Assessing and Understanding Educators’ Experiences of Synchronous Hybrid Learning in Universities: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The rise in online learning, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to greater use of synchronous hybrid learning (SHL) in higher education. SHL allows simultaneous teaching of in-person and online learners through videoconferencing tools. Previous studies have identified various benefits (e.g., flexibility) and challenges (e.g., student engagement) to SHL. Whilst systematic reviews have emerged on this topic, few studies have considered the experiences of staff. The aim of this review was threefold: (i) to better understand how staff experiences and perceptions are assessed, (ii) to understand staff experiences in terms of the benefits and challenges of SHL and (iii) to identify recommendations for effective teaching and learning using SHL. In line with the PRISMA guidance, we conducted a systematic review across four databases, identifying 14 studies for inclusion. Studies were conducted in nine different countries and covered a range of academic disciplines. Most studies adopted qualitative methods, with small sample sizes. Measures used were typically novel and unvalidated. Four themes were identified relating to (i) technology, (ii) redesigning teaching and learning, (iii) student engagement and (iv) staff workload. In terms of recommendations, ensuring adequate staff training and ongoing classroom support were considered essential. Additionally, active and collaborative learning were considered important to address issues with interactivity. Whilst these findings largely aligned with previous work, this review also identified limited reporting in research in this area, and future studies are needed to address this.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, teaching and learning within universities has been conducted in person, with only specialist institutions developing and offering distance education. However, over the years, improvements in technology allowing synchronous interactions and advanced learning platforms have meant that the concept of distance learning has largely given way to that of online learning (Siemens et al., 2015), which may or may not be conducted at a distance. Indeed, since the development of the first virtual learning environments (VLEs) in the mid-1990s, use of online learning has steadily increased within conventional universities, with greater reliance on VLEs and tools such as lecture capture to support in-person teaching (Bliuc et al., 2007; Boelens et al., 2015; Dommett, 2019; Dommett et al., 2020). As online learning has grown, universities have been able to combine both in-person and online learning activities. This approach is typically referred to as blended learning (Siemens et al., 2015) or hybrid learning (Raes et al., 2020), although exactly how this is defined has been the subject of much debate (Wang & Huang, 2024). For the purposes of this review, we are referring to blended learning to simply mean “the practices that combine (or blend)” in-person and online learning (Siemens et al., 2015). Blending can happen in different temporal manners because in-person and online can be blended sequentially or in parallel, where sequential allows learners to move from one mode to the next (Staker & Horn, 2012), whilst parallel refers to in-person and online learning happening at the same time but with learners in distinct locations. This parallel blending has been given various labels over the years, including blended synchronous learning (BSL) (Bower et al., 2015), synchronous hybrid learning (SHL) (Butz & Askim-Lovseth, 2015), hybrid virtual classroom (Raes et al., 2020), here or there (HOT) (Lakhal et al., 2020) and hybrid-flexible or HyFlex (Beatty, 2014). Most recently, the term hybrid appears more commonly in the literature, and we will use synchronous hybrid learning (SHL) in this paper to refer to this approach of parallel blending of in-person and online participants. In some cases, this type of learning can include asynchronous components, but in others, the focus is on synchronous classroom and online student learning. Similarly, in some cases, students have a choice over their mode of attendance, whilst in others, they do not.

Irrespective of the exact approach, SHL is thought to provide a promising instructional approach. It can allow students who cannot physically get into the classroom to learn with their peers (Wang et al., 2018). The need for this flexibility is essential given that a proportion of the student body will have caring responsibilities (Runacres et al., 2024) and around half are managing studies alongside part-time employment (Freeman, 2023). Additionally, it can enhance access to education for those in rural or remote areas (Wigal, 2021) and allow for international collaboration, which can enrich learning (Hastie et al., 2010). This approach to learning is thought to have organisational benefits for the institution, including reaching a greater population of students and therefore increasing recruitment potential (Abdelmalak & Parra, 2016) and offering a broader range of optional or elective modules through access to experts and students across geographical boundaries (Bell et al., 2014), which may make them more cost-effective. There are also, arguably, pedagogic benefits, including those derived from bringing in subject experts and having student groups mix together for learning, creating a wider community of learners (Raes et al., 2020). Despite the purported benefits of SHL, there are also some challenges that can arise from the technology needed to teach in this way (Weitze et al., 2013) and the required changes to teaching and learning for this format (Bower et al., 2015). Concerns have been raised about low levels of engagement in those participating online compared to those in person (Lakhal et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2017) and limited interaction between those online and in person (Romero-Hall & Vicentini, 2017).

With the rise in use of SHL, there have been several systematic reviews of the topic, including one covering the benefits and challenges mentioned above (Raes et al., 2020). However, this review was pre-COVID-19, with searches ending in May 2019. This is important because a bibliographic analysis has demonstrated that HyFlex, and therefore SHL, has encountered a 71% growth rate since 2020 (Mahrishi et al., 2025). This analysis identified a broad range of studies, covering topics ranging from learning frameworks to preparation work. It is noteworthy that, despite the range of topics covered, studies rarely focus on assessing staff experiences. A second review, incorporating articles up to and including those published in 2022, focused on the challenges arising from SHL that directly impact online student engagement and the strategies that can address these difficulties (Wang & Huang, 2024). This review identified four challenges of SHL: (i) inadequate online student-to-teacher interactions, (ii) insufficient online student-to-in-person student interactions, (iii) limited online student–content interactions and, finally, (iv) technological constraints. The same review suggested several strategies for overcoming these, including (i) initiating frequent interactions, (ii) letting online students have active roles, (iii) using continuous assessment, (iv) optimising the technology and, finally, (vi) ensuring staff have adequate professional development in the method. However, this review also lacked studies designed to assess staff experience directly. Finally, a scoping review incorporating papers from 2013 to 2022 focused on HyFlex and was conducted to explore the literature for evidence for the use of HyFlex, as well as staff and student experiences of it (Cumming et al., 2024). This review identified 13 studies, only three of which assessed staff experiences (Bower et al., 2015; Butz & Stupnisky, 2016; Hayes & Tucker, 2021). The authors of the review noted that staff had positive beliefs about HyFlex because it allowed students to be connected and engaged in the course contents and the technology could be implemented easily with breakout tools for online students, but that they had difficulties related to increased workload both in advance of the session and in the class (Cumming et al., 2024). However, it should be noted that in all cases, qualitative data from staff was analysed collectively with that of students, meaning it was not possible to separate out staff insights fully.

