Running head: TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 1

Teacher Perspective on the Impact of Hybrid Learning on Students’ Academic Experience

Tyler Clouse

University of Colorado Colorado Springs

TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 2

Abstract

During the 2020-2021 school year, the COVID-19 pandemic created an

unprecedented need for the development and implementation of a new learning

environment model that could cater to student academic needs and new health and safety

restrictions. The development and implementation of a new hybrid learning environment

models creates concerns for student safety, student social and emotional health, and student

academic success. The new models also create strain and stress for teachers, pushing most

into unfamiliar environments with tools that are equally unfamiliar. Teacher perspectives

on the new models seem to be largely negative during staff meetings and social discussions

and those perspectives seem to favor the traditional in-person models that were in-place

prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. To analyze the perspectives of teachers on these new

models, a survey was distributed to establish a comparative perspective on five separate

elements of the student academic experience. Using the data collected from the survey, a

T-test of significant difference was run between the hybrid and traditional models. The

study found no significant difference in overall perspectives on the student academic

experience between models.

TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 3

Teacher Perspective on the Impact of Hybrid Learning on Students’ Academic Experience

1. Introduction

During the recent 2020-2021 school year there has been a marked increase in interest and

application of hybrid learning environments to address the needs of schools during the COVID-

19 pandemic. One of the greatest struggles posed to schools when implementing new

environmental models was the lack of established models to choose from, creating a unique and

imminent need for schools to develop new models in unprecedented deadlines. Further

complicating the development and implementation of these models was the constantly changing

expectations and requirements provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

and state legislations on school attendance, as well as impacts from unforeseen quarantines

within individual schools. As a result, frustrations with teachers mounted throughout the school

year, and the effectiveness of the implemented models was brought into question.

For teachers, frustrations surrounding the models were centered on the impact on teachers

and students. Discussions in one Colorado school district were centered on the potential

negative impacts on the student academic experience. A previous study performed in one of the

schools in this district revealed that teacher perspectives on the provided model may be worse

than perspectives of the previous environmental models already established at the school. This

perspective may explain some of the struggles and obstacles presented in the implementation of

the newly developed hybrid model used during the 2020-2021 school year. In order to evaluate

the nature of these perspectives, it was imperative that a follow-up study be performed to

ascertain teacher perspectives comparatively between the models.

TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 4

2. Literature Review

2.1 Defining the Hybrid Model

Hybrid environment models have been developed and studied to some extent over the

past decade, but existing research and format of these models is limited. To effectively evaluate

the hybrid model used in the Colorado school district, it is important to first define what a hybrid

environmental model is. A hybrid environmental model of learning may be defined as one of

two distinct models: students and teachers attend school in person part time, and online part time;

or students and teachers attend school in a simultaneous combination of in-person and online,

with the teacher and some students remaining full-time in a classroom and some students

attending class remotely (Chandra & Fisher 2009). The hybrid model addressed in this study is a

combination of these two models into a new and unique third model format, where in-person

class sessions also have online-only students and all students and teachers complete online-only

sessions, both synchronous and asynchronous.

2.2 Perceptions of Hybrid Models

Perceptions of hybrid models of learning can be separated into two categories: student

perceptions and teacher perceptions. The development of various environmental models focuses

on both perspectives, but research on the subject tends to focus on one specific perspective.

Student perspectives have been the heavy focus for much research on the effectiveness of hybrid

and online models. Studies by Webb Boyd (2008), Chandra & Fisher (2009), Austin & Hunter

(2012), and Beschorner (2021;2020) provide in-depth analysis into the perceptions of students

from various backgrounds and in various hybrid models. These studies indicate that student

backgrounds may affect student perceptions of the implemented models, suggesting that

culturally diverse educational practices are not as apparent in the development of the models. A
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 5

study by Glogowska, Young, Lockyer, & Moule (2001), gives additional context into what

students perceive as effective and ineffective elements of hybrid models from a higher education

lens in a health care context. This study revealed that UK students were unsatisfied with the

sense of community created by the hybrid environment and perceived the online and face-to-face

elements of their courses to be unbalanced and improperly implemented.

Exploring another facet of student perceptions, a study by Hung & Chou (2015) was

aimed at analyzing student perceptions of instructors’ roles in hybrid environments. The study

concluded that university students enrolled in hybrid courses had the lowest mean scores for

social support on the Online Instructor Role and Behavior Scale (OIRBS) and that instructors of

these courses were better facilitators of discussions. The study implies that instructors of hybrid

courses should focus most heavily on bolstering student social engagement in the classroom

prior to establishing other classroom elements. The findings of these various studies suggest an

overall dissatisfaction in student perceptions on hybrid environment models’ ability to meet the

social and communal needs of students.

Teacher perspectives of hybrid environment models may also have a significant impact

on the development and implementation of the models. A recent study by Greenhow & Lewin

(2021) on the implementation of hybrid models during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that

teachers’ perceptions of the model were largely associated with increased stress levels. The

study also suggests that teachers’ perceptions of the hybrid model were informed by the lack of

existing online infrastructures and materials, as well as a need for continued adaptive

professional development. The study also suggests that teachers were conscious of gaps in the

online aspects of the educational environment pertaining to student inclusion and identified

significant challenges in student engagement and efficacy. These themes are present throughout
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 6

student perception studies and are confirmed and mirrored in the study by Greenhow & Lewin

(2021). It is important to note that the findings on teacher perceptions are further validated via a

study by Philipsen, Tondeur, Scherer, Pynoo, & Zhu (2021) that set out to validate the survey

instrument measuring teacher perceptions, finding the instrument to be both valid and highly

effective.

2.3 Effectiveness of Hybrid Models

Understanding perceptions of hybrid models provides some insight into the effectiveness

of the models. A study by Shah, Parmar, and Mehta (2014) regarding faculty perceptions about

student-centered curriculums implies that teacher and faculty perceptions of various learning

models or environment models can give direct insight into the effectiveness of the model’s

implementation and the overall impact on student educational outcomes. Studies focusing on

perceptions have revealed a surprisingly unanimous agreement that hybrid models are perceived

as being ineffective at catering to student social needs. However, perception is only one facet of

understanding the models’ effectiveness; understanding the models’ effects on student academic

outcomes is equally essential to determining whether the model is truly effective. A study by

Butz, Stupnisky, & Pekrun (2015) found that university students enrolled in a college of business

hybrid-type program had differing understandings of the effect of the hybrid model on their

individual outcomes. Students who participated remotely had a better understanding of how

technology impacted their learning and outcomes versus how elements of the hybrid model were

impactful than their in-person peers. The study also revealed that the hybrid model affected

students’ rhetorical choices during classroom discussions, with online-only students tending to

“show” knowledge during discussions rather than demonstrating true learning like the in-person

students. This effect on student outcomes, coupled with higher student perceptions of self-
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 7

efficacy, implies that there is a separation between perceptions of effectiveness and true

effectiveness off the models.

Throughout the past decade, studies by Kalloo & Mohan (2011), Chingos, Griffiths,

Mulhern, & Spies (2017), Irawan, Sutadji, & Widivanti (2017), Page, Meehan-Andrews,

Weerakkody, Hughes, & Rathner (2017), Heckel & Ringeisen (2019), Macaruso, Wilkes, &

Prescott (2020), and Hwang, Wang, & Lai (2021) have focused on the effects of hybrid

environment models on student outcomes. These studies cover a wide breadth of student

populations, from primary education to graduate-level university students in numerous countries

around the globe. The findings from all the studies indicate that various models of hybrid

environments are effective at improving student academic outcomes across content areas and

grade levels. However, each study also notes that the hybrid models were ineffective at

improving student social outcomes, a finding consistent with the perspective findings in other

studies. Further to this, new development of integrated curriculums derived from hybrid

environment models such as those explored by Cviko, McKenney, & Voogt (2013) and Gresnigt,

Taconis, van Keulen, Gravemeijer, & Baartman (2014) indicate continued improvement in

student outcomes through the integration of online tools and curriculums into in-person

classrooms. The overwhelming conclusion is that, when considering student academic

outcomes, hybrid environment models are effective at improving student outcomes compared to

online-only or in-person-only models.

2.4 Limitations of Hybrid Models

Existing research on hybrid models reveals an apparent limitation to the models’

effectiveness in improving student social outcomes. With restrictions to the physical presence of

students in hybrid courses, limitations to social applications of the models are expected.
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 8

Comprehensive analysis of existing research by Hwang (2018) indicates that there may be

additional limitations to the model that are not addressed or highlighted by the existing research.

Hwang surmises that hybrid models have additional limitations in effectiveness in the areas of

peer-to-peer collaboration and student-teacher interactions; both areas are elements of student

social outcomes but are specific to themselves as part of the overall student academic experience.

Hwang’s summations are mirrored in the findings of studies completed by Tran Van Tung, Ngo

Ngoc, & Tran Phương (2020) and Shi, Tong, & Long (2021). These studies indicate that

secondary and post-secondary students may have unsatisfactory classroom engagement practices

due to increased anxiety and a lack of extrinsic motivational factors. Shi, Tong, & Long (2021)

found that one factor of this lessened classroom engagement was partially due to how the

teachers divided their attention between students, implying that teacher engagement is also

heavily affected by the hybrid model.

3. Methods

3.1 Participants

The following study consists of a small population of 77 high school teachers from a

specific school in the state of Colorado. The teachers at the school comprise all subject areas and

range in experience from pre-teachers (student teachers and those enrolled in Alternative

Licensure programs) to veteran teachers that have been employed at the school for over twenty

years. The study participants are all employed at the same school, and all taught during the

2020-2021 school year. The school is considered Title I, and the student demographics are

roughly 50% Hispanic and 50% Caucasian or mixed ethnicity, and over 50% of the school

population receives free-and-reduced lunches. The district itself is underfunded compared to

state district averages and subsequently has limited access to technology and online toolsets.
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 9

During the 2020-2021 school year, in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the

school developed and implemented a unique blended model of hybrid learning, where students

attended the school in-person one day a week (teachers were in-person two days to accommodate

cohort alternations), attended online synchronous learning two days a week, and completed one

day of asynchronous self-paced learning one day a week across a four-day school week.

Additionally, some students were given the option to participate in online-only learning but were

instructed using a separated hybrid model where online students attended in-person classes

remotely. Some teachers at the school were designated as online-only educators, but also had in-

person students that attended classes remotely from within the school. Despite the varied and

fluid nature of each teacher and student’s environment, all students and teachers were considered

to be participants of the same hybrid model.

3.2 Measures

To measure teachers’ perspectives on the impact of the unique hybrid model of learning

on student experiences, a new questionnaire had to be developed. Current research in hybrid

learning fails to provide any existing questionnaire that addresses teacher perspectives on student

academic experiences in a comparative context suitable to the purposes of this study. For the

purposes of this study, the questionnaire was developed using emerging themes found during a

previous interview study with a teacher from this school surrounding student experiences during

the 2020-2021 school year. Using the previous interview, five elements of teachers’ perspectives

on student academic experiences were identified: student achievement, classroom engagement,

student social-emotional wellbeing, student social competencies, and student self-efficacy. To

accurate gage teacher perspectives on these elements, it was deemed necessary to establish

teacher perspectives on those same categories for a traditional learning model (in-person learning
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 10

only). The questionnaire contains ten questions, one question for each element for hybrid

learning and for traditional learning. For this study, the 10-question survey was administered to

teachers during their summer break. The questionnaire was administered online using Google

Forms. Each question was based on a five-measure Likert scale, indicating that 1 was

“extremely ineffective” and 5 was “extremely effective”. Teacher responses were anonymous.

A copy of the survey can be viewed in Appendix A.

3.3 Reliability and Validity

The reliability and validity of the measurement instrument may be limited due to the lack

of comparable established questionnaires. To ensure the highest levels of reliability and validity

possible, the questionnaire was developed using developmental aspects Likert scales that have

been established (Jebb, Ng, & Tay 2021). The questionnaire was developed with readability and

Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) in mind, though limitations exist due to time-frame restrictions

that prevent questionnaire testing and reworking. To reduce limitations, study participants were

not advised of learning model comparison or overall study purpose (question or hypothesis).

Participants were asked to consider each question carefully with attention for student perspective

and classroom observations from the previous year. Participants were also advised that the study

was unrelated to any district or school-based research or inquiry, and responses were kept

anonymous to support participant response reliability.

3.4 Process

The study called for teachers taking the questionnaire survey instrument to evaluate the

impact (effectiveness) of two models of learning on increasing five elements of the student

academic experience. The hypothesis proposed is that there would be a significant difference

between teacher perspectives on the impact of each model on student academic experiences
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 11

using the results obtained. Ordinal data from the survey was collected and coalesced, and

quantitative data was applied. An independent T-test was run for each element with the

independent variable being the model of learning.

4. Results

Responses were collected from the target population and the sample size was calculated,

N=17. Measures of central tendency were computed to summarize the data for each of the five

elements. Measures of dispersion were computed to understand the variability of scores for each

element. Then, each model was analyzed on its own. The data reveals the number of

participants, mean, range, and standard deviation of the mean. Once the measures of central

tendency were gathered, each of the five elements was examined individually, using the element

means and standard deviation through a t-test by element, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

T-test by Element
Element Hybrid Learning Traditional Learning P value
m sd m sd Prob>F
Student Achievement 2.71 0.77 3.71 0.69 0.488
Social-Emotional Wellbeing 1.94 0.90 4.00 0.94 0.390
Social Competencies 1.82 0.64 3.94 0.90 0.018**
Classroom Engagement 2.29 0.92 4.06 0.75 0.050**
Student Self-Efficacy 2.59 1.00 3.53 0.72 0.141
*P ≤ .1 **P ≤ .05 ***P ≤ .01

As for the elements presented, no statistical significance could be found in the differences

between models for student achievement, social-emotional wellbeing, or student self-efficacy.

Classroom engagement and social competencies were found to be moderately significantly

TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 12

different. Due to findings of no statistically significant differences in majority of the five

elements, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

5. Discussion

5.1 Implications

The purpose of this study was to identify and examine teacher perspectives on a new

hybrid learning environment model on student academic experiences. To determine teacher

perspectives on the hybrid model with sound interpretation, it was necessary to identify teacher

perspectives on these same elements for a traditional model that the teachers had experienced

previously, establishing a baseline perspective with which to compare. The results of this study

indicate that teachers from the school perceived the model as being moderately ineffective in

improving elements of the student academic experience for student achievement, classroom

engagement, social-emotional wellbeing, social competencies, and student self-efficacy. The

study also revealed that teacher perspectives on a traditional environment model as being

moderately effective for these same elements, with classroom engagements scoring the highest in

effectiveness. Averages for each element in each model are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2

Model Averages for each Element

Element Average out of 5 (Hybrid) Average out of 5 (Traditional)

Student Achievement 2.71 3.71

Social-Emotional Wellbeing 1.94 4.00

Social Competencies 1.82 3.94

Classroom Engagement 2.29 4.06

Student Self-Efficacy 2.59 3.53

TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 13

The study found that the element of classroom engagement (n(17), p = 0.050) and social

competencies (n(17), p = 0.018) were moderately significantly different. The remaining

elements were not found to be significantly different between models, which implies that, despite

the difference in means, overall teacher perspectives were not drastically different between the

two models. This implies that teachers did not perceive the hybrid model as being less effective

than the traditional model at improving elements of student achievement, social-emotional

wellbeing, or student self-efficacy. This study suggests that teachers’ perceptions on the new

hybrid model were overall like perspectives on the traditional model, when all five elements are

considered together as the whole of the student academic experience.

5.2 Future Recommendations

This study’s findings were in-line with existing research on the subject, concluding that

teacher perceptions on the target hybrid model were more negative for the social aspects of the

model. However, it is important to note that, when considering the overall student academic

experience, this study concludes that the overall perspective of teachers on the model was not

significantly different than a traditional model, which deviates slightly from existing research.

The implications are that the new model implemented by the target district and school may be

more effective than other hybrid models. An analysis of student outcomes from the 2020-2021

school year compared with teacher perspectives on the model’s effectiveness may provide

additional insights into the overall efficacy of the model. Additional research would be required,

with follow-up studies on student and administrator perspectives providing additional avenues

for insights into the hybrid model.

This study could be of value to school and district administration, as well as the district

Board of Education. The hybrid model identified in this study was implemented at the school as
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 14

a response to the COVID-19 pandemic; the traditional model identified was pre-established at

the school and is the model set for the upcoming 2021-2022 school year. In reviews of the

model to identify key aspects of its overall success, district and school personnel can use the

results of this study to bolster communications with teachers in the district, as well as provide

specific focus to the development of additional tools and professional development opportunities

that can improve the effectiveness of the model in increasing classroom engagement and student

social competencies. Stress mitigation and teacher retention are primary concerns for district

policy makers, and the data from this study may provide insight into how communications can be

structured to further reduce the immediate onset stress in times of emergency or other sudden

change.

5.3 Research Limitations

There are some limitations to this study that should be considered. The small sample

pool size, 17 teacher respondents out of 77 at a specific school, may limit the study’s

generalizability outside of the specific population of the study. It may have been beneficial for

the study to investigate teachers at all schools in the target district that participated in the hybrid

model, or to submit the survey to teachers via channels that are more accessible to teachers

during summer break. The study may also be limited in its generalizability by the hybrid model

itself, which is unique to the target district and may not have an equivalent beyond the district. It

may have been beneficial for the study to focus on specific elements of the model that are found

in common hybrid models that are preestablished. Additionally, the study utilizes a snapshot

design and does not account for longitudinal data or factors, limiting its conclusions. Despite

these limitations, the study was able to provide a preliminary investigation into teachers’
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 15

perspectives of the hybrid model and provides insight with specificity to the target school and

district, directly benefitting the population of focus.

TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 16

References

Austin, R. S., & Hunter, W. J. (2012). 'Whatever you say, say nothing': Student perceptions of

online learning and community in Northern Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 31(4),

451-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2012.673906

Beschorner, B. (2021;2020). Revisiting Kuo and Belland’s exploratory study of undergraduate

students’ perceptions of online learning: Minority students in continuing education.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 47-50.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09900-3

Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Students’ emotions for achievement and

technology use in synchronous hybrid graduate programmes: A control-value approach.

Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26097

Chandra, V., & Fisher, D. L. (2009). Students’ perceptions of a blended web-based learning

environment. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 31-44.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9051-6

Cheng, A., Jordan, M. E., Schallert, D. L., & The D-Team. (2013). Reconsidering assessment in

online/hybrid courses: Knowing versus learning. Computers and Education, 68, 51-59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.022

Cheung, S. K. S., Li, R., Phusavat, K., Paoprasert, N., Kwok, L., & SpringerLink (Online

service). (2020). Blended learning: Education in a smart learning environment: 13th

international conference, ICBL 2020, Bangkok, Thailand, August 24-27, 2020,

proceedings. Springer.

Chingos, M. M., Griffiths, R. J., Mulhern, C., & Spies, R. R. (2017). Interactive online learning

on campus: Comparing students' outcomes in hybrid and traditional courses in the

TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 17

university system of maryland. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus), 88(2), 210-

233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1244409

Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2013). The teacher as re-designer of technology

integrated activities for an early literacy curriculum. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 48(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.4.c

Glogowska, M., Young, P., Lockyer, L., & Moule, P. (2011). How ‘blended’ is blended

learning?: Students' perceptions of issues around the integration of online and face-to-

face learning in a continuing professional development (CPD) health care context. Nurse

Education Today, 31(8), 887-891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.02.003

Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2021). Online and blended learning: Contexts and conditions for

education in an emergency. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1301-1305.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13130

Gresnigt, R., Taconis, R., van Keulen, H., Gravemeijer, K., & Baartman, L. (2014). Promoting

science and technology in primary education: A review of integrated curricula. Studies in

Science Education, 50(1), 47-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.877694

Heckel, C., & Ringeisen, T. (2019). Pride and anxiety in online learning environments:

Achievement emotions as mediators between learners' characteristics and learning

outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 667-677.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12367

Hung, M., & Chou, C. (2015). Students' perceptions of instructors' roles in blended and online

learning environments: A comparative study. Computers and Education, 81, 315-325.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.022
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 18

Hwang, A. (2018). Online and hybrid learning. Journal of Management Education, 42(4), 557-

563. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918777550

Hwang, G., Wang, S., & Lai, C. (2021). Effects of a social regulation-based online learning

framework on students’ learning achievements and behaviors in mathematics. Computers

and Education, 160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104031

Irawan, V. T., Sutadji, E., & Widiyanti. (2017). Blended learning based on schoology: Effort of

improvement learning outcome and practicum chance in vocational high school. Cogent

Education, 4(1), 1282031. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1282031

Jebb, A. T., Ng, V., & Tay, L. (2021). A review of key likert scale development advances: 1995-

2019. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 637547-637547.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637547

Kalloo, V., & Mohan, P. (2011). An investigation into mobile learning for high school

mathematics. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(3), 59-76.

https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2011070105

Macaruso, P., Wilkes, S., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). An investigation of blended learning to

support reading instruction in elementary schools. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 68(6), 2839-2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09785-2

Nørgård, R. T. (2021). Theorising hybrid lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 52(4), 1709-1723. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13121

Page, J., Meehan-Andrews, T., Weerakkody, N., Hughes, D. L., & Rathner, J. A. (2017). Student

perceptions and learning outcomes of blended learning in a massive first-year core

physiology for allied health subjects. Advances in Physiology Education, 41(1), 44-55.

https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00005.2016
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 19

Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Pynoo, B., & Zhu, C. (2021). Measuring institutional

support for online and blended learning professional development: Validating an

instrument that examines teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Research &

Method in Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1926973

Shah, C., Parmar, D., & Mehta, H. (2014). Perceptions of faculty about student-centered

curriculum. Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2(1), 74-79.

https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-4848.133832

Shi, Y., Tong, M., & Long, T. (2021). Investigating relationships among blended synchronous

learning environments, students’ motivation, and cognitive engagement: A mixed

methods study. Computers and Education, 168, 104-193.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104193

Tran Van Tung, Ngo Ngọc Nguyen Thao, Tran Phương Hai. (2020). Accounting students'

perceptions of online learning in the age of industry 4.0. Management Science Letters,

11(2), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.9.027

Webb Boyd, P. (2008). Analyzing students’ perceptions of their learning in online and hybrid

first-year composition courses. Computers and Composition, 25(2), 224-243.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2008.01.002
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 20

Appendix A

Survey Instrument

Hybrid Learning Survey

Please fill out the below questions truthfully and as accurately as possible. The survey should not take
more than 5-10 minutes to complete, but please be thoughtful in your responses. As you answer,
consider the perspectives of your hybrid students from this past year, as well as the experiences you had
as educators.
* Required
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of hybrid learning in terms of increasing student achievement. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of hybrid learning in terms of increasing student social-emotional well-being. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of hybrid learning in terms of increasing student social competencies. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of hybrid learning in terms of increasing classroom engagement. *
Extremely ineffective
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 21

1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of hybrid learning in terms of increasing student self-efficacy. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of traditional in-person learning in terms of increasing student achievement. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of traditional in-person learning in terms of increasing student social-emotional well-being. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of traditional in-person learning in terms of increasing student social competencies. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
TEACHER PERSPECTIVE AND HYBRID LEARNING 22

Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of traditional in-person learning in terms of increasing classroom engagement. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Using a five-point scale (where 1-extremely ineffective, 5-extremely effective) rate the effectiveness
of traditional in-person learning in terms of increasing student self-efficacy. *
Extremely ineffective
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely effective
Figure A1: Teacher perspective on student academic experience survey.