Transformation of Educational Models in Higher Education During and After “Emergency Remote Teaching”

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, university teaching staff were compelled to urgently transform their pedagogical practices, rapidly adopting new methodologies and technological tools. This abrupt shift in higher education demands critical reflection on the past, present, and future of academic institutions. Based on a qualitative approach, this research used case studies and discussion groups to conduct a comparative analysis of three public Spanish universities: the University of La Laguna (ULL), the University of Extremadura (UEx), and the University of Valladolid (UVa). The aim was to understand how the university community experienced the transition from a traditional educational model to digital or hybrid modalities during and after the period of emergency remote teaching. The three institutions quickly implemented online strategies and subsequently moved to hybrid formats. Despite initial difficulties, there was a clear increase in the use of digital technologies and virtual environments. However, the research also revealed differing perceptions regarding the depth and permanence of these educational changes. The findings enabled the formulation of recommendations to support the digital transformation of university degree programmes, highlighting the importance of institutional policies focused on faculty training, equitable access to technological resources, and strong engagement in the provision of hybrid or fully online learning options.

1. Introduction

1.1. Educational Context During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19), first identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, spread rapidly to affect almost every country in the world. In the absence of vaccines or effective treatments, massive lockdown measures were implemented, including the closure of educational institutions (D’angelo et al., 2021; García-García, 2020). Containment measures—lockdowns, physical distancing, and mobility restrictions—had unprecedented repercussions on education systems. At its peak, more than 1.6 billion people of learning age in 190 countries were unable to attend school in person, representing 94% of the global student population (UNESCO, 2020, 2021).

The duration of school closures ranged from two to eight months, depending on the country (D’angelo et al., 2021). In Spain, a state of emergency was declared on 15 March 2020; strict lockdowns were implemented, and face-to-face educational activities were temporarily suspended. Since then, it has been necessary to follow social distancing guidelines, stay-at-home orders, and state restrictions to limit the spread of the virus (López-Maldonado & García González, 2025). Educational centres remained closed until after the holiday period, extending the interruption to six months.

In higher education, the pandemic marked a turning point. It accelerated the adoption of online teaching models (Al Maskari, 2025), forcing the rapid adaptation of the educational environment to comply with new health regulations and online learning (Cespedes, 2024). Before the health crisis, some university teachers were already exploring the potential of digitisation, but the transition was gradual and limited to certain academic fields (Sosa Díaz et al., 2021). Lockdown forced an abrupt migration to remote teaching. Teachers and students had to adopt new methodologies and technological tools in a very short time. There was a shift from a face-to-face model to an “Emergency Remote Teaching” (ERT) model, depending on the circumstances of each system or educational centre, and online, virtual or distance teaching methods were adapted (Ibañez, 2020). As a result, digital teaching became a primary means of continuing university education (Hodges et al., 2020; Njiku et al., 2019; Sasota et al., 2021). The virtual campus was consolidated as a pedagogical infrastructure in higher education (Gamage et al., 2022).

1.2. “Emergency Remote Teaching” (ERT)

ERT was defined as a temporary and reactive response that transfers, without prior planning, courses designed for face-to-face teaching to virtual environments with the sole purpose of ensuring academic continuity during a crisis (Hodges et al., 2020; Molokomme et al., 2025; Su et al., 2024). Unlike structured online learning, with deliberate instructional design and robust pedagogical frameworks, ERT is characterised by poor teacher preparation and planning, insufficient infrastructure, and limited student support strategies (Herrera-Pavo & Ornellas, 2024; Lin & Lam, 2025). The purpose of ERT was not to recreate the entire educational experience but to ensure access to curriculum content under exceptional circumstances (Chen & Roldan, 2021; Crawford et al., 2025; Mojumder et al., 2025). Therefore, ERT requires intense creative problem solving, as both institutions and teachers had to urgently redesign their teaching methods (Ayoub et al., 2024).

Despite these challenges, institutions demonstrated resilience by implementing adaptive strategies to ensure the delivery of online learning (Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025). However, the response of higher education institutions to the health crisis depended largely on the institutional context, available resources, and previous digitisation policies. In this regard, other studies highlight how the most creative and collaborative institutions were able to adapt more successfully (Laufer et al., 2025). This determined the speed and effectiveness of the transition to online or hybrid modalities (Laufer et al., 2025; López-Maldonado & García González, 2025).

The ability of university teachers to adapt in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and their resilience in the face of unexpected challenges, which, in the face of forced changes, drove innovation, was also documented (Ayoub et al., 2024). Although ERT was an improvised emergency solution, it also created opportunities to rethink traditional teaching practices (Gyamerah et al., 2024).

Although many teaching professionals initially resisted digital change during the pandemic, digital networks among teachers played a key role in addressing the challenges arising from ERT (López-Maldonado & García González, 2025). These networks facilitated the exchange of resources, experiences, and teaching strategies, enabling teachers to adapt more effectively to virtual environments, even when they started out with a reluctant attitude towards digitalisation (Cespedes, 2024). Teacher collaboration intensified as a collective response to uncertainty, creating spaces for mutual support that helped sustain teaching continuity in adverse conditions (Gyamerah et al., 2024). In this context, collaborative work not only mitigated the effects of disruption but also promoted dynamics of shared innovation in educational practice (López-Maldonado & García González, 2025).

Recent literature agrees that, while the ERT ensured academic continuity, this situation also revealed structural inequalities and called into question the mission, values, and traditional practices of universities (Gyamerah et al., 2024; Hlatshwayo & Mbatha, 2024). Vulnerabilities in technological infrastructure, connectivity gaps, and teaching capacities were exposed (Ayoub et al., 2024; Crawford et al., 2025; Deimling & Reali, 2024; Lin & Lam, 2025).

Thus, various studies document the limitations of this modality. On the one hand, recent studies agree that limited digital infrastructure is one of the main obstacles to the effectiveness of online higher education (Gyamerah et al., 2024; Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025; Molokomme et al., 2025). On the other hand, it has also been identified that technological accessibility modulates students’ attitudes towards remote learning: reliable and continuous access to institutional platforms and digital resources is associated with more favourable perceptions and higher levels of engagement (Al Maskari, 2025). This infrastructure includes Internet connectivity, cloud services, learning management systems, synchronous and asynchronous collaboration tools, virtual laboratories, and digital curriculum designs (Al Maskari, 2025). On the other hand, studies confirm evidence of inequalities in access to devices, especially among students in rural areas or vulnerable contexts (Herrera-Pavo & Ornellas, 2024; Lin & Lam, 2025). Studies carried out at universities in Ecuador, Bangladesh, and South Africa delve deeper into this issue: the high cost of data, signal instability, and the lack of laptops are the barriers most cited by students as preventing them from staying connected and participating consistently in remote learning (Herrera-Pavo & Ornellas, 2024; Mojumder et al., 2025; Molokomme et al., 2025).