Previous research has, therefore, identified some potential benefits of SHL as well as some challenges. However, much of the research previously reviewed and conducted has focused on student experiences, and the staff voice has been comparatively quiet. It is critical to ensure that staff experiences are adequately understood because staff buy-in to an approach is critical for its success, given the important role teaching staff play in educating students (Handal & Herrington, 2003; Harris, 2003). Furthermore, previous research indicates that studies that reassert the staff voice can be particularly valuable in education (Goodson, 1992). This is all the more important where universities are under financial strain and prioritisation must occur (Adams, 2025). Additionally, there has yet to be a review identifying best practices for SHL (Lakhal et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023). With the recent increases in SHL, it is now timely to conduct a new systematic review on the topic, with a focus on staff experiences, and address this important gap in the literature. Specifically, in this review, we aimed to address three research questions: (1) What methods and instruments have been used to assess educators’ experiences and perceptions of SHL at universities? (2) How do educators’ experience and perceive SHL teaching in universities in terms of benefits and difficulties? (3) Based on staff experiences, what teaching and learning approaches were recommended in the literature for this mode of teaching?

2. Materials and Methods

This review was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for transparent reporting of systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021). The review was preregistered on the Open Science Framework prior to commencement (https://osf.io/hu4ex/, accessed on 23 July 2025).

2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were developed considering the population, concept, context and type of evidence. For population studies were included if the participants were university staff members directly involved in SHL. Studies that focused on alternative populations, such as students or learning designers/developers, were excluded. If a study included multiple groups of participants (e.g., staff and students), the paper could be included only if the data from the participant groups could be differentiated. For the concept, SHL was defined as where a teacher and some students are co-located within a physical classroom and joined via the internet by remote students synchronously. All other forms of learning were excluded. If multiple forms of learning were considered, papers could be included only if the data on SHL could be differentiated from other forms of learning. For context, studies were included if they focused on teaching and learning within a university as part of a degree at either the undergraduate or postgraduate level. Other types of education (e.g., secondary education) were excluded. For types of evidence, we included any peer-reviewed primary research article published in English. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods research studies were included.

2.2. Search Strategy

Systematic searches were carried out across four databases: Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus and ERIC. Databases were selected based on size and a combination of general (e.g., Web of Science) and education specialism (e.g., ERIC). Web of Science, Scopus and ERIC are directly searched. For PsycINFO, the interface is OVID. Literature searches were performed up to 24 February 2024. The search strategy was developed using the Population, Exposure, Outcome or PEO Framework (Hosseini et al., 2024). Population terms (lecturer OR professor OR faculty OR academic OR “university staff”) were combined with Exposure terms (hybrid OR HyFlex OR synchronous) and Outcome terms (experience OR perception OR pedagogy). Categories of terms were combined with AND. Searches were conducted in the titles and abstracts of papers.

2.3. Screening, Data Extraction and Synthesis

Search results were exported from each database and imported into Covidence, a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines the production of systematic and other literature reviews (Veritas Health Innovation, n.d.). Within Covidence, de-duplication was first conducted. After de-duplication, title and abstract screening were completed independently by two authors for >10% of the papers, after which the two screeners compared outcomes. The conflict rate was <10% at 5.9%, and so the first screener continued with the remaining papers. For full text screening, this process was repeated, with two authors independently screening >10% of the papers. There was 100% matching at this stage with no conflicts, and so the first screener continued with the remainder independently. Once full-text screening was completed, a data extraction table was developed within Covidence and completed for five papers by one author. These were reviewed by a second author, and a discussion was held. This process was completed again after a further three papers were extracted, after which the first screener completed the remainder of the data extraction. This process is summarised in Figure 1. Data synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach, driven by the research questions. This approach moves beyond pure description to compare studies and explore the robustness of the evidence (Lisy & Porritt, 2016).

Figure 1. Prisma diagram providing an overview of the searches and screening conducted in February 2025.

