Content area
This study examines university teachers’ digital competences during Emergency Remote Teaching at three Spanish institutions—the University of La Laguna, the University of Extremadura, and the University of Valladolid—and, from the faculty perspective, appraises hybrid teaching experiences and institutional support services. We employed a qualitative multi-case design using semi-structured focus-group interviews and discussion groups with 57 instructors from Social Sciences and Humanities, Engineering, and Health Sciences, selected via purposive sampling. Data were deductively coded in Atlas.ti 24. Faculty perceive hybrid teaching as useful for widening access and repositioning the virtual campus as a communicative hub; they highlight Moodle, videoconferencing, content-authoring tools such as H5P, and methodologies like gamification and flipped learning to enhance motivation. Nonetheless, generational gaps and concerns about the authenticity of online assessment persist, supporting continued reliance on in-person examinations. Technical and training support services are viewed positively, yet respondents call for more staffing and stronger dissemination of teaching resources. Consolidating teachers’ digital competences requires institutional policies that integrate robust infrastructure, contextualized continuous professional development, and communities of practice to ensure the sustainability of hybrid models in higher education at the national level.
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic forced a sudden transformation of the classroom: Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) emerged, along with a new way of teaching and learning that shifted from a stable, face-to-face setting to an improvised digital environment requiring new competencies, a redesign of activities, and support that was not only technical but also pedagogical and emotional. Within this context, the present study examines how university faculty experienced and interpreted this time-pressured transition: we explore their perceptions of the shift in the educational model, the role assumed by virtual campuses (Learning Management Systems, LMSs) as the backbone of communication and assessment, the planning decisions that sustained pedagogical continuity, experiences with hybrid teaching, and the digital competencies considered essential to sustain teaching during the emergency.
Although the literature on Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) is extensive, gaps remain in cross-institutional comparisons within the Spanish context and in translating emergency solutions into sustainable hybrid practice. This study contributes a multisite qualitative analysis across three Spanish universities (ULL, UEx, and UVa). Using a reflexive thematic approach and a hybrid (deductive–inductive) codebook, we derive actionable criteria (e.g., cross-modal equivalence, redesign of continuous assessment, recognition of design/coordination work, and accessibility-by-design) together with policy recommendations for contemporary hybrid teaching.
Research questions
RQ1. How do faculty describe the transition from ERT to the post-pandemic period, and in what ways has their teaching role been redefined?
RQ2. What functions, limitations, and training needs do faculty attribute to the Learning Management System (LMS) in hybrid and online teaching?
RQ3. How is instructional planning organized in digital and hybrid environments (sequencing, timing/workload, continuous assessment, coordination)?
RQ4. How do faculty evaluate hybrid teaching in terms of flexibility, accessibility, and interaction/motivation, and under what institutional conditions is it perceived as sustainable?
1.1. Framework for RQ1: Faculty Perceptions of ERT
As discussed earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic forced a rapid reconfiguration of teaching, giving rise to what we term Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT). The term was coined by Hodges et al. (2020) to underscore that this was not planned online education, but a provisional solution aimed at maintaining pedagogical continuity in a crisis context, involving swift and often improvised changes in formats, tools, and assessments (Rapanta et al., 2021). In the same vein, Adedoyin and Soykan (2020) conceptualize ERT as an organizational and pedagogical “shock” that exposed tensions around quality and equity: gaps in access to devices and connectivity, inequalities in the digital competences of students and instructors, accessibility challenges for students with special educational needs (NEAE), workload and coordination problems, as well as limitations in assessment and in the socio-emotional support provided to students.
Within this context, the teaching role evolved: the initial focus on “getting the course through” shifted toward selecting essential content, preparing clear materials that could also be worked on at home, and breaking tasks into smaller steps. Faculty prioritized a regular instructional presence—brief messages, reminders, and timely feedback—while sustaining group climate. With experience, they decided what to retain (transparent criteria, small submissions with feedback) and what to drop (task overload, long unfocused synchronous sessions). This change was not uniform: it varied by discipline, level, and prior trajectory, as well as by access conditions and available digital competencies (Rapanta et al., 2021; Watermeyer et al., 2020; Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al., 2022).
Building on this foundation, numerous university systems undertook institutional actions to move from ERT to sustainable hybrid models: strengthening the digital ecosystem (Bruggeman et al., 2022)—including learning management systems (LMS), videoconferencing, and repositories; developing protocols for authentic assessment with rubrics and performance-based tasks; implementing faculty development programs in instructional design and learning analytics; adopting inclusion policies (accessibility, technological supports, flexible deadlines); and establishing innovation governance with quality criteria. These directions have been compiled and systematized in recent reports that invite us to rethink hybrid education beyond the emergency—for example, Lion et al. (2023), from IIPE-UNESCO and UNICEF, propose principles and guidelines to consolidate student-centered hybrid ecosystems with equity, flexibility, and sustainability as core pillars.
Because faculty tend to perceive ERT as an integrated phenomenon (role, tools, assessment, and conditions), we retain this panoramic reference here. However, the in-depth analysis of each component is organized as follows: LMS/support (→ RQ2), planning and continuous assessment (→ RQ3), and institutional conditions for hybrid/HyFlex (→ RQ4). In RQ1 we focus on the impact on, and transformation of, the teaching role.
Context of Spanish higher education during the transition to ERT
Before the pandemic, Spanish universities already had institutional Learning Management Systems (LMSs) and digital support services in place, albeit with heterogeneous pedagogical integration across institutions and degree programs. Prior literature positions the LMS as a core component of the instructional ecosystem (e.g., Moodle as a widely adopted platform) and underscores the need to move from mere digitization to a genuine digital transformation of university missions (García-Peñalvo & Corell, 2020; García-Peñalvo, 2021). In 2020, CRUE coordinated the system-wide response and documented academic and technological measures in La Universidad frente a la pandemia; in parallel, the Ministry of Universities issued recommendations to adapt the 2020–2021 academic year to an “adapted” form of in-person teaching (10 June; updated 31 August), with guidance on remote instruction and assessment. The CRUE (2022) reports also indicate a high level of digital maturity: 63 universities (88.7% of CRUE’s face-to-face institutions) and 97% of students participated in 2020; in 2022 the study updated maturity metrics and system evolution. Together, these references help contextualize the shift from initial ERT to hybrid configurations across the Spanish university system (SUE).
1.2. Framework for RQ2: LMS—Functions, Limitations, and Training/Support
This subsection synthesizes the role of the LMS/virtual campus and the institutional supports—technical, pedagogical, and organizational—that enable the continuity of remote and hybrid teaching.