Finally, it was observed that the difficulties faced by teaching professionals that limited the success of the ERT are directly related to work overload, low institutional support for innovation, and the lack of pedagogical preparation of teachers to work with teaching mediated by digital technologies (Deimling & Reali, 2024; Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025; López-Maldonado & García González, 2025). However, this had a positive effect: remote teaching was perceived by many teachers as an opportunity to develop new pedagogical and technological skills (Gyamerah et al., 2024). Currently, teachers are more likely to prioritise improving their digital skills and participate in a wider variety of professional development platforms (Cespedes, 2025).

Consequently, the recent literature provides recommendations that highlight the need to reform institutional policies and deploy comprehensive support to ensure a resilient and equitable educational ecosystem in the post-pandemic era (Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025), aligning with the concepts of crisis management and organisational agility in higher education (Ayoub et al., 2024). The findings underscore the urgency of investing in robust digital infrastructure (Gyamerah et al., 2024; Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025; Su et al., 2024). They also highlight the importance of promoting training and continuous professional development in digital skills (Gyamerah et al., 2024; López-Maldonado & García González, 2025; Nobis et al., 2024; Su et al., 2024). In addition, flexible and resilient institutional environments that favour networking and collaboration among teacher trainees should be promoted (Nobis et al., 2024).

Despite these limitations, studies indicate positive levels of satisfaction with ERT among students and teachers (Al Maskari, 2025; Ayoub et al., 2024). On the one hand, positive elements were highlighted, such as flexibility and access to class recordings, which promoted student autonomy (Ayoub et al., 2024). A greater promotion of self-directed, collaborative learning and co-teaching among colleagues was also observed (Gyamerah et al., 2024). However, other research indicates that only 14% found it more motivating than traditional face-to-face learning. A resounding 75% emphasised the importance of face-to-face contact, highlighting the irreplaceable value of face-to-face interaction in the educational experience (Mojumder et al., 2025). In fact, they considered that interactions between students, as well as between students and teachers, were more uncomfortable and challenging compared to the pre-COVID-19 period (Mojumder et al., 2025).

1.3. Post-Lockdown Period: Hybrid Teaching

The overcoming of the critical phase of the pandemic gave way to the adoption of hybrid models that combined face-to-face and virtual teaching. Institutions migrated to hybrid or blended learning models with the aim of capitalising on the advantages of virtual learning (flexibility, personalisation of learning, and the use of data analytics) while, at the same time, recovering the value of face-to-face interaction (Kayi, 2024; Nobis et al., 2024). This transition involved not only a logistical change but also a reformulation of teaching practice.

In this environment, there is a need for flexible education, understood as education that allows teaching and learning at any time and in any place, promoting a more fair, accessible, autonomous, and creative system (Veletsianos & Houlden, 2020). To avoid becoming a discriminatory option, flexible education must be compatible with socio-constructivist pedagogical approaches such as cooperative learning, learning communities, networked learning, and peer learning, supporting students by taking into account their individual characteristics and the context in which they develop.

Thus, the migration from ERT to hybrid teaching brought with it the need to redesign content and methodologies (Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025). In this transition process from ERT to a hybrid model, curricular and technological innovations emerged that reconfigure the boundaries between the face-to-face and the virtual, raising scenarios of lasting digital transformation in higher education (Al Maskari, 2025). In this sense, the hybrid model has been described as a way of institutionalising certain practices that originated during the pandemic, integrating digital technologies at all levels of teaching (Cespedes, 2025; Lin & Lam, 2025).

A comparative study between ERT and the hybrid model in higher education indicates that students did not perceive hybrid learning as more effective than ERT in terms of engagement (Su et al., 2024). The factors that influenced engagement were teacher presence, clarity of instructions, interaction with the teacher, course design, and the quality of digital resources (Su et al., 2024). This finding suggests that the quality of implementation, teacher presence, and communication with the teacher are more decisive than the pedagogical model itself (Al Maskari, 2025; Su et al., 2024).

1.4. Transformations in the Return to Normality

The results of various studies indicate that, following the experience of ERT, hybrid models, and the return to face-to-face teaching, teachers have significantly changed their teaching styles, incorporating technological resources such as LMS platforms, digital assessments, and audiovisual materials in a sustained manner (Coser Cravo et al., 2024; López-Maldonado & García González, 2025). These tools, initially adopted out of necessity, have been integrated into teaching routines as part of a transition towards a more flexible and digitised pedagogy (Lin & Lam, 2025). However, tensions remain between the instrumental approach to technology and authentic pedagogical integration (Coser Cravo et al., 2024), as technological problems and poor or low-quality pedagogical designs continue to persist (Kayi, 2024). From a critical perspective, it has been argued that both OER and hybrid models have reproduced or even amplified pre-existing inequalities (Mojumder et al., 2025; Molokomme et al., 2025). Unequal access to technologies, the lack of inclusive policies, and the limited attention to the needs of non-traditional students (such as adults in distance education) limit the transformative potential of these modalities (Kayi, 2024).

However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding the impact of accelerated digitisation during the COVID-19 pandemic on more traditional models of university education. Some studies highlight that the pandemic constitutes a “natural experiment” for rethinking the higher education system (Crawford et al., 2025). Research suggests that, although the response was fragmented in many cases, opportunities have opened up to imagine more inclusive, resilient, and pedagogically transformative educational futures (Aditya et al., 2021; Alenezi, 2021). In this context, taking into account all the changes that have taken place during this period in higher education, it is necessary to engage in a thoughtful reflection that should focus on the past, present, and future of the academic institutions of Educación Superior.

This transformation process requires a reconceptualisation focused on educational innovation and aimed at building knowledge through critical reflection, active participation and collaboration between the various educational agents. This reflection must address aspects such as the following: the essential functions that universities must preserve, the barriers that hinder digital transformation, the current conception of learning, and the pedagogical trends that must be promoted, adapted, and consolidated.

