The last few years have witnessed an unprecedented shift in the higher education sector, largely driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. In a world now marked by social distancing and institutional shutdowns, the need to develop online teaching approaches quickly compelled every university around the globe to continue learning (Bozkurt et al., 2020). E-learning and digital platforms provided the much-needed flexibility and access at this stage of disruption. Simultaneously, the persistence of on-campus teaching continued, particularly in classes that incorporated laboratory sessions, clinical sessions, or group learning processes (Elumalai et al., 2021). With limitations being loosened, institutions came to the realisation that online and on-campus teaching cannot continue to be sustained in the long run. The issue was rather to achieve a successful compromise between the two methods and shift towards the hybrid or blended learning systems that would combine the merits of both. The change has transformed the notion of hybrid teaching as a momentary fix to a strategic interest area in universities aiming to guarantee resilience, inclusivity, and quality of education (Pucciarelli and Kaplan, 2022).

Online and on-campus teaching is a more complex issue than merely providing material through alternative modes (Watson et al., 2023).  It also involves close coordination of institutional policies, organisational design, and cultural practices in a way that balances both types of education. To universities, this implies that they will no longer adopt technologies on an ad hoc basis, but rather through strategic management. The risk is that without an intentional strategy, online teaching will be a shallow addition to conventional techniques, rather than a substantial incorporation, which will eventually lead to student disengagement, ineffectiveness, and poor results (Bergdahl, 2022).  In this regard, it is essential for universities to understand the qualities that define the performance of online and on-campus learning, as well as how to effectively address these to provide sustainable hybrid education in tandem.

This paper presents a theoretical framework called Strategic Management Attributes to Achieving Balance between Online and On-Campus Teaching in Universities: A Way to Quality Education. The framework highlights four essential characteristics: Program Establishment, Faculty Capabilities, University Culture and Facilities, which directly impact the performance of online and on-campus teaching (Shao et al., 2024). A combination of these features defines the degree to which the hybrid systems will be successful in providing effective and meaningful learning experiences. This framework contrasts with studies that have examined online and on-campus teaching separately, but it places the interdependence of the two at the core of the institutional strategy. Its association of attributes to online and on-campus outcomes recognises that hybrid education is not a sum of its components, but a dynamic system of teaching modes that requires coherence and synergy. This study focuses on strategic management rather than technological adoption. Although a substantial body of research on the effectiveness of e-learning systems, technology acceptance, and online student engagement is available, limited research clearly brings programmatic, human, cultural, and infrastructural attributes as co-determinants of hybrid teaching performance. This framework is based on the fact that it is not only online and on-campus effectiveness that need to be measured concurrently, and that the balance can be achieved only by addressing the underlying factors of an institution that determine both of them (Brown et al., 2022). By so doing, the research adds a clear and holistic dimension to the emerging discussion on hybrid education.

Addressing a significant gap in the literature serves as a key motivation for the research. The literature reviewed has primarily focused on the use of technology and student perceptions of e-learning during the pandemic. The study is useful for understanding the uptake of digital platforms and the challenges faced by learners. However, little has been said about how universities, especially in resource-constrained situations, can plan to align their programs, build faculty capacity, foster positive institutional cultures, and create sufficient facilities to support hybrid models of education. This disparity becomes notably pronounced in countries like Nepal, where higher education institutions struggle to overcome specific challenges related to geography, infrastructure, and limited resources. Lack of frameworks that reflect such contexts has brought about piecemeal advice to policymakers and administrators explaining the need of research that incorporates the strategic management qualities into the hybrid teaching frameworks (Pucciarelli and Kaplan, 2022).

