Transactional Distance and Interaction in Hybrid Education: a Case Study
V.L. Ottenheim
Orcid profile, R. Meulenbroeks
Orcid profile and P. Drijvers
Orcid profile 
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Feb 24, 2025
Page range: 44 - 62
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2025-0003
Keywords
© 2025 V.L. Ottenheim et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hybrid education, with synchronous onsite and online instruction, has received considerable attention since the pandemic (Raes et al., 2020). However, the concept has been used for decades, for example, in areas where students have long travel times (Lakhal et al., 2021; Raes, 2022; Szeto, 2015; Wang et al., 2017) or when students juggle multiple responsibilities, balancing work commitments with their academic pursuits, or have to deal with health challenges. By offering synchronous learning opportunities, hybrid education accommodates the diverse needs of students (Lakhal et al., 2021; Raes et al., 2020). Moreover, it also provides opportunities for collaboration between institutions that are separated by large distances (Lakhal et al., 2021; Raes, 2022; Wang et al., 2017).
Catering to both online and onsite students within one lesson is not without its challenges (Lakhal et al., 2021; Raes, 2022). For example, in hybrid education, video/audio quality and continuity are crucial (Kassandrinou et al., 2014). Moreover, online students have been reported to ask fewer questions compared to their onsite counterparts (Kassandrinou et al., 2014). Similarly, teachers found it harder to ‘read’ the online students, since the body language aspect is significantly reduced. Teachers reported focusing on the onsite students, neglecting the learning process of the online students. In education, the interaction between students and teachers plays an essential role in the learning process (Freeman et al., 2014; Moore, 2018). The ability to ask the teacher questions and discuss content with fellow students is often crucial in the learning process (Freeman et al., 2014). Additionally, interaction allows students to see different perspectives and challenge their assumptions. This kind of interaction is needed to gain new insights and develop a more comprehensive understanding (Kim et al., 2013).
Interaction, however, is a challenging aspect of hybrid education (Bower et al., 2015; Lakhal et al., 2021; Raes, 2022; Szeto & Cheng, 2016), especially for online students. A key concept in interactions and dialogue is transactional distance, defined as the perceived distance between students and their teacher and having three components: dialogue, structure, and autonomy (Moore, 2018). Various studies have explored transactional distance across different learning environments (Bond et al., 2020; Cahapay, 2020; Gray & DiLoreto, n.d.; Joksimovic et al., 2015; Kara, 2021; Kassandrinou et al., 2014; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018; Martin & Bolliger, 2018; Martin et al., 2019; Moreno et al., n.d.; Murray et al., 2021; Paul et al., 2015; Vasiloudis et al., 2015; Zhang, 2003). In fully online education, transactional distance tends to be higher than in fully onsite education (Murray et al., 2021). This negatively impacts interactions, dialogue and the overall learning experience. Studies show that fostering dialogue and meaningful interactions remains one of the biggest challenges of online education (Gray & DiLoreto, n.d.; Kara, 2021). Key factors contributing to this challenge include teacher presence and student engagement. Multiple studies have demonstrated that increasing dialogue, and thus also student engagement, and fostering a sense of community can decrease the perceived transactional distance (Joksimovic et al., 2015; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018; Martin & Bolliger, 2018; Martin et al., 2019). For example, Martin and Bolliger (2018) found that engagement strategies such as increasing dialogue with interactive discussions increase student involvement and interactions, thereby lowering the transactional distance (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). Similarly, Lowenthal and Dunlap found that leveraging social media and online communication tools created a sense of presence that made both students and teachers feel more connected, which helped reduce the transactional distance (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018).
Remarkably, transactional distance has not been extensively studied in hybrid education. There have been comparisons between online, hybrid and onsite education, but not in hybrid education specifically (Kara, 2021; Murray et al., 2021; Vasiloudis et al., 2015). Murray et al. (2021) specifically addressed the differences in transactional distance between the three types of education. However, in this particular study (Murray et al., 2021), the hybrid group is seen as one group instead of the two groups that are present in hybrid education. This, thus, does not show whether and how transactional distance impacts both groups of students during hybrid education. Moreover, in some studies, the concept of transactional distance is stressed as an important aspect of hybrid education; however, the theory is then not used in the methods of the study (Bower et al., 2015; Conklina et al., 2017; Nussli & Oh, 2024; Roberts et al., 2024). This shows that the theory of transactional distance is thought of as important in hybrid education, but is not thoroughly studied in this context. Therefore, we are left to wonder how transactional distance influences classroom interactions and participants’ experiences. On the basis of the existing literature, we hypothesise that a large transactional distance plays a big part in the challenges of hybrid education, especially for online students, as they have a harder time participating in classroom interaction.
