Introduction
During the Covid-19 pandemic, staff and students migrated to online platforms to continue learning and teaching until life/study could get back to ‘normal’. Subsequently, universities have been swift to encourage a complete return to campus for their students, following a series of lockdowns which led to the closure of campuses globally. Universities have compelling drivers to promote a full return to campus, including: i) significant and high-profile student discontent relating to unmet expectations of campus-based (learning and social) experiences, as expressed in the mainstream media (e.g., Hall, 2021) and through legal cases (e.g., Kirk, 2023); ii) online and hybrid learning undermining previously-argued business cases for significant investment in campus buildings (especially at a time of high interest rates). But is a return to entirely face-to-face teaching really reflecting student preferences for learning or a knee-jerk response to these challenges?
Certainly the transition to online learning involved embracing online learning technologies which were new to many academics and students, in spite of many years of research and practice in technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Most TEL research had previously focused on courses where students had signed-up in the knowledge that such technology would be adopted, including fully online/ distance learning courses. Such research had previously delivered many pedagogical improvements that created the conditions for a relatively smooth transition to online learning when it was urgently necessary (Smith et al., 2022). This study was designed to explore the experiences of students encountering less well-planned hybrid learning, and student attitudes and preferences based on those experiences.
Advertisement
The combination of face-to-face instruction with online learning is typically referred to as “blended learning” (Graham, 2006), a term now used interchangeably with “hybrid learning” (Hrastinski, 2019). A form of adoption of blended/hybrid learning is the “synchronous hybrid learning environment” where both on-site and remote students simultaneously attend the learning activities (Raes et al., 2020a). This mode of delivery is also referred to as Here or There (HOT) instruction, with on-campus (“here”) students and those joining from a remote location (“there”) (Zydney, 2019). It has also been referred to as hybrid-flexible or hyflex (Beatty, 2019) where the multi-modal delivery is paired with flexibility, allowing students to choose their modality. In this current study, for a variety of reasons, one group of students was invited to come on-campus for the class, another was instructed to join the class over MS Teams, and remain off campus. In practice, lecturers introduced flexibility and allowed the online group to attend the face-to-face sessions if they preferred, while the face-to-face students were given the option to attend online. Drawing upon this configuration we posed the question, what can we learn in this context about student preferences for learning modes, based on student experiences of synchronous hybrid teaching and learning during the tail end of the pandemic? The specific research questions are as follows:
-
What are student and lecturer attitudes towards synchronous hybrid learning environments?
-
What are the challenges and barriers faced by students and lecturers in these learning spaces?
The literature review prioritises post-pandemic studies to reflect the context of the study, while acknowledging the wealth of scholarship that preceded the pandemic and underpins contemporary studies.
Literature Review
In the synchronous hybrid learning environment, both on-site and remote students simultaneously attend learning activities (Raes et al., 2020a). This model has been used by Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) for simultaneous delivery of courses with multiple cohorts where one cohort is co-located with the lecturer and another cohort joins remotely via virtual conference (e.g., Simco & Campbell, 2011). In countries which dictate gender segregation, a similar model has been in use for many years, with men receiving a face-to-face lecture while a live stream is played to women in a different lecture room (Alamri, 2022). There are also models that allow students to choose between online or face-to-face instruction as in the hyflex learning environment (e.g., Beatty, 2019). These examples show that hybrid learning environments have been adopted in HEIs prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, in these examples, curricula were designed for hybrid delivery and students expected this mode of delivery. In the context of the studies that adopted hybrid learning delivery during the pandemic, the hybrid mode was new to most students; the students had expected to be taught face-to-face; and lecturers involved had originally designed their lessons to either be face-to-face or (to a lesser extent for specific courses) online, but not both. This study aims to understand students’ and lecturers’ experiences of and attitudes towards combining online and face-to-face learning in a synchronous way.
Advantages of Hybrid Learning
Although hybrid learning was widely adopted because of the need for some learners to isolate during less restrictive stages of the pandemic when campuses started to reopen and/or socially distance to avoid the spread of disease, there are many other reasons why this mode of learning is considered to be advantageous. In general, hybrid learning allows for student choice, equivalency, reusability, and accessibility (Beatty, 2019; Han et al., 2022). A systematic review found that hybrid learning promoted student autonomy and increased student satisfaction and grades, although results differed across the studies depending on factors such as the participants involved and factors relating to delivery (Monk et al., 2020). Accessible learning can serve disadvantaged groups, such as those unable to travel to campus every day because of excessive travel costs and/or time; those with mental health or mobility challenges; and students who lack confidence in class, for example, students whose first language is not the language of delivery or who find the classroom culture alien (ibid.).