2.4. Quality Appraisal

Quality appraisal was completed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) designed to appraise qualitative research, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies (Hong et al., 2018). This tool has previously been used in educational research (Jackman et al., 2022). Full details of the quality appraisal for the studies are included in Supplementary Material S1, including the relevant criteria and the appraisal for each study. The studies were rated as good, fair and low quality, with the final quality rating dependent on the percentage of criteria met for the relevant study design (Hong et al., 2018). Those with <40% of the criteria met were rated as low, those with 40–69% were considered fair, and those with >70% were good. Mixed methods studies were assessed against the qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods items and then assigned the lowest of these three quality standards, with the rationale that the overall study quality could not be greater than the ‘weakest’ component. The results of the quality assessment were narratively synthesised to summarise the overall quality of included studies.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characterisation

Table 1 provides an overview of the 14 studies included in the systematic review. Studies were conducted in nine different counties, with the largest cluster conducted within the USA. As might be expected, the studies all reported collecting data during or after the COVID-19 pandemic forced changes to in-person teaching. Whilst one study did not report when data was collected (Li et al., 2023), the study itself was published post-COVID-19. The studies used several different terms to identify what we have referred to in this paper as SHL. This included hybrid synchronous live (Abrar et al., 2024), hybrid (Alcaide & Poza, 2023; Li et al., 2023; Petchamé et al., 2023), HyFlex (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Bosman et al., 2022; Dawkins, 2022), synchronous hybrid learning (Capello et al., 2024; Gallardo et al., 2023; Tierney et al., 2024; Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024), blended synchronous learning (Lakhal et al., 2021; Thompson & Helal, 2025) and inclusive synchronous learning activities (Melcher et al., 2025). All except two studies (Abrar et al., 2024; Boehm & Boerboom, 2023) reported the disciplines from which participants were derived, and this was widely spread across different disciplines with staff teaching both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Table 1. An overview of the studies included in the systematic review in alphabetical order by first author. Design is described in line with the MMAT for quality appraisal.