As a first step towards overcoming difficulties with interaction in hybrid education, this paper aims to identify the possible limitations of hybrid education when it comes to interaction and transactional distance and to offer suggestions for means to deal with these limitations.
To address the issue at stake, the study’s theoretical framework includes notions of transactional distance and interaction within the context of hybrid education. Before elaborating on these notions, we first sketch a brief history of hybrid and distance education.
When we use the term hybrid education, we refer specifically to an educational approach which includes synchronous onsite and online meetings. Hybrid education thus caters to two groups of students, online and onsite, instead of having all students either online or onsite. In contrast, online education refers to a situation where all students are present in an online environment, whereas distance education refers to a situation where students and teachers are separated by distance, which may or may not involve online components.
Hybrid and online education have become widespread due to social distancing policies adopted during the pandemic. However, many forms of distance education, known as correspondence studies, have been around for over a century (Pittman, 1991). Radio and television allowed distance educators to go beyond text-only material (Simonson et al., 2011). In 1970, Stanford University implemented a form of hybrid teaching, broadcasting lectures given in one hall to screens in other lecture halls (Pettit & Grace, 1970). After 1990, multiple open universities used distance education platforms (mail, television, taped recordings) to make higher education more accessible to the public. After the advent of the internet, in 1998 the first web-based, online instruction was launched. The concept of hybrid education as we understand it today emerged around 2009. For example, Lakhal et al. used hybrid education to provide education both for the students who lived close to campus and for students who lived too far away from campus to commute. Their study has also implied that interaction is something that might be harder to achieve in a hybrid setting but, with some extra preparation, is possible (Lakhal et al., 2021).
The concept of transactional distance was first introduced in 1970s in relation to distance education (Moore, 1973). Transactional distance refers to the psychological and emotional distance between the teachers and the students and between the students themselves (Moore, 2018). Transaction refers to the exchange of ideas, experiences and other types of knowledge between the teacher and the students and/or between the students themselves (Moore, 2018; Zhang, 2003). The concept of ‘distance’ in transactional distance refers to the perceived barriers (physical, emotional, psychological) during these interactions or transactions. A higher transactional distance refers to higher perceived barriers.
Transactional distance is based on three variables: dialogue, structure, and autonomy (Figure 1). Moore starts by suggesting that more dialogue will lower the transactional distance. Secondly, more preparation by the teacher will increase the transactional distance, due to the less spontaneous interaction and dialogue. Autonomy refers to the amount of work a student needs to do independently of other students and the teacher. In a lesson with plenty of dialogue, a student thus needs less autonomy than in a lecture without dialogue. This implies that students who prefer to work more autonomously could perform better in a setting with a higher transactional distance than less autonomous students.
Summary of how the three variables: dialogue, structure and autonomy affect the transactional distance. For example, more dialogue results in a lower transactional distance.
Murray et al. (2021) measured the transactional distance in online, hybrid and onsite lessons and found that the students in the online lessons perceived the highest transactional distance, followed by the students in the hybrid lessons, with the onsite students scoring lowest. In hybrid education, differences in engagement, interaction and communication between online students, onsite students and the teacher can lead to a higher transactional distance (Moore, 2018; Vasiloudis et al., 2015). However, this study does not differentiate between the online and onsite students in the hybrid setting. Online students in a hybrid setting often report feeling a lack of presence and little to no interaction with their onsite counterparts and teacher (Lakhal et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2017). These differences in engagement, interaction, and thus dialogue, can lead to a higher transactional distance for online students. This could result in unequal learning opportunities, negatively impacting online students.
The concept of transactional distance is central to educational interactions, and we hypothesise that it is at least as important within the context of distance and hybrid education, given the physical separations involved. For our study, we explore the different aspects of transactional distance, specifically the student–teacher and student–student interactions. We will measure this perceived distance with the Zhang scale of transactional distance (Zhang, 2003), which comprises four dimensions: the transactional distance between students, the transactional distance between the student and the teacher, the transactional distance between the student and the content and the transactional distance between the student and the interface (online course management system).
Interaction can be defined as communication between the teachers and the students. This does not only include verbal communication, such as dialogue, but also non-verbal communication, such as body language (Bambaeeroo & Shokrpour, 2017; Howe, 2023). Students who actively participate in classroom discussions show improved communication skills, demonstrate higher motivation, and achieve higher learning gains (Rocca, 2010). According to Moore (1989), there are three types of interaction in a classroom setting: student–teacher (S-T) interaction, student–content (S-C) interactions and student–student (S-S) interaction (Moore, 1989). Ideally, all three types of interaction are of high quality, so it is vital that teachers consciously plan these three types of interaction. This becomes even more crucial in distance education since improvisation is more challenging when teachers and students are not in the same location (Szeto & Cheng, 2016).