With regard to the support provided to build high-quality remote teaching, various studies have analyzed which features are most relevant and necessary for these services to fulfill their function effectively. They emphasize that support must go beyond mere technical assistance to include pedagogical, administrative, and emotional dimensions that enable instructors to adapt to new modalities and work rhythms, without losing sight of equity and student participation.
Stewart and Lowenthal (2023) propose understanding remote teaching in phases, and, in doing so, organizing the supports faculty require. In the initial phase, the decisive goal is to ensure continuity; this calls for close technical support focused primarily on immediate assistance with virtual campuses, videoconferencing, digital tools, virtual office hours, rapid-response channels (Xie et al., 2021; Gomez et al., 2023), and clear institutional communication. In the consolidation phase, the focus shifts to pedagogy: faculty training and professional development. Studies such as Walsh et al. (2021), Stewart (2021), Cumming et al. (2024), and Huang et al. (2024) show that training reduces anxiety, improves self-efficacy, and supports higher-quality instructional decision-making. In addition, the importance of implementing participation protocols is underscored—that is, rules for turn-taking, chat use, and response times—ensuring equivalence between those online and those in the physical classroom.
Beyond technical support and training, the most valuable institutional supports in ERT/hybrid contexts include pedagogical advising/instructional design to structure micro-activities, provide frequent feedback, and offer low-bandwidth alternatives that sustain participation; content production and curation (e.g., H5P/Moodle templates and repositories); accessibility (captions, transcription, accessible materials); online assessment with clear criteria and built-in privacy and integrity; direct student support (platform orientation and FAQs); learning analytics for monitoring and continuous improvement; and comprehensive coordination—with a central resource hub, clear participation rules, and communities of practice—that coherently brings these pieces together (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Gamage et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2021). Specific aspects of digital assessment—such as criteria, privacy, and integrity—are addressed in RQ3, while institutional coordination (e.g., shared repositories, common rules, and communities of practice) is discussed as a condition for sustainability in RQ4.
Which digital competences stood out in this ERT context?
Various studies have examined the digital competences of university instructors in remote-teaching contexts. In most of the works reviewed (Bond et al., 2021; Watermeyer et al., 2020; Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al., 2022; Cook et al., 2023; Tondeur et al., 2023; Jämsä et al., 2024), the evidence shows that the vast majority of research on Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) has focused on the subjective perceptions and experiences of instructors and students, while relatively few studies have undertaken an objective, standardized measurement of university instructors’ digital competences. Nonetheless, beyond these gaps, clear points of convergence emerge around certain areas that posed particular difficulty for faculty: the creation and adaptation of digital content—which required rapidly transforming materials designed for in-person teaching into resources suitable for virtual environments; online communication and collaboration—essential to sustain interaction and teaching presence in the absence of physical contact; and, finally, digital assessment—an area in which significant challenges arose to ensure valid, reliable processes aligned with remote teaching.
Beyond the areas outlined above, other areas for improvement were identified, notably the accessibility of materials and resources used in ERT contexts. The literature indicates that accessibility and inclusive design were recurrent weak points in the rapid virtualization process: from materials without captions or image descriptions to repositories with web-accessibility problems, such as the absence of subtitles, missing alternative text, or insufficient color contrast (Burgstahler, 2021; Cook et al., 2023; Lomellini et al., 2025). These shortcomings disproportionately affected students with disabilities and other specific needs, reinforcing the importance of reasonable accommodations and a design approach centered on the real usability of resources (Cumming et al., 2024; Lomellini et al., 2025).
1.3. Framework for RQ3: Instructional Planning and Continuous Assessment in Hybrid Settings
This subsection integrates evidence on planning, sequencing/timing, and continuous assessment in remote and hybrid teaching, focusing on the decisions that sustain pedagogical continuity without overloading workload and ensuring coherence across courses and delivery modes.
During the transition from ERT to hybrid learning, courses were reconfigured in terms of outcomes, activities, and pacing to articulate synchronous moments (brief, purposeful meetings) and asynchronous ones (guided tasks with clear instructions and reusable materials). Recent evidence recommends micro-sequences with explicit objectives, realistic time/load estimations, and submission windows that enable sustained participation—especially when students alternate between modes (Turnbull et al., 2021). Such planning relies on a distributed teaching presence throughout the course (roadmap announcements, brief checkpoints, reminders, and periodic summaries) to prevent overload and maintain learning direction (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Turnbull et al., 2021). The provision of low-bandwidth resources and step-by-step guides, as well as contingency planning (e.g., asynchronous alternatives when synchronous sessions fail), is also valued to avoid interruptions in course progression.
In hybrid contexts, assessment tends to focus on performance- or authenticity-based tasks closely aligned with learning outcomes, supported by transparent rubrics and frequent, iterative feedback that sustain learning over extended periods (Gamage et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2021). A diversity of evidence types (applied projects, digital artifacts, short reflections) and task scaffolding through micro-submissions enhance students’ understanding of criteria and allow timely adjustments. Regarding academic integrity, research prioritizes design-based approaches (e.g., process analysis, short oral defenses of 2–3 min, topic personalization) over purely technological solutions, maintaining proportional workloads and criteria consistent with task complexity (Gamage et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2021). This approach reduces incentives for plagiarism, strengthens student agency, and reinforces alignment between teaching and assessment.
The coherence of the learning path improves when academic teams set common milestones, shared calendars visible to students, and aligned criteria across courses, reducing overlap and workload peaks in continuous assessment (Turnbull et al., 2021). Coordination involves agreeing on staggered submission windows, distributing assessment density across weeks, and sharing framework rubrics to ensure comparable expectations without losing disciplinary specificity. These measures foster predictability, perceived fairness, and temporal accessibility (e.g., balancing work and study), while allowing teams to make agile adjustments based on participation data and student feedback.
Comparative gaps remain in the Spanish context regarding which specific planning decisions (sequencing, windows, distributed presence) and continuous assessment strategies (authentic tasks, rubrics, design-based integrity) most effectively sustain pedagogical continuity and coordination in hybrid environments. This gap guides our RQ3 and informs the subsequent site-based analysis.
1.4. Framework for RQ4: Findings on the Implementation of Hybrid Teaching
This subsection synthesizes the evidence on the benefits, challenges, and institutional conditions that enable the sustainability of hybrid teaching and, where applicable, the HyFlex model, from the perspective of university faculty.
