“…In fact, EdTech and online education cannot be seen simply as ‘enhancements’ of teaching and learning (Castañeda and Williamson 2021 ); rather, they must be seen as elements that modify the whole educational ecosystem (Pischetola and Miranda 2019 ). A keyword that emerges is hybridity, a theoretical construct that we use here not merely to define ‘blended’ spaces but to indicate a human-social-technological spacetime from which learning arises (Cohen et al 2020 ; Ratto et al 2019 ). In this study, we focus on what hybridity means from a teacher’s perspective, taking into account the blurring of boundaries between physical and virtual spaces, private and public spaces, personal and professional life and embodied and rational experiences.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this way, the adjective ‘hybrid’ refers to the assemblage of tools, platforms, resources, pedagogical approaches, institutional arrangements, power structures, norms, discourses and agentic tensions that shape the ‘materiality of learning’ (Sørensen 2009 ). This focus on hybridity also highlights challenges and opportunities produced in the encounter of ‘learning, working, playing and living’ (Cohen et al 2020 ) that have been widely exposed by the pandemic experience of emergency online teaching (Gourlay et al 2021 ; Pischetola et al 2021 ; Swerzenski 2021 ).…”
Hybrid learning spaces are often associated with ‘blended’ education and defined by the presence of a mediating technology. In this paper, we shift the focus from technology to practice in the search for a relationist perspective that understands hybrid space as emerging from a sociomaterial assemblage. In this perspective, learning and teaching involve blurred boundaries and spatiotemporal configurations in a context of radical uncertainty. The paper presents a qualitative study of an ongoing project called Teknosofikum, a course/concept for the professional development of novice higher-education teachers in Denmark. The project addresses the complexity of distributed learning in (post-)pandemic hybrid spaces and times. It aims at generating imaginative pedagogies through the use of technology while also nurturing ontological aspects of the teaching profession. The paper presents and discusses data from the first iteration, which included co-designed processes of prototype content development and a mini-trial with seven course participants. Two key findings about teacher professional development emerge from the study. The first is the need to focus on multiple and situated teaching activities, providing a bridge between learning theories and educational practices. The second is the importance of knowing-in-practice, rather than acquiring knowledge, to create space for imagination in teaching with technologies and face up to the dynamic evolution of higher education.
“…In fact, EdTech and online education cannot be seen simply as ‘enhancements’ of teaching and learning (Castañeda and Williamson 2021 ); rather, they must be seen as elements that modify the whole educational ecosystem (Pischetola and Miranda 2019 ). A keyword that emerges is hybridity, a theoretical construct that we use here not merely to define ‘blended’ spaces but to indicate a human-social-technological spacetime from which learning arises (Cohen et al 2020 ; Ratto et al 2019 ). In this study, we focus on what hybridity means from a teacher’s perspective, taking into account the blurring of boundaries between physical and virtual spaces, private and public spaces, personal and professional life and embodied and rational experiences.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this way, the adjective ‘hybrid’ refers to the assemblage of tools, platforms, resources, pedagogical approaches, institutional arrangements, power structures, norms, discourses and agentic tensions that shape the ‘materiality of learning’ (Sørensen 2009 ). This focus on hybridity also highlights challenges and opportunities produced in the encounter of ‘learning, working, playing and living’ (Cohen et al 2020 ) that have been widely exposed by the pandemic experience of emergency online teaching (Gourlay et al 2021 ; Pischetola et al 2021 ; Swerzenski 2021 ).…”
Hybrid learning spaces are often associated with ‘blended’ education and defined by the presence of a mediating technology. In this paper, we shift the focus from technology to practice in the search for a relationist perspective that understands hybrid space as emerging from a sociomaterial assemblage. In this perspective, learning and teaching involve blurred boundaries and spatiotemporal configurations in a context of radical uncertainty. The paper presents a qualitative study of an ongoing project called Teknosofikum, a course/concept for the professional development of novice higher-education teachers in Denmark. The project addresses the complexity of distributed learning in (post-)pandemic hybrid spaces and times. It aims at generating imaginative pedagogies through the use of technology while also nurturing ontological aspects of the teaching profession. The paper presents and discusses data from the first iteration, which included co-designed processes of prototype content development and a mini-trial with seven course participants. Two key findings about teacher professional development emerge from the study. The first is the need to focus on multiple and situated teaching activities, providing a bridge between learning theories and educational practices. The second is the importance of knowing-in-practice, rather than acquiring knowledge, to create space for imagination in teaching with technologies and face up to the dynamic evolution of higher education.