In S-T interaction, both teachers and students report that the teacher either forgets the online students or is overly focused on those online students. The latter makes online students feel as if they are under scrutiny and makes onsite students feel forgotten (Lakhal et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2017). Moreover, online students are more likely to communicate with their teachers, while onsite students are more likely to interact with each other (Szeto & Cheng, 2016). The S-C interaction does not necessarily suffer for the online group, for example, because the material is available online. However, both mathematics and physics teachers tend to use black- or whiteboards to manipulate formulas. This board is visible for a student in the classroom; however, this may not be the case for the online students (authors, 2024), making it harder for them to follow the lecture. Turning to S-S interactions, hybrid education has two groups of students (online and onsite). These groups interact with each other, but they can also interact within their group (Szeto, 2015; Szeto & Cheng, 2016). Hybrid education can thus influence S-S interaction by limiting the interaction between the online and onsite students and creating an environment in which most of the interactions are within the groups. These findings suggest that, in hybrid education, one needs to extend the three types of interaction. This was also suggested by Szeto and Cheng (2016), who implied that for every category there was a direction of interaction and that the category instructor-content should be included (Szeto & Cheng, 2016).
We extended this model (Szeto & Cheng, 2016), based on the literature and our previous research, to create a guiding framework for interaction within hybrid education (Figure 2). The framework assumes that the teacher is present onsite. We will not include the direction of the interaction in our framework for simplicity. The adjusted framework includes the following types of interaction: student online–student online (SoL-SoS), student online–teacher (SoL-T), student online–student onsite (Sol-Sol), student online–content (SoL-C), student onsite–student onsite (SoS-SoS), student onsite–teacher (SoS-T), student onsite–content (SoS-C) and teacher–content (T-C) (Figure 2). In the model, content is placed between the online and onsite dimensions, as the content itself is not specific to either the online or onsite students. Both groups of students will see the same (digital) content, such as a presentation, whether they are online or onsite.
Guiding framework designed to represent the different types of interaction that can take place in a hybrid lesson. C stands for content, S stands for students and T for teacher.
For this study, we will focus on the interactions in a hybrid lecture, specifically on the dialogue aspect of interaction. Thus, we not only study how interaction takes place in these types of settings, but also the effect that transactional distance can have on this interaction.
Using the different elements in the theoretical framework, we phrase the following research questions.
How does student–student and student–teacher transactional distance develop during a hybrid university course setting?
How do online and onsite students interact during classroom discussions in a hybrid university course setting?
What do students and teachers report about their experiences with the different types of interaction in a hybrid setting?
To answer these questions, we will use three different methods, thus making this study a mixed methods study. First, we will make use of a questionnaire to measure the perceived transactional distance (Paul et al., 2015; Zhang, 2003). We will also make use of conversation analysis, specifically turn-taking analysis, to see which interactions are at play during a hybrid lesson (Sacks et al., 1974). Lastly, we will conduct semi-structured interviews to gain insights into the experiences of the teachers and students in this course (Lakhal et al., 2021). This way, we can determine whether what we have measured and observed in the classroom matches with how the teachers and students experience the hybrid lessons. Thus, this is also a way to triangulate the data. This triangulation has not been encountered in other studies in similar settings (e.g., Bower et al., 2015; Lakhal et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2021; Raes, 2022).
This study was conducted in the context of a transition programme that provides master’s students with the domain-specific knowledge needed to enter a secondary school physics teacher training programme. The course subject is the history of physics, designed to address any lacunae students may have that prevent them from entering a teacher training programme. The course consisted of nine 2-hour sessions. The course was taught by two teachers, who have both given this course for several years. Both teachers were present for every lesson, but only one taught the class while the other managed the online students and provided extra information when needed. Additionally, both teachers taught this class during COVID-19, so they were familiar with teaching this course fully online and in a hybrid setting. The students in this course also have experience with both fully online and hybrid courses.
Two teachers taught the course to six students. All participants were male and between the ages of twenty and fifty. Two of these students already had teaching experience in a different topic, while the other four did not have any experience as teachers yet. In five sessions, both teachers were present in the classroom, one teaching and the other monitoring the camera for the online students. Table 1 shows the attendance. The teachers used a big screen to project their presentations and used a videoconferencing platform to converse with the online students and share presentations. The camera, speaker, and microphone were integrated into one tablet. In Figure 3, the classroom setup is shown schematically. All participants signed informed consent forms for classroom data collection before the start of this study, and separate informed consent was obtained for the post-course interviews.
