Paving the Way for Hybrid Teaching in Higher Education: Lessons from Students’ Perceptions and Acceptance of Different Teaching Modes during and after the Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the higher education landscape, increasing dramatically the acceptance of online and hybrid teaching modes in higher education. The present paper addresses the question on how these teaching modes developed during the pandemic can contribute to enhance traditional teaching experiences in the context of higher education in renewable energy master level courses from the perspective of the students. The main focus of the study lies on the student perception of their learning experience in the different course delivery modes. Additionally, the role of some didactic activities and materials as a complement for enhancing the learning experience in the different teaching modes is investigated. For this purpose, we evaluated several courses delivered in different teaching modes and interviewed students to characterize their perceptions on their learning experience in each of them. Main criteria for the student’s evaluation were the efficacy, workload or motivation and engagement perceived in the different course designs. Results show a high student’s acceptance and suitability of the proposed teaching method as compared to online and traditional face to face teaching modes.
References
[1]
Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243-1289.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
[2]
British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) (2022). Delivery Modes Explained.
https://www.bcit.ca/admission/future-students/study-options/delivery-modes-explained/
[3]
Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data Analysis Strategies for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015002195
[4]
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
[5]
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause Review.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
[6]
International Bureau of Education (UNESCO-IUB) (2022). Hybrid Education, Learning and Assessment (HELA).
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/news/hybrid-education-learning-and-assessment-hela
[7]
Munir, H. (2022). Reshaping Sustainable University Education in Post-Pandemic World: Lessons Learned from an Empirical Study. Education Sciences, 12, Article No. 524.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080524
[8]
North West Indian College (NWIC) (2023). Definitions of Course Types, Class Delivery Methods, and Relationship to Section Codes.
http://blogs.nwic.edu/curcom/files/2013/02/Course-Types-Class-Delivery-Methods-and-Section-Codes-11-9-15.pdf
[9]
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-Group Interview and Data Analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655-660. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2004399
[10]
Rivera-Chang, J. (2015). Case Study: Use of Online Tools in the Classroom and Their Impact on Industrial Design Pedagogy. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2275-2280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.372
[11]
Satterfield, D., Lepage, C., & Ladjahasan, N. (2015). Preferences for Online Course Delivery Methods in Higher Education for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3651-3656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.758
[12]
Satterfield, D., Rivera-Chang, J., Teubner, D., Tredway, T., & Woelfel, W. (2021). Evaluating Innovation Strategies in Online Education in Higher Education. In C. Leitner, W. Ganz, D. Satterfield, & C. Bassano (Eds.), Advances in the Human Side of Service Engineering. AHFE 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems (Vol. 266, pp. 219-225). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80840-2_25
[13]
Srinivasan, S., Ramos, J. A. L., & Muhammad, N. (2021). A Flexible Future Education Model—Strategies Drawn from Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Education Sciences, 11, Article No. 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090557
[14]
Trochim, W. (1989). An Introduction to Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(89)90016-5
[15]
University at Buffalo (UB) (2022). Delivery Modes and Teaching Approaches.
https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/develop/design/delivery-modes.html
[16]
University Marshall (2023). Course Delivery Modes.
https://www.marshall.edu/design-center/course-delivery-modes/
[17]
Wang, P., Ma, T., Liu, L.-B., Shang, C., An, P., & Xue, Y.-X. (2021). A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Online Instructional Strategies Optimized with Smart Interactive Tools versus Traditional Teaching for Postgraduate Students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 747719. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.747719
[18]
Witze, A. (2020). Universities Will Never Be the Same after the Coronavirus Crisis. Nature, 582, 162-164. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01518-y
[19]
Wut, T. M., Xu, J., Lee, S. W., & Lee, D. (2022). University Student Readiness and Its Effect on Intention to Participate in the Flipped Classroom Setting of Hybrid Learning. Education Sciences, 12, Article No. 442. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070442
