Implementing Synchronous Hybrid Education Effectively: Lessons from a Pilot in a Law Program in the Netherlands

Abstract

While literature has discussed benefits and challenges of synchronous hybrid education, there is limited insight into how to tailor education activities to a hybrid setting. After distilling six principles from literature, the paper describes how a pilot conducted in the master Law & Technology at Tilburg Law School contributes to filling this gap by testing the implementation of specific hybrid education activities. Focusing on the need to create a community and equality of opportunities between on-campus and online students, the pilot assessed: (1) whether to combine the online and on-campus groups or separate them for interactive classes, (2) to what extent the use of online tools or apps can help to equalize the two groups, and (3) how to facilitate the creation of groups for assignments. The paper concludes by pointing at the need to keep evaluating in particular how to train skills and character in a synchronous hybrid setting.

Introduction

The interest in hybrid education has accelerated in recent years, especially in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shift to online education in response to the emergency situation demonstrated the feasibility of other forms of education beyond face-to-face teaching and resulted in a lot of learning in a short period of time (Bajaña et al., 2022; Bozkurt, 2022; Skulmowski & Rey, 2020; Weilage & Stumpfegger, 2022). Literature has extensively discussed the benefits and challenges of hybrid education at a more general level (Raes et al., 2020). A benefit of hybrid education is the ability to reach a wider and more inclusive group of students due to the flexibility offered (Bajaña et al., 2022). A challenge is how to continue offering high quality education in a setting that requires additional effort from students as well as lecturers (Mentzer et al., 2023; Nussli & Oh, 2024; Raes et al., 2020). What is less discussed is what kind of education activities best suit a particular context or goal in a hybrid setting (for instance, to train knowledge or skills). This lack of insight into the effectiveness of specific hybrid education activities makes it difficult to advise lecturers on how to adapt their teaching style to a hybrid environment. As more programs switch to hybrid education due to the increasing demand for flexibility, a better understanding of how to convert education activities in courses and classes to a hybrid setting is becoming more urgent.

The project behind this paper sought to contribute to filling this gap by piloting different hybrid education activities in a law program at Tilburg University in the Netherlands and by collecting the perspectives of students and lecturers on their effectiveness. Hybrid education as offered at Tilburg Law School consists of synchronous classes taught simultaneously to an in-person and an online target group. While the lecturer is present in the lecture room on campus, students have a choice to attend in-person or online. Although some classes are recorded at the discretion of course coordinators, students are expected to join at the fixed time slots set in the course schedule even if they are in a different time zone. This means that hybrid education at Tilburg Law School does not go as far as so-called HyFlex education. Beyond the option to attend in-person or online, the HyFlex approach also offers a choice between synchronous and asynchronous participation (Beatty, 2019; Boylan et al., 2022). The choice to attend classes synchronously or asynchronously is not available to students at Tilburg Law School. This more limited model of hybrid education has been called ‘Interactive Synchronous HyFlex’ by Mentzer et al. (2023). The term ‘synchronous hybrid’ is used throughout this paper to refer to this mode of education. As discussed by Ulla and Perales (2022), education targeting on-campus and online students at the same time is what distinguishes hybrid education from other teaching models that simply ‘blend’ face-to-face education with online learning elements.

Driven by the decision to permanently offer several master programs at Tilburg Law School in a synchronous hybrid format after the transition following the pandemic, the educational project underlying this paper reflected on how to uphold the same level of education quality in a hybrid context – considering that the courses were designed for fully on-campus education. Lecturers carry the main burden to ensure that students receive the same quality of education and the same opportunities to learn and participate irrespective of whether they join in-person or online, while there are limited insights available about how to tailor education activities to a synchronous hybrid setting. To create more clarity about what education activities works well in such a hybrid context, the project conducted a pilot in the master Law & Technology at Tilburg Law School in the academic year 2023–2024 focusing on three aspects: (1) whether to combine the online and on-campus groups or separate them for interactive classes, (2) to what extent the use of online tools or apps can help to equalize the two groups, and (3) how to facilitate the creation of groups for assignments.