From that exceptional circumstance, many higher education institutions turned to ideas that had been consolidated for more than a decade in hybrid teaching—understood as the deliberate combination of in-person and online experiences to leverage the strengths of each modality (Graham, 2006). This shift went beyond merely combining modalities to redesign learning outcomes, activities, and assessments for both synchronous and asynchronous scenarios. In parallel, the HyFlex design proposed by Beatty (2019) gained traction, allowing students in each session to choose among attending in person, connecting remotely in real time, or participating asynchronously.
Several studies have examined the implementation of hybrid teaching in remote-teaching contexts from the faculty perspective. Notably, Wood et al. (2025), in a systematic review, identify clear benefits of hybrid teaching, such as continuity of teaching–learning processes, flexibility, and accessibility. However, they also report challenges, including high workload, ensuring interaction, and providing feedback across both modalities. Raes (2022) and Cumming et al. (2024) observe that instructors often feel technically prepared, yet converge on obstacles such as workload and planning overload, low in-class student participation, and insufficient investment in infrastructure, interaction protocols, and policies that recognize the additional burden.
In another study, Raes et al. (2020) address the challenge of the synchronous hybrid virtual classroom (simultaneous in-person and remote students). Their approach centers on embedded quizzes as a core method. Results are broadly positive: the model used expands access and flexibility. The authors emphasize the importance of establishing participation protocols to prevent unequal experiences between those on site and those online, noting that success depends less on tools than on the intentional design of brief, regular, multimodal interactions that reduce the gap between course structure and dialogue with students (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Mentzer et al., 2024; Baker et al., 2024).
A large-scale study by Yang et al. (2024) also reports very positive outcomes. Students generally accept the format, especially those who alternate between attending in person and connecting live. Acceptance of HyFlex depends primarily on perceived usefulness, ease of use, and the availability of robust support; it also benefits from a strong social climate in which students feel connected even at a distance. Sound design, careful stewardship of the in-person experience, and clear technical conditions are critical.
Taken together, the evidence on implementing hybrid/HyFlex models from the faculty perspective points to clear benefits—continuity of instruction, greater flexibility, and improved accessibility (Wood et al., 2025)—but also persistent challenges: workload and planning overload, difficulty sustaining interaction and providing equivalent feedback across modalities, and deficits in infrastructure, protocols, and recognition policies (Raes, 2022; Cumming et al., 2024). In synchronous hybrid classrooms, experimental evidence underscores that strategies such as embedded quizzes can enhance engagement and broaden access, provided that participation protocols ensure cross-modal equivalence and reduce “instructional distance” through brief, regular, multimodal interactions (Raes et al., 2020; Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Mentzer et al., 2024; Baker et al., 2024). At scale, student acceptance of HyFlex is high—particularly when learners alternate between in-person and synchronous online participation—with perceived usefulness, ease of use, technical support, and a connected social climate weighing heavily, which in turn underscores the need for intentional design, attention to the in-person experience, and clear technical conditions (Yang et al., 2024).
Although the literature outlines both benefits and challenges, comparative analyses in the Spanish context are still limited. More evidence is needed to identify the institutional conditions (infrastructure, participation and equivalence protocols, support roles, and workload recognition) under which hybrid/HyFlex models are perceived as sustainable—this gap guides our RQ4.
We now turn to the methodology employed in this study.
2. Materials and Methods
This study is part of the project “The Digital Transformation of University Degrees: Learning Analytics, Subjectivities, and Performance in Pre-Pandemic Times and During COVID-19 (UNIDIGIT@L)” (code TED2021-130743B-I00, Strategic Projects for the Ecological and Digital Transition, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the EU NextGenerationEU/PRTR). We adopted a qualitative, interpretive, comparative multi-case design across three Spanish public universities: the University of La Laguna (ULL), the University of Extremadura (UEx), and the University of Valladolid (UVa). The aim of the research is to develop an in-depth understanding of faculty perceptions regarding changes to the educational model during and after Emergency Remote Teaching, as well as how these shifts translated into instructional planning and the use of the virtual campus within hybrid teaching models. The research reports follow recent guidelines and recommendations for reporting qualitative research in the social sciences (Braun & Clarke, 2024), in order to ensure transparency and completeness in the design, participants, procedures, and analysis.
2.1. Research Objectives and Questions
Focusing on university instructors’ perspectives, this study analyzes faculty perceptions of the transformation of the educational model from Emergency Remote Teaching to its consolidation in hybrid settings, comparing convergences and divergences across universities and disciplinary areas, while attending to the role of the virtual campus and instructional planning as supports for this transformation. Accordingly, the study addresses the following questions: How do instructors describe this transformation of the model, and what redefinitions of their role do they recognize from Emergency Remote Teaching through the post-pandemic period? What functions, limits, and training needs do faculty attribute to the virtual campus in their teaching practice? How is instructional planning articulated in digital and hybrid environments? How do instructors evaluate hybrid teaching in terms of flexibility, accessibility, and interaction/motivation, and under what institutional conditions is it perceived as a sustainable model?
To deepen these issues, we propose the following objectives:
O1/RQ1 (C1. Perception of change in the educational model/model adopted). Describe and interpret perceived transformations of the model (greater flexibility, continuity/rupture with prior practices, redefinition of the teaching role).
O2/RQ2 (C2. Virtual campus). Identify uses and integrations of the virtual campus and its pedagogical limitations, as well as training needs for effective use in hybrid and online teaching models.
O3/RQ3 (C3. Instructional planning). Examine how sequencing, timing, and continuous assessment are planned in online and hybrid education contexts.
O4/RQ4 (C4. Hybrid teaching). Analyze faculty appraisals of hybrid teaching (flexibility, accessibility, and inclusion vs. interaction, motivation, and methodological complexity), considering conditions for sustainability (institutional support and recognition, resources, training).
2.2. Context, Participants, and Sample
Data were generated through semi-structured focus-group interviews and discussion groups with instructors from different fields at three Spanish public universities (ULL, UEx, and UVa). A common fieldwork protocol was followed: groups were defined by disciplinary area (Social Sciences and Humanities; Science and Engineering; Health Sciences) and by level (Undergraduate/Master’s), with two researchers per session (moderator and support), target sizes of 4–7 participants, the option of in-person or online sessions depending on logistical feasibility, and shared guidelines and a coding table to harmonize criteria across sites.
At the University of La Laguna, recruitment was conducted via the Office of the Vice-Rector for Teaching (circulation to departments) and direct contact with faculty from various schools to ensure heterogeneity. Six group interviews were organized, with a total of 16 participating instructors. At the University of Extremadura, four fully online discussion groups were conducted (via the Zoom videoconferencing platform), with 19 participating instructors. Similarly, at the University of Valladolid, interviews were held in both in-person and hybrid formats, with a total of 22 instructors. Table 1 details the sample of instructors who voluntarily participated in the study.