Advertisement
Recent studies have shown that learner outcomes are similar whether learners are online or in the physical classroom (Raes et al., 2020a; Rosillo & Montes, 2021). Paiva et al. (2021) found that those in the physical classroom were more satisfied with their learning experience and felt a part of the university, while remote learners appreciated pedagogical approaches that encouraged engagement, including online class response systems (ibid.) and these to some extent mitigated less positive learner experiences. Similarly, Raes et al. (2020b) found formative assessment increased students’ motivation to engage.
To benefit from these advantages, Nykvist et al. (2021) proposes the following pre-conditions as essential in hybrid learning: flexibility, trust, human element, and learner ownership. Trust between learner and educator is similarly highlighted by Heilporn et al. (2021); communications on how the course will be run can establish expectations which are crucial in developing trust. They also emphasised the need for suitable course structures and a suitable pace of delivery as necessary for student engagement. The ability to self-regulate (orient oneself to achieving an objective) was found to influence learner engagement and persistence; while teachers and peers influenced engagement, but not learner persistence (Zhong et al., 2022). Not least, students have reported that access to hybrid learning meant their studies were not delayed and they could continue to gain academic credit in the challenging pandemic context (Li et al., 2022).
Disadvantages of Hybrid Learning
Although one of the aims of hybrid learning is equivalency, studies have shown that the remote student can feel excluded (Huang et al., 2017), disengage from attendance (Hollister et al., 2022) and feel disconnected from their peers and institution (Lohiniva & Isomöttönen, 2021). In a study of hybrid learning during the pandemic, students reported feeling more engaged during face-to-face learning (Photopoulos et al., 2022). In particular, first year students were frustrated by the format, including the lack of social engagement, while final year students were able to continue their interactions online due to previously-established relationships. Hybrid learning has been found to be problematic for students in terms of facilitating collaboration (Cheng et al., 2023; Lohiniva & Isomöttönen, 2021; Zipperer et al., 2021), especially when the technology creates a barrier, for example, “interrupts conversational flow” (Raes et al., 2020a, p. 284). In their study of synchronous online learning, Hollister et al. (2022) reported that students struggled to stay connected to their peers and to manage the pace of completing course assignments. They noted a decrease in attendance at the synchronous online lectures and this negatively affected students’ experience of learning. Pace, or more specifically feeling rushed through course content and discussions, was also mentioned by learners in Zydney et al.’s (2020) study of pre-pandemic learners and in Shi et al.’s study of remote schools (2020).
Where hybrid learning was necessary due to distance, it was found to be preferable to students compared with online learning (Vale et al., 2020); however, in Vale et al.’s study, grades were 8% lower for hybrid learning compared to face-to-face. Across modules, this could represent a downgrade from an Honours degree to a fail. Specifically, the pandemic meant unplanned and under-resourced hybrid learning solutions, not always serving the needs of learners or staff (Triyason et al., 2020). Advice to staff delivering hybrid learning includes finding new ways to replicate social interactions and new ways to inculcate trust (Nykvist et al., 2021). This places an additional burden and set of expectations on staff, discussed further below.
Experiences and Considerations for Educators
From a relatively niche learning approach which suited, in the main, institutions that had dual campuses or gender segregation, hybrid learning quickly became the means by which students would be able to complete their degrees in the context of the global pandemic. Raes et al. (2020a) identify the need to provide sufficient training for educators, plus time to adapt to technologies that can best meet the needs of learners. However, the current study was interested in the experiences of academic staff who had to migrate to hybrid learning at short notice, because of the need to limit numbers on campus to reduce the spread of Covid-19.
Levels of discomfort and destabilisation experienced by educators cannot be ignored; however, many studies showed academic staff incorporating hybrid learning relatively smoothly (Heilporn et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021). Educators had to overcome many challenges, including having limited knowledge of the hybrid learning technology; students disengaging; and feeling overwhelmed, both personally and with the need to learn new approaches and technology (Detyna et al., 2023). In the early stages of the migration to initially fully online, then hybrid learning there was a scramble to ensure that learners unable to attend on-campus classes could still succeed on their courses and this led to additional workloads and affected staff confidence (Smith et al., 2022).