Study, Country and Period of Data Collection	Term Used	Research Questions *	Participants Discipline, N, % Male	Design and Methods	Key Findings	Quality Appraisal
Abrar et al. (2024), Kuwait, 2021–2022	Hybrid synchronous live	What is the impact of hybrid learning on satisfaction, effectiveness and academic performance?	NR, N = 66, 55%.	Quantitative descriptive Survey	For effectiveness, most staff felt (i) that they had sufficient digital knowledge and skills to manage online teaching, (ii) that the technological tools were suitable, (iii) that online was more effort than face-to-face (f2f) and (iv) that online learning was less effective than f2f. For teaching satisfaction, most staff (i) agreed or were neutral about online learning achieving the learning outcomes, (ii) felt online did not give a fair assessment of performance, and (iii) were unsatisfied with student-teaching interactions. For academic performance, most staff (i) disagreed that hybrid learning demonstrated there was no need for real student-teacher interactions, (ii) felt that lack of interaction negatively impacted performance, (iii) students could ask questions during online learning and (iv) students attending in person outperformed those online.	Low
Alcaide and Poza (2023), Spain, 2020–2021	Hybrid	Is hybrid teaching through the Microsoft Teams application effective in the teaching-learning process?	Economics and social sciences, N = 40, 45% **	Quantitative descriptive survey	A total of 72% of staff agreed that teams could be useful for hybrid teaching. When asked about whether student performance was similar when hybrid, the largest group (~31%) felt that it was, but 44% reported differences. A total of 19% felt grades had improved, but most did not attribute this to hybrid. A total of 25% reported grades had worsened, with 16% attributing this to hybrid. When asked about whether using teams for hybrid had harmed the learning process, 40% felt that it had compared to just 15% who felt that it had not. Difficulties were noted around student-staff interactions and low motivations.	Fair
Boehm and Boerboom (2023), USA, 2022	HyFlex	How did faculty experience HyFlex?	NR, 12, NR.	Qualitative descriptive interview or survey	Three themes emerged: 1. Student interaction—experiences of this varied according to prior teaching mode, where those used to f2f were disappointed by lower attendance in person and interaction, whilst those used to online asynchronous appreciated real-time interaction. 2. Technological challenges—technology could be a source of frustration, creating difficulties for student interactions (esp. audio), whilst others enjoyed learning about a new technology. 3. Workload was reported as greater due to planning for both attendance modes and checking in throughout on two separate groups.	Fair
Bosman et al. (2022), USA, 2020	HyFlex	What is the experience of teaching engineering coursework in HyFlex learning?	Industrial Engineering Technology, N = 12, 0%	Qualitative auto-ethnography	Three themes were identified: 1. Maximise student learning with awareness of workload and effort. 2. Instructors adapted their approach after initial implementation. 3. Staff welcomed the opportunity to experiment and try new pedagogies. Specific points were also noted: In-class assignments were used to encourage synchronous engagement through group support for tasks. To respect students’ mode preferences, groups were made within rather than between modes for tasks (i.e., an f2f group and an online group). Breakout rooms were necessary for remote students. Increased workload in planning and difficulties when split between groups is not as hoped. Staff would not offer hybrid for classes with <10 students.	Low
Capello et al. (2024), USA, Post 2018	Synchronous hybrid learning	What are the experiences and perceptions of staff who use telepresence technology for doctoral education in a synchronous hybrid learning environment?	Education, N = 8, NR	Qualitative descriptive *** survey	Most staff reported making some changes to teaching to accommodate robots, such as trying out new teaching strategies. Challenges noted were the lack of flexibility and problems with the technology as well as feeling unable to use some basic teaching approaches, but staff were generally happy to teach classes with robots. The amount of effort required to support both groups (f2f and robots) was seen to be a lot of work. Many of the staff wanted professional learning opportunities to improve how they worked with the robots in the hybrid environment.	Low
Dawkins (2022), Australia, 2021–2023	Hyflex	What is the staff experience of HyFlex and specifically the impact of HyFlex design and delivery on workload?	Humanities, N = 1, 100%	Qualitative auto-ethnography	Planning for HyFlex could require redesigning assessment and so approvals from the university. Attendance tracking was tricky between modes, especially where asynchronous engagement was an option. Students could be confused about the different tasks for different modes. Attendance dropped off more in f2f participants than online, and there was a sense of embarrassment when f2f attendance was low. The author felt a need to plan for multiple lessons depending on proportion in different modes. Fluctuating engagement was the biggest issue.	Low
Gallardo et al. (2023), Mexico, Post 2021	Synchronous hybrid learning	What are the perceptions of staff around learning and assessment practices in SHL?	Humanity and education, social sciences, health science, business, engineering, art, and architecture and design, N = 281 (survey), N = 17 (interview), NR.	Mixed Methods: Quantitative descriptive survey; qualitative descriptive interviews	Most staff felt criteria for development of learning products were equivalent across different modes of learning, including SHL. Most also felt their assessment and feedback practices were equally fair across different modes and that their feedback was of equivalent quality. The only significant difference between SHL and f2f learning was in equality, defined as “Similarity in level of rigour and exigency around the elaboration of academic products in different modalities”. SHL was significantly lower than f2f. Interview analyses identified five networks, which included staff identifying greater workload and challenges to creating competency and authenticity but also the value of being able to work on real-world issues. Pros and cons of online assessment were also noted, as well as the need for considered assessment criteria and feedback.	Low
Lakhal et al. (2021), Canada, 2017	Blended synchronous learning (BSL)	What are instructors’ experiences and perceptions of BSL in relation to pedagogy, technology and organization/logistics dimensions?	Graduate teacher programme, N = 5, 40%.	Qualitative descriptive interviews	Three themes emerged. For pedagogy it was noted that detailed planning is required, activities should be designed to foster interaction and develop skills, and the environment needs to be interactive, inclusive, positive and secure for interactivity. For technology, it was noted that this could be used to keep track of learning and support inclusivity but may also be challenging, and training was required along with good internet connections. For organisation, it was noted that this supported flexibility for students but that teaching assistants were essential. Additionally, consistent setup between rooms and tech support is needed. Finally, it was felt that equal numbers online and f2f was best.	Good
Li et al. (2023), China, NR	Hybrid	What is the staff experience of delivering hybrid learning and what are their views on hybrid learning effectiveness?	Survey: arts and social sciences, business and administration, education and languages, nursing and health studies, and science and technology, N = 76, NR Focus groups: natural and social sciences, arts, and humanities, N = 10, NR	Mixed methods: Quantitative descriptive survey; qualitative descriptive focus groups	Mean scores are reported for all quantitative measures: most scored slightly more positive than neutral (3.00), with notably higher scores for students having easy access to materials in hybrid formats (4.24) and students having good internet access for hybrid learning (3.84). However, staff were not in agreement about active participation in discussions (2.76). When comparing to f2f, most items were only slightly more positive than neutral. However, staff felt the workload increased (4.14) and the ways the module was assessed needed to change for hybrid (4.03). Looking forward, staff preferred f2f over hybrid teaching and wanted more support with hardware. Qualitative data supported the quantitative about needing to redevelop activities and assessments, which increased workload. The difficulty of group discussions in hybrid formats was commonly expressed. Staff also reported that it was hard to pay attention to both groups of students and to know how the online students were getting on, as they were often reluctant to share their screen or talk. This makes it hard to maintain a relationship and follow up on their learning. A need for technology training and additional staff to support sessions (especially online students) was also noted.	Fair
Melcher et al. (2025), UK, 2022	Inclusive synchronous learning activities (ISLA)	What is the experience of teaching and learning with ISLA from the perspective of staff, and what recommendations can be made based on these experiences?	Survey: 63% Business, N = 73, NR Focus Groups: law, business, health and psychological sciences, sociology, N = 13, NR	Mixed methods: Quantitative descriptive survey; qualitative descriptive focus groups	Four themes were generated: 1. Experiences and feelings towards hybrid—ISLA was often seen as a good backup for those who could not attend but not as flexible as fully online, and some were excited about the different ways of interacting afforded by ISLA. 2. Impact on practice and planning—49% reported making changes to their teaching in advance, 31% made changes on the fly, and 18% reported making no changes for hybrid delivery. Changes reported by staff included more time planning sessions, increased time for activities and more instructions, making less use of whiteboards and activities harder for online students to use (but noted this was at detriment to those in person), clear guidance to online students and posting resources online in advance. Staff noted using different techniques to engage students, including mandatory camera use, pairing online and in-person students, and using collaborative documents. 3. Perceptions of student experiences—staff felt students appreciated the global interactions but were conflicted about offering a compromised student experience due to tech issues. 4. Thoughts on technology—some thought it worked seamlessly, but most experienced technical problems and reported slow responses from IT and AV support teams, leading to frustration, compromised professionalism, and concerns around managing workload when using a hybrid approach.	Low
Petchamé et al. (2023), Spain, 2021–2022	Hybrid	What are staff perceptions of a pilot master’s programme taught using a hybrid format?	User experience, N = 4, 50%	Qualitative descriptive surveys	Positive aspects reported were facilitation of in-person and remote teaching in a single group, nearly no difference in teaching students between the two modes, integration of students, intuitive and easy to use, practicality, effectiveness, benefits for students who live far away, and the smart board being a good tool. Negative aspects reported were some online students disconnected after a while, problems with internet connection, difficulties interacting with remote students, managing class dynamics, and promoting affinity with f2f students. Suggested improvements included improving interaction between remote students with group work and training staff in effective hybrid methodologies.	Good
Thompson and Helal (2025), Australia, 2022	BSL	What are staff experiences of teaching with BSL for the first time and their perceptions of the support available?	Architecture, Construction, Property, Landscape architecture, and Urban planning, N = 12, NR	Qualitative descriptive interviews	Results were reported through three levels: macro-level institutional decisions, meso-level cognitive apprenticeship, and micro-level pedagogical relations. Three themes regarding the role of academic developers cut across all levels: BSL guidance design, overcoming BSL challenges, and promoting opportunities. Staff reported cumulative fatigue with guidance and resources offered. Interactive resources were preferred to written online guidance. Three stages of support were deemed critical: An overview workshop with time for Q&A, in-room training prior to starting BSL, and troubleshooting help available for early sessions. Staff noted the importance of up-to-date guidance and policies (e.g., around student privacy) and the difficulties of planning when they are unsure of students’ attendance modality, emphasising the importance of clear communications to students. Participants reported the need for considerable preparation time to ensure equity of experience for online and f2f students and build cohort cohesiveness, provide student preparatory guidance, manage expectations and familiarise themselves with the technology. All participants felt BSL should continue to be offered and recognised its potential for accessibility, flexibility and active learning approaches. Several felt the approach allowed them to develop new approaches to teaching. Employment of TAs to help facilitate BSL activities was considered critical, but some managed alone and thought this should be the overall goal.	Fair
Tierney et al. (2024), UK, 2020–22	Hybrid	How have staff experienced hybrid teaching?	Interviews: social sciences and law and engineering, N = 9, NR Survey: all faculties, N = 165, NR	Mixed methods: Qualitative descriptive interviews; quantitative descriptive survey	Interview reflections and concerns reported: There were mixed attitudes, with many staff experiencing difficulties with delivery, additional workload, technical issues, and lack of training. Staff also observed inferior student experience compared to f2f- or online-only, disengagement of online students over time, and a limited range of possible teaching and learning practices. There was concern about messaging, including a clear definition of hybrid teaching and future implementation. They also reported mixed attitudes from senior management, IT and PS, including decisions without consultation and a need for a standardised setup for technical hardware. Survey results: 96% reported a workload increase, and 81% felt those in the room had a better experience than those online. Of the 62 staff who had taught a recent hybrid class (in Term 1 of 2021/22), 57% did not want the university to offer hybrid the following year and 60% never wanted it offered. Overall, the survey revealed difficulties with IT support and technology and a need for more teaching assistants. Staff also reported higher stress and frustration. Potential positive aspects were mentioned relating to access, inclusion, and provision for international students.	Low
Usher and Hershkovitz (2024), Israel, 2021	Synchronous hybrid learning	What metaphors do instructors use to describe their role during SHL and the roles of on-site and online students?	Natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, applied Sciences, and other, N = 130, 45%.	Mixed Methods: Qualitative and quantitative descriptive surveys	The most common metaphor used by staff to describe their role in SHL was as a juggler, indicating that they had to multi-task and juggle multiple responsibilities. The second most common was that of a counsellor, partly due to the timing of the study during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a guide (which was rated most common in f2f environments). Staff saw the role of f2f students as an active audience or team players, whereas they saw online students as observers or outsiders.	Fair