The sample comprises 57 instructors, n = 57 (33 women and 24 men). Social Sciences predominate (31/57), followed by Science/Engineering (15/57) and Health Sciences (11/57). This composition provides disciplinary heterogeneity and a notable female presence at UEx, while maintaining the overall balance needed to compare perceptions across fields and universities. The discussion groups were intentionally small to foster co-creation and the contrast of perspectives across disciplinary areas. This methodological choice follows current recommendations on the potential of focus groups to generate comparable data across contexts and to leverage interaction as an analytic resource (Barbour, 2018; Morgan, 2019). To ensure inter-university comparability while preserving contextual richness, we employed a common protocol (a single semi-structured interview guide) and subsequently conducted a cross-case synthesis of the findings, in line with recent reviews on the use of discussion groups in applied research (Latorre, 2003).
Analysis
The data corpus comprised 14 sessions (ULL: 6 interviews; UEx: 4 interviews; UVa: 4 interviews), all of which were transcribed verbatim with systematic pseudonymization. Each turn was labeled using the pattern [UNIV].[FIELD].[LEVEL], SPK_[n] (e.g., UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_2), ensuring traceability of quotations and intra-/cross-case comparison. A reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2024) was conducted in Atlas.ti 24.
To align this study with prior project outputs and ensure inter-university comparability, we built matrices organized into four categories derived from the objectives and the interview guide: C1. Perception of change in the educational model; C2. Virtual campus; C3. Instructional planning; and C4. Hybrid teaching. Each category included operational subcodes (e.g., flexibility, teaching role, workload, authenticity of assessment, LMS integrations, inter-course coordination, institutional conditions, interaction/motivation, accessibility/equity) with definitions to ensure coding consistency. Based on the qualitative reports produced at each university, we then conducted a comparative analysis focused on the categories of interest.
The qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti, version 24 (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), following a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic approach (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The initial coding framework was collaboratively defined by the research team based on the study objectives and the interview guide. Coding reliability was ensured through cross-checking by two researchers from each of the three universities, who compared and discussed their results until reaching consensus on all discrepancies. This process strengthened the study’s internal validity and the analytical consistency of findings across institutions. To enhance transparency and replicability, the full semi-structured interview protocol has been included as Appendix A, containing all questions related to pedagogical adaptation, use of digital tools, institutional support, and perceived challenges during Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT).
3. Results
3.1. Perceptions of the Educational Model (C1/RQ1)
Following the structure outlined in the methodology section, we first present the results regarding faculty perceptions of the educational model (C1). The transition to emergency remote teaching was a complex, multifaceted process that involved not only the incorporation of technological tools but also a rethinking of pedagogical methodologies and teacher–student interaction dynamics. Despite the differing contexts of the participating universities, several significant convergences were observed.
On the one hand, a shared theme is the increased flexibility of the educational model. While this transformation arose from the need to adapt to online teaching, it also created opportunities to rethink traditional educational structures. At the University of Valladolid (UVa), for example, participants noted that the pandemic enabled greater institutional flexibility, facilitating online teaching and the integration of digital tools—as reflected in a faculty member’s testimony that certain activities were “impossible” to conduct virtually before the pandemic but have now become a viable option for sustaining instruction (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_2). This flexibility was likewise emphasized at the University of Extremadura (UEx), where instructors acknowledged that lockdown accelerated technology use, signaling a paradigm shift toward a more hybrid model of teaching (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_4). Similarly, at the University of La Laguna (ULL), the integration of ICT into teaching has been perceived as a significant improvement, particularly in managing assignments and supporting continuous assessment, although some methodologies, such as the lecture, persist (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1).
Another common thread across the three universities is the shift in pedagogical practices and the reconceptualization of the teaching role. Faculty are seen to have moved from being mere transmitters of knowledge to facilitators of learning within more interactive and collaborative environments. At UVa, there is heightened attention to student participation through tools such as Google Apps and online quizzes, which has helped reveal potentials in students that were not previously visible in the traditional classroom (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_6). UEx likewise reports a turn toward more active teaching, with participatory activities and the incorporation of self-assessment tasks that foster greater student engagement in their own learning process (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2). Similarly, at ULL, approaches such as flipped learning and gamification have helped capture students’ attention and improve performance, although some strategies—such as conventional use of PowerPoint—are acknowledged to have lost effectiveness within this new model (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1).
It is also noteworthy that there are marked divergences regarding perceptions of the continuity of face-to-face instruction. While at UVa and UEx many instructors have permanently integrated digital tools into their pedagogical repertoire (UVA.CCSS.G, SPK_17; UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_1), at ULL some faculty continue to view the virtual classroom as a mere supplement, without substantially changing their traditional pedagogical approach (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_2). This variability reflects differences in technological adoption across institutions, with some more willing to move away from a fully face-to-face model and others preferring to maintain a balance between in-person and digital modalities.
Finally, across the three universities, faculty concur that the integration of new digital tools has significantly increased their workload. They report that providing online materials and holding advising sessions via videoconference required additional effort, particularly as they adapted to new modes of interaction (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_9). Instructors also faced greater demands on their time and resources due to students’ expectations for remote access, creating tension between those expectations and the capacity to meet them (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2). This intensified workload led some faculty to express frustration about students’ high expectations that everything be available online, which, according to some, has encouraged a more passive stance toward learning as students become accustomed to accessing content without the need for active interaction (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1).
3.2. Use of the Virtual Campus (C2/RQ2)
Second, regarding the use of the virtual campus (C2), the process reflects broader inclusion: although it was already in use, all three universities experienced a shift toward intensive use during the pandemic. Faculty initially improvised and rapidly adopted tools such as recorded lectures and videoconferencing (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_4), and despite difficulties they learned to adapt to new methodologies, such as creating instructional videos (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_5). In this sense, integration with the campus intensified, with progressive learning and the uptake of approaches such as flipped learning (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1).
Despite these efforts, faculty agree that the virtual campus has limitations. At UVa, it is perceived as a useful organizational tool, but its capacity to generate transformative pedagogical experiences is limited, especially for real-time interaction (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_12). This constraint is also evident at UEx, where some instructors use the campus only for simple tasks, without exploring its full potential due to a lack of training (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2). At ULL, there is a cultural resistance to its adoption, particularly among those who did not use it prior to the pandemic (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_2). A common theme across the three universities is the need for ongoing professional development, recognized as essential to fully leverage the capabilities of the virtual campus. However, this training is perceived as still insufficient at all three institutions, limiting the development of more advanced digital competencies among instructors.