It is also essential to guarantee equitable access to digital resources, ensuring the sustainability of technological innovations, promoting the development of digital skills throughout the university community, and analysing the gap between the opportunities identified and the persistent obstacles in each institutional context.

2. Materials and Methods

This article presents the results of Study 2 of the research carried out within the framework of the project entitled “The Digital Transformation of University Degrees. Academic analytics, subjectivities and performance in pre-pandemic times and during COVID-19 (UNIDIGIT@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 l.

From a qualitative methodological approach, the study conducts a comparative analysis between three Spanish public universities: the University of La Laguna (ULL), the University of Extremadura (UEx), and the University of Valladolid (UVa). Using qualitative techniques such as case studies and discussion groups, the study explores the perceptions of educational agents regarding the transition to digital or hybrid education, the use of virtual campuses, and the tensions and opportunities that arose during and after emergency remote teaching (ERT).

2.1. Research Objectives and Questions

Table 1. Study objectives and associated research questions.

Objective	Description	Research Questions
O1	Analyse the perceptions of the university community regarding the transformations in the educational model as a result of the pandemic, paying special attention to elements of continuity or rupture with previous models and the role of the virtual campus in this process.	What transformations in the educational model do teachers and students at each university perceive as a result of the pandemic? What continuity or discontinuity is observed between previous and current models (pandemic–post-pandemic)? What did the virtual campus contribute?
O2	Explore how the university community values the hybrid teaching model during the transition period, identifying its advantages and disadvantages and its influence on the quality of learning.	What is your assessment of the institutional commitment to this model at your respective universities? How does the hybrid model influence the quality of learning? What advantages and disadvantages have emerged with hybrid teaching?
O3	Systematise the guidelines and proposals of the educational community for the design and implementation of more effective teaching strategies that are aligned with the needs of the digital university context.	What guidelines or recommendations does the educational community make for a more effective pedagogical design that is aligned with the needs of the university community in hybrid and digital contexts?

summarises the research objectives and associated questions that guided the development of the study:

2.2. Case Study

A multiple-case-study strategy was adopted, which is appropriate for an in-depth analysis of contextualised educational phenomena. It allows for a systematic and in-depth examination of a single phenomenon or case, analysing it based on its particularity and complexity (Sabariego et al., 2004; Stake, 1998). Studying particularities is very valuable because it provides important information about what happens in educational reality, which can be transferred to other contexts (Stake, 1998).

Within the framework of Study 2 of the UNIDIGIT@L project, it was implemented at three participating institutions: University of La Laguna (ULL), University of Extremadura (UEx), and University of Valladolid (UVa) (

Table 2. Public universities participating in the case study.

University	Description
University of Valladolid (UVa)	Comprising 58 departments, a total of 26 teaching centres on four university campuses spread across Soria, Segovia, Palencia and Valladolid. More than 100 undergraduate degrees, 80 doctoral programmes, 14 of which have been awarded a Mention of Excellence, and 68 postgraduate degrees, 43 of which are master’s degrees and 25 are specialist degrees.
University of La Laguna (ULL)	Located on different campuses distributed across the island of Tenerife, including the Central Campus, Anchieta Campus, Guajara Campus, Ofra Campus, Santa Cruz Campus, and South Campus. It has 10 faculties and 3 university schools. Its catalogue of degrees offers 46 bachelor’s degrees, 38 official master’s degrees, 20 doctorate programmes, and 15 proprietary degrees.
University of Extremadura (UEx)	Comprising four campuses spread across the autonomous community of Extremadura—the Badajoz campus, the Cáceres campus, the Mérida University Centre, and the Plasencia University Centre—it has 18 of its own centres and 2 affiliated centres. It offers 142 degrees, of which 90 are bachelor’s degrees and 52 are master’s degrees, as well as 28 of its own degrees and 24 doctoral programmes.

).

The University of La Laguna (ULL), the University of Extremadura (UEx), and the University of Valladolid (UVa) share a common institutional nature as public universities, financed through state and regional funds, and aimed at guaranteeing access to higher education under conditions of equality. In all cases, they have a decentralised territorial structure, with several campuses distributed across different cities in their respective autonomous communities, enabling them to serve a large and diverse student population. In terms of size, each of these universities has more than 15,000 students, forming large university communities that include students, teaching staff, researchers, and administrative staff.

All three universities have a virtual campus as an essential support for classroom teaching, hosted on the Moodle platform. This tool organises its structure around the study plans and corresponding subjects, allowing the Academic Planning Services to automatically assign virtual spaces to each teacher and student, thus facilitating their participation in the training process.

2.3. Discussion Groups/Group Interviews

The qualitative approach was implemented through focus groups, developed during the 2023–2024 academic year, with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the experiences of teachers and students in the face of accelerated digitalisation driven by the pandemic, emergency remote teaching (ERT) (Hamui-Sutton & Varela-Ruiz, 2013). This technique allows for the collective construction of meaning and the comparison of perspectives among undergraduate and master’s students from diverse institutional contexts, as well as among teachers, preserving the richness of local nuances while ensuring comparability between universities (Latorre, 2003).

Semi-structured discussion groups were formed, bringing together undergraduate and postgraduate teachers and students from the Social Sciences and Humanities (CCSSH), Science and Engineering (INGC) and Health Sciences (SALU) departments. Each session lasted seventy-five minutes. It was moderated by two members of the research team, one acting as moderator and the other taking notes. The script of questions prepared for the group discussion can be found in Appendix A.

To access and organise the collection of information, the universities issued institutional calls for participation and obtained favourable ethical rulings (e.g., CEIBA 2023-3286 at ULL). The sessions were preferably held in person; when necessary, they were held in hybrid or virtual formats (Google Meet at ULL, Microsoft Teams at UVa). All sessions were recorded with informed consent and transcribed using manually reviewed automatic solutions.

2.4. Sample Selection

The sample was selected through intentional–incidental sampling, using criteria of heterogeneity by branch of knowledge and educational level. Open calls and institutional networks were used to maximise disciplinary and educational level heterogeneity (

Table 3. Sample selection by type of participant.