After distilling six principles from literature regarding hybrid education, the paper describes how the pilot contributes to the state of the art by testing the implementation of specific hybrid education activities focusing in particular on the need to create a community and the equality of opportunities between on-campus and online students. The paper concludes by pointing at the need to keep evaluating in particular how to train skills and character effectively in a synchronous hybrid setting.

Six Principles for Effective Hybrid Education

Beatty (2019) developed four principles for HyFlex education from a student perspective: learner choice (letting students choose how they participate), equivalency (ensure equivalent learning outcomes irrespective of how a student participates), reusability (use outcomes from learning activities in each participation mode as learning objects for all students), and accessibility (ensure that students have the technological skills to access all of the resources). To overcome challenges of hybrid education, Raes et al. (2020) refer to three types of design guidelines: guidelines related to training and support (to ensure that both lecturers and students have the required skills for hybrid education), guidelines related to clear communication (to ensure that both lecturers and students know what to expect from hybrid education), and guidelines related to activating learners and curriculum alignment (to ensure that students are engaged and the learning activities match the overall curriculum). In addition to these principles and design guidelines, other aspects ensuring effective hybrid education can be found in the literature. Bringing together different insights from existing literature, six principles for effective synchronous hybrid education are distinguished here.

Principle 1: Proper Equipment for Lecturers and Students

A first requirement for effective synchronous hybrid education is that the physical classroom must be adequately equipped with high-quality video and audio technology. This ensures that both on-campus and online students can be fully and equally integrated into a hybrid class. It is crucial that the technology supports, rather than disrupts, the natural flow of the class. Disruptions can occur, for instance, when a lecturer has to constantly adjust their movements to stay within camera view, or when on-campus students must pause unnaturally to be handed a microphone before speaking (Bower et al., 2015; Cunningham, 2014; Zydney et al., 2019). In addition to the classroom setup, the online students must also have access to appropriate equipment, such as a reliable device and a stable internet connection, in order to fully participate (Pallavi et al., 2022). However, a key question arises regarding the extent to which educational institutions should take responsibility for ensuring that all students have the necessary equipment, especially given that requiring such equipment may conflict with the broader goal of promoting inclusivity through hybrid education.

Principle 2: Sufficient Technological Skills of Lecturers

While both students and lecturers must possess an adequate level of technological proficiency to ensure the success of hybrid education (Raes et al., 2020), the existing literature predominantly concentrates on the role and preparedness of lecturers. Several studies highlight that a barrier to the effective implementation of hybrid education is inadequate training of lecturers (Nikolopoulou, 2022; Weilage & Stumpfegger, 2022). A gap in training can create challenges in delivering high-quality education to on-campus and online students in parallel. Consequently, equipping lecturers with comprehensive and targeted training is commonly recognized as a fundamental requirement for the successful implementation of hybrid education (Singh et al., 2021; Sullivan, 2022). Ensuring that lecturers are competent and confident in teaching two target groups simultaneously not only increases their teaching effectiveness but also supports a more seamless and engaging learning experience for students.

Principle 3: Clear Structure of Courses and Proper Communication of Expectations to Students

While clearly structured courses and well-communicated expectations are important in traditional face-to-face education, they become even more critical in a hybrid learning environment. The added complexity of managing both on-campus and online students, combined with the physical distance separating online students from the classroom, makes clarity an essential element for success (Raes et al., 2020). Students frequently cite confusion regarding course organisation as a challenge in hybrid education settings (Nikolopoulou, 2022). To address this, it is important that existing course materials, such as syllabi, are thoughtfully adapted to meet the specific needs of a hybrid format. Course materials should be explicitly designed to provide clear, accessible information to both on-campus and online students, ensuring that all participants understand how the course will be conducted and what is expected of them (Villegas-Ch et al., 2021).

