Student engagement in hybrid approaches to teaching in higher education
Abstract
Prospective benefits of hybrid teaching arrangements have attracted attention of many educational administrators of higher education institutes (HEIs). Hybrid teaching is a teaching format in which some students and the teachers are physically present on campus, while at the same time other students are present online. The prospective benefits of this type of education are that students can choose to participate online or in class. This study examines student engagement and motivation in hybrid teaching in various disciplinary settings. Student engagement and motivation were measured through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with students. Teachers shared their experience with hybrid teaching in semi-structured interviews. The analysis of the questionnaire data showed that both on-campus and online students who attend classes with autonomous motivation showed more classroom engagement and more classroom interaction than students with less autonomous motivation. The analysis of the interview transcripts provided in-depth insight into the engagement and interaction of students and teachers in hybrid teaching settings. The interviews revealed that interactions with online students were less frequent and less powerful than with their on-campus peers. As not all learning objectives can best be met with a hybrid arrangement, it is advisable to use hybrid teaching arrangement only for those courses that cannot be taught at the campus only.
Downloads
References
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. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v5i1.12657
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1723468
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1754330
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.940577
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.10.003
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12110
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). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1793
Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12810
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250
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. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
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. https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi26.886
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. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4747
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.841262
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. https://doi.org/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 & Education, 143, 103682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEDPSYCH.2020.101860
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.015
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.881391
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1446326
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.468
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). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.3034
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0344-z
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Educational Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The articles and scientific documents published in RIE abide the following conditions:
1. The Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (the publisher) has the property rights (copyright) of all the documents published and allows the reuse under the user’s license indicated in point 2.
2. All documents are published in the digital edition of RIE under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (legal document) license. These documents can be copied, used, distributed, communicated and explained publicly if: i) the author(s) and its original source of publishing (magazine, publisher and URL of the document) are cited; ii) it is not used for commercial purpose; iii) the existence and the specifications about this license are mentioned.
3. Auto-archive’s conditions. The authors are allowed and encouraged to digitally distribute the pre-print versions (a version before evaluation) and/or post-print (a version that it is already evaluated and accepted to its publication). This promotes circulation and distribution earlier and can increase the citations and significance within the academic community.