Further studies recommended training both in the technology and aspects of course management (Gilmore et al., 2021), as well as recommendations for strategies to improve the learner experience (e.g., Heilporn et al., 2021; Lakhal et al., 2020; Raes et al., 2020a) and technology design (Angelone et al., 2020). As a result of experience gained during the pandemic, together with published research, the education sector has developed hybrid learning and online learning skills and knowledge. Owston et al. (2013) had previously suggested organisational advantages of hybrid learning: blended learning/ hybrid learning could usefully be adopted to address resource scarcity, where resources included both classrooms and staff capacity, allowing for an expansion of higher education. However, the question remains, are there also advantages to students, who typically apply for campus-based courses, in having some hybrid learning incorporated? Korson recommends that “for now, let us keep our teaching methods unsettled as we continue to experiment, adapt and learn more about what best supports our students and the communities they inhabit” (2022, p. 16). This study was designed to draw on student and staff experiences of the hybrid learning experiment to explore whether a wholesale return to on-campus teaching might be a sub-optimal, knee-jerk reaction to the pressures of returning to ‘normal’.
Methodology
Context of the Study
The current study was carried out in the computing department of a post-1992 UK university. The lecturers recruited for the study delivered modules in hybrid learning environments where one student group were asked to attend face-to-face and another student group were asked to attend online. The modules consisted of lectures and practical activities. For on-campus students, lectures were held in either lecture theatres or flat classrooms and practical activities were delivered in computer laboratories. The lectures were broadcast to the online cohort using either Teams or WebEx; both interfaces allowed the lecturer to share live video and their screen. Aside from the use of the chat interface for question and comments, the lecturers did not identify strategies to further engage the two cohorts (for example, the use of voting systems or breakout rooms). The combined class sizes (for both online and face-to-face cohort) of these modules varied between 30 to 150 students. However, it is also worth noting that student participants may have been enrolled in more than one module delivered in hybrid mode, so student responses are not aligned to single modules.
Design, Participants and Procedure
The research used a complementarity mixed-method approach to explore stakeholder perspectives of hybrid learning (Halcomb & Hickman, 2015) comprising, in chronological order: interviews with lecturers, survey of students and interviews with students. The lecturer interviews were designed to understand more about the hybrid setup in practice and inform the survey questions. The aim of the survey was to elicit responses from as many students as possible. Finally, the interviews with students were designed to more fully explore the survey responses. Eight lecturers who had delivered in a hybrid learning environment were interviewed. In semi-structured interviews, lasting between 25 and 40 min, lecturers were asked about their experience of teaching in a hybrid environment, the advantages and challenges of this mode of delivery, engagement of the students attending in different modes, and strategies they employed for managing the challenges of this context and delivering effective learning for both student groups.
These lecturers then invited their students to complete an online survey and/or volunteer to be interviewed. The survey included basic demographic and context-setting questions about which modules the students took and both their usual and preferred modes of attendance. Questions on student engagement in their learning environment were adapted from Dziuban et al. (2015); these asked students to compare the modes of delivery in terms of aspects of learning such as engagement, reflection, participation and understanding. Open questions encouraged students to share their perceptions of each mode and impacts on their experience (see Appendix A for a copy of the instrument). Students were incentivised to take part via a prize draw and a total of 137 students responded to the invitation. Respondents were filtered to ensure that only those who had experienced synchronous hybrid delivery were included in the analysis (n = 66).
To provide more in-depth insight into the students’ experience of hybrid delivery, 22 students were interviewed. These students had experienced hybrid learning delivery in at least one mode, as described above. In semi-structured interviews, lasting between 30 and 45 min, students were asked about which mode they usually attended and their experience of that mode; they were then asked about the advantages and challenges of hybrid modes of delivery, of online delivery, and of face-to-face, including what made each mode effective/ ineffective for learning and any difficulties they had encountered.
In summary, the data set for this study comprises:
i)
data from interviews with lecturers (n = 8);
ii)
survey data from students (n = 66); 21 students attended mostly online, 15 mostly face-to-face, and 30 mixed attendance modes.
iii)
data from interviews with students (n = 22); 6 students attended mostly online, 5 mostly face-to-face and 11 mixed attendance modes);
The university’s ethics and data governance processes were followed and approved. All respondents completed informed consent forms and all data was anonymised.