Classroom setup. The grey rectangles depict the tables, the brown dots the students and the orange dots the teacher.
An overview of recorded lectures, attendance, and where the students and teachers were present, with the online students shown in bold
| S1 | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | – | Onsite | |
| S2 | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite |
| S3 | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | – | – | |
| S4 | Onsite | – | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | |
| S5 | – | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | ||
| S6 | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite |
| D1 | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite |
| D2 | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | Onsite | |
In total, we used three different data collection instruments. We collected the transactional distance questionnaires (RQ1), the conversation analysis data (RQ2), and the interview data (RQ3).
To answer the first research question, we used a revised version of the Zhang scale. The original Zhang scale was designed for distance education and measures four different constructs related to interaction: student–teacher (S-T), student–content (S-C), student–student (S-S), and student–interface (Zhang, 2003). Since we are specifically interested in the student–teacher and student–student interactions, we will only focus on these constructs. Furthermore, we have only included the questions that were relevant to our hybrid education (Appendix A). The revised scale was piloted with a group of students (
To answer the second research question, we recorded the lessons in this course, which were then used for conversation analysis. In total, there were nine lessons, one of which was in a science museum and was not included in the data collection. Of the eight remaining lessons, the first two were used as a pilot (Table 1) for this study, ensuring that recording devices worked and the classroom setup was optimised. However, students filled out the questionnaire from the start. To stimulate discussions, the teachers provided the students with texts to read and assignments to complete before the lesson; these texts and assignments were then discussed in depth during the lesson. Thus, the flipped classroom approach was used (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). For example, before a lecture, students were provided with a preparatory text, distributed one week in advance. This text included questions designed to encourage critical thinking about the topic and its relation to contemporary physics. Students were instructed to read the text and respond to the questions before attending the lecture, following the principles of a flipped classroom approach. During the lecture, the instructor actively engaged both online and onsite students by prompting them with questions related to the preparatory material. Following this initial discussion, students were given additional time to discuss the text and address further questions introduced by the teacher, fostering collaborative dialogue among peers. Finally, the instructor rejoined the discussion to provide clarification and address unresolved questions. Six lessons were fully recorded to be transcribed for analysis. During the data collection, a researcher was always present at the back of the classroom to observe the lesson and note if any technical difficulties occurred. This researcher did not participate in the classroom and only noted the technical difficulties. We used two separate recording devices for backup purposes. All the data that were used were collected by these recording devices.
To answer the third research question, we conducted semi-structured interviews after the course was completed. All the participants were approached, and five of the six students agreed to participate in the interviews. We designed the interview protocol (Appendix B) to explore S-T and S-S interaction. We consciously aimed to keep our questions as open as possible and used follow-up questions to delve further into aspects of transactional distance. Different interview questions were used for the students and the teachers (Appendix B). Before the interview started, teachers were given a summary of the study and provided their informed consent.
Since the number of participants is low, the results of all the meetings were averaged for analysis. We compared both the online and the onsite groups to each other for both the T-S and S-S interaction. We used a Shapiro–Wilk test to determine the normality of the obtained dataset. As the dataset was not normally distributed, we used a Mann–Whitney U test to determine the statistical significance of the differences between the two groups.
Each hybrid lecture contained 20–45 min of group discussions. These discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed. We based our analyses on turn-taking analyses which originated in conversation analysis (Sacks et al., 1974). In our transcriptions, we marked the utterances of the students and teachers as either talking, questioning, or laughing to create an overview of the interactions during these group discussions. We have visualised these results in a scheme, showing when turns are taken. When somebody has a turn, this is shown by a square; when the turn is specifically given to somebody else, this is shown with an arrow, and when somebody takes a turn without it being specifically given, this is shown by a square and no arrow.
After verbatim transcription, the interviews were coded in NVivo following a ‘top meets bottom’ approach in which a top–down and bottom–up approach are combined (Glaser & Strauss, 2017; Thorne, 2000). Some of the codes emerged from the literature, such as the types of interactions, while others, such as informal interaction and the organisational aspect, emerged from the interviews. Different codebooks were used for the student and teacher interviews. During the coding, we refer to two types of interactions: formal and informal interaction. Formal interaction referred to all the content and lecture-related interaction, while informal interaction referred to small talk, coffee machine talk, and overall talk during the breaks. The categories that emerged from both the guiding framework and the interviews are shown in Table 2. The categories that emerged from the guiding framework were further subdivided by adding a qualification of the affective character to the corresponding quotes: negative, neutral, or positive. By including the codes that emerged from the interviews, we avoided using non-descriptive categories like other.
