Prospective benefits of hybrid teaching arrangements have attracted many educational administrators of HEI to introduce pilots in university teaching. Hybrid teaching is a form of education where at the same time part of the teachers and students are physically present and part online. The prospective benefits of this type of education are that students and teachers can choose how to participate independent of place. Students who would not be able or willing to participate in physical-only education can participate in hybrid teaching. This potentially makes hybrid teaching more inclusive and better suitable for international students. However, hybrid teaching approaches also might encompass challenges for both teachers and students. Providing hybrid teaching is highly challenging for teachers, as additional effort is necessary to design appropriate learning activities for both online and in-class participants, to organize valuable interactions between the student groups, and to manage the abundance of digital tools (cameras, microphones, screens, LMS, etc.). Hybrid teaching approaches are a rather new phenomenon in university education -accelerated by school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic- and the value of these approaches for student engagement and student learning is still unclear. Therefore, we aim to expand our understanding of the value of hybrid teaching approaches in higher education for student learning.

1.1 Student engagement and cognitive outcomes

Teaching at the university focuses on student learning and their development, whereby students acquire knowledge and skills, develop further into critical and responsible participants in society, and are aware of their environment and the way in which that influences their actions (Biesta, 2010, 2020). These global educational goals are reflected in the learning goals of specific educational programs and courses. Therefore, the first effect measure of this study is student achievement in the relevant courses.

The sense of belonging has traditionally been a variable that determines the academic performance of students in higher education. Since the 1980s, research on predictors of academic achievement has indicated that a sense of belonging to the education programs, teachers, and fellow students is the strongest predictor of student achievement (Astin, 1984; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993). At the level of teaching, this involvement can be summarized with the term student engagement (cf. Büchele, 2021). In short, student engagement can be understood as the efforts students make in the context of their education and are related to academic achievement and study progress in both campus education and online education (Bond et al., 2020). Five types of engagement are distinguished (Deng et al., 2020; Reeve & Tseng, 2011; Skinner et al. 2008): 1) behavioral engagement – the extent to which students participate in teaching activities; 2) cognitive engagement – the extent to which students are mentally involved during the learning activities, 3) emotional engagement – the feelings students have about teaching and the teaching environment, 4) social engagement – the extent to which students interact with teachers and peers, and 5) agentic engagement – the extent to which students express themselves.

1.2 Research question

The present study aims to provide insights into teachers’ and students’ evaluations of hybrid teaching. We specifically investigate students’ engagement in hybrid learning and how it is related to their cognitive learning outcomes. Thus, the specific research questions are as follows.

1. How do teachers and students evaluate hybrid teaching?

2. How is students’ engagement for hybrid learning related to their cognitive outcomes?

2.1 Research context In the 2021-22 academic year, Leiden University has conducted three pilots with hybrid teaching with newly furnished teaching rooms. All hybrid teaching forms concern synchronous education, all participants are present at the same time, either online or on campus. Data collection of pilots 1 and 2 are finished and data for pilot 3 will be collected. 2.2 Participants In this study teachers and students from the departments of Law, Social Sciences, and Global Affairs participated. In the first pilot, 8 teachers (4 females) and 6 students (2 females) participated in the interviews. Only a single teacher used a lecture format, and all other participants used a workgroup format of teaching. In the second pilot, 13 teachers (9 females) and 7 students (3 females) participated in the interviews. Four teachers used a lecture format of teaching. A student survey was administered at the end of each course. In the first pilot, a total of 95 students completed the survey. In the second pilot, 34 students completed it. 2.3 Data sources and collection The individual interviews with teachers and students are conducted based on the following aspects of the interview protocol: 1) the role and performance of teachers in hybrid teaching; 2) the role and performance of students in hybrid teaching; 3) teacherstudent interaction; 4) student-student interaction; 5) the evaluation of room facilities, environment, and usability; and 6) preference between hybrid teaching and other forms of education. All interviewees were provided with the consent letter and gave their active consent to the interview. The interviews were conducted online and lasted approximately 45-60 minutes. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for further analyses (Creswell, 2012). The five types of engagement are measured via a 30 items survey with a 6-point Likert scale scoring from 1 (very much disagree) to 6 (very much agree). Students’ cognitive outcomes are measured by their self-reported course grades. All participants provided consent. 2.4 Data analysis To answer research question 1, two researchers read and re-read the transcripts and coded the data by marking segments, verified codes, developed themes by aggregating code, and constructed a narrative based on the themes for each combination of teacher and student group. To answer research question 2, descriptive statistics and regression analyses are performed.

The teachers who had their first pilot of hybrid teaching perceived it challenging. The preparation for hybrid teaching cost much effort of teachers. It was difficult for them to design appropriate classroom activities to involve both offline and online students, especially when there were many online students. Teachers focused mainly on in-person students and paid less attention to online students. They also had less interaction with online students than with in-person students. These were caused by multiple reasons, such as technical issues of the hybrid classroom and the inexperience of teachers to use the room facilities. Online students in the hybrid setting seemed to be in an unequal and disadvantageous position compared with their in-person peers. They were, therefore, less active during the class and had little interaction with both teachers and other students. The data from the second pilot are still to be analyzed. A first implication for practice of these outcomes can be related to the status of online students in hybrid teaching. Teachers should pay more attention to online students and try to equally integrate them into learning activities. Second, in order to help teachers get used to hybrid teaching, they should be provided with more opportunities to participate in training for hybrid teaching and practice with it. In addition, hybrid teaching should not only be seen as a compromise of teaching in special periods like COVID-19, but also can be used as a longterm teaching format.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student development, 25, 297-308. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. London: Routledge. Biesta, G. (2020). What constitutes the good of education? Reflections on the possibility of educational critique. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(10), 1023-1027. Bond, M., Buntins, K, Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O.,& Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational techology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(2), 1-30. Büchele, S. (2021). Evaluating the link between attendeance and performance in higher education: The role of classroom engagement dimensions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 132-150. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Pearson. Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational technology, 51(1), 245-262. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twente years of research.San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.