Blended learning (hybrid training): what Qualiopi requires

A course that alternates one day of in-person training with two online modules is neither a classic training course nor a FOAD in the strict sense: it’s blended learning, a format in its own right that the National Quality Reference Framework accounts for — but one that demands an overall coherence providers often overlook when building it on the fly.

Blended learning, FOAD, and in-person training: telling the formats apart

The Qualiopi framework distinguishes several training formats, each with its own requirements: classic in-person training, open and distance training (FOAD), delivered entirely or overwhelmingly remotely, and blended (hybrid) learning, which deliberately combines both within the same course. The difference isn’t just one of degree: it’s one of design. Well-designed blended learning doesn’t simply bolt remote modules onto an existing in-person course — it splits learning between the two formats according to what each does best: in-person for group exercises and immediate feedback, remote for individual absorption of theoretical content or repeated practice.

What research says about blended learning’s effectiveness

A meta-analysis led by Barbara Means, Yukie Toyama, Robert Murphy, and Marianne Baki, published in 2013 in the journal Teachers College Record under the title “The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature” (DOI 10.1177/016146811311500307), synthesised results from dozens of studies comparing in-person, online, and blended learning. Its main finding: blended formats show a statistically significant advantage over in-person training alone, while fully online training shows no comparable advantage. The authors note an important caveat, though: this advantage is partly explained by the longer learning time and additional teaching resources often associated with the blended formats studied, not by the format alone. For a training provider, the practical takeaway is clear: blended learning only pays off if the two formats are genuinely designed to work together, not simply placed side by side.

The Qualiopi indicators involved

Indicator	What to demonstrate for a blended course
Indicator 6	Consistency of content and delivery methods with objectives, for each sequence (in-person and remote)
Indicator 9	Clear information for learners about how the blended course is organised, before enrolment
Indicator 17	Human and technical resources suited to both formats: venue, equipment, platform, technical support
Indicator 19	Teaching resources made available, consistent across in-person and remote sequences

Building a compliant blended training programme

The training programme for a blended course must explicitly detail:

1. The split between in-person and remote sequences, with the hourly volume of each.
2. The learning objectives specific to each sequence, not just an overall objective for the whole course.
3. Support arrangements during remote phases: trainer availability, response time to queries, forum or virtual classroom.
4. Assessment methods tied to each phase of the course, including checking that skills acquired remotely are actually mobilised when learners return in person.

A concrete example: structuring a five-day course

To make these principles more concrete, take a five-day full-time-equivalent certifying course structured as blended learning: two in-person days at the start, dedicated to group positioning, simulations, and group dynamics; three days split into asynchronous remote modules, for individual absorption of theoretical content, complemented by two one-hour synchronous virtual classes to clear up sticking points; and a half-day in person at the close, dedicated to summative assessment and a group debrief of what was learned. This split illustrates the central principle: each sequence is placed where its format adds the most teaching value, not simply to cut down on time spent in the room.

The most common mistakes

• Simply bolting online modules onto an existing in-person course, without rethinking the overall learning progression.
• A remote platform not integrated with the programme, with content that doesn’t align with what’s covered in person.
• No support planned during remote phases, which weakens indicator 12 on preventing dropout: unsupported remote phases are statistically where dropout is most frequent.
• Assessment that ignores the remote portion, whereas the auditor expects end-to-end coherence between what is taught and what is assessed.

Take action

The Complete Qualiopi Kit provides training programme templates suited to blended courses and the evidence expected for indicators 6, 9, 17, and 19. The ebook “Create Your Training Organisation in 30 Days” helps you structure your teaching offer from launch, and the complete pack brings both resources together.