The study has a threefold contribution. To start with, it presents a theoretical framework that theorizes hybrid education as a result of strategic coordinating attributes and not an accidental combination of online and on-campus practices. In doing so, it also provides a useful template that institutions can use to assess and improve their hybrid teaching performance. Second, the study situates hybrid education in the Nepalese context, where geographical factors, the lack of equal access to technology, and resource scarcity pose challenges that are not as prevalent as in developed countries. This contextual scope enriches the world discourse by highlighting the significance of adaptability and inclusiveness in hybrid strategies. Third, the framework provides practical guidelines to university leaders and policymakers. The study identifies program establishment, faculty readiness, institutional culture, and facilities as areas where decision-makers can make improvements, thus enabling them to focus their investments and reforms that can bring valuable changes to both students and faculty.

The importance of this framework goes beyond the academic analysis. In the case of universities, the issue of balance in teaching between online and on-campus teaching has a practical implication on student satisfaction, retention as well as general competitiveness of the institution. Modern students are becoming increasingly flexible and personalised, showing a growing interest in various learning methods and the social and practical experiences offered by campuses (Whalley et al., 2021). Under this model, institutions can enhance their response to these demands, allowing hybrid systems to not only be functional but also enriching. Furthermore, the framework emphasises that hybrid education is not a temporary measure, but a long-term strategy for creating resilient and adaptive universities that can withstand future disruptions. The framework is particularly relevant in the case of Nepal. The higher education sector is facing significant structural and logistical challenges due to the presence of fourteen operating universities spread across different regions. The mountainous terrain of the country, along with inequalities in connectivity and infrastructural constraints, tends to limit the availability of quality and uniform education. Some of these barriers can be overcome through a well-coordinated hybrid model that enables students in remote areas to access opportunities while retaining the necessary face-to-face experiences. The establishment of a suggested qualities program, faculty capabilities, university culture, and facilities provides a plan that universities can follow to handle such challenges strategically, developing inclusive and sustainable systems that can better serve students nationwide.

This research can be described as a welcome and timely contribution to the global discussion on hybrid teaching. It fulfils those gaps in the body of research and presents a new framework that will empower universities with a stepwise method of balancing online and on-campus education. It contributes both hypothetically to the advancement of understanding of hybrid teaching as a strategic management concern and practically, as it provides guidance to institutions that must navigate the post-pandemic education landscape. Through this, it not only enhances academic discourse but also provides real avenues through which universities, especially in developing contexts, can succeed in the ever-growing digital and competitive academic world.

Colleges and universities worldwide are transitioning from emergency online education to more considered hybrid approaches, leveraging the strengths of both digital and in-person education (Singh et al., 2021). The rationale behind this change is the necessity to integrate flexibility, access, and continuity with experiential learning, socialisation, and place-based practices (Korson, 2023). Although the literature on technology adoption and student acceptance is well-established, information about the strategic management of organisational contexts in which hybrid models are effective is relatively scarce (Al-Nuaimi et al., 2021; Gazi et al., 2025).

Hybrid delivery and performance in education

Research on online and hybrid teaching suggests that digital spaces can be effectively designed to scale, facilitate self-regulated learning, and support multimodal interaction (Eggers et al., 2024). Many theoretical and discussion-based units can achieve similar or even better results through simulation-based and mixed-mode designs, provided there is a consensus between assessment and interaction structures. Nevertheless, on-campus education is also essential to laboratories, clinical experience, instructional design studios, physical education, and community formation (Brown and Cain, 2025; Jiang et al., 2024). It is agreed that the performance is driven by the fit-for-purpose modality allocation, instead of an equal proportion of online time to face-to-face time (Campbell et al., 2021). This highlights the necessity of institutional processes that systematically assign learning objectives to their most effective modes of application and continually measure outcomes.

The other research findings about COVID-19 and post-pandemic education also emphasise that emergency remote learning does not equate to adult e-learning. The long-term benefits will require reliable governance, adequate resource provision, faculty development, and student support (Adil et al., 2024).  Technology acceptance models describe the intention to utilise e-learning, yet, individually, they are not enough to ensure the quality of learning or learning program coherence. It is the strategic management view that is required to combine program design, people's capabilities, culture, and infrastructure into a hybrid delivery system (MacKenzie, 2025).

Program Establishment (PE)

Curriculum architecture, sequencing, assessment design, and modality mapping at the program level are collectively referred to as program establishment (Harrison and Williams, 2023). Literature highlights that the e-learning environment is most effective when integrated into a coherent curricula system, rather than being added as a separate tool. Cross-institutional examinations throughout the pandemic reveal that explicit choices, such as whether assessments are online or on-campus, how assessments are responsive to mode, and how components of practice are scaffolded, are core to the scale effects of the results (Yao et al., 2025; Pansuwong et al., 2023). Programmatic design also facilitates the incorporation of industry placements, simulations, and project-based learning, which can be delivered in hybrid formats. Simply stated, PE will offer a roadmap that minimises fragmentation and promotes uniformity across modes of delivery.

Faculty Capabilities (FC)

In both modalities, faculty are the major sources of learning experiences. In addition to technical familiarity, digital pedagogy plays a central role in transforming content delivery into engagement (Bitar and Davidovich, 2024). Research has correlated the readiness and attitudes of faculty with actual LMS use and student outcomes, suggesting that institutions should invest in sustained professional growth, mentoring, and models of workload allocation, which acknowledges that design time is crucial for hybrid instruction. The practices of leadership and management are also important, as role clarity, recognition, and innovation opportunities are linked to enduring changes in teaching performance (Gading, 2024; Devi et al., 2024). The literature, therefore, posits FC as a mediating capacity that translates program intentions to executed pedagogy in online and on-campus environments.

University Culture (UC)

Culture influences the way policies are implemented and the manner in which individuals collaborate (Grover et al., 2022). The studies involving organisational and university culture focus on student-centred values, psychological safety for experimentation, and routines to normalise feedback and inclusive participation. UCs in hybrid contexts involve digital conduct norms (such as attendance, participation, and academic integrity), virtual community-building, and systems to reveal and respond to issues of equity (e.g., connectivity or device disparity). Organisations with conducive cultures adjust more quickly, repeat behaviours, and remain engaged, regardless of the medium (Ho et al., 2021; Hye et al., 2023). On the other hand, cultures that consider online learning secondary tend to experience reduced participation and poor results, despite having the same technology stacks. Therefore, UC is a facilitating climate of innovation as well as consistency in hybrid delivery.

Facilities (FA)

Facilities include physical and virtual infrastructure, such as active-learning classrooms, laboratories, studios, robust connectivity, LMS functionality, digital libraries, media production services, and collaboration tools (Omodan, 2024).  Academic engagement and outcomes are consistently confirmed to be linked with perceived adequacy of facilities in student satisfaction research (Sharif Nia et al., 2023). The continuity and effectiveness of online learning have been associated with the presence of research and learning support (e-journals, repositories, analytics dashboards) during COVID-19 and beyond. Physical areas that facilitate cooperation and training underscore the importance of face-to-face interactions on campus. The common ground is a principle of reducing friction: under conditions of high accessibility, usability, and reliability, the time spent on instructional activities is redirected less towards fighting failures and more towards learning to enhance both online and campus performance (Losh, 2014).

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

In this study, a quantitative approach was employed, involving a questionnaire survey conducted among students at universities in Nepal. The questionnaire has been developed based on literature and three basic elements of quality management: quality improvement, quality assurance, and quality control (Bouranta et al. 2019). The scale ranged from 1 for "strongly disagree" to 5 for "strongly agree" on a 5-point Likert scale. Three experts did the questionnaire's item objective congruence (IOC) tests. Purposive sampling techniques were used to collect the data, where respondents were selected from the entire University of Nepal. The total number of respondents in the survey is 156, who are currently studying. Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) and Smart Partial Least Squares (Smart PLS) is employed for the data analysis.

