Hybrid Education: a dynamic and participatory educational ecosystem

To begin a thorough study on hybrid education, it is essential to clarify that this concept goes far beyond the simple combination of face-to-face teaching and distance learning. In view of the rapid technological and cultural transformations impacting education, it becomes crucial to understand hybrid education as a complex educational ecosystem, which integrates spaces, times, methodologies and technologies into a dynamic and collaborative system. Moreover, it is essential to explore the evolution of pedagogical practices, highlighting the shift from active methodologies — centered on the individual protagonism of the student — to participatory methodologies that emphasize the collective construction of knowledge and the active participation of all those involved in the teaching-learning process. This deeper understanding allows not only a theoretical grasp of the theme, but also guides the effective implementation of public policies and innovative educational practices, aligned with contemporary demands for flexibility, inclusion and engagement.

Hybrid education emerges as an innovative proposition that goes beyond the mere joining of face-to-face teaching and distance learning mediated by digital technologies. It is a multifaceted educational ecosystem that integrates spaces, times, methodologies and technologies, shaping a pedagogical environment that is dynamic, flexible and contextualized.

In Rede de Inovação para a Educação Híbrida (RIEH), hybrid education is defined as the planned combination and integration of face-to-face and non-face-to-face activities mediated by digital technologies, with the aim of extending educational times and spaces without losing student protagonism (Brasil, 2024; Lima, 2024). This definition — which I also defend — shows that hybrid education is more than a teaching model: it is an educational ecosystem where different environments (face-to-face, virtual, cultural, environmental) and methods articulate to promote continuous and meaningful learning experiences.

It is important to highlight that hybrid education is not reduced to online teaching combined with face-to-face work, as defined by Curtis J. Bonk & Charles Graham (2006). It involves innovation in curricular and pedagogical organization, expanding the flexibility for students to learn according to their rhythms and styles (Micheal B. Horn; Staker, 2015), and promoting teaching–learning processes that connect knowledge, practices and technologies in collaborative networks (George Siemens, 2004).

The hybrid education ecosystem is composed of physical and technological infrastructure — virtual learning environments (VLE), digital repositories, laboratories — and innovation nuclei that connect educational actors in an integrated network. Digital technologies are not merely utilitarian instruments, but part of the cultural and social environment that influences and is influenced by educational processes (Manuel Castells, 2003). Thus, digital culture and artificial intelligence become central elements to building innovative, inclusive and democratizing pedagogical practices.

In this sense, a historical conception must be revisited. Historically, active methodologies emerged to reposition the student as the protagonist of learning — encouraging them to become agents in the construction of knowledge through practices such as project-based learning, problem solving and group discussions. These methodologies, although often associated with the use of technologies, are based primarily on engagement and active construction of knowledge.

However, in the context of hybrid education, there is a shift towards participatory methodologies, which expand the focus from the individual student to collective participation and collaborative social practice (Araújo, 2018). Participatory methodologies are founded on four pillars: participation, sharing, collaboration and cooperation — promoting knowledge construction in environments of interaction between teachers and students who act together as mediators, organizers and agents of the educational process (Lima, 2024). This approach values the relationship between school knowledge and social practices, reinforcing an education embedded in real sociocultural contexts.

As we can see, implementing hybrid education requires — beyond technological infrastructure and internet access — a specialized techno-pedagogical training to prepare teachers and managers for dealing with the complexity of the hybrid ecosystem (Ferreira; Pimentel, 2023). Educational management must consider public policies that ensure digital inclusion, guarantee flexibility of spaces and times, and foster the effective participation of all subjects in the educational process.

The main challenge is to maintain continuous engagement and interaction among participants — a fundamental requirement for hybrid education to be effective (Pimentel et al., 2024). For this, it is essential to develop participatory methodologies that take into account the students’ contexts, promote synchronous and asynchronous contextualized interactions, and value active, critical participation of learners.

Thus arises the proposal to advance the conceptual understanding of hybrid education as an educational ecosystem — representing an integrated and innovative response to the contemporary demands of education in a highly digitalized and interconnected world. Its educational practice evolves from student protagonism in active methodologies to the collective, critical and participatory construction of knowledge. This educational model opens paths to a more inclusive, flexible and socially committed education, aligned with the principles of digital culture and active citizenship.

Here are some resources for further reading:

ARAÚJO, J. C. S. Da Metodologia Ativa à Metodologia Participativa. In: VEIGA, I. P. A. (Org.) Metodologia Participativa e as Técnicas de Ensino-aprendizagem. Curitiba: CRV 2017. p. 17-54.

