On 15 March 2020, the South African government announced a National State of Disaster, which saw the first lockdown of the country, in line with other countries across the world (Staunton et al. 2020:2–3). The lockdowns restricted movement and assembly, which meant learning, at all levels, abruptly stopped. At a time when teaching and learning was completely face-to-face, the COVID-19 pandemic fast-tracked the steady strides being made towards the inclusion of technology in teaching and learning, pivoting to purely online learning or remote learning. This created challenges for students and staff on issues of access (Mhlanga 2021:16–18).

The negative aspect was that the divide in technology readiness meant that countries that did not have widespread required infrastructure, like some areas in South Africa, continued to be left behind, and students and learners who did not have access to technology were deprived from valuable education for months, and in certain instances for years, as some authors anticipated at the time (Mpungose 2020:5–6; Naidoo & Cartwright 2020:12). Post the hardships of the impact of the pandemic lockdowns and forced remote learning, HE institutions had to take stock and critically evaluate not only resources as a tool to improving academic performance but to also investigate what impact on learning preferences could mean for the academic performance of students (DHET, SA 2020; Ligami 2022; Mail & Guardian 2022).

As the world struggles to ‘return to normal’, there is now a shift in thinking towards a ‘new normal’ with how educational systems will function going forward. Basic research on learned experiences needs to be built into all planning to ensure the gap between intended outcomes and the lived experiences of students in HE are fully understood. The critical issue is that blended and hybrid learning models cannot be successfully implemented on their own in the South African context. A comprehensive study of HE students in South Africa conducted by Netanda, Mamabolo and Themane (2019:403–405) ranked forms of preferred university support for students; the top three forms of support being directed to financial, academic, and emotional support. These strategies require certain supportive mechanisms for university students, in a bid to respond to students’ needs for academic success (Naidoo & Cartwright 2020:12; Ogbuanya & Efuwape 2018; Swartz, Gachago & Belford 2018:51; Tan 2017:157:8; Tseng & Walsh 2016:11).

Blended learning is identified as a migration from traditional face-to-face learning (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton 2018:15) or a ‘continuum between pure face-to-face and fully online settings’ (Watson 2008:5). In evaluating the success of blended and hybrid models, institutions are guided by circumstances that could necessitate implementation, availability of resources, and suitability of the blended and hybrid models. There are four main blended learning structures in HE with different approaches, which are relevant to tourism programmes at UoTs (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton 2018:16):

Universities operate with the majority view of blended and/or hybrid learning being the move from ‘traditional or face-to-face or in-person’ tuition, towards ‘online or technology-enabled teaching’ without fully considering the type of mode being used to blend learning activities (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton 2018:11). These terms are used interchangeably in educational research (Graham 2013:334). Blended learning is considered as the model that proposes activities that introduce the use of technology. Models include activities that combine face-to-face instruction and technology-mediated instruction (Saichaie 2020:96) with other blends, inverting learning activities, where students can individually participate, such as watching videos, reading resources, and learning from second-hand experiences and, in turn, bring their experiences to the classroom to reflect on (Saichaie 2020:97).

On the other hand, the hybrid model is described as the complete change of the face-to-face learning environment to purely online learning, within the education context (Anthony, Kamaludin & Romli 2022:532). Where blended learning indicates the augmenting of face-to-face tuition with technology, hybrid-learning leads to the reduction of face-to-face tuition and student activities to purely online activities (Saichaie 2020:97). This approach is varied to the broad work-place definition of hybrid setting, which seeks to explain the bringing together of face-to-face and online environments, in order to maintain an equilibrium between online and offline learning settings. In the learning environment, the term hybrid learning is widely used to imply that learning could migrate from a teacher or lecturer focus to a more student focus, or self-reliant basis where students produce a product, perform a skill, or demonstrate their knowledge in the process of learning (Bosman & Schulze 2018:5).

The CHE (2020:4) report has emphasised a recovery approach as a response to COVID-19 impacts. The recovery, termed ERT, included systems and programmes that were put in place to continue the education agenda during strict lockdowns and noted a:

As a way to assess the successes and challenges of the interventions that were put in place during the ERT, an understanding of the benefits and challenges experienced by students during remote learning should shed some light on the effectiveness of, as well as impact on, remote learning plans (Twesige et al. 2021:148). A study by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), in South Africa, reviewing the progress of remote learning, indicated challenges students had experienced with remote learning (DHET, SA 2020:50–51). The study pointed to the requirements by HE for purposeful attention to the implementation of support requirements for students, in ensuring that hybrid and blended learning as a consideration for a future HE strategy, should be carefully approached, so that further imbalances in the education system are mitigated. As Coetzee et al. (2021:8–10) advise, HE institutions must consider how students are going to be supported and empowered through adaptions to HE pedagogy in the 21st Century.

Studies in the field of remote or distance learning rely on the COI model (Le Roux & Nagel 2018:5), as well as Vygosky’s model (Mosdorf, Kilon & Ignatowska 2010:25), for direction. For a study on learning preferences, the limitations of the models are that although the sense of community of learning is critical for online learning, student preferences do not only rely on this aspect alone. Learning preferences are shaped by students’ personal attributes, and teaching and learning practices (McGhie 2012:192–193). Pre-2020, studies that evaluated blended learning focused more on practice and student satisfaction than preferences (Tseng & Walsh 2016:46), as well as successes of blended and/or hybrid learning implemented for courses (Harahap et al. 2019:524). Some studies reported on the novelty of teaching practice, the limitations of assessing student preferences of blended and hybrid models being used in courses, and support mechanisms offered by universities for blended learning (Swartz et al. 2018; Tekane, Pilcher & Potgieter 2020).

