Higher education (HE) has undergone profound changes, from preparedness for digitalization (Linder, 2017; Panda & Garg, 2019) to a rapid shift to an online format during the COVID-19 pandemic (Cavanaugh et al., 2022; Daniela and Selcuk, 2022; Petrovica et al., 2022), and transitioning into a new stage of development post-pandemic (Dumitru, 2023; Wang et al., 2024).

Digitalization has been intertwined with internationalization, as universities offer education to foreign students who, in addition to intercultural differences, have different levels of academic preparedness, digital literacy, and prior experience with online education. This requires academic personnel to adapt to various learning styles and digital competencies. The European Commission (2021, 2024), UNESCO (2022), and OECD (2023) emphasize digital transformation, hybrid learning, and internationalization (Dedze and Rubene, 2016) as European education priorities.

This study explores how students at Turība University perceive hybrid education (Luka, 2021; Munday, 2022), where face-to-face learning is integrated with online instruction synchronously. It compares feedback from Latvian and Indian students who study full-time in the university, focusing on digital literacy, learning experiences, and cultural factors influencing hybrid learning.

Although conducted post-pandemic, this research considers students' experiences in Latvia and India during and after the pandemic. The theoretical framework is based on secondary data on digitalization in HE, online studies, and hybrid learning.

The concept of e-learning styles (Kolb, 1984, Katsaris and Vidakis, 2021) explains how students interact with digital learning materials in the digital age that requires consideration of different e-learning preferences. A hybrid approach (Munday, 2022) allows flexibility, giving students the ability to adapt their learning methods based on environmental, economic, and personal factors. Wang et al. (2024) consider hybrid learning the dominant post-pandemic model, with pre-covid studies indicating that students prefer synchronous over asynchronous courses (Guo, 2020 in Cavanaugh et al., 2022).

Hybrid learning represents a shift from teacher-centered to student autonomy (Huba & Freed, 2000 in Linder, 2017), making education more interactive and engaging (Cavanaugh et al., 2022, Gamage et al, 2022). It requires self-motivation, stable internet, and prolonged screen exposure, leading to digital fatigue (Wang et al., 2024). The backward design model (Wiggins & McTighe, 2004; Linder, 2017) ensures that hybrid education remains student-focused while aligning with learning objectives. However, challenges remain, such as higher course design demands compared to face-to-face teaching (Carroll-Barefield & Murdoch, 2004 in Linder, 2017). Students mention difficulties with teaching speed and reduced interaction with instructors (Wang et al., 2024:7).

Latvia and India approach digitalization differently due to variations in population size, technological infrastructure, and digital readiness (Petrovica et al., 2022; Panda & Garg, 2019). Latvia introduced distance learning in 2006, and by the pandemic, 87% of universities had integrated unified e-learning systems (Petrovica et al., 2022). However, challenges remain, including gaps in legislation, a lack of specialized teaching resources, and digital skill inequalities (OECD, as cited in Petrovica et al., 2022).

In contrast, India has the world’s largest HE demographic, putting immense pressure on the system (Panda & Garg, 2019).  Challenges include insufficient infrastructure, lack of faculty training, barriers to ICT implementation (GOI, NEP 2020), low internet penetration (Panda & Garg, 2019), slow speeds (Panda & Garg, 2019), and unequal access to digital resources (GOI, NEP 2020). Both countries recognize the need to address digital divide (Rani et al, edit, 2025) and improve digital education (Panda & Garg, 2019:38; Petrovica et al., 2022).

These differences in students’ preparedness influence their academic readiness, digital literacy, and adaptation to hybrid education realized in a foreign environment.

Research Question

How do students perceive hybrid learning approach, and how do differences in e-learning styles, prior educational experiences, and cultural backgrounds shape their perceptions?

Studies at Turiba University are conducted in a hybrid format, where all academic personnel use the Cisco Webex system: the majority of the group attends face-to-face, however some students join lectures online due to some reasons. This research aims to examine the extent to which students, comprising both Latvian students and students from India, perceive hybrid approach as successful. Additionally, it investigates whether there is a connection between students' previous experience with online or hybrid learning and their perception of this teaching method. The study also explores students' levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the hybrid format, the challenges and difficulties they encounter, as well as the benefits they identify, comparing the perspectives of both groups. The empirical research applies mixed-method approach (Dörnyei, 2007) integrating both qualitative and quantitative types of research in data collection since it allows having more comprehensive understanding of research questions. The author uses both closed-ended questions to get quantitative demographic information about the respondents and open-ended questions to get qualitative data for the analysis. Besides, mixed-method approach allows coding of open-ended responses when required (Dörnyei, 2007). Closed-ended questions explore respondents’ gender, country of origin, year of studies, pervious experience of studies using a hybrid style (yes/no), whereas open-ended questions enquire about students’ experience and perception of a hybrid approach, focusing on the reason of attending lectures online, perceived benefits, challenges and hurdles considering technical, linguistic and intercultural aspects, as well as learning outcomes and communication with other students and lecturers. One hundred forty-four students participated in a survey – 66 students of Latvian and 78 students of Indian origin. The survey was conducted over the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 academic years. All students attended the Language Department and studied English for Special Purposes or Latvian Language. Respondents represented 1st and 2nd year students of the faculties of Business Administration, Public Relations, Tourism and Law, bachelor and master programs. The questionnaires were distributed and completed manually. They were processed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis with the quantitative elements in a mixed-method approach (Dörnyei, 2007). Research limitation. Main restrictions of the research were a limited sample size, restricted to only those students who were manageable in the Language Department of the University to complete the questionnaires. Difficulties in engaging respondents resulted in manual survey completion by students, and, as a result, in manual data entry by the researcher which could have introduced some inefficiencies and biases.

