Advertisement

Challenges of Student Equity and Engagement in a HyFlex Course

  • Sebastian BinnewiesEmail author
  • Zhe Wang
Chapter

Abstract

HyFlex courses are characterised by a mixture of online and face-to-face learning components. In particular, students are allowed to choose to complete any part of the course in online and/or face-to-face mode. Such courses arguably provide the highest flexibility for student learning, but also pose a number of challenges to learning design. These include not only the ones inherent to online instruction and face-to-face instruction but also those of creating equitable alignment between the two modes to achieve the same learning outcomes. In this chapter, we report on the insights drawn from designing and delivering a second-year undergraduate information technology course on two campuses, in which students could complete any learning activity and assessment online or face-to-face. We describe our approach to support student engagement, group work and a peer review in HyFlex mode, and some challenges we faced to match learning designs to available technology. We evaluated our teaching components according to student participation and their quantitative and qualitative feedback. We found that most students appreciated the HyFlex mode delivery and while our approach was shown to be effective, it was in some way constrained by the technology available.

Keywords

HyFlex Mixed mode Authentic assessment Active learning Equity Engagement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank David Green, Christopher Allan, and Julie Crough for their support with the teaching technologies and innovations used in this project.

References

  1. Abdelmalak, M. M. M., & Parra, J. L. (2016). Expanding learning opportunities for graduate students with HyFlex course design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD), 6(4), 19–37.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2016100102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali, S. (2005). Effective teaching pedagogies for undergraduate computer science. Mathematics and Computer Education, 39(3), 243–257.Google Scholar
  3. Ashton, S., & Davies, R. S. (2015). Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in a MOOC writing course. Distance Education, 36(3), 312–334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Department of Education and Training. (2017). Completion rates of higher education students: Cohort analysis, 2005–2014. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/completion-rates-higher-education-students-cohort-analysis-2005-2014.
  5. Beatty, B. (2007). Hybrid classes with flexible participation options—If you build it, how will they come? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Beatty, B. (2013). Hybrid courses with flexible participation: The HyFlex course design. In L. Kyei-Blankson & E. Ntuli (Eds.), Practical applications and experiences in K-20 blended learning environments (pp. 153–177). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  7. Bertram, B. (1999). Education online: Learning anywhere, any time. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(8), 662–665.Google Scholar
  8. Blooma, M. J., Kurian, J. C., Chua, A. Y. K., Goh, D. H. L., & Lien, N. H. (2013). Social question answering: Analyzing knowledge, cognitive processes and social dimensions of micro-collaborations. Computers & Education, 69, 109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buyarski, C. A., Aaron, R. W., Hansen, M. J., Hollingsworth, C. D., Johnson, C. A., Kahn, S., & Powell, A. A. (2015). Purpose and pedagogy: A conceptual model for an ePortfolio. Theory Into Practice, 54(4), 283–291.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1076691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, C., & Blair, H. (2018). Learning the active way: Creating interactive lectures to promote student learning. In K. Jared (Ed.), Handbook of research on pedagogical models for next-generation teaching and learning (pp. 21–37). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229–241.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, W. M. (1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 360–367.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deimann, M., & Bastiaens, T. (2010). The role of volition in distance education: An exploration of its capacities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gounari, P., & Koutropoulos, A. (2015). Using blended principles to bridge the gap between online and on-campus courses. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Curriculum design and classroom management: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1185–1197). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grasso, S. M. (2017). Use of a social question answering application in a face-to-face college biology class. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3–4), 212–227.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1343692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, J., Wyllie, A., & Jackson, D. (2014). Electronic portfolios in nursing education: A review of the literature. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(1), 4–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffith University. (2013). Practice standards for online learning at Griffith University. Retrieved November 18, 2018, from https://www.griffith.edu.au/learning-teaching/teaching-and-learning/technology-engaged-learning/getting-started/considerations.
  22. Guglielmino, P., & Guglielmino, L. (2001). Learner characteristics affecting success in electronic distance learning. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Self-Directed Learning Symposium, Boynton Beach, FL.Google Scholar
  23. Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 53–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360123776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill, P. (2012). Online educational delivery models: A descriptive view. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(6), 84–97.Google Scholar
  26. Inglis, M., Palipana, A., Trenholm, S., & Ward, J. (2011). Individual differences in students’ use of optional learning resources. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 27(6), 490–502.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00417.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joyes, G., Gray, L., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2010). Effective practice with e-Portfolios: How can the UK experience inform implementation? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1).  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1099.
