More and more higher educational institutions invest in technology-enhanced learning spaces, which raises the question of how these environments can be shaped to be as effective as possible. A specific new learning space is the synchronous hybrid or blended learning environment in which both on-site and remote students can simultaneously attend learning activities. Given that synchronous hybrid learning is relatively new, there are few studies that have investigated its use and effectiveness. This study synthesised the best available evidence worldwide to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art of the current research regarding the benefits, challenges and current design principles to set up synchronous hybrid learning. In line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, we included 47 studies which were analysed to respond to our research questions. One of the main findings is that existing research suggests cautious optimism about synchronous hybrid learning which creates a more flexible, engaging learning environment compared to fully online or fully on-site instruction. Yet, this new learning space has several challenges which are both pedagogical and technological in nature. To meet these challenges, several design guidelines are formulated. A final conclusion is that most of the existing literature is exploratory and qualitative in nature and has focused mostly on descriptions of students’ experiences, the organisational implementation and the technological design. Empirical studies have only begun to emerge and more research is needed into different pedagogical scenarios and their impact on student outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Studies marked with * were included in the literature review (see Table 1).
*Abdelmalak, M. M. M., & Parra, J. L. (2016). Expanding learning opportunities for graduate students with HyFlex course design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 6(4), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2016100102.
*Alexander, M. M., Lynch, J. E., Rabinovich, T., & Knutel, P. G. (2014). Snapshot of a hybrid learning environment. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(1), 9–21.
*Anastasiades, P. S., Filippousis, G., Karvunis, L., Siakas, S., Tomazinakis, A., Giza, P., et al. (2010). Interactive videoconferencing for collaborative learning at a distance in the School of 21st Century: A case study in elementary schools in Greece. Computers & Education, 54(2), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.016.
Baker, C. K., & Hjarlmarson, M. (2019). Designing purposeful student interactions to advance synchronous learning experiences. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2019010101.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311.
Beatty, B. J. (2007a). Transitioning to an Online World: Using HyFlex Courses to Bridge the Gap. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 2701-2706). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 10, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/25752/.
*Beatty, B. J. (2007b, October). Hybrid classes with flexible participation options—If you build it, how will they come? In Paper presented at the 2007 association for educational communications and technology annual convention, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved May 10, 2019 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.495&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
*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.
Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2010a). Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 1. Nursing Standard, 24(50), 47–55.
Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2010b). Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 24(51), 47–58.
Blau, G., Jarrell, S., McCloskey, M., Williams, W., Kerzner, A., & Ford, T. (2018). Further exploring differences in business undergraduate perceived outcomes by preferred classroom learning environment. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(5), 20–30.
*Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J., & Kenney, J. (2014). Blended synchronous learning: A handbook for educators. Canberra: Office for Learning and Teaching, Australian Department of Education.
*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.
*Bower, M., Lee, M. J., & Dalgarno, B. (2017). Collaborative learning across physical and virtual worlds: Factors supporting and constraining learners in a blended reality environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12435.
*Brumfield, R., Carleo, J. S., Kenny, L. B., Melendez, M., O'Neill, B., Polanin, N. & Reynolds-Allie, K., (2017). Modifying and supplementing annie's project to increase impact in New Jersey and Beyond. Journal of Extension, 55(5)
*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 and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40, 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. (2017). Improving student relatedness through an online discussion intervention: The application of self-determination theory in synchronous hybrid programs. Computers & Education, 114, 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.006.
*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.
*Cain, W. (2015). Technology navigators: An innovative role in pedagogy, design and instructional support. In P. Redmond, J. Lock, & P. Danaher (Eds.), Educational innovations and contemporary technologies: Enhancing teaching and learning (pp. 21–35). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
*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). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2016.79.
*Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the disembodied: Othering and activity systems in a blended synchronous learning situation. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1793.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
*Grant, M. M., & Cheon, J. (2007). The value of using synchronous conferencing for instruction and students. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 211–226.
*Hastie, M., Hung, I. C., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk, (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525812.
*Huang, Y., Shu, F., Zhao, C., & Huang, J. (2017). Investigating and analyzing teaching effect of blended synchronous classroom. In 6th International Conference of Educational Innovation Through Technology (EITT) (pp. 134–135). https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2017.40.
