Cynthia L. Z. DeRoma, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

Many programs have had to adapt to fully online classes, and even instructors that meet in person need to be ready to accommodate students who cannot attend in person or to quickly switch to a fully online mode if circumstances require it. Familiarity with different flexible learning models can help our programs be nimbler when facing change. Here, I discuss how the HyFlex model can be adapted to fully online courses.

Some Broad Definitions

Some courses are taught fully in person, and they are usually also fully synchronous, which means everyone is doing the same thing at the same time. Some courses are taught remotely, usually online, meaning instructors and students can be in different places. These courses can be fully asynchronous (each person will go through all content at their own pace and at different times), or they can also have a synchronous component, which means at some points there will be meetings that everyone will attend remotely, but at the same time, via audio or video conference. Additionally, there are also hybrid or blended courses, which are taught partly in person and partly online in synchronous, asynchronous, or both formats. In these courses, the instructor is usually the one who decides what components will be conducted in person or online.

However, not all students can fully commit in advance to one format for many reasons, such as unpredictable work or lab schedules, emergencies, or time zone differences that make it hard to find a time when everyone can meet. Ideally, a student should be able to decide, class by class, whether they want to attend the course face-to-face or online, with the same learning opportunities in either mode.

This flexible form of learning is known by many names, like

• blended online learning,
• mode-neutral pedagogy (Smith, Reed, & Jones, 2008),
• synchronous learning in distributed environments (SLIDE),
• remote live participation, and
• synchronous hybrid learning (for full references, see Beatty, 2019, and Detienne et al., 2018).

In the United States, synchronous hybrid learning is more commonly known as HyFlex, which is short for “hybrid flexible” (Beatty, 2019) and the term I use here.

Hybrid Flexible Learning

Participation Paths

Following are the possible participation paths for students in a HyFlex model. In Class 1, a student can attend online or face-to-face. Suppose Student X attends online and Student Y attends face-to-face. Both X and Y would have the same opportunities to meet their student learning outcomes. In Class 2, X can decide to attend online again, or come to class face-to-face. Similarly, Y can decide to attend face-to-face again, or do it online. This is how it would be for the whole term, giving students a high degree of flexibility to customize their course attendance.

Note that HyFlex and related approaches arose before the COVID-19 pandemic and feature students’ flexibility to attend classes in person or online. For those not teaching face-to-face at all, these principles can be adapted to mean flexibility between attending classes online synchronously or asynchronously. We then need to replace all instances of “face-to-face” with “online synchronous class.”

Benefits and Challenges of HyFlex

In the following points, I discuss the benefits of HyFlex learning for students, instructors, and administrators (adapted from Beatty, 2019, p. 26):

• increased access to courses, as it is easier to avoid scheduling conflicts, potentially leading to increased enrollments, more students served with the same course, and reduced time to graduation
• better student control over schedules
• more learning resources (some students might want to attend the same class synchronously and later review it online)
• fewer worries about classrooms’ seat capacities
• having an alternative ready in case of unexpected circumstances

On the other hand, Beatty (2019, pp. 27–28) also considers some challenges of the format. For example, students need good time management skills and strong motivation to complete all requirements. They also need technical resources and the ability to engage well with instructors and other students online. Faculty and administrators need to develop courses that support and create equal opportunities for students engaged in both modes of instruction. In face-to-face classes, they also need to be able to manage the complexity of simultaneously running an in-person and synchronous online class, including tracking attendance and participation. It also involves time to learn new platforms and adjust course catalogue descriptions to reflect the flexible mode.

For the students, however, these challenges can be opportunities to develop metacognitive skills. In an article about mode-neutral pedagogy (a related approach), Miller (2011, p. 446) argues that “the movement from passive learner to active shaper of their educational experience, and the constructivist approach integral to mode neutral education, may be an important tool in helping our students to become transformative leaders.” For faculty and administrators, such challenges provide a timely chance to review classroom management techniques and reflect on how to be more inclusive.