Finally, the virtual campus is valued as essential yet incomplete across all universities. At UVa, it is viewed as organizational support rather than the core of teaching (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_12). At UEx, its importance is acknowledged even though not all functionalities are explored, and at ULL, its relevance varies by course and cohort size, proving more effective in large-enrollment courses (ULL.CCSS.M, SPK_1).
3.3. Instructional Planning (C3/RQ3)
The third category, related to instructional planning (C3), shows that digitalization has transformed planning practices across the three universities, revealing shared advantages and challenges. Among the advantages, faculty highlight flexibility in content management and better use of instructional time. The possibility of reusing materials and recording classes has been viewed as a significant improvement, allowing instructors to adapt to unforeseen situations such as illness or travel (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_2; UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2; ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1). In addition, organizing the virtual classroom and offering asynchronous advising has enabled instructors to manage their time more effectively and students to follow the course from home (UVA.INGC.GyM, SPK_8; UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_3).
However, there are also common difficulties across the universities, such as increased faculty workload, particularly linked to continuous assessment. A lack of coordination among courses leads to an accumulation of tasks at the end of the term, which hinders timely and effective feedback (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_2). This problem is compounded by misalignment in scheduling synchronous classes, which has posed additional challenges for the effective implementation of hybrid methodologies (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1). Moreover, student demotivation—stemming from insufficient training on the proper use of the virtual campus—limits the effective use of its tools and contributes to weaker engagement with available content (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2).
Overall, there is a positive perception of the digital environment’s advantages in terms of organizing and accessing content. Faculty across the three universities agree that digitalization has enabled better organization of instruction, especially for students with difficulties attending in person. Virtual tools have also facilitated the monitoring and management of final projects (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_20; UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_3; ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1). At the same time, there is a reiterated call for training to improve the digital competence of both faculty and students in order to fully leverage these tools (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_15; UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2; ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_2).
3.4. Hybrid Teaching (C4/RQ4)
In the fourth and final category, hybrid teaching (C4), several cross-university commonalities emerge. Among the areas of greatest consensus are perceived advantages related to flexibility and educational accessibility: mobility, asynchronous access, and the organizational affordances of the virtual campus are highlighted as major benefits—particularly for students on mobility programs and for personalized learning pathways (UVA.CCSS.G, SPK_17). Hybrid formats are also seen as catalysts for internationalization and for diversifying offerings in master’s degrees and continuing education (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_4), and as having strong democratizing potential by expanding opportunities for adults, working students, and those with mobility constraints or family responsibilities (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2). In addition, hybrid teaching is valued for granting students greater autonomy, facilitating access from island territories or rural areas, and offering opportunities to those who combine study and work, although there is a stated preference for non-simultaneous hybrid models that combine the best of in-person and online modalities (ULL.INGC.G, SPK_1).
By contrast, methodological challenges and the impact on motivation and interpersonal interaction reveal a more problematic landscape. UEx faculty view hybrid teaching as adding complexities beyond either fully in-person or fully online modes, insofar as it complicates attention and participation in mixed cohorts (in-person/virtual), limiting interaction and dampening student motivation (UEX.ED, SPK_3). UVa emphasizes workload intensification, and ULL underscores a perceived decline in interaction quality, noting difficulties engaging students and low confidence in the reliability of online assessment (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_2).
With respect to student autonomy, personalization, and technology use, perceptions vary across institutions. At UVa, the virtual campus is seen as promising for meeting individual needs and diversifying pathways, while warning of the risk of passivity without adequate advising (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_18). At UEx, access to recorded classes and online resources is perceived to enhance autonomy and self-organization, provided students have sufficient motivation (UEX.INGC.GyM, SPK_3; UEX.SALU.GyM, SPK_5). At ULL, empowering students to work at their own pace is valued, though concerns persist regarding some students’ responsibility and self-management (ULL.CCSS.M, SPK_1).
According to faculty at all three institutions, two fundamentals for the real integration of the hybrid model in universities are staff development and institutional recognition. Although all three offer institutional training, it is perceived in practice as insufficient—overly tool-oriented and constrained by a lack of requirements, limited time, and weak academic incentives (UVA.SALU.GyM, SPK_7; ULL.CCSS.M, SPK_4; UVA.INGC.GyM, SPK_1).
Methodological adaptation to the demands of hybrid teaching largely depends on instructional design and disciplinary characteristics. Across the three universities, primarily theoretical or technical subjects are considered more adaptable to hybrid formats, whereas practice-heavy or experimental subjects require physical presence to ensure meaningful learning. In this regard, UVa and UEx stress the need to differentiate instructional planning and reject mere live-streaming as an effective substitute for in-person instruction (UVA.INGC.GyM, SPK_22; UEX.SALU.GyM, SPK_3). ULL, for its part, highlights the need to incorporate training and coordination models among faculty to experiment with new methodologies collaboratively (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1).
Regarding assessment and student monitoring, the three universities identify significant difficulties, especially with continuous assessment and ensuring the authenticity of learning in hybrid modes. Faculty note challenges in designing reliable monitoring and assessment instruments, express concern about low participation and engagement in class, and report frustration over limited feedback dynamics due to “cameras off” (UEX.A, SPK_3; UVA.INGC.GyM, SPK_3). Finally, concerning the future of the hybrid model in higher education, there is relative consensus about its expansion—especially in master’s programs, postgraduate study, and continuing education—provided institutions attend to pedagogical design, invest in resources, and formally recognize innovation (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_2).
Table 2 summarizes the main findings across the three universities participating in this study, highlighting the similarities and differences among them in each of the main research themes.
4. Discussion
4.1. Faculty Perceptions of the Educational Model and Hybrid Teaching
Building on the results presented in the previous section, we observed clear alignment with the points raised in the introduction. Most faculty across the participating universities agreed that the shift to Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) was a complex yet ultimately positive process, chiefly because it increased flexibility within the educational model. This finding aligns with studies by Raes et al. (2020) and Yang et al. (2024), which argue that such a model broadened access and flexibility, enabling the continuity of teaching during COVID-19 (Beatty, 2019; Hodges et al., 2020; Rapanta et al., 2021).
Another widely reported theme is the perception that the hybrid teaching model has prompted a reconceptualization of the teaching role and of pedagogical practices. Across most universities, the shift to these practices fostered greater student participation in virtual classrooms—for example, through tools such as Google Apps and online quizzes—a pattern also emphasized by Raes et al. (2020). However, at the University of La Laguna, faculty still tend to treat the virtual classroom primarily as a content repository, where student participation is minimal. This observation aligns with numerous authors who stress the importance of establishing online participation protocols to make teaching and learning processes more active (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Mentzer et al., 2024; Baker et al., 2024; Wood et al., 2025).