BRASIL. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Câmara de Educação Básica. Resolução CNE/CEB nº 2, de 13 de novembro de 2024. Institui as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para o Ensino Médio – DCNEM. Diário Oficial da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, 14 nov. 2024. Disponível em: https://abmes.org.br/legislacoes/detalhe/4968/resolucao-cne-ceb-n-2 . Acesso em: 10 abr. 2025.

CASTELLS, M. A galáxia da internet: reflexões sobre a Internet, os negócios e a sociedade. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003.

FERREIRA, L. F. S.; PIMENTEL, F. S. C. FORMAÇÃO DE PROFESSORES PARA INCORPORAÇÃO DAS TECNOLOGIAS DIGITAIS NA EDUCAÇÃO SUPERIOR. Cadernos de Pesquisa, v. 30, n. 2, p. 303–321, 30 Jun 2023 Disponível em: https://periodicoseletronicos.ufma.br/index.php/cadernosdepesquisa/article/view/1706. Acesso em: 7 nov 2025.

GRAHAM, C. Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R.Graham (ORG.). The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, p.136-149, 2006

HORN, M. B.; STAKER, H. Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2015.

LIMA, D. C. B. P. Educação Híbrida em Contexto com a RIEH: Conceito e Orientações Pedagógicas. Maceió: Edufal, 2024.

PIMENTEL, F. S. C.; RITA, L. P. S.; PINTO, I. M. B. S.; JUNIOR, N. B. dos S.; AMARO, M. J. R. Educação Híbrida na formação de gestores: uma visão experiencial dos impactos e desafios. EmRede - Revista de Educação a Distância, [S. l.], v. 11, 2024. DOI: 10.53628/emrede.v11i.1080. Disponível em: https://www.aunirede.org.br/revista/index.php/emrede/article/view/1080. Acesso em: 7 nov. 2025.

SIEMENS, G. Elearnspace. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. org, p. 14-16, 2004. Disponível em: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=arep1&type=pdf&doi=f87c61b964e32786e06c969fd24f5a7d9426f3b4 Acesso em: 7 nov 2025.

A Formação de Pedagogos e os Desafios da Educação Não Formal

 

Acaba de ser publicado um novo artigo que aprofunda uma discussão essencial, mas ainda pouco explorada na formação docente: a preparação dos pedagogos para atuar na Educação Não Formal.

Embora as Diretrizes Curriculares apontem para uma formação ampla, o estudo revela que, na prática, os cursos de Pedagogia, incluindo o da Universidade Federal de Alagoas, continuam concentrados quase exclusivamente na Educação Formal. O resultado? Profissionais que ingressam no campo educativo carregando lacunas importantes, especialmente quando precisam intervir em espaços sociais, culturais e comunitários que não seguem a lógica escolar tradicional.

Neste artigo analisamos essas lacunas a partir de um Diagrama de Ishikawa e propomos uma Teoria da Mudança, organizando causas, evidências e caminhos possíveis para transformar essa realidade. Além disso, apresenta pesquisas nacionais e internacionais que mostram o potencial transformador da Educação Não Formal e defendem a urgência de integrá-la, de fato, à formação inicial dos pedagogos.

Por que vale a leitura?

• Você entenderá como o currículo dos cursos de Pedagogia ainda marginaliza a Educação Não Formal.

• Verá exemplos reais de como esse campo pode impactar positivamente crianças, jovens e comunidades.

• Terá acesso a uma análise sólida, fundamentada e visualmente organizada sobre o porquê a formação atual não dá conta desse desafio.

• E, principalmente, poderá refletir sobre como formar pedagogos mais preparados, críticos e conscientes da amplitude de sua atuação.

Acesse o artigo completo e descubra por que a Educação Não Formal precisa urgentemente deixar de ser coadjuvante na formação docente.

Disponível em: https://fafire.emnuvens.com.br/lumen/article/view/837

SANTOS, Débora Letícia da Silva; SANTOS, Maria Jordana Cavalcanti; PIMENTEL, Fernando Silvio Cavalcante. Formação de Pedagogos: uma análise da educação não formal no projeto pedagógico curricular do curso de Pedagogia da Universidade Federal de Alagoas. Revista Lumen, Recife, v. 34, n. 1, p. 106–127, 2025. Disponível em: https://fafire.emnuvens.com.br/lumen/article/view/837. Acesso em: 7 dez. 2025.