PEDAGOGICAL INTERACTION IN HYBRID LEARNING: STUDENT EXPERIENCE, EXPECTATIONS, AND METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This article examines the pedagogical specificities of hybrid learning within Ukrainian higher education in the context of ongoing crisis conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and military conflict. The study analyses how technological, organizational, and psychological factors shape pedagogical interaction in hybrid environments, drawing on contemporary theoretical frameworks and empirical data collected through a student survey. The results demonstrate that the effectiveness of hybrid learning depends on technological stability, clear communication, balanced participation of online and in-person students, and instructors’ digital competence. While students reported numerous challenges–including technical instability and uneven instructor attention–they also identified significant advantages such as flexibility, accessibility, psychological comfort, and improved digital skills. Based on the findings, the article proposes methodological recommendations for enhancing pedagogical interaction and strengthening the resilience of hybrid learning models in modern higher education.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
hybrid learning; pedagogical interaction; digital competence; higher education; crisis- responsive teaching; blended instruction; student engagement; instructional design
2. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
3. European Students’ Union. (2022). Digital education readiness report. ESU.
4. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.
5. Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). Routledge.
6. Hamza-Lup, F. G., & White, S. (2018). Design and assessment for hybrid courses: Insights and overviews. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:1811.07273. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07273
7. HNEU. (n.d.). Znaiomstvo iz PNS [Introduction to teaching staff]. Retrieved from https://hneu.edu.ua/news/znajomstvo-iz-pns/
8. Institute of ITT. (n.d.). Pedahohichna vzaiemodiia [Pedagogical interaction]. EduGloss. Retrieved from https://eduglos.iitta.gov.ua/index.php/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%94%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F
9. Marchuk, A. A. (2019). Sutnist pedahohichnoi vzaiemodii vykladacha i studentiv v protsesi profesiinoi pidhotovky menedzheriv [The essence of pedagogical interaction between teachers and students in the training of managers]. In Suchasni problemy upravlinnia pidpryiemstvamy: Teoriia ta praktyka (p. 345). Kharkiv.
10. Podoliak, L. H., & Yurchenko, V. I. (2014). Psykholohiia vyshchoi shkoly [Psychology of higher education]. Karavela.
11. UNESCO. (2021). New UNESCO global survey reveals impact of COVID-19 on higher education. UNESCO.
12. UNESCO. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on higher education: Student perspectives. UNESCO.
13. UNESCO. (2022). Building resilience in higher education systems. UNESCO.
14. UNESCO & World Bank. (2023). Education in emergencies: Global response report. UNESCO & World Bank.
15. UNICEF. (2022). Supporting the mental health of children and young people in crisis settings. UNICEF.
16. UNICEF. (2023). War has hampered education for 5.3 million children in Ukraine. UNICEF.
17. Vereshchahina, S. O., Liashchenko, O. I., & Babiy, O. V. (2020). Pedahohichna vzaiemodiia v umovakh zmishanoho navchannia: Novi vyklyky ta mozhlyvosti [Pedagogical interaction in blended learning: New challenges and opportunities]. Pedahohichni Nauky, 88(3), 45–52.
18. Zyazyun, I. A. (2000). Kontseptualni zasady teorii osvity v Ukraini [Conceptual foundations of educational theory in Ukraine]. Pedahohika i Psykholohiia Profesiinoi Osvity, 1, 11–24.