NR = not reported * Where the study included students and staff, the research questions related to the staff aspect. Similarly, where multiple modes of learning were considered, questions pertaining to SHL are included rather than all modes. ** Not all 40 had taught using SHL, so the number answering questions on this was lower (~34). *** Although the survey included quantifiable data, reporting of results focused on qualitative data, so this was treated as a qualitative study.

3.2. RQ1: Methods and Instruments

To better understand what methods and instruments have been used to assess educators’ experiences and perceptions of SHL at universities, we examined the methodologies of the different studies. Most (N = 7, 50%) studies adopted a qualitative approach (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Bosman et al., 2022; Capello et al., 2024; Dawkins, 2022; Lakhal et al., 2021; Petchamé et al., 2023; Thompson & Helal, 2025). These typically had very small sample sizes ranging from 1 to 12 participants (mean N = 7.71). Of those collecting qualitative data, they typically did so with interviews (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Lakhal et al., 2021; Thompson & Helal, 2025), but autoethnography was also used (Bosman et al., 2022; Dawkins, 2022), as were surveys (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Capello et al., 2024; Petchamé et al., 2023). Only two (14%) took an entirely quantitative approach with sample sizes ranging from 40 to 66 (Abrar et al., 2024; Alcaide & Poza, 2023). The instruments used for the surveys were not previously validated measures for staff. One study adapted parts of the Web-Based Learning Environment Instrument (WEBLEY), designed for students, and then included extra questions from other research (Abrar et al., 2024). The second study used a questionnaire employed in previous research with staff and piloted it on staff in their study before data collection, although the reliability and validity of the scale are unknown (Alcaide & Poza, 2023). The remaining five studies took a mixed-methods approach (Gallardo et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Melcher et al., 2025; Tierney et al., 2024; Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024), typically utilising a survey and then focus groups or interviews. As might be expected, these had larger sample sizes for survey components (N ranges from 73 to 281) compared to the interviews or focus groups (N ranges from 9 to 17). Surveys used within these studies were generally developed for the study and therefore not previously validated (Gallardo et al., 2023; Melcher et al., 2025; Tierney et al., 2024; Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024), although one was adapted from a study by the same authors where it was created for assessing student experiences (Li et al., 2023). In summary, much of the work conducted to date has utilised qualitative methods, and where quantitative surveys have been used, they have typically been designed for the specific study or adapted from previous instruments used for assessing student experience. The lack of previously validated instruments means that the results of these studies should be interpreted with caution. However, it is also noteworthy that no validated measure specifically for SHL exists at the time of writing.