Data Analysis
Quantitative and comparative survey data were analysed using chi-square test of distribution, to compare how students’ usual mode of attendance in the hybrid model of delivery (online, face-to-face or hybrid) varied with how they perceive certain aspects of learning. Qualitative data from the survey and interviews were analysed as two parallel sets of data, coming from students (survey open text responses and interviews) and lecturers (interviews). The principal researcher familiarised themselves with the data. The data were then coded descriptively; codes were categorised and organised into themes (Lichtman, 2010). The themes were reviewed by the research team.
The results are presented as follows: i) quantitative comparison of student perceptions; ii) thematic analysis of open text survey responses and student interview data; iii) thematic analysis of the lecturer interview data.
Results
Comparison of Student Perceptions of the Different Learning Environments
A Fisher exact test was conducted on the student survey data to explore relationships between students’ usual mode of attendance (online, face-to-face or hybrid) and their perceptions of the different learning environments, with regards to a specific aspect of learning; for example, in what environment do they feel most engaged. Table 1 shows a crosstabulation of the students’ responses grouped by their mode of attendance, along with the p-value and adjusted p-value using the Benamini-Hochberg procedure for decreasing false discovery rate. There was a significant difference in the distribution of responses across all questions except for the statement “I have more opportunities to reflect on what I have learned.”
Table 1
Comparison of students’ experience perception of the learning environments
Face-to-face | Online | Hybrid learning | p-value | Adjusted p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I feel more engaged | |||||
Face-to-face | 64.3% | 42.1% | 44.4% | 0.006 | 0.011 |
Online | 0.0% | 31.6% | 0.0% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 35.7% | 26.3% | 55.6% | ||
n = | 14 | 19 | 27 | ||
I have more opportunities to reflect on what I have learned | |||||
Face-to-face | 30.8% | 12.5% | 30.4% | 0.052 | 0.052 |
Online | 15.4% | 56.3% | 13.0% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 53.8% | 31.3% | 56.5% | ||
n = | 13 | 16 | 23 | ||
I understand the course materials better | |||||
Face-to-face | 69.2% | 38.9% | 38.1% | < 0.001 | 0.005 |
Online | 0.0% | 44.4% | 0.0% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 30.8% | 16.7% | 61.9% | ||
n = | 13 | 18 | 21 | ||
I have more opportunities to collaborate with other students | |||||
Face-to-face | 86.7% | 40.0% | 69.2% | 0.008 | 0.012 |
Online | 0.0% | 35.0% | 3.8% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 13.3% | 25.0% | 26.9% | ||
n = | 15 | 20 | 26 | ||
I am more likely to ask questions | |||||
Face-to-face | 76.9% | 26.3% | 26.1% | 0.014 | 0.018 |
Online | 7.7% | 42.1% | 21.7% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 15.4% | 31.6% | 52.2% | ||
n = | 13 | 19 | 23 | ||
I understand course requirements better | |||||
Face-to-face | 81.8% | 31.3% | 17.6% | < 0.001 | 0.005 |
Online | 0.0% | 31.3% | 5.9% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 18.2% | 37.5% | 76.5% | ||
n = | 11 | 16 | 17 | ||
I feel more likely to get a degree with this type of delivery | |||||
Face-to-face | 72.7% | 27.8% | 25% | 0.035 | 0.040 |
Online | 0.0% | 27.8% | 10% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 27.3% | 44.4% | 65% | ||
n = | 11 | 18 | 20 | ||
I manage my own learning better | |||||
Face-to-face | 54.5% | 23.8% | 12.5% | 0.002 | 0.006 |
Online | 18.2% | 42.9% | 8.3% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 27.3% | 33.3% | 79.2% | ||
n = | 11 | 21 | 24 | ||
Preferred delivery | |||||
Face-to-face | 33.3% | 23.8% | 10.0% | 0.004 | 0.009 |
Online | 0.0% | 28.6% | 3.3% | ||
Hybrid/blended | 66.7% | 47.6% | 86.7% | ||
n = | 15 | 21 | 30 | ||
Student group preference tended to align with the modality of their attendance as regards being able to understand materials better, being able to ask questions, and managing their own learning. The majority of face-to-face students felt that they were able to understand their materials better in face-to-face settings, the online attendees felt that they are able to manage better in an online environment, and similarly, the hybrid learners felt that this was also the case for hybrid delivery models. Perhaps reassured by familiarity. Two aspects all groups agreed on were (1) they have more opportunities to collaborate with other students in a face-to-face environment, and (2) a preference for hybrid learning delivery.
