SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 78

From emergency remote to hybrid education: Instructor insights on engagement and social presence across teaching modalities

Acil uzaktan eğitimden hibrit eğitime: Farklı öğretim yöntemlerinde öğrenci katılımı ve sosyal varlığa dair öğretim elemanlarının görüşleri

Işıl Çağlak(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION)0000-0002-3034-1776
Pages
107–127
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings reveal a pattern of “reciprocal reinforcement” in which face-to-face sessions satisfy the need for relatedness and foster social presence, thereby reducing transactional distance in subsequent online sessions, while online sessions provide flexibility and continuity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Maintaining student engagement in online learning environments remains a persistent challenge, as digital platforms often fail to replicate the social dynamics and motivation that characterize effective face-to-face instruction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis involved thematic analysis from the lens of Self-Determination Theory and Social Presence Theory, yielding three themes: mitigation of transactional distance, satisfaction of psychological needs, and modality orchestration.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings reveal a pattern of “reciprocal reinforcement” in which face-to-face sessions satisfy the need for relatedness and foster social presence, thereby reducing transactional distance in subsequent online sessions, while online sessions provide flexibility and continuity.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Acil uzaktan eğitim · Hibrit eğitim · Öz Belirleme Kuramı

Abstract

Maintaining student engagement in online learning environments remains a persistent challenge, as digital platforms often fail to replicate the social dynamics and motivation that characterize effective face-to-face instruction. This qualitative study examines whether hybrid learning models can address these engagement deficits by investigating how face-to-face and online components interact in English language preparatory programs. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with nine instructors in Turkish universities who taught across three distinct periods: pre-pandemic face-to-face, emergency remote education, and post-pandemic hybrid instruction. The analysis involved thematic analysis from the lens of Self-Determination Theory and Social Presence Theory, yielding three themes: mitigation of transactional distance, satisfaction of psychological needs, and modality orchestration. Findings reveal a pattern of “reciprocal reinforcement” in which face-to-face sessions satisfy the need for relatedness and foster social presence, thereby reducing transactional distance in subsequent online sessions, while online sessions provide flexibility and continuity. This foundation shifts student participation from compliance toward autonomous, voluntary engagement: students in hybrid settings transferred interpersonal bonds from physical classrooms to digital environments, which neutralizes the isolation typical of online instruction. However, for reciprocal reinforcement to occur, institutional support and clear communication are required. The study suggests that face-to-face sessions should strategically be designed for community-building while online components work for flexible content delivery, rather than treating modalities as interchangeable formats. Findings indicate that hybrid instruction may better serve learners’ intrinsic motivational needs than monolithic online delivery, though longitudinal and student-centered research is needed to confirm these patterns.

Özet

Çevrim içi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci katılımını sürdürmek, dijital platformların yüz yüze öğretimin etkili sosyal etkileşim dinamiklerini ve motivasyon unsurlarını çoğu zaman sağlayamaması nedeniyle, kalıcı bir sorun olmaya devam etmektedir. Bu nitel çalışma, İngilizce hazırlık programlarında yüz yüze ve çevrim içi bileşenlerin nasıl etkileşime girdiğini inceleyerek, hibrit öğrenme modellerinin söz konusu katılım eksikliklerini giderip gideremeyeceğini araştırmaktadır. Veriler, Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde üç farklı dönemde (pandemi öncesi yüz yüze eğitim, acil uzaktan eğitim ve pandemi sonrası hibrit öğretim) ders veren dokuz öğretim elemanıyla gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Analiz süreci, Öz-Belirleme Kuramı ve Sosyal Varlık Kuramı perspektiflerinden yürütülen tematik analiz yaklaşımına dayanmakta ve etkileşimsel mesafenin azaltılması, psikolojik ihtiyaçların karşılanması ve öğretim biçimlerinin yönetimi olarak üç ana tema ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, yüz yüze oturumların ilişkisellik ihtiyacını karşılayarak sosyal varlığı güçlendirdiği ve bu sayede sonraki çevrim içi oturumlarda etkileşimsel mesafeyi azalttığı; buna karşılık çevrim içi oturumların esneklik ve süreklilik sağladığı bir “karşılıklı pekiştirme” örüntüsüne işaret etmektedir. Bu temel, öğrenci katılımını uyum odaklı davranıştan özerk ve gönüllü katılıma doğru dönüştürmektedir. Öğrencilerin fiziksel sınıflarda kurdukları kişilerarası bağlar hibrit öğretimde dijital ortamlara taşınarak çevrim içi öğretime özgü izolasyon hissini azaltmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, karşılıklı pekiştirmenin ortaya çıkabilmesi için kurumsal destek ve açık iletişim gereklidir. Çalışma, yüz yüze oturumların topluluk oluşturmayı hedefleyecek şekilde stratejik olarak tasarlanması, çevrim içi bileşenlerin ise esnek içerik sunumu için kullanılması gerektiğini; bu iki öğretim biçiminin birbirinin yerine geçebilen formatlar olarak ele alınmaması gerektiğini önermektedir. Bulgular, hibrit öğretimin, tek boyutlu çevrim içi öğretime kıyasla öğrencilerin içsel motivasyon ihtiyaçlarına daha iyi yanıt verebileceğini göstermektedir; ancak bu örüntülerin doğrulanabilmesi için boylamsal ve öğrenci odaklı araştırmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çağlak, I. (2026). From emergency remote to hybrid education: Instructor insights on engagement and social presence across teaching modalities. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 78, 107–127. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1894021

