Engagement, Motivation, and Involvement in Hybrid Learning: A Qualitative Investigation in Tunisian Universities

This article examines how students perceive hybrid learning environments in higher education and which factors influence their engagement, motivation, and sense of belonging. The originality of this study lies in its qualitative approach focused on students’ experiences and its exploration of the specific context of higher education in Tunisia, integrating the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of engagement. Thirteen semi-structured interviews,were conducted with master’s students at ISCAE Manouba and ENIT Tunis. The results highlight that the effectiveness of hybrid learning relies on a balance between flexibility and pedagogical interactions: distance learning promotes autonomy and personal organization, while face-to-face sessions support group dynamics and learning consistency. Intrinsic motivation, content quality, and sense of belonging emerge as key drivers of engagement. This study enriches the existing literature by identifying often overlooked contextual variables, such as content design, pedagogical stance, and temporal regulation. Practically, it provides The recommendations aim to optimize hybrid learning environments by fostering social interaction, reducing isolation, and providing valuable insights to guide pedagogical interventions.

Hybrid learning, Student engagement, Intrinsic motivation, Flexible learning, Quality of content.

1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Babson Survey Research Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.824 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i1.1733 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Peraya, D. (2011). Didactique et formation à distance. Presses universitaires de France. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D. T., & Giesbers, B. (2015). Stability and sensitivity of learning analytics-based prediction models. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 1–12). SCITEPRESS. https://doi.org/10.5220/0005373700010001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Viau, R. (2002). La motivation en contexte scolaire. De Boeck Supérieur. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]