Overview of the types of codes for both the student and teacher interviews, subdivided by where the codes came from
| Interaction_Formal_Student Online-Student onsite ( |
Interaction_Informal (I_Informal) | Interaction_Formal_Student Online-Student onsite ( |
Interaction_Informal (I_Informal) |
| Interaction_Formal_Student online-Teacher ( |
Students’ opinion on hybrid education | Interaction_Formal_Student online-Teacher ( |
Organisation |
| Interaction_Formal_Student onsite-T ( |
Interaction_Formal_Student onsite-T ( |
Technical aspects | |
| Teacher suggestions | |||
For both sets of interviews and coding, second coding was done on all quotes by two independent researchers. For the students, Cohen’s kappa was 0.94. For the teacher interviews, Cohen’s kappa was 0.84.
The descriptive statistics of all the sessions combined (33 filled out by the onsite students and 5 by the online students) are represented in Figure 4. When we compare two constructs, teacher–student (T-S) and student–student (S-S) for the online and onsite students (Figure 4), we see that the onsite students always score higher on the Likert scale than the online students. Note that a high score corresponds to a lower transactional distance. A Mann–Whitney U test demonstrated a significant difference between the online and onsite students for both types of interaction (
The differences in experienced transactional distance between the online and onsite students when looking at both the T-S interaction and the S-S interaction. T-S interaction =
Differentiated over the individual sessions, the results on transactional distance are given in Figure 5. In this figure, online students tend to score lower on both T-S online and S-S online compared to their onsite counterparts in each lecture where online students were present. Figure 5 also shows an increase in scores between the first and second lecture. Note that no statistical test was performed on this difference.
Graph showing the average score of the different interactions related to transactional distance per meeting. Four constructs are shown in this graph: TOSS, SOSS, TOLS and SOLS. SOLS, student–online student; SOSS, student–onsite student; TOLS, teacher–online student; TOSS, teacher–onsite student.
In Figure 6, the different interactions during the classroom discussions are shown. We have classified the student’s and teachers’ utterances either as talking (statements and answers), questions, or laughter. Moreover, the arrows are used when somebody specifically addresses another person. Notably, we can see that online students are often specifically addressed by either a teacher or an onsite student when they talk; 68.5% of the time that an online student talks (including questions), this is due to someone asking them a question. The onsite students, however, do not need explicit prompts to enter the discussions, as this only happens in 6.5% of the dialogue. For example, when we look at the content of the dialogue in box 1 in Figure 6C, we see that the onsite students start discussing a text by themselves while the teachers are switching PowerPoints; the online students do not participate in this discussion (Figure 7). The students were discussing a text that they all found incredibly difficult to read and were happy that they were not the only ones who struggled with it. The online students did not participate in the conversation.
Overview scheme of the interaction happening during four lectures. In image (A), the interaction in lesson four is visible. In (B), the interaction in lesson five is visible. In (C), the interaction in lesson seven is visible, and in (D), the interaction in lesson eight is visible. The students are indicated as either S1 or SO1, with the O indicating that the student is online, and the teachers are shown as D1 and D2. Moreover, the blue blocks show when a student or teacher is saying anything, the green blocks show when there is a question asked, the orange blocks show when there is laughter in the classroom, and the arrows show when somebody is specifically asked something. Furthermore, the three blocks indicated by the numbers one, two, and three show specific interactions that will be further discussed in the text.
Onsite student dialogue from Figure 6C box 1. The conversation was about a text students prepared for the lesson and happened while the teachers were switching between PowerPoints.
When the online student does participate in the dialogue, the interaction is relatively short (Figure 6D box 2). In Figure 8, it is shown that the dialogue between the online student and the teachers quickly passes to another student. Moreover, online students also utter things such as: ‘
Student dialogue from Figure 6D box 2. The conversation is about a question the teachers asked; the online students follow up with a clarifying question, and then the conversation continues without the online student participating.
Then, when all students received the assignment to discuss together a question that the teacher provided, the online student did not participate in this discussion until the teacher asked them a specific question (Figure 6D box 3). The students are discussing this question and cannot reach agreement on an answer; the teacher interferes with the discussion and tries to involve the online student (Figure 9). After this, the online student’s participation in the discussions stops.
Student dialogue from Figure 6D box 3. The conversation is about a question the teachers asked; the onsite students are discussing this question and their opinions. The online student only participates once the teachers ask them specifically about their opinion.