*Lakhal, S., Bateman, D., & Bédard, J. (2017). Blended synchronous delivery modes in graduate programs: A literature review and its implementation 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, 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.841262.
*Liu, H., Spector, J. M., & Ikle, M. (2018). Computer technologies for model-based collaborative learning: A research-based approach with initial findings. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(5, SI), 1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22049.
*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: Springer.
*McKimmy, P. B., & Schmidt, M. (2014). HOT Classroom: Iterations on equipping a here-or-there instructional space. Presented at the International Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Jacksonville, FL.
*McKimmy, P.B., & Schmidt, M. (2015). HOT instruction: Equipping a here-or-there classroom. Presented at the 20th Annual Technology, Colleges & Community Worldwide Conference. Honolulu, HI.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
*Nortvig, A.-M. (2013). In the presence of technology—Teaching in hybrid synchronous classrooms. In Proceedings of the European conference on E-learning, ECEL (pp. 347–353).
*Olt, P. A. (2018). Virtually there: Distant freshmen blended in classes through synchronous online education. Innovative Higher Education, 43(5), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9437-z.
*Ørngreen, R., Levinsen, K., Jelsbak, V., Moller, K. L., & Bendsen, T. (2015). Simultaneous class-based and live video streamed teaching: Experiences and derived principles from the bachelor programme in biomedical laboratory analysis. In A. Jefferies & M. Cubric (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th European conference on E-learning (ECEL 2015) (pp. 451–459). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.
*Ramsey, D., Evans, J., & Levy, M. (2016). Preserving the seminar experience. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(3), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2015.1077713.
*Rasmussen, R. C. (2003). The quantity and quality of human interaction in a synchronous blended learning environment. Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & theses (UMI No. 305345928).
*Romero-Hall, E., & Vicentini, C. (2017). Examining distance learners in hybrid synchronous instruction: Successes and challenges. Online Learning, 21(4, SI), 141–157.
*Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A. (2013). Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar. TechTrends, 57(3), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0663-z.
*Shen, R. M., Wang, M. J., & Pan, X. (2008). Increasing interactivity in large blended classrooms through a cutting-edge mobile learning system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITICT.2008.4806642.
*Stewart, A. R., Harlow, D. B., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students’ experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments. Distance Education, 32(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610289.
*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.
*Vu, P., & Fadde, P. J. (2013). When to yalk, when to chat: Student interactions in live virtual classrooms. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(2), 41–52.
*Wang, Q., & Huang, C. (2018). Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a blended synchronous learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12558.
*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. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3404.
*Wang, Q., Quek, C. L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 99–118.
*Weitze, C. L. (2015). Pedagogical innovation in teacher teams: An organisational learning design model for continuous competence development. In Jefferies, I. A. & Cubric, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of 14th European conference on e-Learning ECEL-2015 (s. 629–638). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International.
*Weitze, C. L., Ørngreen, R., & Levinsen, K. (2013). The global classroom video conferencing model and first evaluations. In Ciussi, I. M. & Augier, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 12th European conference on E-Learning: SKEMA Business School, Sophia Antipolis France, 30–31 October 2013 (Bind 2, s. 503–510). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International.
*White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-010-0418-z.
*Wiles, G. L., & Ball, T. R. (2013, June 23–26). The converged classroom. Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference: Improving course effectiveness, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/22561.
*Yen, C.-J., & Abdous, M. (2012). A study of the predictive relationships between faculty engagement, learner satisfaction and outcomes in multiple learning delivery modes. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 9(4), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdet.2011100105.
*Zydney, J. M., McKimm, P., Lindberg, R., & Schmidt, M. (2019). Here or there instruction: Lessons learned in implementing innovative approaches to blended synchronous learning. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0344-z.
This research is partially funded by imec through the LECTURE + project. The imec.icon project LECTURE + is research bringing together academic researchers and industry partners. In this project, the research groups ITEC, Distrinet and PSI collaborated with the industry partners Barco, Televic Education and Limecraft. The LECTURE + project was co-financed by imec and received project support from Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Project Number HBC.2016.0657).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I. et al. A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. Learning Environ Res 23, 269–290 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z
- Here or there instruction
- Research gaps
- Synchronous hybrid or blended learning
- Systematic review