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Agrawal, S., & Krishna, S. M. (2025). Breaking the cycle: How fatigue, cyberloafing, and self-regulation influence learning satisfaction in online learning. Education Sciences, 15(3), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030373
  2. Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030
  3. Beatty, B. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design (Vol. 10, p. 33). EdTech Books.
  4. Bidarra, J., Rocio, V., Sousa, N., & Coutinho-Rodrigues, J. (2024). Problems and prospects of hybrid learning in higher education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 40(3), 304-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2024.2404036
  5. Bond, M. (2021). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191-247. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4425683
  6. Bozkurt, A. (2022). A retro perspective on blended/hybrid learning: Systematic review, mapping and visualization of the scholarly landscape. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.751
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  8. Chen, L. (2023). Transactional Distance and College Students’ Learning Engagement in Online Learning: The Chain Mediating Role of Social Presence and Autonomous Motivation. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, Volume 16, 2085–2101. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S409294
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
  10. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
  11. Dörnyei, Z., & Muir, C. (2019). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In Gao, X. (Ed.) Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 719–736). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_36
  12. Firat, M., & Bozkurt, A. (2020). Variables affecting online learning readiness in an open and distance learning university. Educational Media International, 57(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1786772
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  14. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
  15. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  17. Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definitions, current trends and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing.
  18. Groccia, J. E. (2018). What Is Student Engagement? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2018(154), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20287
  19. Gudoniene, D., Staneviciene, E., Huet, I., Dickel, J., Dieng, D., Degroote, J., Rocio, V., Butkiene, R., & Casanova, D. (2025). Hybrid Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 17(2), 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020756
  20. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
  21. Güngör, M. N., & Güngör, M. A. (2021). Reconceptualizing testing in times of COVID-19 from an activity theory lens: A narrative inquiry of a test-designer’s experiences. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00627-0
  22. Hartnett, M. (2016). The Importance of Motivation in Online Learning. In M. Hartnett, Motivation in Online Education (pp. 5–32). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0700-2_2
  23. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002
  24. Jelińska, M., & Paradowski, M. B. (2021). Teachers’ Engagement in and Coping with Emergency Remote Instruction during COVID-19-Induced School Closures: A Multinational Contextual Perspective. Online Learning, 25(1), 303-328. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2492
  25. Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an Understanding of Definitions and Measures of School Engagement and Related Terms. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340893
  26. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
  27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  28. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2020). Social presence and online discussions: A mixed method investigation. Distance Education, 41(4), 490-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821603
  29. Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009
  30. Miao, J., & Ma, L. (2022). Students’ online interaction, self-regulation, and learning engagement in higher education: The importance of social presence to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 815220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815220
  31. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
  32. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
  33. Öksüz Zerey, M., & Cephe, P. T. (2024). “Sometimes you got to do what you got to do”: pre-service English language teachers’ experiences of online microteaching practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2023.2171419
  34. Palmer, R. H., Moulton, M. K., Stone, R. H., Lavender, D. L., Fulford, M., & Phillips, B. B. (2022). The impact of synchronous hybrid instruction on students’ engagement in a pharmacotherapy course. Pharmacy Practice, 20(1), 2611. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2022.1.2611
  35. Raes, A. (2022). Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: Does presence matter? Postdigital Science and Education, 4, 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00274-0
  36. Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z
  37. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
  38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  39. Saichaie, K. (2020). Blended, flipped, and hybrid learning: Definitions, developments, and directions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2020(164), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20428
  40. Sandelowski, M. (2004). Using Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1366–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304269672
  41. Sezgin, S. (2021). Acil Uzaktan Eğitim Sürecinin Analizi: Öne Çıkan Kavramlar, Sorunlar ve Çıkarılan Dersler [Analysis of the emergency remote education process: Featured terms, problems and lessons learned]. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 21(1), 273-296. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.902616
  42. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.
  43. Suryaningsih, S., & Belhassen, Y. (2025). Blended learning models in the post-pandemic era: Redefining classroom instruction and online learning integration. Scientechno: Journal of Science and Technology, 3(3), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.70177/scientechno.v3i3.1743
  44. Ulla, M. B., & Perales, W. F. (2022). Hybrid Teaching: Conceptualization Through Practice for the Post COVID19 Pandemic Education. Frontiers in Education, 7, 924594. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.924594
  45. Yu, Q., Yu, K., & Wang, J. (2025). Unraveling the impact of blended learning vs. online learning on learners’ performance: Perspective of self-determination theory. Behavioral Sciences, 15(9), 1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091263
  46. Zhao, Y., & Watterston, J. (2021). The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. Journal of Educational Change, 22(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3