3.3. Experiences and Perception of SHL

Staff experiences of SHL were assessed using a range of research questions, which created a diverse set of findings, detailed by study in Table 1. Across studies, several themes can be identified from the data relating to (i) technology, (ii) redesigning teaching and learning, (iii) student engagement and (iv) staff workload. Firstly, studies revealed that staff generally felt that the technology available to them was suitable for the purposes of SHL teaching (Abrar et al., 2024; Alcaide & Poza, 2023) and that some enjoyed working with new tools (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023) and the pedagogy these afforded (Bosman et al., 2022; Thompson & Helal, 2025). It was suggested that the technology could be used to track learning and support inclusivity (Lakhal et al., 2021). Despite this, technology could still be a source of frustration (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Capello et al., 2024; Melcher et al., 2025; Tierney et al., 2024), which could compromise their professionalism (Melcher et al., 2025). It was noted that this mode required students to have good internet connectivity (Lakhal et al., 2021; Petchamé et al., 2023; Tierney et al., 2024), although this generally had been found to be the case (Li et al., 2023). The presence of technical difficulties was perceived as impacting student experience (Melcher et al., 2025).

Secondly, studies revealed that staff typically found teaching using SHL required careful designing of classes and typically required a change in pedagogic approach to support both modes of learning (Bosman et al., 2022; Capello et al., 2024; Lakhal et al., 2021; Melcher et al., 2025; Thompson & Helal, 2025). This, in turn, had implications for assessment and therefore could require university-level approvals before the approach can be optimised (Dawkins, 2022; Li et al., 2023). Different types of activity were utilised in SHL to bring the two groups of students together in some cases (Melcher et al., 2025; Petchamé et al., 2023; Tierney et al., 2024) or allow them to work in ‘within-mode’ groups to respect their preferences for online or in-person learning (Bosman et al., 2022). Despite making changes to learning activities and assessment, it was not always deemed to be successful in contrast to in-person learning, with studies revealing that staff felt SHL was less effective than in-person learning (Abrar et al., 2024; Alcaide & Poza, 2023). However, this experience was not universal; some saw it as an efficient and easy way to teach two groups (Petchamé et al., 2023). Staff perceived the flexibility of SHL as a benefit to students who could not attend or who lived far from campus (Melcher et al., 2025; Petchamé et al., 2023; Thompson & Helal, 2025) and that this mode could allow internationalisation of the classroom through global interactions (Melcher et al., 2025; Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024), indicating that even if changes to practice were required and learning was not always as effective, there were still benefits to this mode. For assessment, some studies indicated staff perceived that this mode of teaching could result in unfair assessment of performance (Abrar et al., 2024), whilst others saw assessment and feedback practices as similar across modes (Gallardo et al., 2023). Various reasons were given for assessment difficulties, including difficulty in interaction even though students could ask questions (Abrar et al., 2024). Despite some studies raising concerns about the effectiveness of the learning process, there was no consensus from staff on whether students performed the same as when they had in-person teaching (Alcaide & Poza, 2023).

Thirdly, several studies identified issues around student engagement, both in terms of attendance in the different modes and for in-class interactions. For attendance, staff reported challenges in managing different-sized cohorts online and in person and managing the unpredictability of the model of attendance or differential drop-off, especially where asynchronous was also an option (Dawkins, 2022; Thompson & Helal, 2025). Staff reported a lack of satisfaction with interactions (Abrar et al., 2024; Alcaide & Poza, 2023; Li et al., 2023; Tierney et al., 2024), particularly for the students online (Petchamé et al., 2023), with one study indicating staff viewed students more as observers or outsiders in this mode when compared to in-person teaching, where students were an active audience or team player (Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024). However, the satisfaction may be dependent on prior teaching experiences, where those used to fully online teaching found HyFlex interactions positive, whilst those used to fully in-person found SHL interaction negative (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023). Irrespective of this, the disengagement of online students in SHL was noted as reducing the quality of the student experience (Tierney et al., 2024).

Fourthly, and likely related to the issues around pedagogy and engagement, several studies revealed that staff identified workload as an issue in SHL, noting the extra time required for preparing classes and within the sessions themselves, due to having to monitor two groups of students (Abrar et al., 2024; Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Bosman et al., 2022; Capello et al., 2024; Gallardo et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Melcher et al., 2025; Tierney et al., 2024). This created a perception of juggling or multi-tasking (Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024). Related to this, staff resourcing was identified as a consideration for SHL. Although staff in one study felt that they had the necessary digital skills to teach in this mode (Abrar et al., 2024), studies revealed that training was needed (Capello et al., 2024; Lakhal et al., 2021; Tierney et al., 2024). This training needed to be interactive and include having IT support staff on hand for the early sessions (Li et al., 2023; Thompson & Helal, 2025; Tierney et al., 2024). Furthermore, it was necessary to have a consistent room setup to avoid difficulties when classes moved (Lakhal et al., 2021; Tierney et al., 2024). Along with IT support resourcing, several studies identified the need for teaching assistants to support HyFlex sessions (Lakhal et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023; Thompson & Helal, 2025; Tierney et al., 2024).

In summary, staff could generally see the benefits to SHL for inclusivity and flexibility. However, teaching using SHL was associated with a higher workload in both planning and delivery as well as requiring training and ongoing support. Interactivity remains a contentious issue for staff, as do technical challenges, both of which can lead to poor student experience.