Thematic Analysis of Student Interviews and Survey Open Question Data
Students were asked what they thought the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid learning over other learning modes were.
Student-perceived advantages of synchronous hybrid learning
Four major themes emerged when students discussed what they perceived to be the advantages of hybrid learning: Flexibility enhancing inclusion and agency; Time management; Engagement and feeling connected; and On-demand learning. Examples of how students expressed their views on these themes is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Student-perceived advantages of hybrid delivery
Theme | Examples from students |
|---|---|
Flexibility enhancing inclusion and student agency | “It removes barriers to study created by other responsibilities” “Sometimes you have that feeling that you need to be maybe a bit more involved, classmates, teacher, everything because you need that feeling to maybe get back on board.” “Being able to join remotely after having to visit another location within UK was helpful in allowing me to watch live rather than catch up on the lecture.” |
Time management | “I have to do an 80 mile round trip to attend classes… with a 2h trip for 9am means the flexibility to come to campus or not is really useful.” “Being at home and I had that space of being more productive and being on my own and you know, organise myself” “I have a part-time job as well and I had to do uni in the meantime. So it was easier for me to balance by doing the online things because they were like running the live sessions and they were recording them for us.” |
Engagement and connectedness | “[It] is a different way to engage because sometimes you’re in the class and maybe you have a question and then the time passes and then it’s not relevant anymore and you don’t ask it. When if you’re online you write it in the chat and it doesn’t interrupt the class and then at some point it gets answered so that’s of course an advantage.” “You’re in a smaller group on campus and … it means that [tutors] in the classroom can kind of attend to you more and give you specialised help.” |
On-demand learning | “Because the lectures were being recorded, I could re-watch lectures if I felt that I needed to check some information or to check my notes.” “I often miss important information, and my handwriting is often difficult to read due to the speed. Having access to the recording of the lecture is also extremely useful.” |
Flexibility Enhancing Inclusion and Agency
The flexibility facilitated by the hybrid learning environment allowed diverse student groups to engage with the learning environment based on their individual circumstances, thus promoting inclusion. Hybrid delivery catered for students with other commitments, those who lived too far away to be able to attend university frequently, and students who preferred to study in a quiet area rather than engage in a lecture room with hundreds of students. The flexibility facilitated by the hybrid learning environment thus affected student choices relating to their engagement with the modules, promoting student agency.
Time Management
The flexibility that the hybrid learning provided allowed students to better manage their time and their commitments. Students found that the reduction in travel time, achieved by attending lessons online, enabled them to manage their time more easily. For some, the flexibility in mode of attendance resulted in a more balanced life, while for others, they could schedule their studies around their other commitments. Recent data reports the cost of living crisis impacting on students working longer hours in part-time jobs (Neves & Stephenson, 2023), leaving less time (and money) for lengthy commutes to campus.
Engagement and Feeling Connected
Students emphasised how the different modalities facilitated their engagement with the course materials. The in-classroom session was useful when they felt they needed extra help from lecturers or when they wanted to get that sense of community, interacting with their peers. Attending the online lesson was useful on occasions when they were not able to attend the face-to-face class or when they felt that they wanted to work quietly on their own. The flexibility to attend either modality also affected (reduced) the student numbers opting for the face-to-face session, which positively impacted some students, who valued a more intimate group with more opportunities to interact with lecturer. This begs the question whether the large lecture hall as a one-to-many broadcast modality has outlived its effectiveness.
On-demand Learning
The recordings that are typically provided as a by-product of the online classroom were used as a valuable resource beyond the live stream, for example as revision materials.
Student-Perceived Challenges of Hybrid Learning
Three themes emerged from students in terms of challenges posed by hybrid learning: technology as a barrier to learning, pedagogical disruption, and feelings of disconnection. Table 3 shows examples of these challenges raised by students.
