Student engagement in hybrid approaches to teaching in higher education


Palabras clave: enseñanza híbrida, participación del estudiantado, educación superior, evaluación


Los beneficios potenciales de los arreglos de enseñanza híbridos han captado la atención de muchos administradores/as educativos/as de educación superior. La enseñanza híbrida es un formato de enseñanza en el algunos estudiantes y profesores/as están físicamente presentes en el campus, mientras que otros participan en línea al mismo tiempo. Este tipo de educación ofrece la posibilidad de que el alumnado elija entre participar en línea o en persona. Este estudio examina su compromiso y motivación en la enseñanza híbrida en varios entornos disciplinarios. Para ello, se utilizaron cuestionarios y se realizaron entrevistas semiestructuradas con el estudiantado. Los docentes también compartieron sus experiencias con la enseñanza híbrida a través de entrevistas semiestructuradas. El análisis de los datos del cuestionario mostró que tanto el estudiantado en el campus como en línea que asiste a clases con motivación autónoma mostró más participación en el aula y más interacción en el aula que el estudiantado con menos motivación autónoma. El análisis de las transcripciones de las entrevistas proporcionó una visión profunda del compromiso y la interacción de estudiantado y profesorado en entornos de enseñanza híbridos. Las entrevistas revelaron que las interacciones con el estudiantado en línea eran menos frecuentes y menos poderosas que con sus compañeros en el campus. Dado que no todos los objetivos de aprendizaje se pueden alcanzar de manera óptima mediante un enfoque híbrido, es recomendable utilizar este tipo de enseñanza solo para aquellos cursos que no puedan impartirse exclusivamente en el campus.


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.


Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.

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), 68–82.

Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.

Biesta, G. (2020). What constitutes the good of education? Reflections on the possibility of educational critique. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(10), 1023–1027.

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(2), 1–30.

Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17.

Büchele, S. (2021). Evaluating the link between attendance and performance in higher education: The role of classroom engagement dimensions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 132–150.

Butz, N. T., & Askim-Lovseth, M. K. (2015). Oral communication skills assessment in a synchronous hybrid MBA programme: Does attending face-to-face matter for US and international students? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 624–639.

Butz, N. T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of graduate students’ self-determined motivation in synchronous hybrid learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 85–95.

Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Jensen, J. L., & Harsell, D. M. (2016). 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, 14(4), 441–474.

Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), S14–S30.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Pearson.

Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the disembodied: Othering and activity systems in a blended synchronous learning situation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6).

Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245–262.

Grant, M., & Cheon, J. (2007). The value of using synchronous conferencing for instruction and students. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 211–226.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175–213.

Guo, P., Saab, N., Wu, L., & Admiraal, W. (2021). The Community of Inquiry perspective on students' social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance in online project‐based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1479-1493.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

Kantcheva, R. B. and Bickle, E. (2023). Inclusive learning development practices: the consequences of flexibility and choice in the hybrid era. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 26.

Lakhal, S., Bateman, D., & Bédard, J. (2017). Blended Synchronous Delivery Modes in Graduate Programs: A Literature Review and How it is Implemented in the Master Teacher Program. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 47–60.

Lightner, C. A., & Lightner-Laws, C. A. (2016). A blended model: Simultaneously teaching a quantitative course traditionally, online, and remotely. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 224–238.

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. Jossey Bass.

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.

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 & Education, 143, 103682.

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.

Richardson, M., Abraham, C. &Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.

Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2007). Supporting communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: The effect of instruction. Instructional Science, 35(1), 73-98.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.

Szeto, E. (2014). A Comparison of Online/Face-to-face Students’ and Instructor’s Experiences: Examining Blended Synchronous Learning Effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4250–4254.

Szeto, E. (2015). Community of Inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Computers & Education, 81, 191–201.

Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: What effects are there on students’ social presence experience? Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487–503.

Tinto, V. (2012). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago press.

Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.

van Blankenstein, F.M., Saab, N., van der Rijst, R. M., Danel, M. S., Bakker-van den Berg, A. S., & van den Broek, P. W. (2019). How do self-efficacy beliefs for academic writing and collaboration and intrinsic motivation for academic writing and research develop during an undergraduate research project? Educational Studies 45(2), 209-225.

Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of Autonomy and Control Among Chinese Learners: Vitalizing or Immobilizing? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 468–483.

Wang, Q., Quek, C. L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and Improving a Blended Synchronous Learning Environment: An Educational Design Research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).

Weitze, C., Ørngreen, R., & Levinsen, K. (2013). The global classroom video conferencing model and first evaluations. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on E-Learning, 503–510.

Zydney, J. M., McKimmy, P., Lindberg, R., & Schmidt, M. (2019). Here or there instruction: lessons learned in implementing innovative approaches to blended synchronous learning. TechTrends, 63(2), 123–132.

Cómo citar
Van der Rijst, R., Guo, P., & Admiraal, W. (2023). Student engagement in hybrid approaches to teaching in higher education. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 41(2), 315–336.