Hybrid classrooms, a learning setup where some learners are physically in the room while others join remotely (often at the same time, sometimes on a rotating basis), can feel like you’re teaching two courses at once: one in the room and one online. Team-Based Learning (TBL) can reduce that split—if the design protects what makes TBL work (teams, accountability, and application of knowledge).
Below is a practical, evidence-informed guide to what works most often.
Hybrid TBL is TBL delivered with mixed participation modes (some learners physically present, others remote—often synchronously). The important point is that “hybrid” changes delivery, not pedagogy. TBL still relies on linked components such as strategically formed teams, individual and team readiness assurance, application exercises, and peer evaluation.
In hybrid, the learning environment becomes a “two-room” setup (physical + virtual). That means hybrid TBL is not only about running TBL activities; it’s also about ensuring equitable participation across both rooms—so remote learners aren’t reduced to observers.
Hybrid TBL is growing because it offers a practical balance: more flexibility for attendance, without giving up the team interaction and accountability that make TBL effective. This format makes it possible to keep the TBL cycle running, ensuring student cognitive engagement, accountability, and confidence, even when full in-person attendance isn’t possible.
It’s also gaining traction as a response to a common issue in extended fully online delivery: reduced interpersonal interaction can weaken team cohesion and the overall learning experience. Hybrid formats are often adopted to rebuild that relational “glue” while still supporting access and continuity.
There’s also accumulating evidence that hybrid TBL can strengthen learning behaviors and engagement outcomes. In a required self-care course using a hybrid TBL format, students reported improvements across areas such as knowledge, communication/professional skills, and teamwork, alongside stronger preparation habits.
Hybrid TBL can work extremely well, but it has more “moving parts” than fully in-person delivery. Because teams are distributed across a physical and virtual space, engagement depends not only on the quality of the TBL design, but also on how equitably participation is managed, how smoothly logistics run, and how confidently learners collaborate and speak up. It also depends on technology stability—reliable internet, stable audio/video, and clear support when something breaks mid-session. Some common challenges in hybrid TBL are:
Hybrid discussions generate more input streams—remote chat and audio plus in-room comments and non-verbal cues. Without deliberate routines to surface and respond to these inputs, online contributions can be overlooked. Over time, this can make remote learners quieter and reduce the sense that one shared discussion is happening.
Even when academic performance is similar, learners may rate teamwork interdependence and interpersonal interaction lower in online TBL environments. That matters for hybrid because teams still have to debate, decide, and build trust—yet “reduced deliberation” (conflict avoidance) can flatten discussion and weaken engagement.
Hybrid TBL depends on reliable audio. If the in-room audio-visual system isn’t well integrated with the video-conferencing platform, audio feedback and sound interference can disrupt conversation. When participants can’t hear clearly (or are distracted by audio problems), contributions drop and team deliberation becomes less effective.
Hybrid teams need time to build trust, routines, and shared accountability—especially when some members may be remote on any given day. Consistent teams make it easier to coordinate communication, divide tasks, and debate decisions without spending energy “starting over.” If there’s a need to reshuffle (e.g., unavoidable attendance constraints), keep it limited and predictable so teams still develop momentum over time.
Hybrid teams work best when “how we communicate” is defined upfront. These norms prevent remote learners from becoming silent observers and reduce frustration when discussion gets busy. A simple team agreement (roles, turn-taking, how to raise questions, how to document decisions) makes participation more equitable and keeps the focus on reasoning. In addition, setting class-level agreements can make expectations consistent across all teams—for example: how chat will be used, how remote learners “raise a hand,” when cameras/mics are expected on or off, what happens when someone drops due to connectivity, and how the facilitator will balance speaking time across the room and online.
Hybrid engagement can drop when students bounce between multiple tools for readiness tests, team work, reporting, and feedback. A single platform keeps the session “flow” intact: learners know where to go next, teams can submit answers consistently, and facilitators can monitor progress without hunting across systems. This is especially helpful when attendance mode changes, because the process stays the same whether students are in-room or remote.
Hybrid has more moving parts, so small glitches can quietly turn into disengagement—especially for remote learners. Short check-ins help: confirm audibility, repeat key instructions, clarify the next step, and pause to invite questions from the online side. These moments don’t have to be lengthy; they simply create reassurance that both groups are tracking and included. Over time, predictable check-ins reduce confusion, improve participation, and make the pace feel manageable for everyone.
Hybrid is easier when responsibilities are split: one person leads the learning flow and debrief, while another monitors chat, supports breakout logistics, and surfaces remote questions. If dedicated staff aren’t available, a rotating role (TA or “online room lead”) can still improve parity. This reduces facilitator overload and helps ensure online contributions are seen and valued—one of the fastest ways to prevent engagement dropping on the remote side.
Hybrid TBL can reduce the “two courses at once” feeling by keeping one shared learning cycle across in-room and remote learners. The most common barriers are practical: technical challenges, higher facilitation load across multiple input channels, and team dynamics. What consistently helps is staying structured—keep teams stable, set clear participation norms, have a centralized TBL platform, and build in micro check-ins so remote learners don’t drift. When these pieces are in place, hybrid TBL doesn't just preserve the TBL experience—it adapts it thoughtfully for a more flexible learning environment.