Table 3
Challenges of synchronous hybrid learning
Theme | Examples from students |
|---|---|
Technology as a barrier to learning | “there’s sometimes a lag or a delay or people talk over one another and then it just becomes a big mess of communication” “It is also distracting when [someone] f2f asks a question and it cannot be heard online, it would be helpful for the lecturer to repeat it before answering.” |
Pedagogical disruption | “The moment that we were having both choices, when I was feeling lazy, I wouldn’t go to class.” “I feel like the in-person cohort will be prioritised especially if the lecturer’s not really tech savvy; the lecturer doesn’t spend as much time paying attention to the online chat.” |
Feeling disconnected | “Certainly I think the disadvantage has been that it’s, certainly for me, it’s been difficult to meet new folk on my course purely because they themselves might decide not to attend the in-person lecture or the in person practical.” “You’re not really socialising with other peers. You don’t get to work together physically and share ideas.” |
Technology as a Barrier to Learning
Hybrid delivery posed the same challenges as online delivery, with people talking over each other, muted microphones, the audio feed being interrupted. These were further compounded by poor classroom setups for hybrid delivery. For example, in a hybrid classroom, microphones should pick up both the lecturer’s voice and the student voices in the room. However, not all classrooms had microphones that captured the voices of students present, which meant that opportunities for interaction between the online and the face-to-face students were missed. A consequence of the poor audio reception was that online students did not hear what face-to-face students said, which removed context in subsequent discussions. Lecturers also tended to be tethered to the computer as they needed to manage both the face-to-face and online students, reducing their movements within the classroom and opportunities to engage with students who are sat further back. Most classrooms were equipped with a single camera that could only capture a part of the room, so either this was focused on the lecturer at the front (and missed the discussion between the student attendees) or otherwise captured a view of the students in the room (missing the lecturer’s visual cues). This illustrates how the technical challenges had a knock-on effect on the classroom dynamics.
Pedagogical Disruption
Lesson delivery as planned was disrupted by the technology challenges mentioned above. Students pointed out that the hybrid learning setup was not optimised to handle student questions; for example, the notifications from the chat could be disruptive, as the notifications tended to draw the attention of the lecturer and disrupt students’ focus.
Some students noted that they did not feel as motivated to study when attending online, regardless whether it was a choice they made themselves or not. As one student noted, “it’s easier to stay at home, procrastinate and not attend class.”
Classroom dynamics were affected by low numbers attending face-to-face. Students reported that attention was drawn away to the online learners when they outnumbered those in the classroom. By contrast, some students who joined online felt less prioritised by lecturers, particularly if a lecturer was less experienced. For example, when technical issues with the audio occurred, it was the online group that missed out. Sometimes, it could take a while for the lecturers to know that there was a technical issue, and they carried on teaching the face-to-face cohort.
Students mentioned that not all lessons are suitable for hybrid delivery. Collaborative activities, practical and tutorial sessions presented additional layers of complexity caused by the technology. For example, in a computer lab setting, where cameras for streaming aren’t available, students tended to work on their own and ask the lecturer for help as required. Delivering the lab in a hybrid learning environment (without the help of a teaching assistant) meant that some online students were on standby mode (without any visual cue), waiting quietly for the lecturer to be free to address their concerns.
Feeling Disconnected
Students mentioned the lack of opportunity to interact with their peers when they were attending online. As mentioned earlier, discussion was hampered by the technology, leaving those who opted to attend online feeling disconnected and those who attended in-person missing opportunities to meet classmates.
Lecturers’ Perceptions of Hybrid Delivery
Although the primary aim of the study was to gain insights into students’ preferences, we also asked lecturers about their impressions of hybrid delivery. Of the eight lecturers interviewed, five expressed positive views about hybrid delivery from their perspective as educators, two had mostly negative views, and one had a more neutral view. The following themes emerged from the interviews with lecturers: student engagement; multi-tasking; and inclusion and autonomy. Table 4 shows examples of these themes.
Table 4
Lecturer perceptions of hybrid delivery
Theme | Examples from lecturer interview data |
|---|---|
Student engagement | “They don’t have the same sense of involvement because the camera tends to be pointed at the lecturer, not at the classroom so they can’t see what their colleagues are doing. They can’t gauge their responses and they can’t interject in the way that they might if they were in the same room.” “I’ve found that attendance dropped off so significantly that it kind of felt like well the students felt as if they didn’t need to come during the timetable time.” |
Multi-tasking | “The management [of the hybrid environment] was a problematic area I really found difficult. You cannot really pay attention to two different groups.…[managing this] creates a sort of disconnect, it breaks the flow of face to face students” “The big disadvantage is that it's very difficult to be effective for both groups simultaneously and so there is a tendency to concentrate on one group or the other. So if the majority are face-to-face then the focus tends to be on face-to-face. And actually even if the majority is remote, the people in front of you are much easier to talk to, it's difficult to ignore them.” |
Inclusion and autonomy | “I think that having the hybrid mode means that those that aren’t comfortable coming to class and putting their hand up to ask questions and engaging face to face have a mode in which they in theory can fully engage.” |
Student Engagement
Most lecturers mentioned a change in student engagement, particularly an increase in the questions raised during lectures and a drop-off in student attendance. They noted that students used the chatroom facility regardless of the modality and this feature allowed students to ask questions throughout, even if the topic of discussion had moved on. Through the questions and feedback raised in the chatroom during class, lecturers were able to address topics students were struggling with. An additional benefit of allowing students to type out questions/feedback at any point during the class was that fellow students tended to answer the questions that other students had posed. This demonstrates how the chatroom facility in a hybrid learning environment might promote a more inclusive platform, giving students opportunities to engage and participate actively.
