War of the Hybrid Worlds 2024: Going Where We've Never Gone Before

• 05/20/24

Hybrid alternatives to strictly face-to-face or completely online embody a spectrum of pedagogical models and instructional strategies developed over the past century. And while pandemic teaching caused students to realize the convenience and flexibility of online learning, many lament being tied to screens 24-7 for work, school, and even social interactions. As one student put it, "this isn't emotional, this is a screen, this is a computer, it's like there's no one here." Another sighed, "Uni's non-stop .... there is no break .... Your life is uni now" (Brown et al. 2023).

Students miss interactions with instructors and classmates. They express heartfelt concerns about Zoom fatigue, feelings of loneliness and apathy, and a sense that they are "missing out" on a traditional college experience. At the same time, employers worry that students educated primarily online will fail to develop the "soft skills" needed to thrive in the workplace: self-confidence and self-initiative, working in teams, and communicating professionally among them. Much as students (and many instructors) love online courses, there remains a strong need for in-person encounters, such as offered in face-to-face and a variety of hybrid options.

But what blend of face-to-face, hybrid, and online courses can provide the most effective, inclusive, and equitable instruction? Can we declare an end to the "war of the worlds" and embrace all options as the best path forward?

As a first step, we might want to remind ourselves of the extensive theoretical and empirical work that guides our efforts. Foundational theories like behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism still offer insights into how humans learn. The widely hailed learner-centered instruction — a key tenet of constructionism — sees learners as active participants in their own learning. From these theories have emerged approaches like active learning, differentiated instruction, and universal design for learning (UDL). Most recently, the theory of connectivism has emerged, addressing the nuances of learning in the digital age. Each offers guideposts for addressing the complexity of learning in the 21st century.

From this perspective, we can more easily determine which blend makes the most sense. It may seem obvious, but not all courses are suited for online delivery. Students deserve to smell and taste the food they bake in a nutrition course. Some courses are perfect for online delivery. Survey courses, in addition to being well-suited for dual coding, retrieval, and spaced practice — may be enriched with active learning. Hybrid courses, of course, may deploy online lessons for building knowledge and use class time for developing skills and understanding.

Moving forward, it seems prudent for instructors and institutions to engage in honest and meaningful conversations about what works best for students. How can we design and deliver courses that are equitable, inclusive, exciting, and relevant? Instructor preference and institutional gains must be secondary considerations. I would also argue that students should be exposed to learning in all three modes. By helping them learn how to learn in face-to-face, hybrid, and online courses, we better prepare them for the world in which they live. And we'll need to consider expanding the definition of flexibility. Short-term classes, outcomes-based modules, open labs, open entry–open exit, pause and resume courses — these all give students a chance to succeed when life interferes.

Had I written this a year ago, this might be the end of our story. Peace would have broken out across the land. Face-to-face and online instructors would have finally seen eye-to-eye. The worlds of campus, hybrid, and virtual learning would coexist synergistically.

But a new world of teaching and learning has risen with great alarm in 2024: the world of generative artificial intelligence (or GAI, as I call it). If online learning in the early 2000s was Godzilla, AI-learning is King Ghidorah, the giant, three-headed, double-tailed, winged beast of 1960s Japanese science fiction. More powerful and malevolent than even Godzilla, Ghidorah seems an apt metaphor for the threat posed by AI not just to education but to nearly the entirety of human industries, especially healthcare, finance, automotive, manufacturing, and retail.

GAI will transform how we teach, and it will do so for the better. It offers new possibilities for active learning, including basic skills practice, text-based simulations, gamification, and problem-solving. It complements UDL by converting text to speech, automated creation of videos, automated generation of transcripts and alt-text for images, and multiple forms of assessment (e.g., flashcards, crossword puzzles, fill-in-the-blank). When integrated with learning management systems, it may provide personalized and adaptive learning. For instructors, GAI permits rapid creation of content, slide presentations, formative assessments, and other tools of the trade. In this way, GAI can permit instructors to devote greater time to interactions with students, an oft-missing element of online (and sometimes face-to-face) teaching. GAI can also serve as a platform for career exploration, personal and family planning, and life-long learning.

Lest you still be skeptical, know that most students are already using GAI. And a large percentage of the workforce has already incorporated AI into their operations. We owe it to our students to teach them how to use AI responsibly.

In truth, there isn't a war of the worlds, and there never has been. Good teaching relies on continuously assessing and improving our tools and methods, whether that's face-to-face, online, or a combination of both. Like the previous two decades, the next two decades are bound to take us where we've never been. As a famous fictional starship captain says, "Engage!"