Participant	Description
Teachers	Fifty-seven teachers participated, distributed as follows: At ULL, a discussion group and five interviews were organised: n = 16 (7 women, 9 men). At UEx, there were four groups: n = 21 (14 women, 7 men) and, finally, at UVa, there were four groups: n = 22 (12 women, 10 men). The overall distribution was 31 participants from the CCSSH area, 15 teachers from INGC, and 11 teachers from SALU, with the presence of undergraduate and master’s degree teachers. Each session brought together between four and six participants, most of whom had more than ten years of teaching experience.
Students	Thirty-two students participated, organised into four discussion groups: one virtual group at UEx with five members; two at UVa, one virtual and one in person, with a total of fifteen people; and one in person at ULL with twelve students. Female participation predominated, and the areas of social sciences, engineering, health sciences, and humanities were covered, which helped mitigate academic bias.
Management teams	A group was formed at UEx with five institutional representatives (four men and one woman), a director of the Department of Education Sciences, the Dean of the Faculty of Education, the director of the University Centre, the deputy director of infrastructure, and the Vice-Dean of Internships.

).

2.5. Coding and Analysis

In order to guarantee the confidentiality of the participants, a coding system was used that assigned a unique identifier to each case, in accordance with the ethical principles of qualitative research. These codes were used both in the analysis of the textual quotations, protecting identities without compromising the wealth of information provided (

Table 4. Identification codes for research participants.

Identifier	Code	Description	No. of Digits	Position
University	UVA UEX ULL	University of Valladolid University of Extremadura University of La Laguna	3	1
Field of knowledge	Social sciences HEALTH INGC	Social Sciences and Humanities Health Engineering and Science	4	2
Qualification (Type)	G M	Degree Master	1	3
Person Interview	1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and/or 6	SPK number	1	4

).

The coding structure was organised according to four components: the university of origin, the area of knowledge, the level of education (bachelor’s or master’s degree), and the number assigned to the participant. This organisation allowed for the systematic management of the information and facilitated its cross-sectional analysis.

2.6. Dimensions and Categories

In order to align this study with previous research conducted as part of the project, a common analytical matrix was designed, structured into four categories: the perception of the educational model; uses of the virtual campus; hybrid teaching; and recommendations for educational policy (

Table 5. Dimensions and categories studied.

Dimension	Categories	Subcategories
Perception of change in the educational model	1.1. Educational model	1.1. Change of model 1.2. Assessment and planning
	1.2. Virtual campus	2.1. Use of the virtual campus 2.2. Persistence of use
	1.3. Hybrid teaching	3.1. Overall assessment 3.2. Difficulties and advantages
	1.4. Recommendations	4.1. Curricular and methodological 4.2. Training and CDD 4.3. Infrastructure and support

). This matrix guided both the formulation of questions during the focus groups and the coding of the transcripts, ensuring a shared analytical logic and thus facilitating triangulation between cases. The findings were integrated into institutional reports and a comparative analysis, revealing convergences and local specificities. Table 5 shows the structure of dimensions, categories, and subcategories used to interpret the teacher sample.

The coding procedure was carried out using ATLAS.ti ATLAS.ti, Version 23 (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) software, applying the matrix agreed upon by the research team. Subsequently, the teams from the three universities jointly reviewed the coding to resolve discrepancies and ensure analytical consistency. This rigorous process helped strengthen the internal validity of the study and provided an empirical basis for the results and recommendations presented in the following section.

Finally, one of the IAG tools, ChatGPT 4o, was chosen to compile the results. The purpose of using this tool was to provide researchers with an initial overview of the comparison between the main results. The reports from each university were provided with their qualitative analysis using ATLAS.ti software and the following prompt: “create a comparative table of the dimension: perception of change in the educational model, differentiating between students and teachers and between the three universities; each table should reflect the responses to its subcategories. The aim of this activity is to make a comparison identifying similarities and differences in each of the universities.” This information can be found in

Table 6. Comparative summary table of categories and universities.

Category	1.1. Change in educational model
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	Abrupt change, initial uncertainty; gradual adaptation. They value collective effort.	Hybrid model requires profound structural change. Greater institutional demands.	Increased autonomy. Less profound change in the model.
Teaching	Significant shift towards digital models. Turning point.	Change depending on teaching profile. Some did not change their model; others innovated.	Transition towards pragmatic hybridity. Institutional flexibility.
Category	1.2. Assessment and planning
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	Organisational problems and heterogeneity of teaching staff.	Very flexible assessment. Perception of lower learning outcomes.	Perception of low quality. Lack of feedback and human contact.
Teaching	Methodological diversification. Use of video tutorials and active activities.	Increased use of ICTs for motivation. Flipped classroom, co-assessment, rubrics.	Diversification with videos, rubrics, digital interaction.
Category	2.1. Use of the virtual campus during the pandemic
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	From repository to essential space. Synchronous classes and group assignments.	The virtual campus went from being a repository to a central space. Incorporation of simulators.	Use as a repository and for submissions. Some improvements made during the pandemic were not maintained.
Teaching	Rapid transition to the use of the virtual campus. Use of synchronous and asynchronous sessions.	Greater use of the virtual campus for visual activities, gamification and assessment.	Strategic use of the campus. More interaction and online tutoring.
Category	2.2. Persistence of post-pandemic elements
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	Consolidated use of the virtual campus and technological learning.	The role of the virtual campus remains unchanged. Its potential is recognised.	Well-established campus, but limited interactive features.
Teaching	Many have maintained existing practices. Some feel outdated.	Some continue with what they have learned (videos, forums, workshops). Others have returned to the traditional model.	Post-pandemic incorporation of digital tools according to usefulness.
Category	3.1. Hybrid model: overall assessment
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	They value flexibility and class recording. Criticism of time fragmentation.	Criticism of loss of interaction and university life.	Mixed assessment: useful for balancing work and family life, but with an overload of tasks.
Teaching	Considered a strategic option for postgraduate and continuing education.	Greater efficiency and self-regulation, but demand for minimal face-to-face contact.	Concerns about overload and demands on students.
Category	3.2. Hybrid model: Specific challenges and advantages
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	Advantages: improved recording and attention. Disadvantages: chaotic transition from face-to-face to online.	Disorganisation, lack of connection and inequalities affected learning.	Criticism of the lack of coordination among teachers and confusion regarding face-to-face attendance.
Teachers	Challenges in participation and attention. Technical difficulties and work overload.	Criticism of overload and disconnection. Risk of losing the pedagogical link.	Tensions between digital demands and teacher sustainability.
Category	4.1. Curricular and methodological policy recommendations
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	Support for hybrid models that facilitate the participation of working students or those on mobility programmes.	Requires experimental degrees to maintain face-to-face practicals; commitment to the hybrid model.	There is a demand for flexible blended learning models that allow for work-life balance and participation.
Teaching	Redesign based on active methodologies and continuous assessment with ICT support.	Promotion of problem-based learning and flipped classrooms in hybrid designs.	Situated pedagogy: contextual use of digital and physical resources.
Category	4.2. Policy recommendations Training and CDD
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	Teachers need basic digital skills and accessible continuing education.	Demand for ongoing ICT training for teachers and access to best practices.	Need for well-trained digital teachers who take advantage of online resources.
Teachers	Importance of communities of practice and online teacher training courses.	Need for participatory and shared training; creation of teaching repositories.	Mandatory training and professional recognition to reduce gaps.
Category	4.3. Policy recommendations Infrastructure and support
	UEx	ULL	UVa
Students	Need for a technological plan B and adjustment of ratios in hybrid contexts.	Calls for investment in technological equipment to ensure quality in hybrid settings.	Requests interactive LMS and ongoing technical support.
Teaching	Demand for robust digital infrastructure and quality technological resources.	Infrastructure with cameras and two-way microphones for smooth experiences.	Improvement of the LMS and permanent technical support as pillars for hybrid teaching.