  28. Kay, J., Barg, M., Fekete, A., Greening, T., Hollands, O., Kingston, J. H., & Crawford, K. (2000). Problem-based learning for foundation computer science courses. Computer Science Education, 10(2), 109–128.  https://doi.org/10.1076/0899-3408(200008)10:2;1-c;ft109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kearney, S. (2013). Improving engagement: The use of ‘authentic self-and peer-assessment for learning’ to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 875–891.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.751963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kyei-Blankson, L., & Godwyll, F. (2010). An examination of learning outcomes in Hyflex learning environments. Paper presented at the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010, Orlando, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Lakhal, S., Khechine, H., & Pascot, D. (2014). Academic students’ satisfaction and learning outcomes in a HyFlex course: do delivery modes matter? Paper presented at the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2014, New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Landis, C. M., Scott, S. B., & Kahn, S. (2015). Examining the role of reflection in ePortfolios: A case study. International Journal of ePortfolio, 5(2), 107–121.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, M., McKelroy, E., Winzeler, E., Adams, D., Davis, P., Ziai, K., & Roberts, R. (2014). Exploration of best practices to support active learning in a synchronous multi-site learning environment. Paper presented at the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2014, New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2004). First-year students’ perceptions of capability. Studies in Higher Education, 29(1), 109–128.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1234567032000164903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luo, H., Robinson, A. C., & Park, J.-Y. (2014). Peer grading in a MOOC: Reliability, validity, and perceived effects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2).Google Scholar
  37. Luo, T., & Clifton, L. (2017). Examining collaborative knowledge construction in microblogging-based learning environments. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
  39. Mayes, R., Luebeck, J., Ku, H.-Y., Akarasriworn, C., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2011). Themes and strategies for transformative online instruction: A review of literature and practice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(3), 151–166.Google Scholar
  40. McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, J., Risser, M., & Griffiths, R. (2013). Student choice, instructor flexibility: Moving beyond the blended instructional model. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 1(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morreale, C., Van Zile-Tamsen, C., Emerson, C. A., & Herzog, M. (2017). Thinking skills by design: Using a capstone ePortfolio to promote reflection, critical thinking, and curriculum integration. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(1), 13–28.Google Scholar
  43. Mummalaneni, V. (2014). Reflective essay and e-Portfolio to promote and assess student learning in a capstone marketing course. Marketing Education Review, 24(1), 43–46.  https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008240107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nur-Awaleh, M., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2010). Assessing E-learning and student satisfaction in a blended and flexible environment. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Information Society.Google Scholar
  45. Parsell, M. (2014). Standards for Online Education. Retrieved November 23, 2018, from http://altf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Parsell_M_NTF_-report_2014.pdf.
  46. Platt, C. A., Raile, A. N. W., & Yu, N. (2014). Virtually the same? Student perceptions of the equivalence of online classes to face-to-face classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 489–503.Google Scholar
  47. Roberts, P., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2016). ePortfolio-based learning environments: Recommendations for effective scaffolding of reflective thinking in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 22–33.Google Scholar
  48. Robinson, L. A. (2005). Consumers of online instruction. Issues in Information Systems, 6(1), 170–175.Google Scholar
  49. Romero, H. Y., Chávez, N. V., & Gutiérrez, I. M. (2016). HyFlex, hybrid and flexible model for university education: Case study: Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja - Ecuador. Paper presented at the 2016 11th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI).Google Scholar
  50. Sabin, R. E., & Sabin, E. P. (1994). Collaborative learning in an introductory computer science course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the twenty-fifth SIGCSE symposium on Computer science education, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.Google Scholar
  51. Shedletsky, L. J., & Aitken, J. E. (2001). The paradoxes of online academic work. Communication Education, 50(3), 206–217.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51–54.Google Scholar
  54. Snart, J. A. (2010). Hybrid learning: The perils and promise of blending online and face-to-face instruction in higher education. ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  55. Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stone, C. (2017). Opportunity through online learning: Improving student access, participation and success in higher education. Retrieved November 23, 2018, from https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/opportunity-online-learning-improving-student-access-participation-success-higher-education/.
  57. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor, J. A., & Newton, D. (2013). Beyond blended learning: A case study of institutional change at an Australian regional university. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 54–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warner, J., Musielewicz, D., Masters, G. P., Verett, T., Winchester, R., & Fulton, S. (2010). Network firewall visualization in the classroom. Journal of Computer Science in Colleges, 26(2), 88–96.Google Scholar
  61. Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2010). Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 429–443.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.490577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 197–212.  https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.12.3.197.8618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yoo, S. J., & Huang, W. D. (2013). Engaging online adult learners in higher education: Motivational factors impacted by gender, age, and prior experiences. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(3), 151–164.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2013.836823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yuskauskas, A., Shaffer, D. R., & Grodziak, E. M. (2015). Employing disruptive innovation in a nascent undergraduate health policy program. Journal of Health Administration Education, 32(4), 515–541.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information and Communication TechnologyGriffith UniversitySouthportAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information and Communication TechnologyGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations