Hybrid Course Design for Applied Management Learning in Higher Vocational Colleges: Digital Capability and Student Engagement as Pedagogical Pathways

Baoyin Liu; Rozaini Binti Rosli

doi:10.62177/apemr.v3i2.1345

Authors

Baoyin Liu Lincoln University College
Rozaini Binti Rosli Lincoln University College

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62177/apemr.v3i2.1345

Keywords:

Hybrid Course Design, Blended Learning, Management Education, Higher Vocational Colleges, Digital Capability, Student Engagement, Applied Learning Outcomes

Abstract

Introductory management courses in higher vocational colleges are expected to teach concepts, prepare students for workplace coordination, and cultivate practical judgement. Hybrid course design is often proposed as a remedy for the limits of lecture-centred delivery, yet its educational value depends less on the existence of an online platform than on how digital and face-to-face activities are sequenced. This article develops an integrative conceptual review of hybrid pedagogy in vocationally oriented management education. Drawing on literature on blended learning, constructive alignment, experiential learning, digital competence, and student engagement, it identifies two pedagogical pathways through which hybrid design may strengthen applied management learning: the development of digital capability and the formation of multidimensional engagement. Digital capability is treated as students' capacity to use digital tools for inquiry, collaboration, evidence handling, communication, and reflective task completion. Student engagement is understood as behavioral, cognitive, emotional, social, and agentic participation in learning. The article proposes a course-level framework in which well-designed online preparation, in-class problem work, collaborative case analysis, feedback, and assessment alignment combine to support applied learning outcomes. The review suggests that hybrid management courses are most effective when technology functions as a scaffold for practice rather than as a repository for content.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). Pfeiffer.

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

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

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770

Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The digital competence framework for citizens. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

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

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., et al. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462