Principle 4: Offering Flexibility in How Students Participate

Students generally appreciate the opportunities that hybrid education offers, although research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic indicates a continued preference for face-to-face education – possibly influenced by the unusual and isolating circumstances of the time (Lorenzo-Lledò et al., 2021). The flexibility to choose between attending classes in person or online, and to switch between these modes as needed, is consistently cited as the most valued feature of synchronous hybrid education. Beatty (2019) introduced the concept of ‘learner choice’ to describe this flexibility, and subsequent studies confirm that students view it as a major advantage. Flexibility is particularly appreciated when external factors – such as work obligations, transportation strikes, or severe weather – make attending classes in person difficult (Nikolopoulou, 2022; Singh et al., 2021). At the same time, one can question whether a drop in in-person attendance due to weather conditions is still a desirable effect of the flexibility of synchronous hybrid education. Beyond the autonomy given to students to decide whether to attend face-to-face or online, Hall and Villareal (2015) point to reduced travel time and costs as a benefit of hybrid education.

Principle 5: Building a Community Between on-Campus and Online Students

In hybrid classes, online students face the inherent risk of feeling isolated and disconnected from their peers who are attending in person. To counteract this potential sense of separation, it is important to actively foster a sense of community that includes both on-campus and online students. This can be achieved by encouraging active participation from all students and creating structured opportunities for them to interact and build connections with each other (Buckley et al., 2021; Pallavi et al., 2022). Furthermore, Singh et al. (2021) emphasize that maintaining a dynamic and engaging learning environment depends not only on interactions between students but also on ensuring regular, meaningful engagement with the lecturer. Building such a community is crucial for creating a sense of belonging among all students, which in turn supports their academic success and personal well-being.

Principle 6: On-Campus and Online Students Need to be Provided with Equal Opportunities to Participate in Education Activities

Ensuring that both on-campus and online students have equal opportunities to engage in educational activities is at the heart of the principles of Beatty (2019) relating to equivalency, reusability and accessibility. Other literature also highlights the importance of achieving this aspect of equality. Lecturers must take proactive steps to involve online students in class activities so that they feel connected and fully included (Singh et al., 2021; Zydney et al., 2019). However, lecturers must also be mindful not to overemphasize the needs of online students to the detriment of students attending in person. For instance, if too much time is spent addressing the needs of the online students – such as speaking excessively slowly, frequently repeating information, or resolving technical issues – the quality of the learning experience for on-campus students may suffer (Bower et al., 2015; Raes et al., 2020). Striking the right balance is essential to maintain an engaging and equitable environment for all students, regardless of how they participate in the class.

The transposition of findings from the literature into the six principles above shows that the literature is rich in discussions about the preconditions of hybrid education in general. In terms of clarity about how specific education activities can be tailored to a synchronous hybrid setting, existing insights are more limited. In particular, principles 5 and 6 regarding the creation of a community and the equality of opportunity between on-campus and online students are largely up to lecturers to implement in their classes and courses. Because there is a lack of insight into the effectiveness of specific hybrid education activities, it is hard to give recommendations to lecturers on how to adapt their teaching style to a synchronous hybrid environment. To contribute to filling this gap, the project piloted different hybrid education activities in the master Law & Technology at Tilburg Law School in the academic year 2023–2024 to test which activity is most effective for which context or goal (for instance, training knowledge or skills) as discussed in the next section.

Piloting Hybrid Education Activities at Tilburg Law School

Several master programs at Tilburg Law School are offered in a hybrid fashion. In a transition following the pandemic in which education was offered fully online, a synchronous hybrid format was implemented in the academic years 2021–2022 and 2022–2023. After surveys among students and lecturers in the relevant programs in November 2022, the decision was made to permanently switch to synchronous hybrid education. Several reasons formed the basis for this decision (Van Gulijk & Mitchell, 2024). First, allowing students to follow a program online improves the accessibility of education and leads to more diversity, as the flexibility enables students from different parts of the world and in different stages of life to come together and learn from each other's perspectives. Second, offering education in a synchronous hybrid format prevents the need to take responsibility for ensuring that students will find suitable accommodation. Due to the housing crisis in the Netherlands, especially international students may be discouraged to register for a program if it requires on-campus presence – with the risk that student numbers decline. Third, the surveys showed that the experiences with synchronous hybrid education at Tilburg Law School were largely positive especially among students who in particular appreciated the flexibility offered. Lecturers were more mixed with reservations stemming from the additional workload that comes with running synchronous hybrid education and from concerns about the available support.

