TPACK, hybrid learning, higher education, English as a Second Language



The rapid growth of modern technologies has facilitated the emergence of hybrid learning as a specially designed training system that combines face-to-face learning and remote phase. Since this teaching mode is relatively new to university English language instructors, there is an urgent need to investigate ESL teachers’ perceptions of hybrid learning at university level. Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study is to analyse the teachers’ self-assessment of TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) as an important prerequisite of successful incorporation of computer technologies and I-tools into a curriculum, and consider advantages and disadvantages of hybrid learning in university teachers’ working environments. The analysis of quantitative and qualitative data has revealed that teachers have high content, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge whereas technological knowledge and technological content knowledge appear to be lower. The latter can be explained by the lack of information support and relevant digital classroom equipment in their educational institutions as it was indicated in the list of disadvantages. At the same time, the teachers’ responses have shown that advantages (a student-centred approach, an easy access to learning materials and assessment criteria, a wide range of online tools to learn English) outnumber the disadvantages. In general, the ESL teachers’ perceptions of hybrid learning are positive. However, they need to improve their technological knowledge and technological content knowledge. Also, better-equipped classrooms could create more favourable learning environments. Positive changes in these spheres could lead to the more effective implementation of hybrid learning in teaching English at university level.



Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Tetiana Vereshchahina, Didactic Centre of Fribourg University, Fribourg, Switzerland

Post-doctoral researcher, PhD in Pedagogy

Olesia Liashchenko, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of Foreign Languages Department for Natural Faculties of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

Serhij Babiy, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of Foreign Languages Department for Natural Faculties of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.


  1. Baser, D., Kopcha, T. & Ozden, M. (2015). Developing a technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) assessment for preservice teachers learning to teach English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29 (4),749-764.
  2. Chai, C.-S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.
  3. Charlier, B. (2012). Academic development in a Swiss university: a private or a public good? Higher Education Research Network Journal: EFAD Special Edition, 5, 77-82.
  4. Clinton, A. & House, J. H. (1970). Attributes of Innovations as Factors in Diffusion. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota. March 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Number. ED 038 347)
  5. Fenton, D. & Watkins, B. W. (2010). Fluency in distance learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
  6. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  7. Graham, C. & Dziuban, C. (2008). Blended learning environments. In Spector, J.,Merrill, M., Merrienboer, J., Driscoll, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Researchon Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 269-274). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
  8. Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., Clair St., L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of in-service science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.
  9. Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: How teachers balance the blend of online and classroom components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 121-140. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP121-140Jeffrey0460.pdf
  10. Jézégou, A. (2014). Regard sur la recherche “dispositifs hybrides dans l'enseignement supérieur” (Hy-Sup): avancées majeures et interprétation possible de la typologie. Education & Formation – e-301 – Mai 2014, 139-147.
  11. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269.
  12. Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
  13. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M.J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111). New York, NY: Springer.
  14. Khan, S. (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 20(3), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2.
  15. Kukharenko V. (2013) Zmishane navchannia. Teoriia ta praktyka zmishanoho navchannia: monohrafiia [Blended Learning. Theory and Practice of blended learning: monograph]. Kharkiv, Ukraine: Miskdruk.
  16. Liashchenko O., Babiy S. (2017) Designing virtual learning environment for teaching English for Special Purposes. Intellectual Archive, 6 (3), 92-101.
  17. O'Byrne, W. I., & Pytash, K. E. (2015). Hybrid and blended learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 137-140.
  18. Peterson, L. A. & McGuire, D. M. (2014). Gearing up for hybrid teaching and learning : Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes! Higher Learning Commission Annual Conference 2014, Collection of Papers.
  19. Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. (2010). Evaluation practices of teaching and learning in Portuguese Higher Education blended learning modules. In M. B. Nunes, & M. McPherson (Eds.). Proceedings of International Conference e-Learning (pp. 267-274) (Vol 1). Freiburg, Germany.
  20. Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), 371-383.
  21. Usova, T. (2011). Optimizing our teaching: Hybrid mode of instruction. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 6(2), 1-12.




How to Cite

Vereshchahina, T., Liashchenko, O., & Babiy, S. (2018). ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF HYBRID LEARNING AT UNIVERSITY LEVEL. Advanced Education, 5(10), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.148368