3.4. RQ3: Best-Supported Teaching and Learning Approaches for SHL

Our final research question sought to identify effective teaching and learning approaches for SHL. Several of the studies identified did not make recommendations or conclusions about this (Alcaide & Poza, 2023; Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Gallardo et al., 2023; Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024). Details of the recommendations for the remaining studies are shown in Table 2. From Table 2, it is apparent that providing adequate staff training was considered essential (Abrar et al., 2024; Capello et al., 2024; Lakhal et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023; Melcher et al., 2025; Petchamé et al., 2023; Thompson & Helal, 2025). Additionally, ongoing support was recommended, in the form of classroom assistants (Bosman et al., 2022; Capello et al., 2024; Lakhal et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023; Melcher et al., 2025) and on-call tech support (Lakhal et al., 2021). For the former, studies differed on whether this classroom assistance could come from a current student (Capello et al., 2024; Melcher et al., 2025). Although no studies directly compared different pedagogic approaches, most noted the need for an interactive course design to ensure engagement of online students (Abrar et al., 2024; Bosman et al., 2022; Capello et al., 2024; Lakhal et al., 2021; Petchamé et al., 2023; Tierney et al., 2024). A range of techniques were suggested for achieving this, including group work (Abrar et al., 2024), shared documents and screens (Abrar et al., 2024; Bosman et al., 2022), use of breakout rooms (Bosman et al., 2022; Lakhal et al., 2021) and polls or questioning (Abrar et al., 2024; Bosman et al., 2022).

Table 2. An overview of recommendations for implementing SHL.

Study	Recommendations for Implementing SHL
Abrar et al. (2024)	Staff must have specific training Course design should encourage engagement of online students, e.g., assessed participation, screen sharing, use of probing questions, and assessed group work
Bosman et al. (2022)	Make use of shared documents for group work, allowing students to contribute and staff to check in easily Use breakout rooms for small groups Make use of interactive polls during sessions Have a dedicated discussion moderator during live sessions Ensure the link to the online class is in multiple places Consider use of advanced classroom technology to allow students to move around the online space like they would a real space
Capello et al. (2024)	Activities should foster student interactions and a sense of community Online and in-person students should meet in person at the start Staff should receive adequate training and adopt new pedagogies that balance in-person and online elements and fit with available technology Technology assistants should be present, but these should not be students on the course to avoid them having to balance their own learning with the assistant role
Dawkins (2022)	Use foundational tasks that students complete prior to class irrespective of mode of attendance to create a connection with students Consider asking students to indicate mode of attendance ahead of class to help planning
Lakhal et al. (2021)	Staff should receive training both on the technology and appropriate design (both theoretical and practical aspects) Course design must include interactive and collaborative learning Teaching assistants can be helpful in supporting online students Ideally online students should communicate using audio and video rather than the chat Multiple camera views should be available Breakout rooms should be used for group work Technical support should be on call
Li et al. (2023)	Adequate hardware and software support is essential for SHL Staff should receive professional development to help them enhance student engagement for online students Support in the classroom to monitor and help in-person and online students
Melcher et al. (2025)	Assess the suitability of physical and digital infrastructure Review pedagogic reasons for using SHL Ensure high-quality and effective planning and training by committed academics Make use of trained student co-pilots to setup technology at the start of classes and monitor online chat
Petchamé et al. (2023)	Staff must receive adequate training for SHL Activities should focus on interactivity between students and staff from the first session to set an interactive climate
Thompson and Helal (2025)	Academic development support is critical to the success of SHL SHL support should consider both what content to include (e.g., pedagogy and technology) and how to deliver this (workshop, in-room training, on-call support)
Tierney et al. (2024)	Communicate clearly what is meant by SHL Ensure IT infrastructure is in place, considering room-level and institutional-level management and support Create spaces and activities that support a sense of community and social cohesion Make use of active and collaborative learning.

3.5. Quality of Studies

Overall, the quality of the studies varied. Full details of the quality appraisal for the studies are included in Supplementary Material S1. Fifty percent (N = 7) of the studies were rated to be low quality, although it is noteworthy that three of these were mixed-methods designs where one component was arguably of higher quality than the other, and this has impacted overall quality negatively. Thirty-six percent (N = 5) were rated as fair, and just 14% (N = 2) were rated as good. Lower quality ratings were often driven by lack of thorough reporting; across all studies 15% of the criteria were rated as ‘cannot tell’. The two quantitative studies were rated as low (Abrar et al., 2024) and fair (Alcaide & Poza, 2023). In both cases, it was unclear if the sample was representative of the population and the appropriateness of the measures, but both studies did include suitable statistics. Purely qualitative studies tended to fare better, with two rated as good (Lakhal et al., 2021; Petchamé et al., 2023) and three as fair (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023; Thompson & Helal, 2025; Usher & Hershkovitz, 2024). For the fair-rated studies, the most common issues arose around whether the interpretation of the data was sufficiently substantiated by the data and if there was coherence across the process. The remaining qualitative studies were rated as poor (Bosman et al., 2022; Capello et al., 2024; Dawkins, 2022), but this was largely driven by lack of reporting. For the mixed-methods studies, three were rated as poor (Gallardo et al., 2023; Melcher et al., 2025; Tierney et al., 2024), although the qualitative components were typically stronger with limited reporting or justification for the mixed methods. One was rated as moderate (Li et al., 2023).

4. Discussion

This review set out to address three questions, the first of which was to identify the methods and instruments used to assess educators’ experiences and perceptions of SHL. Our data indicate that most of the studies took a qualitative approach, using a range of methods from autoethnography to qualitative surveys. Where quantitative scales were used, sample sizes were typically larger, but most studies made use of novel or newly adapted scales that were unvalidated, which could limit their generalisability.