The unease among lecturers about synchronous hybrid education formed the main motivation for the project underlying this paper. The master Law & Technology of Tilburg Law School in which the pilot was implemented attracts about 140 new students every academic year. It is taught in English and therefore also attracts international students. The program provides students with an advanced understanding of issues related to the regulation of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, data analytics and digital services, from the perspective of different areas of (mainly European Union) law, such as data protection law, intellectual property law and competition law. Beyond two core obligatory courses, students can choose from a range of elective courses that sometimes also include multidisciplinary insights from economics, ethics and technology. How students participate in the program is not registered, because they are free to switch back and forth between on-campus and online attendance at any moment in the program. However, the impression is that 20 to 25% of the students follow the program fully online from their home country and do not visit the campus or meet any fellow students or lecturers in person during the program. Worth mentioning is that students who live in Tilburg sometimes opt to follow classes online, for instance when they have work or personal commitments elsewhere.

As a starting point, the project ran a survey in summer 2023 among the master students in Law & Technology of academic year 2022–2023 to ask about their experiences regarding synchronous hybrid education in the different courses in the master. A focus group with three of these students took place in August 2023, representing respectively the on-campus students, the online students and the students that sometimes participate on-campus and sometimes online. The students signed up for the focus group themselves in response to an invitation sent to all students in the program. Because students can constantly switch between online or on-campus participation throughout the program, the paper distinguishes between three groups of students: 1) those who always participate on campus (on-campus students); 2) those who always join online (online students); and 3) those who sometimes join on campus and sometimes online.

The results from the student survey and the focus group were quite mixed regarding what aspects of synchronous hybrid education students value in the master Law & Technology at Tilburg Law School. It is hard to draw any general conclusions from the responses, beyond the confirmation that students appreciate the flexibility that the synchronous hybrid format offers them. Judging from the open comments, it also seems that student experiences are influenced by whether they like the content of a course or the teaching style of the lecturer. Because the strategies for synchronous hybrid education differ across courses but not so much within courses, these other aspects may create ‘biases’ and determine students’ views rather than the choice of hybrid education activities.

By combining different strategies in one course taught by the same lecturer such ‘biases’ may be avoided. In such a setting, the only change that students see is the hybrid education activity. The below pilot activities have been implemented in two elective courses in the master Law & Technology at Tilburg Law School, each taught by one lecturer who is also the course coordinator. This makes these courses suitable for experimenting with different educational activities carried out by the same lecturer. The first pilot course is an advanced course of up to 50 students and the second pilot course is a basic course of up to 100 students. The pilot activities were evaluated by testing the perceptions of students and lecturers on whether the activities help to build a community (principle 5 above) and equalize the opportunities for participation of on-campus and online students (principle 6 above). An oral evaluation took place to discuss the experiences with the lecturers and the teaching assistant (i.e., a junior lecturer who assists lecturers in hybrid classes). Students were asked to answer a couple of questions in an online survey to evaluate the pilot activities in the last class of both courses. About a quarter of the students in both courses completed the survey. Although this may raise doubts about the representativeness of the outcomes, a response rate of 25% is common in student surveys at Tilburg Law School. Students were also asked how satisfied they were with the synchronous hybrid format in the regular course evaluations.

The designed education in the pilots aimed at testing the constructive alignment between the learning outcomes and education activities. The focus was on piloting education activities that could strengthen the constructive alignment with learning outcomes relating to skills and character in a synchronous hybrid setting, because skills and character are more difficult to train in a hybrid setting as students may be less engaged (Bower et al., 2015). The distinction between knowledge, skills and character in the Tilburg Education Profile was used in this regard. While knowledge concerns the mastery of theoretical insights and concepts, skills include both academic or research as well as communication skills, and character involves the development of a critical mindset, intellectual independence as well as a sense of moral sensitivity and social responsibility (De Regt & Van Lenning, 2017). The project did not include assessment, so no conclusions can be drawn about possible differences between on-campus and online students in terms of grades and results obtained.