Based on the analysis of the five interviews with the students, the themes in Table 2 emerged. Of these 7 themes, four are divided into Negative, Neutral and Positive; this is the case for
Results of the student interviews. Distribution of the quotes over the six different categories, in which red shows negative quotes, yellow shows neutral quotes, and green shows positive quotes (
The only time students explicitly mentioned the concept of attention was when they compared their attention span when they were present online versus when they were present in the classroom. All the students who had been present online at least once mentioned that they found it more difficult to focus and were easily distracted when they were present online, compared to when they were present in the classroom. They attributed this to being by themselves or having more distractions at home.
For this results section, we will discuss all the codes that refer to formal interaction. These codes include
“I had contact with the students in the classroom, but the people were online, those people I did not have any contact with. They were part of the lecture and the content. They had their contributions, and I may have responded to that once, but minimally. So as classmates, we had little contact.”
Secondly, the online students spoke about their interaction with the teacher in a negative, neutral, and positive manner (
“It was different than in other courses because they took no time to ask us [the online students] questions. They always asked if we had any questions, so that was great!”
Lastly, the onsite students spoke less about their interactions with the teacher (
“Onsite, in the classroom, was the interaction always positive. They were open for questions and discussions.”
Four out of the five interviewed students specifically mentioned the importance of the informal contact that took place inside and outside of the classroom. This included small talk before the start of the lecture, the ability to talk to each other and the teacher during the breaks, being able to get coffee together and overall getting to know each other better. The students also mentioned that this was not possible when they were present online. Some of the onsite students hypothesised that this might be the reason they had less interaction with the online students in general.
“When you are present in the classroom, it is a bit easier to make a joke or exchange a look between the lectures. You do not have that when you are online.”
“The difference is [when you are online] that you cannot join the other students when they get coffee or talk between the lectures. So that changes the atmosphere of the lecture a bit.”
“But someone that is always at home? Yes, that is not a fellow student for me and never will be. Because it is just an image on a screen where I do not have any informal contact with.”
Students thought that the content was the same if they were present online or onsite. One student also mentioned that online education would always be a surrogate for onsite education. Another student called being able to be present online an enrichment in his case. Students also believed that in this case the hybrid aspect of the course worked out well because they were in such a small group. They hypothesised that the group discussions that now took place would be harder to facilitate if they were in a bigger group, not only due to the organisational aspects, but also because the online students thought they would not participate as much if the group were bigger.
“I think if your goal is to learn something more than is strictly necessary for the exam, then I think that being present in the classroom is important.”
The analysis of the interviews with the two teachers led to the following themes:
Results from the teacher interviews. Distribution of the quotes over the seven different categories, in which red shows negative quotes, yellow shows neutral quotes, and green shows positive quotes (
For this results section, we will discuss the codes that refer to formal interaction. These codes include
“[the online students] always had questions and wanted to say something. The [onsite] students did not complain about the whole online aspect, [onsite students] were quite enthusiastic and nice towards the online students. Sometimes [the online students] can feel excluded for multiple reasons, however, that was not the case here.”
Secondly, the teachers mentioned their interactions with the online students both neutrally and positively (
“The interaction was good [between the online students and the teacher], I had an idea of who every student was. Even more now than when you have an online student without a camera feed. And this online student asked questions via the audio, so I also knew their voices. I think that an enthusiastic online student can be part of a classroom. A timid student might say less than the online student did now.”
Lastly, the teachers referred less to their interaction with the onsite student, mentioning that it was like it would be normally.
“There was no difference in the interaction with the onsite student.”
Both teachers mentioned the importance of the informal contact with the students, stating that they would also talk to the students before the lecture, during the break and shortly after the lecture. They both implied that this informal interaction helped them to get to know the students a bit better.
“Somethings happen within those first interactions, as in the small things, maybe with grabbing coffee. Yes, the coffee break, because you can walk out of the classroom together and just be out of the class.”
Quotes about the organisational aspect of hybrid education constitute the biggest category in the teacher interviews (8). Teachers mentioned what they thought was the biggest group size they could oversee without having too much trouble organising the hybrid aspect of the lecture. Moreover, they also implied the need to structure lectures more beforehand to ensure that all the students had the same learning experience.
“If you put in the effort, then teaching in this [hybrid education] manner works.”
One thing the teachers sometimes struggled with was the technical aspect of hybrid education. One of the teachers reported that it was difficult to gauge a student’s personality if the audio quality was compromised and that setting up all the audio and video takes more time. Again, the teachers mentioned that it takes a bit more preparation and time to get these technical aspects right.
“I am not that savvy with technology; I had let somebody else do it. And the thought that all [this technology] needs to be ready and working, is a threshold for me.”
Teacher suggestions included mentions of the class. The teachers mentioned that the students were interested in the topic; however, they previously had classes in which the students took more initiative than in this one. They also stressed the importance of all students being present, at least in the first lecture, to establish a certain pattern to ensure that all students, online and onsite, are actively participating in the lectures. The teachers could, however, not determine what exactly that pattern was.
