We collect research and other literature as part of our mission to disseminate current relevant information further within JU. Sometimes this literature is also included as course literature in our courses, and is particularly important for us to share. In such cases, we link to those articles, journals and books under Literature. Here we also take help from our very competent staff at the University Library.

About academic teaching and learning in higher education in general

Teaching for Quality Learning at University

Biggs, J. B. & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (4., [rev.] ed.). Open University Press.

Organizational issues

  • Goeman, K., & Dijkstra, W. (2022). Creating mature blended education: the European Maturity Model guidelines. Higher Education Studies, 80–97.
  • Ninnemann, K., Liedtke, B., den Heijer, A., Gothe, K., Loidl-Reisch, C., Nenonen, S., ... & Wallenborg, C. (2020). Hybrid environments for universities. Waxmann Verlag.

Learning spaces

  • Leijon, M., & Lundgren, B. (2019). Connecting physical and virtual spaces in a HyFlex pedagogic model with a focus on teacher interaction. Journal of Learning Spaces, 8(1).
  • Leijon, M. & Tieva, Å. (2021), Framtidens lärandemiljöer: En forskningsbaserad översikt, Akademiska hus, 3–42.
  • Wiles, G. L., & Ball, T. R. (2013, June). The converged classroom. In 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 23–1176).

Versions of hybrid models

Student engagement

  • Ahlin, E. M. (2020). A mixed-methods evaluation of a hybrid course modality to increase student engagement and mastery of course content in undergraduate research methods classes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 32(1), 22–41.
  • Bergdahl, N. (2022). Engagement and disengagement in online learning. Computers & Education, 188, 104561.
  • Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568–583.
  • Dalgarno, B. (2014), Polysynchronous learning: A model for student interaction and engagement, Proceedings of ASCILITE, 673–677
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59–109.
  • Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online learning, 22(1), 205–222.
  • Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Depaepe, F. (2020). Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education, 143, 103682.
  • Redmond, P., Abawi, L., Brown, A., Henderson, R., & Heffernan, A. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online learning, 22(1), 183–204.

Challenges and opportunities

  • Bülow, M. W. (2022). Designing synchronous hybrid learning spaces: Challenges and opportunities. Hybrid learning spaces, 135–163.
  • Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23, 269–290.

Student/teacher perspectives

  • Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17.
  • Demazière, C. (2021). Using active learning in hybrid learning environments. In EPJ Web of Conferences (Vol. 247, p. 14001). EDP Sciences.
  • Elkins, A. S. (2015). Student satisfaction in hybrid courses (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University).
  • Grammens, M., Voet, M., Vanderlinde, R., Declercq, L., & De Wever, B. (2022). A systematic review of teacher roles and competences for teaching synchronously online through videoconferencing technology. Educational Research Review, 100461.
  • Karlsson, S. (2022). Kursdeltagare både här och där!: En fenomenografisk fallstudie om uppfattningar och erfarenheter av synkron hybridundervisning inom högre utbildning.
  • Lakhal, S., Mukamurera, J., Bédard, M. E., Heilporn, G., & Chauret, M. (2021). Students and instructors perspective on blended synchronous learning in a Canadian graduate program. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1383–1396.
  • Lin, O. (2008). Student views of hybrid learning: A one-year exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 57–66.
  • Marquis, G. P., & Ghosh, S. (2017). Student preferences for a hybrid course. Journal of Education for Business, 92(3), 105–113.
  • Moore (1993), Three types of interaction, In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education theory ,19–24, New York: Routledge
  • Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B., & Whitelock, D. (2020). A mixed-method study of how instructors design for learning in online and distance education. Journal of Learning Analytics, 7(3), 64–78.
  • Nykvist, S. S., Caro-Barek, D., Støckert, R., & Lysne, D. A. (2021, December). Key factors needed for developing a higher education cross-campus learning environment in a Nordic context. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 535). Frontiers.
  • Raes, A. (2022). Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: does presence matter?. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 138–159.
  • Tanis, C. J. (2020). The seven principles of online learning: Feedback from faculty and alumni on its importance for teaching and learning. Research in Learning Technology, 28.
  • Walker, E. R., Lang, D. L., Alperin, M., Vu, M., Barry, C. M., & Gaydos, L. M. (2021). Comparing student learning, satisfaction, and experiences between hybrid and in-person course modalities: A comprehensive, mixed-methods evaluation of five public health courses. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 7(1), 29–37.