HyFlex Values and Implementation

Before designing a HyFlex course, keep in mind the following fundamental values (Beatty 2019, pp. 31–34):

• Learner choice: There should be meaningful alternative participation modes, and students should be able to choose how to participate every week, every day, or by topic.
• Equivalency: There should be activities and opportunities that lead to equivalent outcomes in all modes.
• Reusability: What is used and produced in each mode (e.g., class recordings, chats, handouts, discussions) should be available to all students.
• Accessibility: We should provide technology skills and equitable access to participation modes, including universal design for learning (UDL) considerations.

These values will help you set up your goals, which will inform your instructional strategies and lead to relevant activities. Beatty (2019, pp. 36–37) provides worksheets to guide instructors and administrators through the five steps for implementation:

1. Analyzing costs and benefits
2. Confirming or modifying expected student learning outcomes
3. Planning student learning activities (content and interaction)
4. Assessing learning outcomes
5. Evaluating the return on expectations

Building Community

Interaction and community-building are essential for learning success. With different students in various contexts, a crucial issue is how to build a learning community with the whole class regardless of each student’s participation mode.

To create this kind of community engagement and do it for all students, we first need to move away from teacher-centered instruction as much as possible and provide plenty of opportunities for asynchronous and synchronous interaction; moreover, we must consider interaction not only between the instructor and students, but also among students. Projects are well suited for that, as they require people to work together to achieve a common goal.

Besides working together to understand content, discussions (both synchronous and asynchronous) and shared reflections about the learning process itself can also bring students together as they figure out the best way each one learns.

As they work independently, we should strive to be a constant presence for students, especially the ones who choose to do most of their work asynchronously, through constant check-ins, with frequent responses to discussion posts, through encouragement to attend office hours, and, if necessary, by making some kind of synchronous interaction (even if remotely) mandatory.

Assessment

Like in any other format, the usual principles of effective assessment apply, including aligning assessments with objectives, frequent formative assessment, and timely constructive feedback. We can incorporate different instruments, like grading discussion posts and recorded video or audio responses to prompts.

Chunking

All this flexibility and student control requires careful planning to make sure students keep up with the course and do not fall into the trap of trying to cram everything asynchronous in at the last minute. Even more so than in a face-to-face synchronous course, a flexible format necessitates having all content, assignments, and expectations for participation very clearly defined. It is preferable to have frequent deadlines to complete discrete smaller units of learning, which is a process known as chunking.

We can also mandate a minimum number of synchronous hours students have to attend, and they can choose the days when they will do so. Note that with chunking, we can rethink the very concept of what constitutes a “class.” Instead of being based on static preset days and times, now it can be defined as a set of objectives and tasks that have to be completed within a certain time frame.

Summary

HyFlex is a flexible learning model that gives students choice, class by class, over whether they will attend face-to-face or online. In fully remote courses, it can be adapted to mean a choice between attending online classes synchronously or asynchronously. Students need to be ready to take more responsibility for their learning to make sure they can fully benefit from their choices. Instructors need to plan so that all modes of attendance are available every class and are equivalent in terms of fulfilling course objectives, and that all content can be later retrieved and is accessible to all. As in any course, creating opportunities for interactions between instructor and students and among students themselves in paramount.

To learn more, I suggest starting with Beatty (2019) for definitions, rationale, testimonials from different stakeholders, and numerous case-studies of actual implementation.

References

Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex

Detienne, L., Raes, A., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Benefits, challenges and design guidelines for synchronous hybrid learning: A systematic literature review. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, …, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 2004–2009). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/184440/

Miller, W. (2011). Mode-neutral and the need to transform teaching. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 446–465.

Smith, B., Reed, P., & Jones, C. (2008) ‘Mode Neutral’ pedagogy. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, I. https://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2008/Smith_Reed_Jones.htm