“Something happened in the beginning, in a good way, which caused us to be in the correct pattern? And then afterwards it all went correctly because we were already in the correct pattern?”
We revisit our research questions to phrase our conclusions.
How does student–student and student–teacher transactional distance develop during a hybrid university course?
How do online and onsite students interact during classroom discussions in a hybrid university course setting?
What do students and teachers report about different types of interaction in a hybrid setting?
On the first question, the online students reported experiencing a higher transactional distance than the onsite students, especially when it came to T-S. This difference between the online and onsite students remained throughout the whole course. In general, the transactional distance all the students experienced in this course is relatively low, lower than in studies in which only online students were included. Murray et al. reported that transactional distance in hybrid education is almost the same as that experienced in fully onsite education (Murray et al., 2021). However, in this study, they averaged the transactional distance experienced by the online and onsite students, which could have influenced the average, as it is expected that the onsite students experience less transactional distance than the online students. Therefore, we cannot compare our results to their study; however, we do see a similar trend when it comes to the online group and the onsite group when we compare our results to their results on these two types of education (Murray et al., 2021). Moreover, a notable decline in transactional distance emerged for the online students between lectures four and five, coinciding with the introduction of built-in discussions. These discussions evolved during the lectures; the more comfortable the students got with each other, the more fluid and organic their interactions became (Mbwesa, 2014; Vasiloudis et al., 2015).
As for the second question on interaction, the online students needed specific prompting during the group discussions; if they were not specifically asked to participate, then they would not participate in the discussions. There were some exceptions, as students did not need prompting to either report technical issues or ask clarifying questions. This was in line with previous research, in which the teachers mentioned that the technical aspect of hybrid teaching always took up a portion of the lesson (Bower et al., 2015). In our study, the teachers always specifically asked the online students questions to try to include them in the conversation. This worked to some extent; however, the online students would only participate for a short amount of time; in contrast, most onsite students would participate for a longer amount of time. Furthermore, our findings align with those of previous studies that indicate that online students tend to ask fewer questions compared to their onsite counterparts. However, contrary to some literature, our participants reported that the teachers actively involving the online students helped facilitate their interactions instead of making them feel scrutinised (Bower et al., 2015; Szeto, 2015). They acknowledged that being addressed directly by the teacher encouraged them to engage more actively than they would have otherwise. These nuanced insights suggest that while there may be concerns about potential discomfort from directly addressing online students, it can serve as a valuable tool for enhancing online students’ engagement in hybrid learning environments.
For the third RQ, results from our interviews corroborate our findings regarding the experienced transactional distance, the change in transactional distance, and online students being less involved in group discussions. Both the onsite students and the teachers reported that they felt a greater distance towards the online students. Moreover, online students reported that they experienced a higher threshold during the group discussions, making it harder for them to express their opinions and participate in the discussions. Not only do online students tend to be less involved in classroom discussions, but they also miss out on informal interactions, which were deemed crucial by both the students and teachers for fostering a conducive classroom environment. These informal moments, such as having a coffee or chatting before and after lectures and during breaks, were highlighted by all participants in terms of building rapport and familiarity among students and teachers alike. One student specifically noted that these informal interactions—for example, making a joke, exchanging a look, or grabbing a coffee together—played a significant role in enhancing the group discussions during the lectures. The familiarity gained from these moments made it easier for students to share their ideas and opinions. One onsite student even remarked on feeling disconnected from their online peers, questioning if they were even a part of the classroom. These findings indicated that online students prioritise teacher interactions over peer engagement in a hybrid setting. Moreover, all students hypothesised that the absence of online students during these moments contributed to their reduced participation in group discussions. The absence of online students from informal moments, such as coffee breaks, limited their opportunities to build familiarity with others. Onsite students noted that this familiarity made them feel more comfortable, which, in turn, made it easier for them to participate in group discussions. The teachers echoed these sentiments, emphasising the impact of having all students physically present in at least one lecture. While unable to pinpoint the exact reason, teachers acknowledged that seeing all the students in person at least once seemed to improve the interactions when they were present online compared to previous experiences where this was not the case. The idea that informal interaction (i.e., small talk) can influence students’ engagement is not a new concept. When students realise that they are welcomed in the classroom, they tend to exhibit higher levels of engagement and motivation, which in turn can positively impact their academic performance (Abu-Elrob & Tawalbeh, 2022). Moreover, research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic also stressed the importance of small talk during online lectures, as it leads to a more positive learning experience (Burgsteiner & Krammer, 2022; Gnaur et al., 2020). However, when it comes to hybrid education, the inclusion of small talk is more complicated, as part of the students are present in the classroom and part of the students are present online. This means that the onsite students can engage in small talk, while online students cannot. However, several approaches remain possible, such as the use of ice-breakers at the start of a lecture or group work (Şat et al., 2022). Moreover, providing the possibility of small talk for all students—by dedicating specific time slots to small talk—could also increase familiarity and thus improve classroom cohesion and influence the engagement of online students.