The second question we set out to answer was to understand how educators’ experience and perceive SHL teaching in universities in terms of benefits and difficulties. The findings here revealed four themes. Firstly, technology was seen as both something that could serve SHL well and a source of frustration. These findings are in keeping with earlier studies (Wang & Huang, 2024; Weitze et al., 2013) and suggest that despite the increase in implementation and research into SHL in recent years (Mahrishi et al., 2025), technological challenges remain ever present. Secondly, staff reported needing to redesign teaching and assessment to ensure both online and in-person students were supported. Despite the changes needed, staff did still recognise benefits to this approach, most notably in allowing flexibility for students and internationalisation. Again, these findings align well with previous studies and reviews on SHL benefits and challenges (Bower et al., 2015; Hastie et al., 2010; Raes et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018). Coverage of assessment in the context of SHL was more extensive in the studies reviewed here than in previous reviews, possibly because this has now been considered more as universities have moved beyond emergency regulations adopted during COVID to using SHL as a permanent or more established method. Staff perceptions of how SHL impacts assessment and whether students perform the same and receive similar feedback lack consensus currently. Thirdly, concerns were raised regarding the level of interactivity and student engagement, particularly for online students. These concerns have previously been raised in studies, including reviews (Lakhal et al., 2020; Romero-Hall & Vicentini, 2017; Wang & Huang, 2024; Wang et al., 2017), and indeed, student engagement is an ongoing concern with online learning (Siemens et al., 2015). We speculate that difficulties with engagement within SHL are an extension of other forms of online learning but may feel greater due to the direct comparison with in-person students simultaneously learning. Certainly, staff experiences of interactions in one study were influenced by their previous modes of teaching (Boehm & Boerboom, 2023). The fourth theme identified related to workload, with staff reporting higher workload required for planning and during the actual teaching sessions, which required careful monitoring of two distinct groups of students. This has also been noted in a previous review (Cumming et al., 2024). Related to this, the current studies identified the need to have sufficient training, also previously noted in reviews (Cumming et al., 2024), but also the presence of classroom support both for IT and more generally. In summary, the findings of the current review align with those of previous studies, identifying similar benefits and challenges to SHL. The findings extend previous reviews with greater consideration of assessment, although no consensus has been reached, and more discussion of workload challenges.

The final question we aimed to answer with this review was what teaching and learning approaches were recommended in the literature for this mode of teaching. Not all the included studies provided specific recommendations for effective teaching and learning approaches. However, those that did suggested methods to address some of the challenges they had also identified. For example, adequate staff training and ongoing classroom support were recommended for implementing SHL. This support included not only IT staff but also those fulfilling more of a classroom or teaching assistant role. The aim of the latter was to reduce cognitive load for staff and ensure online students are interacted with and as engaged as possible by monitoring platforms to ensure they are not overlooked. No studies directly compared distinct pedagogic approaches, but all identified a need for interactive and engaging sessions, which utilised active and collaborative learning approaches. There were some suggestions for specific ways to achieve this, such as polling, shared documents and pairing of in-person and online students, as well as more use of video and audio compared to chat. These suggestions align with a previous review on the topic (Wang & Huang, 2024), indicating that the incorporation of newer research has not markedly changed the recommended practices.

These have implications for institutional practice and policy. Firstly, the findings of this review indicate that institutions should be offering comprehensive training in both pedagogy and technology use of SHL to optimise interactivity. Importantly, this support should be ongoing, e.g., through on-site tech support and a teaching assistant. Secondly, the findings suggest that workload may be considerably higher for SHL compared to either in-person or online learning conducted separately, and as such, staff need more time to develop this kind of teaching, and, where used, this should be reflected in workload planning models.

This review has consolidated the findings of previous studies and reviews. It has demonstrated that despite the rise in use of and research about SHL in recent years, moving beyond the emergency arrangements made during the COVID-19 pandemic, the perceived challenges, benefits and recommendations are similar. However, there are limitations to the review. Firstly, only a relatively small number of studies were included. Secondly, whilst staff data was collected as part of these studies, as required by our inclusion criteria, many studies also included student data, which meant few provided a thorough and in-depth analysis of staff experiences. Thirdly, half of the studies included were rated as low quality, and only a small proportion were good. In most cases, studies simply lacked detail for higher quality ratings. Common problems are related to lack of clarity around the representativeness of the sample and appropriateness of the measures as well as lack of advanced analysis techniques. Furthermore, the small number of studies, combined with heterogenous methods and lack of detailed information, has prevented comparisons between contexts, for example, between academic disciplines or countries. Additionally, although nine countries were represented, the sample was dominated by four high-income Western countries (USA, UK, Spain and Australia), meaning there was a lack of diversity. Future research should consider more robust methodologies, with larger sample sizes, which would permit such comparisons, particularly for quantitative work. Furthermore, reporting should follow guidance and checklists for educational interventions (Upsher et al., 2025).

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, SHL may offer both practical and pedagogical advantages, as has been previously reported. Staff experiences indicate that whilst they can perceive benefits to SHL, there can be challenges with technology, pedagogic adaptations, student engagement and workload. The literature indicated that this can be mitigated to some extent with appropriate approaches and ongoing staff support. These issues must be carefully investigated, and different solutions examined and compared. However, it is critical to note the relatively small pool of literature focused on staff—future research must examine staff experience more fully and adopt robust data collection and reporting methods to ensure findings are generalisable beyond specific universities or programmes of study.