Challenges of Student Equity and Engagement in a HyFlex Course
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.
KeywordsHyFlex Mixed mode Authentic assessment Active learning Equity Engagement
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.
- Ali, S. (2005). Effective teaching pedagogies for undergraduate computer science. Mathematics and Computer Education, 39(3), 243–257.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Bertram, B. (1999). Education online: Learning anywhere, any time. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(8), 662–665.Google Scholar
- 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
- Devlin, M. (2013). eLearning vision. Retrieved from http://federation.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/159122/FedUni_eVision2014.pdf.
- Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Hill, P. (2012). Online educational delivery models: A descriptive view. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(6), 84–97.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
- 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
- McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Robinson, L. A. (2005). Consumers of online instruction. Issues in Information Systems, 6(1), 170–175.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51–54.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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/.
- 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
- 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