. The process concluded with the analysis of the document generated while comparing the content of the reports produced at the three universities and the final drafting of the results and discussion, which were reviewed by the researchers to ensure the consistency and adequacy of the information.

3. Results

The data collected from the three universities reflects a substantial transformation, a “digital shift” in the educational model during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. At all three institutions, the health emergency acted as a catalyst for a two-way transition: methodological and technological. In general, the three universities opted for the use of technological tools, especially the virtual campus, which were introduced at an accelerated pace during the lockdown period. These tools prompted changes in the educational models developed during the ERT and later in the immediate post-lockdown period. However, the trajectories of the three universities differ in nuances and depth, as can be seen in Table 6, which illustrates the key ideas differentiated by university and the role of the interviewees.

3.1. Educational Model During the ERT

Regarding perceptions of changes in the educational model, at the University of La Laguna (ULL), there was a sudden shift from face-to-face to remote teaching and the partial consolidation of digital strategies (video tutorials, wikis, online questionnaires) following the return to classrooms (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1y2). The change involved a profound reorganisation of the curriculum, especially in the articulation between theory and practice, which required the adaptation of timetables and the structure of subjects. Students highlighted the need for adapted curriculum planning, pointing out that “the first thing to do is to plan a new organisation of the curriculum” (ULL.AL, SPK_8:88:299). The change was not perceived solely as a technical issue, but as a more profound institutional and cultural shift. The view among teaching staff was more diverse. Some teachers expressed resistance to change and did not perceive any change in their educational model or professional culture, simply stating that “all I did was transfer the traditional format of lectures and problem solving in the classroom to a virtual world” (ULL.INGC.G, SPK_1) and “it did not influence my teaching methodology or assessment strategy” (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_2). However, some teachers who did not have digital skills before the pandemic said that it has brought about a change in professional culture “because it was a huge technological advance for teachers, something that would have been better achieved through generational change. We learned a lot” (ULL.CCSS.M, SPK_3). Other teachers even acknowledged that they already integrated digital methodologies before the pandemic but admitted to having transformed their teaching practice after that period “because in my case, although I used them, I have to admit that I have considerably expanded my use of ICT, mainly based on experience” (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1).

During the emergency and lockdown period, the University of Extremadura (UEx) saw an “explosion” in the use of technology and active methodologies (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_4). The situation led to a model based mainly on synchronous e-learning classes, video tutorials, group tasks, and assessment questionnaires (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK1). However, according to the students’ perception, it was implemented in a heterogeneous manner by the teaching staff (UEx.AL, SPK_1). As a result, students at the University of Extremadura experienced the change to the online educational model with great uncertainty and initial disorientation, and they had to adapt quickly: “I think the word could not have been better defined, and that word was uncertainty” (UEx.AL, SPK_2). However, this scenario was also perceived as an opportunity for learning and collaboration, with the collective effort to maintain educational continuity being valued (UEx.AL, SPK_5). Some teachers, when evaluating their experience during the pandemic, found it positive and enriching in terms of innovation and adaptation (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_5). They pointed out that “the pandemic, lockdown, etc. was a very, very significant quantitative and qualitative leap, that is, an intensity in all aspects in terms of the use of more tools” (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_4), to such an extent that it has been a turning point for a paradigm shift (UEX.SALU.GyM, SPK_5). It also marks a shift towards online or hybrid teaching models (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_5). However, despite the changes that occurred during the pandemic, some of the teachers interviewed pointed out that the pandemic did not bring about major changes in the teaching model (UEX.INGC.GyM, SPK_3).

At the University of Valladolid (UVa), analyses show a gradual transition to a flexible online format. Students perceived the change in the educational model with less intensity. Although an increase in autonomy was recognised, the transformation was not experienced as a structural break (UVA.AL.CCSS.M, SPK_1). The model was perceived as an adapted continuation of face-to-face teaching, without any significant methodological renewal: “it’s not that their training model changed, but, well, they had to add digital tools, but it’s basically the same teaching model” (UVA.AL.CCSS.M, SPK_2). However, the need to adapt classes to an online format forced many to quickly familiarise themselves with digital tools (UVA.CCSS.M, SPK_2), which in turn allowed them to identify new teaching opportunities. UVa teachers, for their part, describe a transition towards more hybrid models, highlighting greater institutional flexibility and pedagogical reorganisation: “there has been more flexibility on the part of the institutions” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_2). Some teachers report that the pandemic allowed them to discover new ways of interacting with students, which facilitated greater participation and dynamism in the digital classroom, highlighting that “interaction is what the pandemic has given me the most, continually seeking ways to facilitate, different forms of participation” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_6). Another lesson learned from the pandemic is the awareness of the possibility of another teaching model at the University that enables greater efficiency: “the pandemic taught us that there is another teaching model, that it is possible and that it is a basic issue” (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1).

Thus, in relation to elements of continuity and disruption, ULL has experienced an initial break with the traditional teaching model and a partial return to face-to-face teaching, while maintaining digital resources as a support (ULL.CCSS.M, SPK_1). At UEx, the responses indicate a methodological break for some of the teaching staff; others state that the pandemic did not bring about major changes and that they continue to use the campus as a complement (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2). At UVA, there was a moderate break, with traditional and digital practices coexisting; face-to-face teaching remains the ideal norm, but greater flexibility is accepted (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_2). UVA and ULL maintain a pragmatic hybrid model; UEx shows greater heterogeneity, with some teachers integrating innovations and others barely altering their teaching practice.

The results regarding the uses and contributions of virtual campuses show several findings at the three universities. ULL considers that the virtual campus is no longer a repository but has become the central hub for communication, attendance monitoring, and assignment submission (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1). ULL students emphasised that the virtual campus was no longer a simple repository but had become the hub of teaching: “it has gone from playing a residual role to being the hub of teaching” (ULL.AL, SPK_8:61:154). The incorporation of simulators and virtual desktops is particularly valued, as it has allowed practical work to continue in degrees with a highly experimental component (ULL.AL, SPK_8:35:82). The teaching staff at this university reinforce this view. There is evidence of broader integration of the virtual campus as a support for visual teaching, student monitoring, and assessment, with the campus also highlighted as useful for promoting motivation through strategies such as gamification and visual elements (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1). One of the teachers states, “I couldn’t organise my teaching without the virtual campus” (ULL.INGC.G, SPK_1), emphasising its everyday and strategic usefulness.

At UEx, virtual campuses are also considered an “essential” tool among the entire educational community, as noted: “For me today, it is a very, very, very important tool. I have everything I need; it is my hands and feet” (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2). The virtual campus is valued for its structure and accessibility, which helps both cognitively and emotionally, facilitating navigation and understanding of the content. It allows students to “find information, materials and basic information” (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2) for the subject in a logical and structured way. However, the difficulty of mastering all the functions of the campus is also recognised, especially by teachers with fewer digital skills, and some people admit that they do not get the most out of it (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_4). UEx students point out that there has been an evolution from a secondary pre-pandemic tool to an essential space for class development, task management, and communication with teachers: “they posted all the information we needed there and that was pretty good” (UEx.AL, SPK_5). This positive perception was consolidated over time, remaining even after the return to face-to-face teaching.

At the University of Valladolid (UVa), it is considered a backbone infrastructure for content, submissions, and forums, although its effective use remains mainly basic, despite its “power” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_12). The use of the virtual campus was perceived by UVa students as more limited. Although its basic usefulness is recognised, its limited use is criticised: “it is a place for teachers to post content […] and little else” (UVA.CCSS.M, SPK_11). In some cases, the experience was even described as chaotic due to the poor organisation of hybrid classes and assignments. UVa teachers partially agree with this view; there is a positive assessment of the virtual campus as a support and organisational tool, although its effective use is perceived as limited to basic functions, with the statement that “the virtual campus […] is a very powerful tool, but in the end only a small percentage is used […], you more or less find a quick application for it” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_12). Some highlight that, after the pandemic, they continued practices such as the use of videos and forums, acknowledging that “now we keep short videos and use chat” (UVA.CCSS.G, SPK_17), while others lament the low level of student involvement and the growing digital overload (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_2).

The results show that, in all three cases, there was an abrupt shift towards virtual teaching (ERT), followed by a partial return to face-to-face teaching with the continued use of digital resources, where the virtual campus has been a key tool in ensuring the continuity of teaching during the ERT.

3.2. Implementation of Hybrid Teaching

The overall assessment of the hybrid model at the three universities is positive; the flexibility and autonomy it provides are valued, although risks such as teacher overload, digital divide, and loss of human interaction are also perceived.

The results on hybrid teaching show that, at ULL, it is perceived as necessary but not very systematic. The hybrid model generated ambivalent perceptions among students. Although the continuity of studies was valued, there was also a perceived deterioration in teaching quality: “a lot of quality was lost in teaching” (Ull.AL_8:20:61). Although they recognise the improvement in autonomy, access to information, the flexibility of timetables, individualised attention, and communication (ULL.INGC.G, SPK_1), they also state that it reduces social interaction and “university life” (ULL.AL, SPK_8:41:93), with a particularly significant impact on university life. In addition, students were particularly critical of the extreme flexibility applied to assessment, pointing out that it facilitated cheating and reduced rigour: “assessment was too flexible, in some cases there was none” (ULL.AL, SPK_8:51:122). This situation led to a perception of reduced learning and a weakening of the skills acquired. Teachers, for their part, recognise that the hybrid model has enabled new, more effective and self-regulated forms of teaching: “the use of ICT improves performance […] and self-regulation” (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_1). However, they also point to a loss of “human warmth”, difficulties in concentration and disorder in attendance (ULL.SALU.M, SPK_2;) and connectivity problems (ULL.CCSS.M, SPK_3). However, they insist on the need to preserve face-to-face spaces as key elements for educational quality and call for technical and pedagogical support (ULL.SALU.M, SPK_3).

For its part, UEx greatly values the possibilities offered through the hybrid model, such as greater autonomy for students, accessibility for those who work, and savings on travel (UEX.SALU.GyM, SPK_5). UEx considers it an opportunity to democratise access and attract new students, “the versatility, adaptability […] they can have access to classes” (UEx.AL, SPK_3), although there is no consensus on whether it should be compulsory (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_4). However, the difficulty of combining face-to-face and online learning in a fluid way is also pointed out. At UEx, students pointed out significant logistical problems and a great deal of heterogeneity among teachers: “I had to go in person one week and the next week it was online” (UEx.AL, SPK_1). This lack of coordination affected the quality of the classes and increased student stress.

Along the same lines, UEx faculty members have developed their position, as this modality is seen as a strategic way to expand academic offerings, especially in continuing education: “it would open up education economically and democratically” (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_4). Faced with the implementation of the hybrid model, faculty members responded by diversifying their strategies. From the use of active and contextualised practices to self-assessments and questionnaires, they tried to maintain student motivation and learning: “I gave them lots of practical exercises and multiple-choice questions” (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_1). However, technical and pedagogical limitations were also noted, as well as the need for greater institutional investment. There is evidence of a digital divide, teacher overload in the design and correction of activities, blurring of work–life boundaries (UEX.ED, SPK_2), and a loss of proactivity and emotional connection. In addition, it was noted that the results were similar to those of previous years (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK_5), with a statement that “the success rates of our students are therefore similar to what they were before” (UEX.SALU.GyM, SPK_5); this suggests that the implementation of hybrid teaching would probably not have an impact at the academic level. Direct interaction in the classroom is considered essential for a complete and high-quality educational experience, with the statement that “the quality of on sual teaching cannot, cannot ever match what we offer in person” (UEX.SALU.GyM, SPK_3).