Data analysis

This study uses an SEM model at Smart PLS 4. Using structural equation modelling, one can statistically analyse the relationship between latent and observable variables (Hair, et al., 2021). The most widely used path model with latent variables and relationships between them is PLS-SEM (Sarstedt, Ringle, & Hair, 2021). The SEM consists of two steps: Bootstrapping and the PLS algorithm for analysis. Measurement and structural models have made together structural equation modelling.  The demographic profile of the respondent is listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic Profile

Measurement Model

The measurement model describes how latent variables are measured using observable data (Kang & Ahn, 2021). In measurement model of this study consists of composite reliability and outer loading. Composite reliability should have a value above 0.7 to 0.9 which is considered as acceptable (Hair et al., 2021). In the model, outer loadings with values lower than 0.40 should be removed (Hair et al., 2021) as shown in table 2 and 3.

Table 2 Reliability test Results of on-campus performance

Table 3 Reliability test Result of online performance

Structural Model

The associations and relationships between latent variables comprise the structural model (Kang & Ahn, 2021). Structural model consists of path analysis, coefficient of determination (R2) and effect size (R2).

Path coefficient

The strength of the relationship between the latent variables is shown by the path coefficient (Hair et al., 2021). The standard value of the path coefficient ranges from about -1 to +1. The p-value is less than 0.05 at a significance level of 5%, and the t-values are more than 1.96, indicating that all of the hypotheses are accepted and supported (Hair et al., 2021). In table 4 shows beta value, standard deviation, t-value, p-value.

Table 4. Hypothesis Testing

Coefficient of Determination (R2)

The percentage of an endogenous construct's variation that is explained by its predictor construct is indicated by the coefficient of determination (R2) (Hair et al., 2021). R-squared values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 are regarded as being respectively substantial, moderate, and weak (Hair et al., 2021). The value of R-squared for on-campus performance and online performance is 0.375 and 0.392, respectively, indicating a weak correlation. This indicates that the independent variable accounts for 37.5% of the variance in on-campus performance and 39.2% of the variance in online performance. 4.5 Effect size (f2)

An impact of a predictive construct on the endogenous construct is measured by effect size (f2) (Hair, et al., 2021). Effect sizes between 0.02 and 0.14 are considered small, 0.15 to 0.34 are considered medium, and those above 0.35 are considered large effects (Cohen, 2013).

Table 5 Effect size (f2)

Table 6 Effect Size (f2)

Figure 2. Path Analysis of on-campus performance

Figure 3.  Path Analysis online performance

The results of this research indicate that, in both online and on-campus teaching contexts, the most predictable indicators of teaching performance are facilities and program establishment. In the case of on-campus teaching, infrastructure, establishing the program, and cultivating the university's culture were all important, and the role of infrastructural support, coherent curriculum development, and institutional culture in the development of successful face-to-face education was emphasised. Faculty capabilities, on the other hand, were not significant, suggesting that in a conventional classroom setting, structural and cultural factors have a greater impact than teacher competence. In the case of online teaching, the problems of facilities and program development resurfaced as critical issues, and it was imperative to have a stable technological base and well-thought-out programs to facilitate digital delivery. Nonetheless, university culture and faculty strengths did not have a substantial impact in the online environment, and it is possible to conclude that the lack of strong facilities and programmatic coherence might mean that cultural and human elements cannot directly benefit results. The model exhibited a small explanatory power, with R2 values of 0.375 for on-campus performance and 0.392 for online performance, indicating that although these strategic attributes are important, other contextual and learner-associated variables also influence the effectiveness of hybrid education. Effect size analysis also ensured that facilities played the greatest role, especially on on-campus performance, whereas program establishment and the influence of university culture were minor. In general, the results emphasise the idea that balance in hybrid teaching is most dependent on infrastructural preparedness and curriculum consistency, whereas culture and faculty competencies, although significant, should be more integrated into institutional strategies in order to have a comprehensive influence on learning outcomes.

