Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Remote and Hybrid Modes of Instruction: Implication for Learning Preferences


  • Oluwakemi Dessy Olurinola Department of Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Education, Olabisi Onabanjo University Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State, NIGERIA
  • Owolabi Paul Adelana Department of Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, NIGERIA



Pre-Service teachers, perceptions, remote learning, hybrid learning, Nigeria


As the world advances in technology, and its subsequent integration in education at all levels, especially higher education, different forms of learning modes/methods continue to emerge. Every student has their unique learning modes, which is partly due to the way they process information. Also, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many universities to suddenly embrace remote and hybrid modes of instructions without giving room to examine students’ choices. Because compatibility in perceptions, and preference are likely to improve learning outcomes, therefore, this study investigates pre-service teachers’ perception of remote and hybrid modes of instructions. The study which took 13 weeks was descriptively designed, with a sample of 472 students purposively selected from the Department of Science and Technology Education, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ogun State, Nigeria. Microsoft forms-based instrument titled “Students Perceptions of Online and Hybrid Modes of Instruction Questionnaire (SPOHMIQ) (r = .72), was used for data collection. The research questions raised were answered using Median, S.D, t-test and ANOVA at .05 level of significance, on SPSS version 26. Findings showed that pre-service teachers’ perceptions of remote and hybrid learning modes did not differ, just as there was no significant difference in their perceptions of the two modes based on course of study. This implies that stakeholders in education need to be aware of students’ learning modes in the 21st Century, and appropriately tailor their learning needs for effective outcomes.


Download data is not yet available.


Adebisi, T. A., & Oyeleke, O. (2018). Promoting effective teaching and learning in online environment: A blend of pedagogical and andragogical models. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy, 12(1).

Affouneh, S., Salha, S., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2020). Designing quality e-learning environments for emergency remote teaching in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 135-137.

Allo, M. D. G. (2020). Is the online learning good in the midst of Covid-19 Pandemic? The case of EFL learners. Jurnal Sinestesia, 10(1), 1-10.

Al-Kumaim, N. H., Alhazmi, A. K., Mohammed, F., Gazem, N. A., Shabbir, M. S., & Fazea, Y. (2021). Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on university students’ learning life: An integrated conceptual motivational model for sustainable and healthy online learning. Sustainability, 13(5), 2546.

AlNajdi, S. (2014). Hybrid learning in higher education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 214-220). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses. Journal of management education, 24(1), 32-54.

Arrosagaray, M., González-Peiteado, M., Pino-Juste, M., & Rodríguez-López, B. (2019). A comparative study of Spanish adult students’ attitudes to ICT in classroom, blended and distance language learning modes. Computers & Education, 134, 31-40.

Bangcola, A. A. (2016). Learning styles as predictor of academic performance in the Nursing Department of an Asian University and colleges. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(4).

Barbour, M. K., LaBonte, R., Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Kelly, K. (2020). Understanding pandemic pedagogy: Differences between emergency remote, remote, and online teaching. State of the Nation: K-12 e-Learning in Canada.

Chawla, D., & Joshi, H. (2012). E-learning perception and its relationship with demographic variables: a factor analysis approach. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 8(4), 105-118.

Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532-539.

DeCoster, J., Gallucci, M., & Iselin, A. M. R. (2011). Best practices for using median splits, artificial categorization, and their continuous alternatives. Journal of experimental psychopathology, 2(2), 197-209.

Demuyakor, J. (2020). Analysis of social media utilization by students in higher education: A critical literature review of Ghana. Journal of New Media and Mass Communication, 6(1), 1-7.

Evans, J. R., & Haase, I. M. (2001). Online business education in the twenty‐first century: an analysis of potential target markets. Internet Research.

Fortune, J., White, D., Jugdev, K., & Walker, D. (2011). Looking again at current practice in project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.

Gillis, A., & Krull, L. M. (2020). COVID-19 Remote Learning Transition in Spring 2020: Class Structures, Student Perceptions, and Inequality in College Courses. Teaching Sociology, 48(4), 283-299.

Grant, K. & Gedeon, S. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on University Teaching. In The University of the Future-Responding to COVID-19, 2nd ed.; ACPIL: Reading, UK, p. 161.

Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012). An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33(3), 381-413.

Hentea, M., Shea, M. J., & Pennington, L. (2003). A perspective on fulfilling the expectations of distance education. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Information technology curriculum (pp. 160-167).

Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Stoney, S., & Willis, J. (2001). Quality guidelines for Online courses: The development of an instrument to audit online units. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Ed.), Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2001 (pp.263-270). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.

Hilton, R., Moos, C., & Barnes, C. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of Students' Perceptions of Learning in Online versus Traditional Courses. e-journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 14(3), 2-11.

Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 3, 8

Iglesias-Pradas, S., Hernández-García, Á., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Prieto, J. L. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106713.

John, A., Shahzadi, G., & Khan, K. I. (2016). Students’ preferred learning styles & academic performance. Sci. Int.(Lahore), 28(4), 337-341.

Kemp N and Grieve R 2014 Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates’ opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning Educational Psychology 5 pp. 1-14

Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344.

Konradt, U., & Sulz, K. (2001). The experience of flow in interacting with a hypermedia learning environment. Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 10(1), 69-84.

Koohang, A., & Durante, A. (2003). Learners’ perceptions toward the web-based distance learning activities/assignments portion of an undergraduate hybrid instructional model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2(1), 105-113.

Kuzma, A., Kuzma, J., & Thiewes, H. (2015), Business Student Attitudes, Experience, and Satisfaction with Online Courses. American Journal of Business Education, 8(2), 121– 310.

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27–42.

McCall, D. E. (2002). Factors influencing participation and perseverance in online distance learning courses: A case study in continuing professional education. Tallahassee: Florida State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Muller, A., Goh, C., Lim, L., & Gao, X. (2021). COVID-19 Emergency eLearning and Beyond: Experiences and Perspectives of University Educators. Educational Science, 11, 19

Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.

Platt, C.A., Raile, A. N. W., & Yu, N. (2014). Virtually the Same? Student Perceptions of the Equivalence of Online Classes to Face-to-Face Classes. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10(3), 489-503.

Qi, L. S., & Tian, A. K. (2011). Design and application of hybrid learning platform based on Joomla. In Advances in computer science and education applications (pp. 549-556). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Rahiem, M. D. (2020). The emergency remote learning experience of university students in Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), 1-26.

Rizvi, S., Rienties, B., & Khoja, S.A. (2019). The role of demographics in online learning; A decision tree based approach. Computer Education, 137, 32–47.

Ruthotto, I., Kreth, Q., Stevens, J., Trively, C., & Melkers, J. (2020). Lurking and participation in the virtual classroom: The effects of gender, race, and age among graduate students in computer science. Computers & Education, 151, 103854.

Stanford-Smith, B., Chiozza, E., & Edin, M. (2002). Challenges and Achievements in E- business and E-work. IOS Press.

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359-383.

Szopi´nski, T. & Bachnik, K. (2022). Student evaluation of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 174, 1-3

Tick, A. (2019). An extended TAM model for evaluating eLearning acceptance, digital learning and smart tool usage. Acta Polytech. Hung, 16, 213–233.

Tratnik, A., Urh, M., & Jereb, E. (2019). Student satisfaction with an online and a face-to-face Business English course in a higher education context. Innovations in education and teaching international, 56(1), 36-45.

Uğur, B., Akkoyunlu, B., & Kurbanoğlu, S. (2011). Students’ opinions on blended learning and its implementation in terms of their learning styles. Education and Information Technologies, 16(1), 5-23.

UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 Educational disruption and response.

Urval, R. P., Kamath, A., Ullal, S., Shenoy, A. K., Shenoy, N., & Udupa, L. A. (2014). Assessment of learning styles of undergraduate medical students using the VARK questionnaire and the influence of sex and academic performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 38(3), 216-220.

Vernadakis, N., Giannousi, M., Derri, V., Michalopoulos, M., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2012). The impact of blended and traditional instruction in students’ performance. Procedia Technology, 1, 439-443.

Yamin, K. (2020, May 14). Mixed response but online classes to stay post COVID-19. Retrieved July 25, 2020, from University world News:

Zohre, G. R. N. N., Faride, P., Mehrdad, K., Hayede, G., & Zarrin, A. (2014). The role of critical thinking skills and learning styles of university students in their academic performance. Journal of Advanced Medical Education Profession, 2 (3), 95-102.




How to Cite

Olurinola, O. D., & Adelana, O. P. (2022). Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Remote and Hybrid Modes of Instruction: Implication for Learning Preferences. Evaluation Studies in Social Sciences, 3(1), 26–41.