In assessment, our findings align with the literature on three points: concern over online authenticity and academic integrity, which prompted stricter criteria and enhanced traceability within the LMS (Rapanta et al., 2021; Watermeyer et al., 2020); a shift toward continuous and formative assessment, featuring rubrics, frequent submissions, and feedback within digital workflows (Bond et al., 2021; Stewart & Lowenthal, 2023); and the need for participation protocols and brief, well-structured activities to sustain performance in synchronous hybrid settings (Raes, 2022).
4.2. Use of the Virtual Campus
Faculty position LMSs and videoconferencing as the backbone of teaching, consolidating the institutional digital ecosystem described by Bruggeman et al. (2022) and Turnbull et al. (2021). In the same vein, Rapanta et al. (2021) and Bond et al. (2021) emphasize the LMS as the spine of course design and assessment, while Raes (2022) shows that the use of LMSs and videoconferencing facilitates participation in hybrid environments. Moreover, after the initial shock (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020), universities standardized these platforms and integrated analytics and repositories, strengthening digital governance (Watermeyer et al., 2020). Taken together, LMSs and videoconferencing not only ensured continuity, but also enabled clear participation protocols and real-time formative monitoring (Rapanta et al., 2021; Raes, 2022).
Beyond its role as the backbone, the virtual campus functions as a coordination infrastructure: course templates, common rubrics, and shared calendars promote cross-course consistency and make student workload visible (Bruggeman et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2021). Interoperability (e.g., H5P, forums, quizzes) and learning analytics enable formative tracking and early alerts when clear protocols for interpretation and feedback are in place (Bond et al., 2021; Watermeyer et al., 2020). Embedding accessibility by design (captions, alternative text, contrast, and structure) reduces participation barriers in hybrid teaching, although it increases instructors’ time demands (Rapanta et al., 2021; Burgstahler, 2021). Finally, the privacy and ethical use of LMS data require transparency with students and stable institutional criteria (Turnbull et al., 2021).
4.3. Instructional Planning
In terms of planning, hybrid teaching increases faculty workload: preparing parallel pathways (in-person/remote), keeping materials up to date in the LMS, and ensuring real-time participation multiplies instructional effort. This finding nuances the initial optimism: although the LMS–videoconferencing tandem supports continuity, the simultaneous management of channels, timing, and participation rules requires clear protocols and sustained pedagogical support (Raes, 2022; Rapanta et al., 2021; Watermeyer et al., 2020). In addition, incorporating accessibility criteria (captions, descriptions, etc.) adds time that is rarely recognized and that constrains full adoption of best practices (Burgstahler, 2021). Finally, cross-course curricular coordination (calendars, assignment load) remains one of the main gaps between theoretical recommendations and actual practice (Watermeyer et al., 2020; Bond et al., 2021).
Another support service—beyond technical assistance—is faculty development, which participants judged insufficient. The three universities concurred that offerings were late, weakly contextualized, and overly tool-centered rather than focused on instructional design and assessment in hybrid environments, which continues to hinder the quality of emergency remote teaching. This interpretation is consistent with evidence underscoring phased development, pedagogical coaching, and practical models (templates, rubrics, exemplars) to facilitate transfer to the classroom (Walsh et al., 2021; Stewart & Lowenthal, 2023). Likewise, participants called for situated, useful training with communities of practice and indicators of impact on participation and achievement, instead of isolated workshops (Cumming et al., 2024). In this vein, they pointed to scaffolded pathways, micro-trainings, and recognition of faculty time investment, integrating accessibility and participation protocols (Huang et al., 2024).
4.4. Lessons Learned from ERT
The findings indicate that ERT left behind valuable practices that should be consolidated. First, distributed teaching presence—brief and regular announcements, small checkpoints, and timely feedback—helped sustain students’ continuity and motivation. Combined with micro-sequences and staggered submission windows, it allowed for better management of pacing and workload in hybrid settings (Rapanta et al., 2021; Raes, 2022; Stewart & Lowenthal, 2023). This logic of segmentation and close monitoring proved particularly effective when students alternated between in-person and remote modes.
Second, authentic and transparent assessment emerged as a key anchor for validity and integrity: performance-based tasks linked to learning outcomes, rubrics published from the outset, process evidence, and short oral defenses as a light verification of authorship. This approach reduced reliance on proctoring technologies and improved alignment between teaching and assessment in digital environments (Rapanta et al., 2021; Watermeyer et al., 2020; Gamage et al., 2022). Frequent and iterative feedback further helped sustain learning over extended periods and mitigate the uncertainty typical of hybrid instruction (Stewart & Lowenthal, 2023).
Finally, the LMS as the backbone—integrated with videoconferencing and repositories—facilitated the centralization of communication, materials, and assessment, enabling clear participation protocols and formative monitoring when supported by shared guides and templates (Bruggeman et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2021; Rapanta et al., 2021). Incorporating accessibility by default—captions, transcripts, contrast, and structure—improved equity, although it required additional preparation time (Burgstahler, 2021). At the organizational level of hybrid teaching, simple equivalence protocols (turn-taking rules, chat use, response times, and asynchronous alternatives) helped reduce asymmetries between those attending in person and those connecting remotely (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Mentzer et al., 2024; Baker et al., 2024; Raes, 2022).
4.5. Integration into Regular Practice
To transfer these lessons into everyday academic work, we propose institutionalizing a minimum digital classroom standard (LMS as the core, integrated videoconferencing, and an organized repository with guides/templates) (Bruggeman et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2021); planning in micro-sequences with staggered windows; and sustaining a distributed teaching presence (brief messages, checkpoints, and defined response times) (Rapanta et al., 2021; Stewart & Lowenthal, 2023).
In assessment, consolidating performance-based tasks with transparent rubrics, process evidence, and brief oral defenses supports validity and integrity without resorting to intrusive surveillance (Rapanta et al., 2021; Gamage et al., 2022). Accessibility by default (captions, transcripts, contrast, and structure) and simple equivalence protocols between in-person and remote modes (turn-taking, chat use, response times, and asynchronous alternatives) reduce asymmetries in hybrid settings (Burgstahler, 2021; Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Mentzer et al., 2024; Baker et al., 2024).
The sustainability of these practices depends on phased and contextualized faculty training, agile technical-pedagogical support, and formal recognition of the time invested in course design and feedback (Walsh et al., 2021; Stewart & Lowenthal, 2023).
In summary, maintaining these practices—a minimum classroom standard, micro-sequences with staggered windows, authentic assessment with rubrics and process evidence, accessibility by default, and equivalence protocols—together with ongoing training, support, and recognition, enables the integration and consolidation of ERT advances into post-pandemic teaching (Turnbull et al., 2021; Rapanta et al., 2021; Bruggeman et al., 2022; Stewart & Lowenthal, 2023).
5. Conclusions
The emergency context derived from the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the integration of hybrid teaching in higher education. Although this process was already underway prior to the health crisis, the urgency of the situation compelled institutions to adopt this model at a much faster pace, driven by the need to ensure continuity of learning. The shift toward remote instruction and/or hybrid models not only entailed the adoption of new digital tools, but also prompted a profound reconceptualization of the teaching role—from a primarily transmissive stance to one of facilitating active and collaborative learning experiences.
As this study highlights, the transition to hybrid teaching has revealed several strengths, such as flexibility and accessibility, enabling greater adaptability amid uncertainty and now supporting mobility, internationalization, and work–study balance. Nonetheless, the findings also foreground the need for increased institutional resources, the implementation of continuous professional development programs for faculty, and clear strategies for the inclusion of digital technologies to enhance the technological competences of both students and instructors. At the same time, important challenges have emerged, particularly in digital assessment, where concerns persist regarding authenticity and trust in assessment processes, as well as the need for secure protocols that ensure objective evaluation across remote and face-to-face modalities.
From another vantage point, the incorporation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) into university education has proven pivotal in this process, contributing to the normalization of their use and generating greater opportunities for personalized learning. By combining in-person and digital components, hybrid teaching has fostered more autonomous and flexible learning, responsive to diverse student needs. However, digitalization has also entailed a substantial increase in faculty workload—especially in preparing materials, managing advising, and providing individualized monitoring—thus requiring greater institutional recognition and support for the additional effort assumed by instructors during this change process. Moreover, this model has involved a loss of the socialization afforded by physical spaces, affecting social cohesion and group identity. In this sense, hybrid teaching is understood to have the potential to combine the flexibility and accessibility of the digital environment with the benefits of social interaction in the in-person classroom, yielding a more inclusive and diversified educational model.
Conceptualization, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; methodology, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; software, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; validation, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; formal analysis, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; investigation, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; resources, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; data curation, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; writing—original draft preparation, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; writing—review and editing, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; visualization, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; supervision, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; project administration, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R.; funding acquisition, C.J.G.R., S.M.G., S.O.G. and M.I.P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The research is approved by Comisión De Bioética Y Bioseguridad De La Universidad De Extremadura, approval code: 113/2024, approval date: 8 May 2025.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
This website
This study was funded by the project entitled “The Digital Transformation of University Degrees. Academic analytics, subjectivities and performance in pre-pandemic times and during COVID-19 (UNI-DIGIT@L)” with code TED2021-130743B-I00, part of the call for Strategic Projects Aimed at the “Ecological Transition and Digital Transition” funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| ERT | Emergency Remote Teaching |
| ULL | University of La Laguna |
| UEx | University of Extremadura |
| UVa | University of Valladolid |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Sample of participating faculty.
| Gender | Discipline | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University | N Instructors | Women | Men | Social Sci./Humanities | Science/Engineering | Health Sciences |
| ULL | 16 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| UEx | 19 | 14 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| UVa | 22 | 12 | 10 | 13 | 7 | 2 |
| Total | 57 | 33 | 24 | 31 | 15 | 11 |
Comparative summary of results by institution.
| Category | ULL | UEx | UVa | Similarities | Discrepancies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1. Change in educational model | Integrated ICT, virtual classroom as complement. | Acceleration of technology use. | Institutional flexibility. | Redefinition of teaching role. | ULL maintains a more traditional approach. |
| C2. Virtual campus | Intensive use post-pandemic. | Intensive use. | Useful organizational tool. | LMS as essential support. | ULL shows greater resistance. |
| C3. Teaching planning | Improvement in time management. | Flexibility and reusability of materials. | Organizational improvement. | Advantages in flexibility and accessibility. | UVa and UEx more advanced in reusability. |
| C4. Hybrid teaching | Democratizing potential. | Useful asynchronous access. | Highlighted flexibility and accessibility. | Positive evaluation of flexibility and accessibility. | ULL more critical of interaction. |
Appendix A
Semi-structured questions in discussion groups:
During the lockdown and closure of classrooms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (March–June 2020), how did you adapt your teaching to virtual environments? What were the most notable problems you encountered? Were there any advantages or benefits? Did student performance and grades increase, decrease, or remain the same? What activities have you carried out or are you carrying out through the virtual classroom?
In the 2020–2021 academic year, when face-to-face teaching resumed but had to be combined with online classes for other groups of students (this model was called adapted face-to-face teaching), what difficulties did you encounter? What effects did this have on student engagement and academic performance?
How would you rate the services and support provided through our university’s virtual campus during the pandemic and at present? Do you consider the technical support to be sufficient to resolve problems related to teaching in virtual environments? Do you require other types of support in your teaching work?
Have you noticed any impact on students’ motivation and commitment to online teaching? What strategies do you use to maintain student motivation in virtual environments? Have you used resources from virtual environments to make face-to-face classes more dynamic?
How do you rate the involvement and commitment of teachers to teaching through virtual classrooms? Has their use of virtual classrooms improved or increased their quality as teachers? Have they used resources from virtual environments to make face-to-face classes more dynamic? How would you define the teaching quality of teachers during the pandemic and post-pandemic?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid teaching compared to fully face-to-face teaching, and how can the advantages be maximized and the disadvantages minimized?
Do you think that our university should promote the transformation of fully face-to-face degrees into hybrid and/or online distance learning modalities? Why? What would be the advantages and disadvantages?
Do you consider that the teaching staff at your faculty have the pedagogical and digital skills required to teach effectively in hybrid or online formats? How would you rate the teacher training program offered at our university in terms of digital teaching skills?
What changes or adjustments do you think should be made to degree programs and teaching methods to ensure a successful transition to hybrid and online modalities?
