The role of students as active participants of the hybrid learning environment in vocational education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2026.93.75304Keywords
Education, Professional, Students, Learning, Hybrid Learning Environment, Educational Technology, Digital LiteracyAbstract
Introduction and purpose. Hybrid learning has become an established form of vocational education rather than a temporary response to a crisis. Yet most scholarly discussion concentrates on the teacher, while the student appears as a recipient of pedagogical influence. This contradicts the logic of hybridity, which requires continuous decisions about the mode of attendance, the pace and the depth of work, and therefore presupposes learner subjectivity. The purpose is to systematise current understanding of the student as an active participant of the hybrid learning environment in vocational education and to substantiate the pedagogical conditions that support such activity.
A brief description of the state of knowledge. Frameworks that explain learner subjectivity are examined: self-determination theory, student agency and the Community of Inquiry model. Five interrelated dimensions of student activity are distinguished: behavioural, cognitive, emotional, social and agentic. The specificity of vocational education is analysed, where the practice-oriented component limits full virtualisation yet opens space for learner initiative. Attention is also given to digital competence, student participation in assessment, and barriers such as the digital divide, status asymmetry between online and on-site participants, and academic integrity.
Summary. Active participation does not arise automatically from the provision of choice; it results from deliberate pedagogical design. A system of pedagogical conditions is proposed: transparency of instructional design, parity between modes of participation, priority of collaborative work over content delivery, distributed responsibility for communication, formative assessment, and systematic development of learners’ digital competence.
References
1. Hrytsyshyn TI. Formation of digital competence of teachers in the context of hybrid learning: strategies, challenges and prospects. In: Tverdokhlib IA, Maliukh YeV, compilers. Digital Transformation in Education: Challenges and Prospects. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference; 2025 Apr 15–16; Kyiv, Ukraine. Kyiv: Mykhailo Drahomanov Ukrainian State University Publishing House; 2025. p. 20–22. https://enpuir.npu.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/48201/Tsyfrova%20transformatsiia%20v%20osviti_2025.pdf (Accessed: 04.08.2026). Ukrainian.
1. Hrytsyshyn TI, Ozhga MM. Innovative approaches to monitoring and assessment in hybrid learning: from digital tools to pedagogical reflection. In: Models of Interdisciplinary and Cross-Sectoral Educational and Educational-Scientific Programmes under Martial Law: Challenges and Implementation Options. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference; 2025 Oct 10–12; Odesa, Ukraine. Odesa: Odesa I. I. Mechnikov National University; 2025. p. 40–42. Ukrainian.
2. Hrytsyshyn TI. Formation of digital competence of vocational education teachers as a condition for effective hybrid learning. Naukovi Zapysky. 2025;2(164):24–33. https://doi.org/10.31392/NZ-udu-164-2.2025.03. Ukrainian.
3. Zeng X, Li Y. Strategies for talent’s digital competence development at higher vocational colleges for digital transformation. Journal of Education, Health and Sport. 2023;13(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2023.13.01.003.
4. Gudoniene D, Staneviciene E, Huet I, Dickel J, Dieng D, Degroote J, Rocio V, Butkiene R, Casanova D. Hybrid teaching and learning in higher education: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2025;17(2):756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020756.
5. Baker S, Watkinson MG, Honeyman F, Mowll J, Tyulkina S. Rethinking student engagement for ‘hyflex’ teaching and learning in post-compulsory settings: acknowledging flexibility and agency needed for unplanned events. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 2024;43(4):432–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2024.2359595.
6. Hrušová D, Chaloupský D, Chaloupská P, Hruša P. Blended learning in physical education: application and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024;15:1380041. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380041.
7. Wang C, Yuan Y, Ji X. Effects of blended learning in physical education on university students’ exercise attitudes and basketball skills: a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):3170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20469-x.
8. Luu QK, Luu NBT. Impacts of blended learning on students’ learning motivation and attitudes. International Journal of Educational Innovation and Research. 2024;3(2):196–212. https://doi.org/10.31949/ijeir.v3i2.9874.
9. Apoko TW, Chong SL. EFL students’ learning motivation and descriptive essay in the context of blended learning design. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies). 2024;11(1):425–451. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v11i1.2656.
10. Shlenova M, Konoplenko N, Yuryeva K, Korneiko Yu, Hlukhovska M. Comparative analysis of the distance learning implementation in the Ukrainian system of higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic and martial law. Interactive Learning Environments. 2024;32(9):4968–4977. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2207196.
11. Zhang L, Yang C, Zheng Y. Digital competence for sustainable education of pre-service teachers: a systematic literature review (2014–2024). Frontiers in Psychology. 2026;16:1710983. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1710983.
12. Lutsenko I, Horpynych O, Hloba T, Nesterenko O, Chykolba H. Features of organizing physical education for students in the conditions of distance learning. SPORT TK – Revista EuroAmericana de Ciencias del Deporte. 2024;13. https://doi.org/10.6018/sportk.557381.
13. Hervás-Torres M, Bellido-González M, Soto-Solier PM. Digital competences of university students after face-to-face and remote teaching: video-animations digital create content. Heliyon. 2024;10(11):e32589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32589.
14. Schaal T, Tischendorf T, Sydorenko O, Karagulova M, Chettykbayev R, Brauweiler HC. Self-assessed vs. reported digital competence among health students in Germany, Ukraine and Kazakhstan: a DigComp 2.2-based cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Health Services. 2025;5:1673120. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2025.1673120.
15. Song S, Lai YC. Blended learning in vocational education: benefits, challenges, and student engagement. Cogent Education. 2025;12(1):2548348. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2548348.
16. Chen Z, Jalaludin NA, Rasul MS. A systematic review on the improving strategies and influencing factors of vocational students’ learning engagement in blended teaching environment. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2024;23(11):1–26. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.11.28.
17. Radovan M, Makovec Radovan D. Mapping blended learning activities to students’ digital competence in VET. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2025;9(12):118. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9120118.
18. Rahman A, Islam S. Artificial intelligence in physical education: a bibliometric and systematic review. Pedagogy and Psychology of Sport. 2026;30:69102. https://doi.org/10.12775/PPS.2026.30.69102.
19. Gao P, Jing G. Research on digital transformation and the construction of physical education teacher resource ecosystem. Quality in Sport. 2025;45:66483. https://doi.org/10.12775/QS.2025.45.66483.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mykhailo Ozhga, Taras Hrytsyshyn

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The periodical offers access to content in the Open Access system under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 79
Number of citations: 0