Skip to main content

Challenges of Student Equity and Engagement in a HyFlex Course

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Blended Learning Designs in STEM Higher Education

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://piazza.com.

  2. 2.

    http://www.cis.syr.edu/~wedu/seed/.

  3. 3.

    https://www.phpmyadmin.net/.

  4. 4.

    https://codeanywhere.com/.

  5. 5.

    http://www.pebblepad.com.au/.

  6. 6.

    https://vizia.co/.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali, S. (2005). Effective teaching pedagogies for undergraduate computer science. Mathematics and Computer Education, 39(3), 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P. (2012). Online educational delivery models: A descriptive view. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(6), 84–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Luo, T., & Clifton, L. (2017). Examining collaborative knowledge construction in microblogging-based learning environments. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 365–390.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Binnewies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Binnewies, S., Wang, Z. (2019). Challenges of Student Equity and Engagement in a HyFlex Course. In: Allan, C., Campbell, C., Crough, J. (eds) Blended Learning Designs in STEM Higher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6981-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6982-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics