The rise in online learning, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to greater use of synchronous hybrid learning (SHL) in higher education. SHL allows simultaneous teaching of in-person and online learners through videoconferencing tools. Previous studies have identified various benefits (e.g., flexibility) and challenges (e.g., student engagement) to SHL. Whilst systematic reviews have emerged on this topic, few studies have considered the experiences of staff. The aim of this review was threefold: (i) to better understand how staff experiences and perceptions are assessed, (ii) to understand staff experiences in terms of the benefits and challenges of SHL and (iii) to identify recommendations for effective teaching and learning using SHL. In line with the PRISMA guidance, we conducted a systematic review across four databases, identifying 14 studies for inclusion. Studies were conducted in nine different countries and covered a range of academic disciplines. Most studies adopted qualitative methods, with small sample sizes. Measures used were typically novel and unvalidated. Four themes were identified relating to (i) technology, (ii) redesigning teaching and learning, (iii) student engagement and (iv) staff workload. In terms of recommendations, ensuring adequate staff training and ongoing classroom support were considered essential. Additionally, active and collaborative learning were considered important to address issues with interactivity. Whilst these findings largely aligned with previous work, this review also identified limited reporting in research in this area, and future studies are needed to address this.

University students are typically highly sedentary, which is associated with adverse physical and mental health outcomes. Attempts to understand university students’ sedentary behaviour have typically focused on on-campus teaching and learning activities. While such research has documented that students perceive studying as one of the main barriers to reducing sedentary behaviour, there is little understanding of how and why studying incurs sitting, especially during home-based studying. We investigated how students’ experience sitting when studying at home. Fourteen UK undergraduates (10 female; mean age = 20 years) participated in semi-structured interviews that explored their experiences, beliefs, and attitudes regarding sitting while studying at home. Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Four themes were constructed, focusing on knowledge and attitudes towards sitting, prioritisation of study tasks, sitting as an integral part of the study environment, and sitting as part of the optimal mental ‘zone’. Whilst participants demonstrated awareness of the potential health risks associated with prolonged sitting they prioritised productivity when studying at home and believed that interrupting their sitting would compromise productivity, making home-based studying particularly conducive to sedentary behaviour. These findings suggest that intervention designers should more explicitly consider the home environment when aiming to reduce student sedentary behaviour and should seek to reduce sitting in a way that promotes, or at least does not interfere with, productivity.

The field of neuroeducation, which integrates neuroscience findings into educational practice, has gained significant attention in recent years. Establishing research priorities in neuroeducation is crucial for guiding future studies and ensuring that the field benefits both neuroscience and education. This study aimed to address the need for collaboration between neuroscientists and educators by conducting a priority-setting exercise with early career professionals from both fields. Using the nominal group technique (NGT) with interquartile range (IQR) analysis, we identified seven key priorities in neuroeducation and assessed the level of consensus on these priorities. The top-ranked priorities were “Emotional and Mental Well-being”, “Neurodiversity and Special Education Needs”, and “Active and Inclusive Teaching Methods”, though IQR analysis revealed varying levels of consensus. Lower-ranked priorities, such as “Role of Technology on Learning and the Brain”, showed a higher consensus. This discrepancy between ranking and consensus highlights the complex nature of neuroeducation, reflecting differing perspectives between neuroscientists and educators. These findings suggest the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to bridge these gaps and foster evidence-based practices. We recommend that future research focuses on the specific neural mechanisms underlying emotional well-being, strategies for supporting neurodivergent learners, and practical approaches to integrating inclusive teaching methods in diverse educational contexts.

University students often exhibit high levels of sedentary behaviour (SB) and low levels of physical activity (PA). Previous efforts to increase students’ movement have focused on leisure-time PA or overlooked the university environment and the education system. Embedding PA into university education offers one potentially fruitful avenue for increasing student movement, yet understanding is needed of how and why the university education system influences students’ movement before effective interventions can be developed. This study used a novel behavioural systems mapping method to explore the perceived behaviours, actors, and influences affecting students’ PA and SB during university education. The aim of this exploratory study was to develop a preliminary behavioural systems map based on a combined dataset of interviews with 20 university students and 38 staff in a variety of roles. Data were qualitatively analysed to construct a map of the perceived actors, behaviours, and influences affecting students’ movement behaviours, as well as perceived causal links between them. Influences were further analysed using the capability, opportunity, and motivation model of behaviour (COM-B). The resulting map would need further data input and corroboration to be considered a comprehensive map, yet the results presented in this study provide a useful starting point in this regard. The final map had over 100 elements and connections in total, with 31 different behaviours performed by various actors identified, demonstrating the system complexity as described by participants. Three clusters of behaviours and influences were identified: student movement in classes, student movement in private study time, and wider system influences and behaviours. Across all clusters, a key behaviour perceived as influential by participants was policy makers prioritising student movement in decision making, suggesting policy-level change is essential for long-term impact. Many identified barriers were related to physical or social opportunities, suggesting environmental restructuring may be key to embedding PA into university education. Many reflective motivation influences that may need addressing in future intervention research were also identified, such as believing that PA is worthwhile to implement. Overall, while policy-level change is needed to catalyse some of the environmental changes needed, this study suggests opportunities may exist to support students to increase movement during private study time, where fewest barriers were identified.