Compared with the online-only model of delivery, the non-verbal cues captured in the face-to-face environment of the hybrid setting allowed lecturers to adapt the lesson as necessary, potentially facilitating a more enhanced learning experience for both student groups. Students had some flexibility to attend online or face-to-face, depending on their circumstances. Student attendance at face-to-face classes tailed off quickly, so there were reduced opportunities to get to know students. Lecturers also noted that there was limited opportunity for the two groups of students to interact, considering the technical limitations. For students who only opted to join online, this feeling of disconnect was greater as most students had their cameras off and the in-class camera was directed at the lecturer. Due to the lack of visual cues from the online students, lecturers would tend to focus on the students who were co-located; this created issues of disconnect as some students who attended online felt that they were being treated less favourably.
Multi-Tasking
Managing two groups of students in two spaces presented additional challenges to lecturers, compounded by the technical issues that they had to navigate. Lecturers found it difficult to provide equal attention to both groups of students. While questions raised by students increased the interactivity of the sessions, the stream of questions could disrupt the discussion in class. Some online questions were missed and managing the chat facility while attending to in-person questions proved challenging. Lecturers had to adapt and adjust the lesson as required. Some mentioned that they would rather deliver the same lecture twice than have to manage these two environments simultaneously.
Inclusion and Autonomy
Flexibility-enhancing inclusion was a recurring theme for the advantages of hybrid learning delivery and this flexibility facilitated student engagement in various ways. It enabled student agency in terms of the modality they preferred, and that they thought worked for their circumstances. This flexibility fostered a sense of autonomy, allowing students to take ownership of their learning. Where there was limited choice for learners in this study, one lecturer noted that “the students timetabled online can feel a bit left out. So last trimester in my module feedback I had one student say he felt like a second class citizen because he wasn’t allowed in the lectures on campus.”
Half of the lecturers interviewed mentioned that hybrid delivery means not delivering the same lecture twice to different cohorts (e.g., online and face-to-face), potentially facilitating a more streamlined delivery in situations where different cohorts are covering the same material. In addition, the recorded lectures that are standard in synchronous hybrid allowed students to review lecture materials in their own time, in theory decreasing the amount of time needed to discuss the topics again on a one-to-one basis. As a result, hybrid delivery can free-up staff time to allow them to engage in other activities.
Discussion
Out of necessity, hybrid delivery modes previously reserved for specific contexts were trialled extensively across schools, colleges, and universities during the pandemic. There was a lot of interest in hybrid learning spaces during the later stage of the pandemic but the momentum slowed as universities across the UK welcomed students back to campus. The data collected in this study illustrates that hybrid learning should not be dismissed as a one-off, a rushed response to an emergency that can now be forgotten as quickly as it was introduced. Instead, hybrid learning could play an important role into the future, including in light of the increasing focus on lifelong learning (e.g., Nykvist et al., 2021) and calls for more sustainable campuses (Gordon, 2020).
Although the context was different (especially the enforced nature of delivery mode) similar advantages for students emerged to those found in previous and ongoing studies of hybrid learning. These included inclusion (Monk et al., 2020), autonomy (Beatty, 2019) and offering new ways to engage students in learning (e.g., Raes et al., 2020a). Likewise similar disadvantages for students were cited, including technology challenges (Raes et al., 2020a), reduced motivation (Hollister et al., 2022), and feeling disconnected (Cheng et al., 2023). The differences from previous implementations of hybrid learning delivery were the improvised mode of deliveries (as opposed to hybrid learning by design) and the scale by which the hybrid delivery was adopted (across institution in contrast to a limited number of classes).
