Remote teaching can preserve alignment while weakening peer collaboration
Updated Jun 26, 2026
Remote or hybrid delivery is often judged too quickly. Universities tend to ask whether students liked the convenience, then miss how study mode changes feedback, collaboration, confidence, and energy at the same time. At Student Voice AI, we see that trade-off repeatedly in student voice data: flexibility can solve real access problems while still making study feel more isolated. That is why Ellinor Elmvik, Erika Lofstrom, Solveig Corner, and Asa Mickwitz's Journal of Further and Higher Education paper, "Disrupted studying? University students' experiences of remote vs. on-site teaching and learning", matters for UK universities comparing remote, on-site, and hybrid provision.
Context and research question
The pandemic forced universities to compare teaching modes under pressure, but many institutions are still working out what they learned from that shift. Remote delivery is no longer only an emergency measure. It now sits in wider debates about digital provision, flexibility, commuter access, and hybrid design. For UK higher education teams, the practical question is no longer whether remote study happened. It is how remote and on-site environments shape the student experience differently, and which differences should guide future course design.
Elmvik and colleagues address that question by comparing students' experiences of the teaching-learning environment, academic self-efficacy, approaches to learning, and study-related burnout across four survey points. They used the electronic HowULearn questionnaire with social science and education students during on-site study in spring 2018 and spring 2019, with 207 respondents, and during remote study in spring 2020 and spring 2021, with 166 respondents. The analysis combined factor analysis, t-tests, variance analysis, and regression analysis. That makes the paper useful for UK teams because it moves beyond broad preference questions and compares mode-related patterns in a structured way.
Key findings
The most important starting point is that remote study did not automatically collapse the teaching-learning environment. In general, students still saw their studying as constructively aligned during remote teaching. That matters because it suggests institutions can preserve coherence between teaching, tasks, and expectations even when delivery changes. The practical issue is not simply whether remote learning works, but which parts of the student experience weaken first.
One of the more striking findings is that students experienced feedback as more rewarding during remote teaching. The authors suggest that feedback may matter more when teaching feels less direct and less readily available. For UK universities, that is an important reminder that feedback is not only an assessment issue. In lower-contact environments, it can become one of the clearest signals that students are being seen, guided, and supported.
"They also found the feedback more rewarding during remote teaching"
The main loss was peer collaboration. Students reported more difficulty finding opportunities to work with or learn alongside peers during remote study than during on-site teaching. That fits with wider evidence on why students choose online or on-campus participation in hybrid teaching: flexibility can widen access, but it often weakens the informal and low-friction interaction that helps students feel part of a learning community. If peer exchange becomes harder, institutions can preserve access while still losing some of the conditions that sustain engagement.
Remote students also felt more emotionally exhausted. That finding matters because it connects teaching mode to wellbeing and sustainability, not just satisfaction or convenience. A remote experience can appear functional in operational terms while still demanding more emotional effort from students. For student experience teams, that means mode comparisons should include energy, strain, and recovery, not only usability.
Academic self-efficacy also looked different under remote study. In the remote cohort, self-efficacy was shaped by unreflective studying and increased cynicism in ways that differed from the on-site cohort. That is a useful warning for universities interpreting survey data. Remote provision may not simply shift attitudes in one direction. It can change the relationships between confidence, study habits, and exhaustion, which is exactly why open-text feedback is needed alongside closed questions.
Practical implications
The first implication for UK universities is to compare teaching modes across several dimensions at once. A simple question about whether students are satisfied with remote or hybrid delivery will miss too much. Teams should track alignment, feedback usefulness, peer collaboration, self-efficacy, and emotional exhaustion together, because these factors do not move in lockstep. That gives institutions a more decision-ready picture of what flexibility is helping and what it is quietly eroding.
Second, universities should treat feedback as a key design feature in remote and hybrid study, not a supporting extra. If students find feedback more rewarding when teaching is less direct, that suggests feedback is doing relational as well as academic work. Institutions should ask what kinds of comments students are leaving about clarity, availability, and reassurance, then analyse those responses with a defensible open-text methodology so the signal is not lost in anecdote. That helps teams protect one of the few parts of remote teaching that students may value more strongly.
Third, institutions should look specifically for peer-collaboration gaps in student comments and pulse surveys. This study suggests that the biggest weakness in remote provision is not necessarily instructional organisation. It is the reduced ease of learning with others. Add prompts such as "What makes it easy or difficult to learn with other students on this course?" and compare answers by mode, year group, and commuter pattern. That makes it easier to redesign group work, contact points, and community-building with a clear operational target.
Finally, universities should connect remote-study evidence to belonging and wellbeing work. If students can still see a course as coherent while feeling more emotionally exhausted and less able to collaborate, institutions need to interpret those results together rather than in separate reporting streams. That sits closely beside recent evidence that post-pandemic flexibility can widen access while weakening belonging. The benefit is a more honest reading of flexible provision, one that protects access without overlooking isolation or strain.
FAQ
Q: How should a university compare remote and on-site study in a way that leads to useful action?
A: Use the same core questions across modes, then add one or two open-text prompts about feedback, collaboration, and energy. That allows you to compare whether students see the course as coherent, whether they feel supported, and where remote or hybrid design is making participation harder. The most useful comparisons are usually by cohort, subject area, and mode of attendance, not only across the whole institution.
Q: What are the methodological limits of this study?
A: This paper compares students in social science and education subjects across four survey waves, with on-site responses from 2018 and 2019 and remote responses from 2020 and 2021. That gives it a stronger comparative design than a single cross-sectional survey, but it is still shaped by one institutional context and by a period of emergency remote teaching rather than mature online design. UK teams should treat it as strong practice-relevant evidence, then test the same questions in their own context.
Q: What does this change about student voice practice more broadly?
A: It reinforces that mode-of-study questions should not be reduced to convenience or attendance. Student voice becomes more useful when universities ask how feedback, peer contact, confidence, and exhaustion fit together. Open comments are especially valuable here, because they show whether flexible delivery feels liberating, lonely, better supported, or all three at once.
References
[Paper Source]: Ellinor Elmvik, Erika Lofstrom, Solveig Corner, Asa Mickwitz "Disrupted studying? University students' experiences of remote vs. on-site teaching and learning" DOI: 10.1080/0309877x.2026.2691027
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround