Learning and Instruction has a special issue on hybrid learning, which combines face-to-face learning with online technology. The introductory article by Gaëlle Molinari and colleagues nicely summarises what we know and don’t know from the still young field of research on hybrid learning.

First, what do the researchers mean by hybrid learning here? Here, they mean synchronous hybrid education. This means that some students are physically present, while others participate online in the same learning activities at the same time. This differs from blended learning. The latter describes approaches where online and face-to-face education may alternate, for example.

A first important conclusion may be that we shouldn’t simply see hybrid learning as regular education with a camera added. What happens depends on a combination of technology, space, teaching, and social interaction. And the different combinations can make a big difference.

What do we know by now?

One of the clearest findings is that hybrid teaching can be really demanding for teachers. This is not so hard to imagine. Think of it. They must account for both students in class and students in an online mode of instruction. Hence, researchers term this particular load the teacher orchestration load. What intrigues me here, and what I am encountering for the first time, is that the load under discussion is not only cognitive but also emotional. Technical issues, student needs, and lack of support can increase this load. Experience with technology and good technical and didactic support can decrease it.

Experience also seems to help in this case. Teachers with more experience of hybrid education use technology in more advanced ways and report more constructive learning activities. But even for those pros, it remains a challenge to get online and in-person students to work together as one group.

We also see this among students. In one study, physically present students spoke more often, while online students participated less easily. I recognise this in hybrid meetings too. Interestingly, online students sometimes made longer, more task-focused contributions. I have no comment on whether this is always the case in meetings. Groups also came up with solutions themselves, for example by moving cameras so that online participants could be more involved.

Another study found a similar participation gap. Without extra support, online students contributed less often and for less time than their physically present group members. Extra scripts and reflection tasks did not yet produce convincing results. At the group level, however, some indications suggest support can narrow the gap.

If you now think hybrid collaboration is, by definition, worse, that certainly doesn’t seem to be the case. In an experiment with 180 students, researchers found no significant differences between fully face-to-face, fully online and hybrid groups in participation or in the quality of interaction as rated by observers. The quality of the joint final product also did not differ significantly. It is important to realise that the reasons for choosing hybrid education can differ greatly. Think, for example, of Bednet.

And what don’t we know yet?

Of course, we never know everything, but much of this still remains understudied. The authors themselves stress that this field of research is still young. Many studies are small or examine only one activity or meeting. Furthermore, most research so far has focused on higher education. There is very little knowledge about other levels of education and what it means to be in such hybrid environments for long periods.

It remains unclear which combination of technology, group size, task, and support works best. It is also unclear what effects it has on learning outcomes, motivation, well-being, connection, and relationships. This is why the authors, among other things, call for larger samples, replication studies, and longitudinal research in authentic educational contexts.

Perhaps what we know by now is mainly that the question “does hybrid learning work?” is too simple. Hybrid learning isn’t an intervention you can simply compare with classroom education. It seems increasingly clear that it doesn’t necessarily have to work worse. But equal participation doesn’t happen automatically.