The setup of the hybrid learning environment limited interaction across the two learning spaces. Both groups attending the same session were not just separated by the spatial location but also by the technology. Clear and reliable communication channels are important in both online and hybrid delivery, but for hybrid delivery there is also a need to invest in technology that supports discussion between the two groups, while minimising complexity for the lecturer. Savings to introduce more seamless technology and associated training could come from budgets set aside to build, heat and maintain large lecture spaces.
The timetabling model generally adopted by universities is based around an efficient lecture – one lecturer and hundreds of students crammed in to make efficient use of both space and staff time (Gordon, 2020). The students in this study expressed a preference for having the flexibility of attending or following a live stream, and moving between these options week by week…if we can get the technology right. This would be a welcome move away from an unsustainable model of students attending every class, sometimes travelling for two hours to attend an hour’s lecture, using increasingly costly transport; especially to witness a lecturer reading from the slides, a common complaint in student surveys (Bligh, 2000; Uzun & Kilis, 2019).
Lecturer feedback on this learning space was mixed. The face-to-face contact with the students provided useful visual cues for content delivery; cues that prompted them when to discuss further, when to pause or when to continue. The online space, on the other hand, was active with questions from students and sometimes fellow students provided answers to student queries in comparison to the usual face-to-face environment. However, transitioning to this teaching space required provision of and familiarisation with the right educational technology. Problems with technology tended to disadvantage the online cohort, but could also disadvantage the face-to-face students when the focus shifted to troubleshooting the technical issues.
To retain any advantages in hybrid learning, universities should seek open discussions with their student body, sharing any internal reports completed about their learning and teaching experiences over the period of the pandemic. Hybrid learning is not for everyone, nor is it preferential for every learning activity, but the overall experience has shown that it can be done – and at scale. Many students prefer it, especially for content-sharing lectures, and especially for students that find large groups difficult, or have long commutes and/or other commitments. Student feedback about the hybrid learning space, although mixed, included the advantages of being able to shift between these online and offline learning spaces. The idea that face-to-face is better wasn’t shared by all students in this study, even though this message has been widely promoted by universities and governments (e.g., Zahawi, 2022). Students acknowledged that face-to-face delivery gives them the feeling of being more engaged. But with regards to managing their learning overall, the online students preferred online, the face-to-face students preferred face-to-face, and those that attended a mixture of both preferred hybrid. It could be that students do not value feeling engaged as much as they value the flexibility offered by hybrid learning. Of course, student preferences do vary and have been shown to differ depending on stage in their course (e.g., Photopoulos et al., 2022). A synchronous hybrid learning environment (particularly when aided with video recordings) is perceived to democratise access and promote an inclusive learning environment, as reported by both students and lecturers. Perhaps the campus is less important as a focus for learning, and hybrid can offer the best of both face-to-face and online worlds. Whether the hybrid environment helps more students succeed in their course needs to be further investigated and further research on hybrid learning should collect robust data on student attainment to verify whether their perceptions correlate with outcomes.
Conclusion
The post-pandemic focus was on getting student back on campus, no matter what. However, there is now an upskilled workforce of educators and so this is the perfect time to re-think future delivery: a future that can maximise student choice and autonomy, while making the campus a place for meaningful, interaction-based, smaller-scale learning. In this study, some student groups were told to attend in person, some told to attend online, and some given the choice. Being restricted to online attendance led to expressions such as being “second class” learners. Perhaps by offering choice of delivery, all students will feel like “first class” learners.
In terms of limitations, this study was carried out in the engineering and computing department of a single institution where the model adopted was for one student group to attend face-to-face and another online, in order to limit student numbers on campus, and contain the spread of Covid-19. Some of the lecturers gave the students the choice to attend either delivery. One limitation of our study is that the data does not capture the implementation of this flexibility (e.g. when it was made available and how widely it was taken up). While the students have indicated which their normal mode of attendance was, in retrospect, a different initial setting would influence how students perceived their engagement with the environment. Thus the findings are limited in generalisability.
In terms of future work, the narratives from the student and lecturer interviews reflected an ongoing experience. After experiencing more time back on campus, it would be worthwhile investigating how students now perceive the option of a flexible synchronous hybrid learning environment and how it aligns with the university’s inclusion strategies.
Declarations
Ethics Approval
Ethics approval was obtained through the University's ethical approval process. Students and lecturers participated voluntarily in the study, and informed consent was explained and confirmed through the survey and the interviews.
Competing Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose, relevant to this paper.
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/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
