Beyond technology: the impact of classroom climate on the effectiveness of synchronous hybrid teaching in university

• In Event: Trends in capacity building through ICT

Proposal

1. Objectives or purposes
The educational response during the pandemic has once again evoked a profound reflection on the relationship between digital technology and education. As technology enables education to reach further physical distances, access more learners, and evolve more forms of synchronous hybrid teaching and learning, a question that needs to be asked is whether synchronous hybrid teaching and learning facilitate student learning in the new context of deeply embedded digital technologies in education. What factors influence the effectiveness of hybrid teaching and learning? And how?
2. Literature review
Some previous studies with small sample found that online and offline students can get nearly the same learning outcome and satisfaction level in synchronous hybrid classes (Irvine, Code& Richards, 2013; Szeto,2014; Butz & Stupnisky, 2017; Butz et al., 2014). Compared to traditional face-to-face classes, students who participate in synchronous hybrid learning may learn even more because they benefit from a broader range of perspectives and experiences of multiple learners group (Bower et al., 2015; McCue& Scales, 2007; Stewart, Harlow& DeBacco, 2011). The classroom environment and climate significantly impact the learning outcome (Rasmussen,2003). Narrowing the psychological distance between teachers and students through effective interaction, which is related to the characteristics, behaviors, and interactions of teachers and students, as well as the structural elements of specific courses, positive social and emotional connections should be paid attention to (Moore,1997; Kaufmann et al., 2016; Dwyer et al., 2004; Butz et al., 2014; Szeto& Cheng, 2016). Moos et al. (1979) proposed the scheme for classifying human environments by dividing them into three dimensions: personal development, relationship, and system maintenance and change, which laid the foundation for a large number of follow-up researches and development of scale tools (Fraser, 1998). However, empirical studies are still required to verify the effect of large-scale, cross-university synchronous hybrid class and what factors affecting it.
3. Methodology
This research took two kinds of synchronous hybrid class attempts in an elite Chinese university as research samples: Clone Classroom (CC) and Global Hybrid Classroom (GHC). CC was implemented in the 2020 spring to support students of the elite university to study synchronously with students from other universities in China. GHC was launched in conjunction with foreign learners from overseas high-level universities in the 2021 fall.
Based on Moos' environment structure theory, this research used inventory created by previous research (Qiao et al., 2021), which divided the classroom climate into intrapersonal (including self-regulated learning, information literacy), interpersonal (including social presence, teaching scaffolding, teaching process support), institutional (including institutional and technical support) dimensions (Van& Elen, 2017; Bonk &Graham, 2012;Wang&Guo, 2022; Butz &Stupnisky,2016; Garrison, Anderson& Archer, 2010; Hastie, Chen & Kuo,2007; Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002;Garrison & Akyol, 2013). And this research also took low-order cognition, high-order cognition, and non-cognitive as the learning outcome. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were verified. 713 valid questionnaires were collected from students of synchronous hybrid class, including 572 from CC and 141 from GHC.
4. Results and discussion
1) The study found that the hybrid teaching of CC and GHC achieved an ideal learning outcome. Self-regulated learning ability and information literacy in the intrapersonal dimension, social presence, teaching scaffolding, teaching process support in the interpersonal dimension, and institutional and technical support in the institutional dimension significantly affect the learning outcome. Nevertheless, the effect of technical equipment only on low-order cognition and non-cognition reached a significant level, with coefficients of 0.054 and 0.067, respectively.
2) However, the influence of the three dimensions of classroom climate is different. The interpersonal factors have a more significant impact than the institutional factors, and the institutional factors are more significant than the intrapersonal factors. The future improvement of hybrid teaching should go beyond technology and pay more attention to the role of interpersonal and institutional factors.
3) Comparing the classroom climate factors between CC and GHC, the differences in intrapersonal factors were the most significant. But there was no significant difference in their influence on learning outcomes. Self-regulated learning and information literacy of students in the GHC were significantly higher than those of the CC students, with an effect size of 0.506, which indicated that students with better self-reported autonomous learning ability are more willing to participate in the learning of the GHC actively. This can also be confirmed in the self-report of the technical equipment hardware, whose effect size of the difference between the GHC and CC is 0.572. A likely reason is that students actively involved in GHC are better prepared.
This research indicated that synchronous hybrid teaching reform of universities should avoid falling into technocratic and that technology is embedded to empower teaching innovation to promote teacher development and student learning better.

Authors

• RUIMIAO LI

• Weifeng QIAO, Institute of Education, Tsinghua University

• Manli Li, Tsinghua University