The study presented here comes with limitations. First, it was conducted in a small class with only six students. However, this small setting created an environment in which classroom discussions were possible, facilitating interaction between the students and teachers. Moreover, the small scale of this study also allowed us to interview almost every participant. A second limitation is the diversity of students. In our study, all the students were of the same gender. However, there was a significant age range, from students in their twenties who were still full-time students to students in their fifties who were already teachers in a different field.
Our study suggests that teachers need to form an awareness of online students when teaching in a hybrid manner. It is easy to forget that there are two sets of students when you can see only one group in front of you (Szeto & Cheng, 2016; Wang et al., 2017). However, teaching in a hybrid manner requires teachers to know they have two groups of students in their classroom: the onsite students and the online students. Thus, if a teacher is aware of this, it is easier to engage with those online students. Teachers who teach in hybrid settings need to specifically engage with their online students because if they do not, chances are that the online students will not actively participate (Lakhal et al., 2021; Raes, 2022). Before a teacher even starts teaching in a hybrid setting, the technical aspects need to be addressed. In this case, the teacher is responsible for the quality of the sound and video. Especially when there are two groups of students (online and onsite), it is important to have high-quality sound and video to create the feeling of one classroom instead of two separate groups (Kassandrinou et al., 2014). In our study, students implied that not being able to see their online counterparts created a barrier and ensured that the online students were less included. Therefore, we would recommend that teachers stimulate the online students to turn on their cameras and make sure that the students are also visible for the onsite students. As mentioned before, it is important for the teacher to specifically include online students. Online students in our study appreciated the teachers asking them direct questions and creating group discussions between online and onsite students. Directly asking the online students questions helps them to be actively involved in the classroom discourse (Bower et al., 2015; Lakhal et al., 2021). During our study, both sets of students implied that the group discussions were helpful, not only when it came to the content but also to feel more connected to each other. We also found that when teachers specifically addressed an online student this interaction almost always ended after the answer the student would give. Similarly, during the group discussions, the online students would never be fully part of the conversation and would only interact with the onsite students when they were specifically addressed.
Based on the results of this study, we recommend that the teacher moderates these discussions to ensure that the online students actively participate in the group discussions (Lakhal et al., 2021; Raes et al., 2020). Moreover, both the students and the teachers in this study stressed the importance of informal interactions before the lectures, during the breaks, and after the lectures. We therefore encourage teachers to ensure that their first lecture of the course is fully onsite before they teach in a hybrid manner. This ensures that all the students have seen each other and the teacher at least once; this should facilitate interactions between the two groups. Teachers can also lower the transactional distance between online students by encouraging them to stay in the online environment during the breaks. The teacher can then turn off the sound and microphone so that the students have a safe place to talk during the break without their conversations being projected over the speakers or interrupted by noise from the microphone. This does not decrease the transactional distance between the two groups of students. However, the teacher could ask online students how everything is going every half hour to ensure the quality of the sound and video. We hypothesise that acknowledging that there are two separate groups with different difficulties could help to decrease the transactional distance.
This study has shown the role of transactional distance in hybrid teaching; moreover, we have also shown that hybrid teaching requires more effort upfront than teaching in a traditional classroom setting. Our teachers suggested that teaching in this manner might be easier for more experienced teachers, as, according to them, they are more adept at improvising when things do not go as planned. As this study was based on a smaller case study, we would like to further investigate transactional distance and interaction on a larger scale. Moreover, to assist teachers with teaching in a hybrid manner, we would like to experiment with a quick start guide to make it easier for teachers to teach in this manner. We expect that when a teacher is adequately prepared for hybrid teaching, this will also improve interaction and experiences regarding transactional distance.
In conclusion, our findings highlight that online students often require more prompting to engage in group discussions, as lower engagement can lead to a higher transactional distance. Students express a greater hesitancy to participate in group discussions; this could be due to the absence of informal interactions, which are prevalent in the onsite environment. Unlike their onsite counterparts, online students encounter challenges in participating in and initiating such interactions, which could impact their sense of belonging and participation, thereby heightening the experience of transactional distance. Our study thus underscores the importance of providing online students with opportunities for small talk; facilitating connections with both their online and onsite peers could foster a more inclusive learning environment.