Abou-Khalil, V.; Helou, S.; Khalifé, E.; Chen, M. A.; Majumdar, R.; Ogata, H. Emergency online learning in low-resource settings: Effective student engagement strategies. Education Sciences; 2021; 11,
Adedoyin, O. B.; Soykan, E. Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments; 2020; 31,
Baker, S.; Gunn Watkinson, M.; Honeyman, F.; Mowll, J.; Tyulkina, S. Rethinking student engagement for ‘HyFlex’ teaching and learning in post-compulsory settings: Acknowledging flexibility and agency needed for unplanned events. International Journal of Lifelong Education; 2024; 43,
Barbour, R. Doing focus groups; 2nd ed. SAGE: 2018.
Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos, V.; Matarranz, M.; Casado-Aranda, L. A.; Otto, A. Competencias digitales del profesorado en educación superior: Una revisión sistemática de la literatura. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education; 2022; 19, 8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00312-8]
Beatty, B. J. Hybrid-flexible (HyFlex) course design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes; EdTech Books: 2019; Available online: https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex (accessed on 15 September 2025).
Bond, M.; Bedenlier, S.; Marín, V. I.; Händel, M. Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education; 2021; 18, 50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x]
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: A values-based approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology; 2024; 22, pp. 399-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244]
Bruggeman, B.; Garone, A.; Struyven, K.; Pynoo, B.; Tondeur, J. Exploring university teachers’ online education during COVID-19: Tensions between enthusiasm and stress. Computers & Education Open; 2022; 3, 100095. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100095]
Burgstahler, S. What higher education learned about the accessibility of online opportunities during a pandemic. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice; 2021; 21,
Cook, H.; Apps, T.; Beckman, K.; Bennett, S. Digital competence for emergency remote teaching in higher education: Understanding the present and anticipating the future. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2023; 71, pp. 7-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10194-4]
CRUE Universidades Españolas. UNIVERSITIC 2022: Evolución de la madurez digital de las universidades españolas; CRUE: 2022.
Cumming, T. M.; Han, C.; Gilanyi, L. University student and instructor experiences with HyFlex learning: A scoping review. Computers & Education Open; 2024; 7, 100229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100229]
Fereday, J.; Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods; 2006; 5,
Gamage, K. A. A.; Gamage, A. M.; Dehideniya, S. Online and hybrid teaching and learning: Enhance effective student engagement and experience. Education Sciences; 2022; 12,
García-Peñalvo, F. J. Transformación digital en las universidades: Implicaciones de la pandemia de la COVID-19. Education in the Knowledge Society; 2021; 22, e25465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14201/eks.25465]
García-Peñalvo, F. J.; Corell, A. Recommendations for mandatory online assessment in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Radical solutions for education in a crisis context; Burgos, D.; Tlili, A.; Tabacco, A. Springer: 2020; pp. 85-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7869-4_6]
Gomez, D. R.; Swann, W.; Willms Wohlwend, M.; Spong, S. Adapting under pressure: A case study in scaling faculty development for emergency remote teaching. Journal of Computing in Higher Education; 2023; 35,
Graham, C. R. Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs; Bonk, C. J.; Graham, C. R. Pfeiffer: 2006; pp. 3-21.
Hodges, C.; Moore, S.; Lockee, B.; Trust, T.; Bond, A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review; 27 March 2020; Available online: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (accessed on 14 September 2025).
Huang, L.; Liang, M.; Xiong, Y.; Wu, X.; Lim, C. P. A systematic review of technology-enabled teacher professional development during COVID-19 pandemic. Computers & Education; 2024; 223, 105168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105168]
Jämsä, R.; Pramila-Savukoski, S.; Kuivila, H.-M.; Jokinen, H.; Juntunen, J.; Koskimäki, M.; Törmänen, T.; Mikkonen, K. The hybrid education competence of educators in the social, healthcare, and health science fields: A cross-sectional study. Teaching and Learning in Nursing; 2024; 19,
Latorre, A. La investigación-acción. Conocer y cambiar la práctica educativa; Graó: 2003.
Lion, C.; Perosi, M. V.; Jacubovich, J.; Palladino, C.; Sordelli, O. Repensar la educación híbrida después de la pandemia; IIPE-UNESCO: UNICEF: 2023; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385359 (accessed on 12 September 2025).
Lomellini, A.; Lowenthal, P. R.; Snelson, C.; Trespaldacios, J. H. Accessible and inclusive online learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Computing in Higher Education; 2025; 37, pp. 1306-1329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-024-09424-2]
Mentzer, N. J.; Isabell, T. M.; Mohandas, L. The impact of interactive synchronous HyFlex model on student academic performance in a large active learning introductory college design course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education; 2024; 36, pp. 619-646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09369-y]
Morgan, D. L. Basic and advanced focus groups; SAGE: 2019.
Raes, A. Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: Does presence matter?. Postdigital Science and Education; 2022; 4,
Raes, A.; Vanneste, P.; Pieters, M.; Windey, I.; Van Den Noortgate, W.; Depaepe, F. Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education; 2020; 143, 103682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682]
Rapanta, C.; Botturi, L.; Goodyear, P.; Guàrdia, L.; Koole, M. Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal: Post-pandemic challenges for higher education. Postdigital Science and Education; 2021; 3,
Stewart, W. H. A global crash-course in teaching and learning online: A thematic review of empirical ERT studies in higher education during year 1 of COVID-19. Open Praxis; 2021; 13,
Stewart, W. H.; Lowenthal, P. R. Crisis-based remote education: A comprehensive model. Open Praxis; 2023; 15,
Tondeur, J.; Howard, S. K.; Van Zanten, M.; Gorissen, P.; Van der Neut, I.; Uerz, D.; Kral, M. The HeDiCom framework: Higher Education teachers’ digital competencies for the future. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2023; 71, pp. 33-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10193-5]
Turnbull, D.; Chugh, R.; Luck, J. Transitioning to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have higher education institutions responded to the challenge?. Education and Information Technologies; 2021; 26, pp. 6401-6419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34177349]
Walsh, L. L.; Arango-Caro, S.; Wester, E. R.; Callis-Duehl, K. Training faculty as an institutional response to COVID-19 emergency remote teaching supported by data. CBE—Life Sciences Education; 2021; 20,
Watermeyer, R. P.; Crick, T.; Knight, C.; Goodall, J. COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education; 2020; 81,
Wood, H. C.; Detyna, M.; Dommett, E. J. Assessing and understanding educators’ experiences of synchronous hybrid learning in universities: A systematic review. Education Sciences; 2025; 15,
Xie, J.; Gulinna, A.; Rice, M. F. Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education; 2021; 42,
Yang, F.; Liu, P.; Duan, P.; Zhang, D. Evaluating blended teaching models in medical colleges: Preferences and influential factors for teachers and students. Advances in Medical Education and Practice; 2024; 15, pp. 1195-1203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S487408]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.