering

ChatGPT allows the user to understand the archetypes of successful CEOs and collaborate with entrepreneurial styles. These archetypes are accessible options to consult with AI. Let ’ s break down different CEO archetypes students used during this study:

Creator CEOs are typically serial entrepreneurs and serve during the growth stages of developing new businesses. These individuals are risk takers recognizing opportunities that others don ’ t see. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter is the creator archetype.

Transformer CEOs are created by climbing the ladder of a successful business and adding new ideas . They have a firm understanding of the company's culture and work to dramatically change the company, separating it from missteps in the past. Indra Nooyi CEO of PepsiCo is the transformer archetype.

Savior CEOs rescue businesses on the verge of failure with disciplined actions, unique experience and insights they forge a successful path forward for declining businesses. Lisa Su, CEO of AMD is the savior archetype.

ChatGPT was prompted to write an elevator pitch in the style of the previously listed CEOs. 

The response for Elon Musk included language about “ building” a product with “ cutting-edge technology.” 

Indra Nooyi ’s response included phrases like “ the world is changing” and making “ a positive impact in the world.” 

Lisa Su's response produced a pitch speaking about being “ accountable, tough and disciplined” with an emphasis on “ a strong focus on efficiency and performance.”

However, I believe these positions can help entrepreneurs develop their own successful business practices; creating a product your former employer could use to gain an advantage over the competition is disruptive. B uying a company on the brink of bankruptcy that has been mismanaged is a scenario entrepreneurs have explored and practiced .

Prompt engineering is the description of a task AI can accomplish , with instructions embedded in the input. Using prompt engineering, users can fine-tune their input to achieve a desired output incorporating a task description to guide the AI model. 

Conversation around ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence

I asked Dr. Short about how students could use this technology as an asset that guides their learning and, additionally, how instructors can use this as well. He spoke about an assignment he is currently using in his classes. “ Chat GPT might be valuable in helping create a recipe for material that students can then refine. For example, in my social entrepreneurship class students create crowdfunding campaigns for either DonorsChoose , a platform that caters to public school teachers or GoFundMe , a service which allows a variety of project types to a larger userbase . I plan on students using ChatGPT to create a ‘rough draft’ to show me so I can see how they refine their responses for their particular campaigns this upcoming fall.” Th is approach allows students to take advantage of popular technology in a constructive way.

The journal article provided some notable conclusions about ChatGPT , i ncluding “ quality control is essential when using automated tools; a hallmark of success for large language models is their vast associative memory, this strength can also be a weakness. Specifically, models such as OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are capable of confidently generating “ hallucinated” output that appears correct but, it is incorrect or completely fabricated. ChatGPT serves as an emerging tool that can efficiently and flexibly produce a range of narrative content for entrepreneurs and serve to inspire future research at the intersection of entrepreneurship and AI.” ChatGPT ’s limitations and potential applications are continually being explored.

Industry Application

After researching various applications of AI, I spoke with Dr. George Benson, Professor and Department Chair of the Department of Management at The University of Texas at Arlington, about AI and ChatGPT from an industry perspective. His research focuses on Artificial Intelligence with Human Resource Management .

Dr. Benson told me that Artificial Intelligence is being invested heavily by human resource departments who are looking to automate hiring practices. Specifically, he mentioned “ HR is using this as a market opportunity. AI is a useful tool to sift through potential applicants by scanning their resumes for qualifications and experiences. Allowing professionals to hire applicants faster.”

This application allows the technology to handle low-level tasks, but the results generated are being handed to a human to review and act on. He spoke about the potential of A.I. “ There are a lot of unknowns, but the technology is new and getting better.” Looking towards the future, technology is already being applied in different ways . These applications are being explored in the classrooms of UTA as well.

Exploration of AI at UTA

The College of Business conduct ed a survey to understand the faculty’s attitude towards A I in the classroom. It was a part of the “Teaching with Chat GPT” workshop on Friday February 9 th , which focus ed on how to integrate Chat GPT and other AI platforms into teaching . 

Dr. Kevin Carr, a Clinical Assistant Professor of Marketing at UTA, was a part of the workshop ; he currently teaches Advanced Business Communication . I talked to him about the purpose of the workshop and what he hopes to gain from the group's sessions. 

Dr. Carr explained "The point of the workshop is designed to give faculty ideas for instruction and to develop classroom activities to work with students . Our goal for th e workshop is to introduce Artificial Intelligence as a teaching tool for faculty, including showing what AI can do potentially in the classroom. We are going to be very open to faculty’s direction, in terms of ongoing discu ssions and meetings.”

Personal Take

Artificial Intelligence or Chat GPT , in my view, is another useful tool in the toolbox of technology. It will take the air out of certain industries, and it will change jobs, yet every major technological advancement has the potential to do so. The automobile was considered radical, the use of plastic, computers in the workplace, and alternative energy have been impactful on society. 

Alternative energy was headlined as the end of oil use. The automobile changed the way cities were formed and led to the creation of a national highway system. Society has always found a way to adapt and overcome major technological innovations, artificial intelligence is not any different.

AI is the technology of tomorrow. It reminds me of something Dr. George Benson said , “ It's cool software that is a sophisticated search engine.” Google, one of the most popular search engines, reshaped the internet, as you search for resources, it is a natural starting point. AI and ChatGPT are an evolution, for students it is a tremendous resource consulting a CEO archetype, creating business pitches, and most importantly shaping the future .

News & Events

• College of Business News
• The Business Maverick
• Business Week

• Moscow Oblast
•  » 
• Elektrostal

State Housing Inspectorate of the Moscow Region

Phone 8 (496) 575-02-20 8 (496) 575-02-20

Phone 8 (496) 511-20-80 8 (496) 511-20-80

Public administration near State Housing Inspectorate of the Moscow Region