A study by Jugmohan (2010:35–39) pointed to a mismatch between tourism students’ expectations of their learning experience, curriculum designers regarding suitable tourism students, and tourism employers regarding work-ready graduates. This article also considered factors highlighted by McGhie (2012) that have an impact on the progress of first year students at universities in South Africa, academic factors, social factors, and institutional factors.

There is a need for the body of knowledge on blended and hybrid learning to continually include the student voice, in terms of experiences of the various models and classes, or blends being implemented, in various academic fields. This in an effort to get closer to discovering a model that benefits both learning and teaching (Costa et al. 2019:398; Dlamini, Bayaga & Moyo 2021:35) in the context of developing economies. Most importantly, there is a need to unearth possible unrealised benefits of hybrid models that are disrupting the traditional teaching-learning, and offering better teaching practices to accommodate students who might not have benefited from traditional teaching modes (Celestino & Yamamoto 2020:4).

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the CPUT research ethics committee (No. 2021_FBMSREC 050).

To investigate students’ preferred learning styles, a Likert scale of opinion questions was included in this section of the survey. The results were compared by gender and indicated no relational influences. The Chi-square value was above 0.05 (p = > 0.05), thus indicating no relationship between student learning preferences and gender.

The data indicated a preference for the ‘read and write’ learning style, with negative feedback of the auditory learning style. Students indicated a preference for making their own notes (49.79% = agree and 30.21% = strongly agree) while 48.09% agreed to the statement that they try and find additional information, and read to understand the subject matter. With regard to study groups, 48.31% of students disagreed that they study with classmates in groups, which is in line with the preference to study alone shown in Table 1.

An optional question with an open-ended choice was also asked to reference the learning style preferences, shown in Table 2, where a total of n = 209 responses were captured for this question. Table 2 reveals a preference for a kinaesthetic learning style (94, n = 45%), where students prefer to actively answer mock questions to learn concepts (as revealed by Mlambo 2011:82). The learning style is followed closely by the read and write learning style (70, n = 33.5%) as students indicated a preference for reading ‘content to be learnt’, which is in line with the preference for reading data captured, as shown in Table 1. Six ‘other’ responses (2.9%) indicated in the open-ended questions were an orientation towards a combination of styles, and a preference for a read and write learning preference. Students who preferred the auditory learning style numbered 39 (n = 18.7%). No statements directing to a preference for visual learning were captured in the responses.

An assumption can be drawn from the data presented to a preference for the reading and writing learning style by Tourism Management students, with kinaesthetic preferences as well, for a preference to study alone. Compared with other studies (e.g. Mkonto 2015) using the model to assess student learning preferences in SA, the study by Mkonto (2015) of students across faculties indicated a preference for a practical hands-on learning (kinaesthetic) style. A study on secondary school students conducted by Bosman and Schulze (2018:5) pointed to a hands-on active approach to learning, with students preferring to study alone more than in groups. The latter study assessed performances and reported higher performances in learners who opted for the kinaesthetic and read and/or write learning styles.

One question of the focus group interviews was designed for respondents to curate their best university experience: the question was asked, ‘if you could design the perfect university student experience from an academic point of view, what would it look like’? The results, presented in summary format, indicated three factors critical for the consideration of the perfect university experience for students. These revealed factor responses ranged from a blended class approach with some of the blends indicating a preference for face-to-face, consultations or active learning scenarios tuition (factor 1), aid for students with regard to access (factor 2), and a preference for qualification aligned blends (factor 3). Responses from two participating UoTs were received. Following the disruption of the CPUT focus group interviews because of electricity blackouts, responses were further submitted via e-mail. A total of N = 8 participants were coded according to university of participation.

Factor 1: Blended and/or hybrid approach, with a preference for face-to-face tuition: Throughout the interview process respondents had indicated a requirement for classes that offered personal or social connections that face-to-face classes offered. In answering the question about the design of the ‘perfect’ university experience, respondents further cemented the notion that, although blended and/or hybrid tuition could be considered as a future mode of teaching and learning, there are benefits for students:

Factor 2: Aid for students regarding access: Responses from the focus group interviews indicated three areas students viewed as critical areas of assistance.

The first identified type of aid was career guidance, with the respondent indicating that:

This finding compares with the survey results where students were asked if tourism management was their first-choice qualification, revealing interesting data on how some students’ first course choice qualifications included nursing, education, paralegal studies, and policing. Career guidance as an intervention mostly actioned in the former years of schooling could be an indication that a gap exists with regard to the knowledge students possess about career choices, even at the university level.

The other two forms of aid identified were assistance with study materials such as printing and study books, assistance with data for online connectivity, as well as transport for access to campus:

Factor 3: Tourism curriculum design for aligned blends: The design of the COVID-19 response plan for academic institutions revealed a bias towards face-to-face teaching during the lockdowns, preferred to what was considered ‘lab’ subjects, clearly indicating that there were subjects, which could not be taught remotely because of complex requirements, for example, experimentation or development. As a consideration tourism management curriculum designers could consider subjects not suitable for online learning for the qualification when hybrid and/or blended models are put in place at UoTs:

Students’ learning preferences revealed a more active learning approach, with kinaesthetic learning preferences scoring high for both face-to-face and online live classes, while remote learning practices pointed to a more self-focused, flexible approach, with the converger learning style being predominant. A study by Mkonto (2015:219–220) at a South African UoT indicated similar results of Engineering and Health and Science students who preferred kinaesthetic in the classroom, while responses pointed to a preference for ‘diverger’ learning as respondents indicated that they conducted research on new content before either attending class or discussing elements they did not understand with peers, similar to findings by Graham (2013:18) and Smith-Labrash (2010:35).