Pilot Activity 1: Whether to Combine the Online and on-Campus Groups or Separate Them for Interactive Classes

A few courses in the master separate the two groups and offer a fully on-campus and a fully online option for each class. This makes classes more straightforward to run and limits the risk of classes becoming disorganized due to technical difficulties for instance. However, separating the groups also means that the classroom becomes less diverse and having to teach the same class twice leads to additional workload for lecturers. As it is less complicated to combine the two groups for education activities that focus on knowledge transfer, the pilot compares the approaches of combining versus separating the two groups for interactive classes that focus on training skills and character. The aim is to see if separating the groups is an effective strategy to strengthen the more complex constructive alignment of learning outcomes related to skills and character with education activities.

In the first smaller pilot course, a separate on-campus and online class was organized for a group exercise. Students were asked to do a moot court exercise during the class in which they were asked to represent one of the parties in a dispute and to present their arguments and respond to each other afterwards. Those joining the on-campus class worked together in groups in the room and those joining the online class were allocated to break-out rooms in Zoom. The students that responded to the survey mostly enjoyed the group exercise and the fact that there was a separate on-campus and online class. While the on-campus students and the students who sometimes join on campus and sometimes online all found it beneficial that the groups were separated for the group exercise (9 out of 9), of the online students 5 out of 8 shared this opinion. There were 2 out of 8 of the online students who missed more diversity in contributions because the group was smaller and 1 out of 8 believed that mixing the online and on-campus groups does not result in any deterioration of the education experience. From the lecturer's perspective, the on-campus group came up with much richer contributions than the online group. A total number of 16 students joined in the room, with 4 more students joining in-person than usual. One of them said that they had decided to come to campus for this specific class, because they preferred to participate in the interactive group exercise in the room rather than online. Special activities like an on-campus group exercise may thus incentivize students who otherwise join online to participate in-person. Remarkable in the online group was that the number of students was much smaller than usual and that 8 students left the Zoom meeting when the opening of break-out rooms for the discussion in smaller groups was announced after a short plenary introduction. In the end, only 11 students joined for the interactive part of the exercise – which is one third of the number normally attending the hybrid classes online.

In the second larger pilot course, one of the regular interactive classes was offered separately for the on-campus and online students. This worked less well than in the first smaller pilot, which may be explained by the fact that there was no group exercise. The results from the survey among students in the second larger pilot course were quite mixed. About half of the respondents appreciated having the full attention of the lecturer, while the other half missed more diversity in contributions because the group was smaller. Interestingly, 3 out of 3 of the on-campus students that responded to the survey disliked the separate groups and one of them noted that they missed the comments of the online students in the chat. Unlike in the first smaller pilot course, the size of the two groups was similar to previous hybrid classes – with 2 more students joining in-person than usual. From the lecturer's perspective, the fully online class was rather low in engagement. No one turned on their camera and only 4 students were contributing with only one person speaking once; the rest of the contributions was through written contributions in the chat. Because the lecturer read out the comments and thus exclusively spoke themselves with one oral student comment as exception, the online class was not very dynamic.

Although it is difficult to find a conclusive explanation for the more limited student engagement in the fully online classes in both pilot courses, it may be that students joining online have different expectations or another attitude. It seems that the online students for some reason feel less comfortable or eager to actively contribute, also considering that several students left the Zoom meeting just before the break-out rooms were opened and the group exercise started in the first smaller pilot course. It is worthwhile to examine further if this is indeed the case and how it can be addressed, especially considering that group exercises are seen in the literature as a mechanism to strengthen connections among students and to create a community in line with principle 5 above (Singh et al., 2021; Zydney et al., 2019). In addition, a certain level of interaction is necessary in a course and may be expected of students in order to train skills and character. The approach of the lecturer also plays a role. One could for instance ask students to elaborate on their written comments to make a class more interactive and stimulate students to contribute orally.

A conclusion to draw from this pilot activity is that separating the on-campus and online groups is more worthwhile for group exercises than for a regular interactive class where the added value of separating the groups was less evident. Worth mentioning is that several students in the regular course evaluations did note that they would prefer to have separate on-campus and online classes. However, the regular course evaluations also show that students are overall very satisfied with the way courses now handle the synchronous hybrid format in the master Law & Technology, so that there seems to be no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for effective synchronous hybrid education and having a mix of approaches across a program may be a good strategy.

Pilot Activity 2: Whether the use of Online Tools or Apps Helps to Equalize the two Groups

The purpose of the use of an online tool or app in synchronous hybrid education is to let students anonymously respond to questions or polls on their phones or laptops during a class. Tilburg Law School uses Wooclap for this purpose. Wooclap is a relevant tool for in-person classes as well, but in synchronous hybrid classes it can be especially useful to facilitate ways for everyone to contribute in the same manner without noticing so much whether a student participates on-campus or online. As such, it can be a mechanism to increase the social presence of online students as noted as an important aspect in synchronous hybrid education by Zydney et al. (2019). Beyond this, the use of Wooclap may allow for a stronger constructive alignment of learning outcomes relating to skills and character with education activities because it lowers the barriers that especially online students may perceive to apply their skills and to contribute to class discussions in a synchronous hybrid setting. Relevant uses of Wooclap to achieve this are to pose multiple choice questions for issues that often go wrong or to ask for open comments so that students can express their views as a starting point for a discussion. In the focus group, the representative of the online students mentioned the use of Wooclap as a good practice because it puts online students on an equal footing with on-campus students and takes away the anxiety or struggle that some online students feel about actively participating in class. In a curriculum meeting with lecturers in the master Law & Technology at the end of summer 2023, some concern was expressed about whether students will be distracted from the class when requiring them to use tools or apps on their phones or laptops.

From a student perspective, the experience with Wooclap in both pilot courses was overwhelmingly positive. In the first smaller pilot course, all on-campus students (5 out of 5), all students who sometimes join on campus and sometimes online (6 out of 6), and 7 out of the 8 online students who responded to the survey found Wooclap helpful. Only 1 of the online students indicated that the use of Wooclap distracted them from class. In the second larger pilot course, all on-campus students (3 out of 3) and all online students (8 out of 8) found Wooclap helpful. Beyond making it easier to contribute to class and to test one's understanding of the material, one of the respondents found Wooclap helpful because it provides insights into other students’ thought process. Among the students who sometimes join on campus and sometimes online, the experiences were more mixed. There were 8 out of 11 of these students who found Wooclap helpful. Of the 3 who did not experience Wooclap as helpful, 1 indicated that use of Wooclap distracted from class, 1 indicated that it took too much time, and 1 indicated that there is not enough time to type and that it is hard to think when everyone is talking. Overall, this means that 90% of the students who participated in the pilot courses and who responded to the survey found Wooclap helpful (37 out of 41).

From a lecturer's perspective, the experience with Wooclap was positive but more mixed. Wooclap was mainly used in the pilot courses to test the ability of students to apply material covered in the preceding part of the class and as a starting point for a short discussion. The pilot showed that Wooclap is a useful tool to increase the level of participation of a wider range of students and to get a better picture of whether students on average understand the material. While one would normally receive answers from up to 4 students (either orally or written out in the Zoom chat), the use of Wooclap increased the number of students responding to 15 on average in the first smaller pilot course (out of 50 students in total). Wooclap also allows you to be more direct as a lecturer when an answer is wrong, as the group does not know who gave the answer and therefore the person is not corrected out in the open. A point of attention is that Wooclap takes up more time than asking a regular question and that it may shift the focus to written rather than oral student input. One way to address this is to respond to selected answers only (for instance by letting students vote on answers they would like the lecturer to pay attention to) and to ask students to explain written responses.

A conclusion to draw from this pilot activity is that Wooclap works well as a complementary tool to test students’ understanding and to actively involve students in the class in line with principle 6 above, but that it should not be seen as a substitute for regular and oral interaction between a lecturer and students as well as among students. In addition, a tool like Wooclap needs to be integrated in classes in a thoughtful manner so that students see the value of its use in supporting their learning. Worth mentioning too is that the involvement of a teaching assistant (i.e., a junior lecturer who holds a master degree and understands the content of the classes) was noted by students as a positive aspect in the regular course evaluations, in particular to facilitate the discussion with the online community. Support by a teaching assistant (rather than a student moderator) in hybrid classes to pay particular attention to the online students is therefore a key best practice. This confirms the finding of Cain (2015) who suggests a ‘technology operator or navigator’ to be present in class to assist the lecturer.