At the University of Valladolid (UVa), the hybrid model is perceived as a “space of opportunity and controversy,” and it is noted that a robust organisational framework is lacking (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_9). Although students perceive this modality as a useful solution, especially for those who work or have health problems: “it helps […] people who have illnesses […] you can watch the class with a small camera” (UVA.AL.CCSS.M, SPK_11). The duplication of the workload between digital and face-to-face learning was also reported, pointing to a perception of low quality in post-pandemic teaching, with a lack of teacher feedback: “you send in your work and you get a mark. Nothing else” (UVA.CCSS.G, SPK_8). Teachers also value the flexibility of the model, pointing out the ease it provides for remote collaborative work (Teams, YouTube) and the recording of classes for review (UVA.INGC.GyM, SPK_1). The benefits in terms of time management and communication with students throughout the semester are highlighted (UVA.CCSS.G, SPK_17), overcoming traditional time constraints. However, it is perceived that this has created tension between digital availability and student expectations: “students […] consume it passively and stop attending” (UVA.SALU.GyM, SPK_7). This has led to less student involvement in face-to-face classes. There is a feeling of loss of attendance and commitment among students due to the permanent availability of digital content (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_9). Thus, UVa teachers report an ambivalent effect on the classroom atmosphere: on the one hand, personalised online monitoring, but on the other, increased student passivity (UVA.INGC.GyM, SPK_10), which leads to teacher overload and student demands for “everything online”. It was noted that “students demand documentation on campus, tutorials and online reviews” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_9).

It is important to add that the UVa teaching staff state that hybrid teaching requires a differentiated and rigorous pedagogical design that is not compatible with simply broadcasting face-to-face classes, which creates an inconsistent model that penalises learning (UVA.INGC.GyM, SPK_19). This suggests that some of its disadvantages stem from the poor implementation or design of hybrid teaching at their university.

3.3. Recommendations for University Policy

The proposals of the three universities in relation to university policy converge on three axes: (a) curriculum redesign based on active methodologies and formative assessment; (b) continuous teacher training and communities of practice; and (c) robust technological infrastructure to support synchronous and asynchronous interaction. These lines coincide with the literature that advocates for institutionalising flexibility and digital inclusion (Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025; Veletsianos & Houlden, 2020).

All three universities consider flexibility policies to be necessary. On the one hand, UVa and UEx agree on a proposal for hybrid models that facilitate the participation of working students or those on mobility programmes. As stated at UEx: “it could improve the lives of many people who would like to study for a degree but are unable to do so because of travel or time constraints” (UEX.A, SPK_3). For their part, UVa respondents pointed out: “the blended learning model […] could greatly facilitate work-life balance for those who work or have complicated circumstances” (UVA.CCSS.G, SPK_3). However, each university identified specific elements to guide university policy towards an effective pedagogical model.

With regard to curriculum and methodological design, there are similarities in the adoption of active methodologies, with specific aspects highlighted at each university. ULL respondents indicate the need to plan hybrid curricula that integrate theory and practice and the flipped classroom, highlighting that “we did this during the pandemic and yes, it was useful, we consider it a useful resource for getting the most out of it” (ULL.SALU.M, SPK_3). The advisability of promoting problem-based learning was also pointed out: “it is not essential to be in the classroom […] innovation is just that: learning with real problems” (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK_2). UEx respondents emphasised active methodologies, in which students are the protagonists, with the support of questionnaires and case studies (UEX.CCSS.G, SPK1). The University of Valladolid respondents focused on situated pedagogy, deciding when and how to use digital devices and combining face-to-face classes and online resources, and highlighted that “interaction is what the pandemic has given me the most […] different forms of participation” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_6).

The results concerning training and digital skills show that ULL perceives a need for ongoing training for teachers in ICT and gamification. It was proposed to create a repository of teaching “best practices” and “to have a place where we could put examples of virtual classrooms that could inspire you” (ULL.CCSS.G, SPK2). The urgency of more participatory training programmes was also emphasised: “we should have much more in-depth training […] Moodle is so broad” (ULL.SALU.M, SPK_2). At UEx, the advisability of establishing minimum teaching skills and offering online refresher courses was indicated (UEX.A_3; UEX.CCSS.G, SPK5). It was highlighted that “those who had the fewest problems were the teachers with the highest digital skills” (UEX.INGC.GyM, SPK_4). For its part, the University of Valladolid respondents call for compulsory training and recognition in academic careers to reduce skills gaps: “What is needed is compulsory initial training, teaching technicians and stable licences” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_12).

Finally, with regard to infrastructure and support, the three institutions agree on the need for technologically equipped classrooms. ULL is calling for investment despite the “economic deficit” and for classrooms to be equipped with cameras and two-way microphones to ensure a smooth hybrid experience, as one professor points out: “We have taken advantage of the ease of having these tools […] I miss that human warmth” (ULL.SALU.M, SPK_2). UEx is calling for a technological “plan B” and high-quality resources, as well as adjusting the student-teacher ratio in hybrid scenarios: “it is necessary to have a plan B or C […] adapting an exam is a huge effort” (UEX.CCSS.M, SPK_2). For its part, the University of Valladolid (UVa) is calling for stable technical support and improvements to the LMS to move from a “repository” to an interactive environment: “we need to move from the campus as a repository to a more lively educational environment” (UVA.CCSS.GyM, SPK_12).

4. Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point in global higher education, especially in Spain, where universities were forced to transition from face-to-face teaching to an unprecedented emergency remote teaching (ERT) model (Hodges et al., 2020; López-Maldonado & García González, 2025). In this context, ERT has become a key element of the digital transformation of higher education, forcing us to rethink the role of universities (Crawford et al., 2025). However, the results of this study show that this transition was neither homogeneous nor linear, confirming the “non-linear transition” model (Hodges et al., 2020) and the coexistence of multiple pedagogical frameworks (Coser Cravo et al., 2024). At the three universities analysed (ULL, UEx and UVa), significant transformations in educational models took place, but with different intensities, rhythms, and trajectories.

