Hybridising the Hybrid

Back in the day when any form of teaching and learning would take place in the physical classroom, with information transmitted by the teacher and acquired by the student, the boundaries were clear, literally and figuratively.  The space for teaching and learning was decisively bound by the classroom walls, the educator metaphorically marked the boundaries of where knowledge was contained, and the student was the empty vessel where a deposition of knowledge could be bound yet again.  A notion of hybridity could only upset such boundaries if understood to denote a new product which is derived out of the mixture of two or more different things (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, n.d). 

Photo by Maria Lupan on Unsplash

Initially, a hybrid learning environment denoted that which was also described as blended, or as described by Harasim (2017, p. 30) “typically refer[ing] to a mix of face-to-face and online course activities”.  The QAA (2020, p. 3) make mention of the interchangeability of these two terms, describing a learning environment that mixes onsite and online spaces, synchronously or asynchronously.  Eyal and Gil (2022, pp. 12-15) first explore hybridity in this sense – hybridity as blended - in their threefold perspective, proceeding to describe the hyflex model whereby “[e]ach class session and learning activity is offered in person, synchronously and asynchronously online” (p. 6). 

Hybridized learning environments however have come a long way from simply denoting that which started off back in the 1980s (Harasim, 2017, p. 30) and in Eyal and Gil’s (2022, p. 14) words, “towards gaining a different dimension”.  Norgard (2021) for instance discusses the redundancy of the dichotomy of digital and non-digital in theorizing hybridity in a post-digital world, calling for a move that goes beyond simplistic binary oppositions “onsite-online, physical-digital or synchronous-asynchronous learning” (p. 1712).  This very much relates to Eyal and Gil’s (2022, pp. 15-18) description of hybridity as a space of merging interactions, where a hybrid learning environment now denotes the multiplicities involved in such educational contexts that are simultaneously marked by the physical, the social and the constant connection to the digital and other users especially via our mobile devices.  Hybrid environments are in constant development, an ongoing attempt at novel forms, means and modes of teaching and learning, leading to an entanglement of the learner’s public and private life.  In an increasingly interconnected world, it is therefore of paramount importance to consider hybridity and hybridized learning environments in such a way as to understand the hows, whys and wherefores of education.

In Eyal and Gil’s (2022, pp. 18-21) third consideration of hybridity as fluid, the focus turns onto the individual themselves as being the space where transformation takes place.  The educational journey is ongoing and, in this sense, the learner is themselves a hybrid space, ever moving, fluid.  It is how we can conceive of hybridity as effecting any fixed notions of the teacher and learner roles within an educational context.  Novel approaches to teaching, mediated by all forms of spatial and temporal differences, can be further achieved by shifting away from the traditional concepts of the educators and learners involved.  Once the value of other learners is equally perceived as that of the educator, the boundaries are yet again blurred in a novel way, creating an alternative way of doing education.  The traditional one-way movement of knowledge transmission becomes marked by multiple channels of communication and of learning as “NL participants are projected as teachers and learners for each other” (Cutajar, 2018, p. 91).  This becomes increasingly important for any considerations of open and networked learning, where collaboration is key to the way education is done.  Bennett et al. (2020, p. 1191) exemplify this kind of collaboration in their study with reference to the students that are “active participant[s] in the research and [are] both the “researched” and integral in the research design.”

Lastly, Norgard and Hilli (2022, p. 26) synthesize it best when they state that, “hybrid learning and hybrid learning spaces point towards the formation of hybrid learning cultures and practices that open up for participation and engagement beyond the traditional boundaries of the institution, course or learner role”.  The ubiquity of digital technologies, the need for more flexibility and the attempt to be more inclusive have called for the need to reconsider traditional learning environments and concurrently approaches and pedagogies that could inform novel ways of doing education.  The increasing entanglements that are involved can prove useful in connecting the multiple roles of an individual as student-teacher-worker-citizen, reminding us of Norgard’s (2021) discussion of a hybridised learning experience that allows the learner to simultaneously act as citizen, enabling “networked learning in, for and with the world” (p. 1718), benefitting from the advantages derived from “formal learning, real-life experience and societal engagement” (p. 1719). 

With this in mind, hybridity in education needs to be studied and theorised for an objective understanding of how teaching and learning can be ameliorated in this day and age.  Harasim (2017, p. 107) points towards the dangers of a hybridity that involves AI for instance, where human teachers might be replaced by AI and computer software.  Schank (2001, cited in Eyal and Gil, 2022, p. 14) critiques blended learning for failing to cause a real disruption in education and for “preserv[ing] classical pedagogy”.  I believe that a theory of hybridity should foreground the human being for their exceptional ability to (critically) think and transform themselves, for their ability to engage in praxis, and ultimately therefore to create change meaningfully.  I think of hybridity in education as one which should live up to its expectations, a theory which could enable the “[creation] of something new together” (Norgard & Hilli, 2022, p. 26) in terms of practices, pedagogies and approaches.

Block 6: Hybrid Environments, Hybrid Pedagogy, Hybrid Being

References:

Bennett, D., Knight, E., & Rowley, J. (2020). The role of hybrid learning spaces in enhancing higher education students’ employability. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12931.

Cutajar, M. (2018). Variation in Students’ Perceptions of Others for Learning. In N. Bonderup Dohn, S. Cranmer, J.-A. Sime, M. de Laat, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Networked Learning: Reflections and Challenges. (pp. 79-94) Springer. Variation in Students’ Perceptions of Others for Learning | SpringerLink (um.edu.mt)

Eyal, L., & Gil, E. (2022). Hybrid Learning Spaces — A Three-Fold Evolving Perspective. In E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis, & C. Köppe (Eds.), Hybrid Learning Spaces. (pp. 11-23) Springer. ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader (um.edu.mt)

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theories and Online Technologies. Second edition. Routledge.

Nørgård, R. T. (2021). Theorising hybrid lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1709-1723. doi:10.1111/bjet.13121

Nørgård, R. T., & Hilli, C. (2022). Hyper-Hybrid Learning Spaces in Higher Education. In E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis, & C. Köppe (Eds.), Hybrid Learning Spaces. (pp. 25-41). Springer. ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader (um.edu.mt)

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, (n.d.). hybrid. In Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. Retrieved Dec 22, 2022, from hybrid_1 adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2020). Guidance: Building a Taxonomy for Digital Learning. Building a Taxonomy for Digital Learning (qaa.ac.uk)