This paper has explored the nature of strategic management qualities needed to strike a balance between online and on-campus instruction in Nepalese universities, with an emphasis on four key constructs: facilities, program establishment, faculty capabilities, and university culture. The results with the help of PLS-SEM demonstrated that facilities and program establishment has a consistent significant effect on online and on-campus performance. Face-to-face teaching had a significant influence on university culture, while online learning was not significantly influenced by it, although faculty capabilities did not emerge as a significant predictor in either teaching method. The model was moderate in terms of its explanatory capabilities, meaning that, although these structural features are essential, other factors, including student engagement, leadership support, and socioeconomic background, also influence the effectiveness of hybrid teaching. Generally, the findings affirm that infrastructural preparedness and curriculum alignment are the foundation of successful hybrid education; however, faculty capabilities and culture, although significant, require additional institutional strategies to yield quantifiable results.

Implications

These results have several practical and theoretical implications. The findings convey an urgent message to the leaders of higher education in Nepal: they must prioritise investments in digital and physical infrastructure, as well as the development of program structures that are more explicit in connecting learning outcomes to the means of delivery. To conduct hybrid teaching effectively, universities should ensure good internet connectivity, well-equipped classrooms, and elaborate online platforms. The curriculum planners should provide courses at the program level, with a deliberate intention of assigning theoretical material to the online setting and reserving practical-based learning for on-campus provision. Culturally, institutions should enhance the norms of online engagement, community-building practices, and feedback mechanisms to recreate the supportive learning environments currently available on campus. The faculty development programs must be redefined to accommodate digital pedagogy competencies in accordance with institutional strategies, ensuring that staff competence is effectively translated into student outcomes. Theoretically, the research would add value by identifying the differentiated impact of strategic management characteristics across different modes of delivery, whereby hybrid education is not merely a technical adaptation but an organisational change that involves matching organisational structure, culture, and resources. To educational policymakers and planners, the findings provide evidence to inform reform and investment decisions that will enhance the quality and strength of higher education in Nepal.

1. Adil, H. M., Ali, S., Sultan, M., Ashiq, M., & Rafiq, M. (2024). Open education resources’ benefits and challenges in the academic world: a systematic review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 73(3), 274-291.
2. Al-Nuaimi, M. N., & Al-Emran, M. (2021). Learning management systems and technology acceptance models: A systematic review. Education and information technologies, 26(5), 5499-5533.
3. Bergdahl, N. (2022). Engagement and disengagement in online learning. Computers & Education, 188, 104561.
4. Bitar, N., & Davidovich, N. (2024). Transforming pedagogy: The digital revolution in higher education. Education Sciences, 14(8), 811.
5. Bouranta, N., Psomas, E., Suárez-Barraza, M. F., & Jaca, C. (2019). The key factors of total quality management in the service sector: A cross-cultural study. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(3), 893–921.
6. Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... & Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian journal of distance education, 15(1), 1-126.
7. Brown, A., Lawrence, J., Basson, M., & Redmond, P. (2022). A conceptual framework to enhance student online learning and engagement in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 284-299.
8. Brown, M., & Cain, C. (2025). “I Wish There Was a Way to Share”: The Changing Campus Ecologies Around Community College Life Science Courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1-18.
9. Campbell, B., McIlgorm, A., & Voyer, M. (2021). Virtual Regional Fisheries Management Meetings in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Region: A Preliminary Appraisal of Performance and Fit. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 710088.
10. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
11. Devi, S., Thinakaran, R., Hanefar, S. B. M., & Nadzri, N. R. M. (2024). Tracking academic contributions to Women's empowerment in Malaysia: A bibliometric investigation. Heliyon, 10(17).
12. Eggers, J. H., Oostdam, R., Voogt, J., & Zijlstra, B. J. (2024). The use of self-regulation strategies and interactional methods in blended learning environments: a survey among teachers and students in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-24.
13. Elumalai, K. V., Sankar, J. P., Kalaichelvi, R., John, J. A., Menon, N., Alqahtani, M. S. M., & Abumelha, M. A. (2021). Factors affecting the quality of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of higher education students. COVID-19 and education: Learning and teaching in a pandemic-constrained environment, 189(3), 169.
14. Gading, S. J. L. (2024). Instructional leadership practices of the school heads to improve teachers’ performance. United International Journal for Research & Technology, 5(6), 89-119.
15. Gazi, M. A. I., Mim, A. T., Masud, A. A., Rahman, M. K. H., Amin, M. B., Senathirajah, A. R. B. S., & Oláh, J. (2025). Paving the way of entrepreneurship for university students: the role of innovativeness, technological adaptability, and self-management, with risk-taking and family support as moderator. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2455230.
16. Grover, V., Tseng, S. L., & Pu, W. (2022). A theoretical perspective on organizational culture and digitalization. Information & Management, 59(4), 103639.
17. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature.
18. Harrison, J. M., & Williams, V. R. (2023). A guide to curriculum mapping: Creating a collaborative, transformative, and learner-centered curriculum. Routledge.
19. Ho, B. C., Mustamil, N. M., & Jayasingam, S. (2021). Building a conducive, engaged, and learning working environment through sustainable and impactful organisational culture. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 15(3), 280-304.
20. Hye, A. M., Mustaffa, N. A., & Habib, M. M. (2023). A holistic view of academic library supply chain model. Library Management, 44(1-2), 56-79.
21. Jiang, L., Wider, W., Ye, G., Tee, M., Hye, A. M., Lee, A., & Tanucan, J. C. M. (2024). Exploring the factors of employee turnover intentions in private education institutions in China: a Delphi study. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2413915.
22. Kang, H., & Ahn, J.-W. (2021). Model setting and interpretation of results in research using structural equation modeling: A checklist with guiding questions for reporting. Asian Nursing Research, 15(3), 157–162.
23. Korson, C. (2023). A place-based approach to blended learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 47(4), 569-588.
24. Losh, E. (2014). The war on learning: Gaining ground in the digital university. MIT Press.
25. MacKenzie, A. (2025). Pedagogical innovation in strategic management education: A case study of course redesign for virtual-hybrid delivery. Advances in Online Education: A Peer-Reviewed Journal, 3(3), 204-216.
26. Omodan, B. I. (2024). Redefining university infrastructure for the 21st century: An interplay between physical assets and digital evolution. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(4), 3468.
27. Pansuwong, W., Photchanachan, S., & Thechatakerng, P. (2023). Social innovation: Relationships with social and human capitals, entrepreneurial competencies and growth of social enterprises in a developing country context. Social Enterprise Journal, 19(1), 51-79.
28. Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2022). Transition to a hybrid teaching model as a step forward toward responsible management education?. Journal of Global Responsibility, 13(1), 7-20.
29. Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2022). Transition to a hybrid teaching model as a step forward toward responsible management education?. Journal of Global Responsibility, 13(1), 7-20.
30. Shao, L., Miao, Y., Ren, S., Cai, S., & Fan, F. (2024). Designing a framework for entrepreneurship education in Chinese higher education: a theoretical exploration and empirical case study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-12.
31. Sharif Nia, H., Marôco, J., She, L., Khoshnavay Fomani, F., Rahmatpour, P., Stepanovic Ilic, I., ... & Reardon, J. (2023). Student satisfaction and academic efficacy during online learning with the mediating effect of student engagement: A multi-country study. PLoS One, 18(10), e0285315.
32. Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19, post vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 140-171.
33. Watson, C., Templet, T., Leigh, G., Broussard, L., & Gillis, L. (2023). Student and faculty perceptions of effectiveness of online teaching modalities. Nurse Education Today, 120, 105651.
34. Whalley, B., France, D., Park, J., Mauchline, A., & Welsh, K. (2021). Towards flexible personalized learning and the future educational system in the fourth industrial revolution in the wake of Covid-19. Higher Education Pedagogies, 6(1), 79-99.
35. Yao, W., Qian, S., & Xie, W. (2025). Exploring the effectiveness of micro-credentials in artificial intelligence teaching and learning: an empirical study based on AI+ X program in China. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2536528.