4.1. Transformations of the Educational Model: Continuity and Rupture

The findings reflect how the ERT caused a methodological disruption in the short term and how this was assimilated or resisted in different ways in the post-pandemic period. At the University of Extremadura (UEx) and the University of La Laguna (ULL), there was an initially more radical break with the pedagogical model adopted in the ERT. However, both universities agree that there is a certain degree of heterogeneity among the teaching staff. While some teachers replicated their traditional approaches in virtual environments and maintained traditional practices in the post-pandemic period, others recognised a cultural transformation in their practice, promoting methodological innovations and significantly expanding the use of technology. These experiences coincide with the scientific literature, which highlights how teaching creativity emerged as a response to the structural limitations of the ERT (Ayoub et al., 2024). At UVa, the change was more gradual and less disruptive (Molokomme et al., 2025). In general, the face-to-face model was adapted to the digital environment without a profound methodological transformation. This coexistence of diverse responses of continuity and change in pedagogical models in the face of the ERT highlights the need to redesign models for the authentic integration of digital technology (Molokomme et al., 2025).

4.2. The Role of the Virtual Campus

During the ERT, the virtual campus consolidated its position as a structural pedagogical infrastructure in higher education (Gamage et al., 2022; Hodges et al., 2020). The results show that the use of the virtual campus increased exponentially, changing from serving as a repository and playing a secondary role to becoming the backbone of the teaching-learning process (Gamage et al., 2022). At ULL, the incorporation of virtual desktops and simulators made it possible to maintain essential practices, while at UEx, the campus was perceived as an indispensable infrastructure for organising and monitoring tasks. In contrast, at UVa, its use was more instrumental, and although its pedagogical capabilities were not fully exploited, the increase in its use as a backbone infrastructure is evident. These findings reaffirm the literature that warns of gaps in the use of an LMS as a comprehensive learning environment (Cespedes, 2024; Su et al., 2024), pointing out that its transformative potential depends on teacher training and instructional design.

4.3. Institutional Assessment of the Hybrid Model and Its Impact on Quality

The hybrid model was positively assessed for its flexibility and accessibility, especially for groups with specific needs (workers, people with reduced mobility), as this model promotes teaching–learning processes that are not limited to specific spaces and times. This perception is shared at all three universities and is consistent with the literature, which emphasises the importance of equity in post-pandemic education, requiring a flexible, socio-constructivist, and inclusive approach (Kayi, 2024; Veletsianos & Houlden, 2020).

However, certain risks of this model are also evident (teacher overload, digital divide, and loss of human interaction), which corroborate the inequalities documented in the scientific literature (López-Maldonado & García González, 2025). On the one hand, ULL and UVa reported a decline in teaching quality, a lack of interaction, and a progressive passivity among students. According to students, the use of online assessment contributed to cheating and a perception of less learning (Mojumder et al., 2025). At UEx, organisational difficulties were detected regarding teacher overload and the blurring of boundaries between professional and personal life (Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025).

Thus, the hybrid model provides flexibility and autonomy, but the results indicate that its effectiveness depends on the quality of implementation. The universities studied provide evidence that teacher presence, the clarity of instructions, and course design have a greater influence on student engagement than the hybrid model itself (Al Maskari, 2025; Su et al., 2024). Thus, the quality of learning in hybrid contexts cannot be guaranteed solely through access to technology or resources but requires deliberate pedagogical integration, coherent curriculum planning, and meaningful interaction (Su et al., 2024). This approach is reinforced by the need to redesign content and methodologies in the migration from ERT to hybrid learning (Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025; Kayi, 2024).

4.4. Recommendations for More Effective Pedagogical Design

The governance of higher education institutions must be aware of the situation, changes, and needs of the new teaching model. University policies have an essential role to play in implementing measures that integrate technology, pedagogy, and milestones in educational policies in order to build more flexible and inclusive educational ecosystems that meet the needs of the new situation while also being resilient to future disruptions. The guidelines emerging from the educational community point to three lines that converge with international literature.

Curriculum redesign and methodological innovation: All three universities are committed to integrating active methodologies (PBL, flipped classroom, gamification) and reorganising the teaching sequence. These proposals are in line with the need to move beyond the emergency logic of ERT towards intentional and sustainable instructional design (Lin & Lam, 2025). To move forward, it is necessary to shift from improvised reaction (Hodges et al., 2020) to agile and collaborative institutional strategies (Ayoub et al., 2024; Laufer et al., 2025).

Continuing teacher training and communities of practice: Continuing teacher training is one of the common outcomes at the three universities, and it should be taken into account in training plans. Training gaps have been identified, along with the need for institutionalised training that promotes not only technical skills but also a favourable attitude towards the pedagogical use of digital technologies. This need is particularly urgent in contexts where teachers express resistance or lack of motivation (López-Maldonado & García González, 2025). The creation of teacher collaboration networks can facilitate and enhance innovation. Various studies show that peer cooperation facilitates adaptation to virtual environments (López-Maldonado & García González, 2025) and fosters new pedagogical skills (Gyamerah et al., 2024).

Robust digital infrastructure and technical support: The three universities recognise the urgent need for adequate technology classrooms, support tools, stable platforms, and available technical support (Kaeane & Molokomme, 2025; Nobis et al., 2024). It is reiterated that infrastructure determines not only access but also the quality of the educational experience (Al Maskari, 2025; Gyamerah et al., 2024), which is an essential condition for a sustainable transformation.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings of this study reflect that the pandemic not only precipitated an accelerated digital transformation in higher education but also acted as a catalyst for rethinking pedagogical models, the role of teachers, and institutional dynamics. While the transition to virtuality was initially a reactive and fragmented response (ERT), it also opened up spaces for innovation, reflection, and sustained improvement. However, this transition has been uneven between and within universities, reinforcing the need for flexible, inclusive and forward-looking institutional policies. The quality of learning in hybrid contexts will depend not so much on the format, but on the strength of the pedagogical design, teacher commitment and institutional support. In this sense, the post-pandemic challenge is not only technological but also essentially pedagogical: to build a more adaptive university focused on meaningful learning, committed to equity, and prepared to respond creatively and resiliently to the challenges of the present and the future.