The analysis revealed differences between Latvian and Indian students in their perception of hybrid learning. Although online participation declined overall, Latvian students continued to show lower online attendance than Indian students. In 2024, 42% of Latvian respondents attended online lectures for 5–20% of their study time, while 50% of Indian students participated online for 5–60%. Additionally, 47% of Latvian and 53% of Indian students were experiencing hybrid learning for the first time, influencing their adaptation and perceptions. Latvian students provided more structured responses regarding the reasons, benefits, and challenges of hybrid learning, whereas Indian students’ answers were often less detailed and more repetitive. The main reasons for attending online cited by Latvian students were health issues (34.9%), work commitments (23.3%), time management (16.3%), and flexibility (14%). Indian students mentioned health concerns (30%), visa and travel issues (25%), and comfort (20%). The Indian student group was noticeably divided, with some attending online more than 50% of the time, while others strongly preferred in-person learning. Gender distribution was nearly equal among Latvian students (35 females, 31 males), whereas Indian respondents were predominantly male (24 females, 54 males). This may suggest that male students feel more comfortable studying abroad and engaging in online learning. Latvian students ranged from 16 to 42 years old, mostly 19–20, while Indian students were 17–37, with the majority being 23. Indian students prioritized time management (85%) and technological advancements as benefits, while Latvian students valued time management and accessibility (over 70%). Both groups cited technological issues as the main challenge, though 40% of Latvians saw no disadvantages, unlike Indian students. Despite using online learning more, Indian students reported lower satisfaction, likely due to digital inequalities and access disparities. These findings highlight the need for academic personnel to address intercultural, technical, and linguistic factors in hybrid education.

Cavanaugh, J., Jacquemin, S. J., & Junker, C. R. (2022). Variation in student perceptions of higher education course quality and difficulty as a result of widespread implementation of online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(4), 1787–1802. Dedze, I., & Rubene, Z. (2016). Universities in Latvia – from the Soviet to European Higher Education Area. Foro de Educación, 14(21), 13-38. https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.2016.014.021.002 Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press. Dumitru, C. (2023). New literacy instruction strategies in the light of higher education hybridization. In Technology-enhanced learning environments in education (pp. xx-xx). ISTES Organization. European Commission. (2021). Digital education action plan (2021–2027): Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice. (2024). The European Higher Education Area in 2024: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/202405/z_After_Chapters_1.pdf Gamage, K. A. A., Gamage, A., & Dehideniya, S. C. P. (2022). Online and hybrid teaching and learning: Enhancing effective student engagement and experience. Education Sciences, 12(10), 651. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100651 Katsaris, I., & Vidakis, N. (2021). Adaptive e-learning systems through learning styles: A review of the literature. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 124–145. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.007 Linder, K. E. (2017). Fundamentals of hybrid teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2017(149), 1–125. Luka, I. (2021). European cultural heritage and skills development course for adult learners’ self-development. Journal of Educational Culture and Society, 2, 505-526. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2021.2.505.526 Munday, J. (2022). Hybrid pedagogy and learning design influences in a higher education context. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 1-16. Panda, S., & Garg, S. (2019). India: National perspectives in a digital age. In O. Zawacki-Richter, O, & Qayyum, A. (Eds.), Open and distance education in Asia, Africa and the Middle East (pp. 27–42). Springer. Petrovica, S., Anohina-Naumeca, A., & Avanesovas, J. (2022). The impact of digitalization of higher education: The case of Latvia and Nordic-Baltic region. Applied Computer Systems, 27(1), 19-29. Rani, P., Acharya, B. B., & Trehan, K. (Eds.). (2025). Digital inequalities in media education in South Asia: Context and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Routledge. UNESCO. (2022). Global education monitoring report: Non-traditional learning in the digital age. UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/inclusion-education Wang, X., Liu, J., Jia, S., et al. (2024). Hybrid teaching after COVID-19: Advantages, challenges and optimization strategies. BMC Medical Education, 24, 753. OECD. (n.d.). Education & skills https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/education-and-skills.html