“…Overall, prior work on hybrid education and hybrid learning (Cohen et al., 2020; Kohls et al., 2017; Köppe et al., 2017; Pedersen et al., 2018) highlights a shift in the structure of education, as well as in teaching and learning towards connectivity, networks and collaborations. Hybrid learning environments cut across, transform or even transgress traditional boundaries and dichotomies; through such transformations and transgressions, hybridity in education asks of us—as learners and citizens—to reflect on the reasons for, value and purpose of upholding these dividing lines: In hybrid education people inside and outside the campus [or learning environment] meet and intermingle, academic life becomes mongrel as the personal, professional and academic merge.…”
In the pre‐pandemic world learning was most often onsite, in‐person and co‐located. This was turned upside down during the pandemic where online suddenly became the ‘new normal’. To continue learning in a pandemic world, learning providers and institutions were required to rethink and reconfigure learning to more online and ‘pandemic‐friendly’ formats. In the aftermath of emergency teaching and learning, providers, developers and teachers are now looking ahead to contemplate its impact on the educational landscape. Here, the large‐scale, wide‐spread development and delivery of online, blended and hybrid learning formats might demarcate a turning point for education. However, hybridity, hybrid learning environments and hybrid learning carry with them particular conceptualisations, characteristics and frameworks we need to bear in mind when thinking about lifelong learning in a post‐pandemic world. This article is an effort to provide an operationalisation of theories for hybrid lifelong learning through asking: How can we understand the concepts of hybrids, hybridization and hybridity in order to take advantage of the potentials and opportunities these concepts hold when it comes to lifelong learning? And how can we apply this understanding to describe hybrid lifelong learning in ways that sets it apart from emergency teaching and learning as well as other similar formats such as online learning or parallel teaching?
What is already known about this topic
Hybrid learning environments is a central topic in the field, but it is not clear how we should think about this term.
Hybrid learning has grown substantially in importance. Yet the field is still under‐theorised.
Hybrid learning environments are challenging and under‐researched. The dissolution of dichotomies central in hybrid learning makes it more complex and less predictable.
What this paper adds
Theoretical groundwork is provided to circumvent the “common sense” understanding of hybridity in hybrid learning.
Synthesises insights from a body of recent research on hybrid education and hybrid learning, reflecting the complexity added by the notion of hybridity to learning, learning environments and lifelong learning.
A novel conception of hybridity that foregrounds the complexity, entanglement and dissolution of dichotomies as well as a more integrated and holistic theorisation of the assumptions and premises that underpin hybrid learning, based on existing theories and research.
Implications for practice and/or policy
More theoretically grounded accounts of hybridity, hybrid learning and hybrid learning environments provide richer explanations of these terms, and would benefit the field.
The paper's theoretical perspective prompts some rethinking of how design for hybrid learning occurs, what it consists of and how it may be improved.
Teachers who want to foster hybrid learning environments and hybrid lifelong learning should be aware of using an integrated theoretical approach when analysing or designing for situations where learning is hybridise...
“…Continuing our call for special sections, we had an impressive number of proposals, combining some within issues to fit them all across the year. Starting with Issue 4 the first section looked into advancing posthumanist perspectives on technology‐rich learning (Peppler, Rowsell, & Keune, 2020) and issues around design, data, didactics in hybrid learning spaces (Cohen, Nørgård, & Mor, 2020). There was a continued interest in Learning Analytics, with one section in Issue 4 covering applications in Latin America (Pontual Falcão, Ferreira Mello, & Lins Rodrigues, 2020) and another in Issue 5 on the fast growing area of multimodal learning analytics (Cukurova, Giannakos, & Martinez‐Maldonado, 2020).…”
We would like to take this opportunity to thank our members of the Editorial Board, our International Advisory Board, Guest Editors, authors and all our reviewers for their hard work and commitment during this last year. We can truly say that this has been a difficult and challenging year where we have all experienced unprecedented demands on us both professionally and personally. We are very grateful to authors for their patience when the review process has taken longer than usual as a result of the global pandemic. Despite the challenges, BJET has had another very productive year.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