Pilot Activity 3: How to Facilitate the Creation of Groups for Assignments

The focus group pointed at the difficulty of creating a community with the online students, as also recognized in principle 5 above. On-campus students have a chance to socialize before, during and after classes. For online students, there much less of such natural opportunities to connect with other online students and – let alone – with on-campus students beyond the regular class activities. This also makes it harder for online students to form groups for assignments. To facilitate the process of making groups, students were given the opportunity to fill out an online form to indicate what skills they have that are relevant to the group assignment in the first smaller pilot course and when they are available for group meetings. The latter is especially relevant for online students who often are in different time zones. Knowing the availability of other students in advance may help to form effective groups. It was also explained that the group assignment requires different skills and that looking for complementary skills is a good strategy to form a group. Participation in the online form was voluntary and students were still expected to form groups themselves. The purpose was to see whether it is easier for students to form groups in a hybrid education context when the process of finding a group is better facilitated.

No one completed the form and three students contacted the lecturer to help them find a group. One student said that they did not want to be the only one having to rely on the form to find group members. Because of the lack of success, the third pilot activity was not implemented in the second larger pilot course. How to facilitate group exercises in a synchronous hybrid setting therefore remains an issue to be explored further. Letting lecturers assign groups also has disadvantages as it takes responsibility away from students to find group members with complementary skills. A compromise could be to give students the choice of registering as a group after finding members on their own, or registering individually and being assigned to a group by the lecturer based on their time zone and the complementary skills they are looking for.

Conclusion

While general principles for effective synchronous hybrid education can be distilled from the literature, there is still a lack of clarity about which education activity is most effective for which context or goal. This makes it hard to advise lecturers on how to adjust their classes to a synchronous hybrid setting, while they carry the main responsibility for facilitating the creation of a community and the equality of opportunity between on-campus and online students (principles 5 and 6 distinguished in the paper). To contribute to filling this gap, the project underlying this paper conducted a pilot in the master Law & Technology at Tilburg Law School in the academic year 2023–2024 focusing on three aspects: (1) whether to combine the online and on-campus groups or separate them for interactive classes, (2) to what extent the use of online tools or apps can help to equalize the two groups, and (3) how to facilitate the creation of groups for assignments.

The survey and focus group conducted in summer 2023 as a starting point of the project demonstrated that online students in particular perceive barriers to active participation. To some extent, these barriers can be lowered by encouraging online students to contribute to class and through tools like Wooclap where one no longer notices if a student participates in-person or online. Beyond lowering barriers for participation, the use of a tool like Wooclap also gives lecturers a better picture of whether students on average understand the material due to the increase in responses as compared to asking a regular question. Following the pilot, a recommended use of Wooclap is to pose multiple choice questions for issues that often go wrong and to ask for open comments so that students can express their views as a starting point for a discussion.

Active participation is required especially for training skills and character, which are important goals in an advanced law program as the master Law & Technology at Tilburg Law School. Beyond awareness among lecturers about effective synchronous hybrid education activities, an active attitude is also required of students. Especially the online students were not very active when the online and on-campus groups were separated for the purpose of the first pilot activity in both the first smaller and the second larger pilot courses. Managing expectations about active participation is also key to effectively train skills and character in a synchronous hybrid setting. Flexibility should therefore not be the only benchmark for effective synchronous hybrid education. Ensuring high quality synchronous hybrid education also requires responsibility and commitment of students, in particular to train skills and character. The learning environment should also incorporate these aspects, which may need to be balanced with flexibility. Another issue that requires further attention is how to facilitate the creation of groups for assignments, as the project did not find a proper solution for this.

By testing the implementation of specific hybrid education activities, the project contributes to the literature on synchronous hybrid education and provides lecturers with clearer insights on how to adjust their courses and classes to a synchronous hybrid setting. At the same time, the project has limitations in its scope as it involved only two courses and the response rate to the student surveys evaluating the pilots was around 25%. Nevertheless, its findings can form a starting point for better understanding how to empower lecturers in synchronous hybrid programs in higher education in law and beyond, where training skills and character are important learning outcomes.