HyFlex in the Empirical Literature

HyFlex in the Empirical Literature
Miller et al. (2013) called attention to the insufficiency of research for the HyFlex
instructional model. Similarly, Heilporn and Lakhal (2021) noted although there have been a few
scientific studies on HyFlex courses, “We are still in uncharted territory” (p. 4) and pointed out
most of the available literature focuses on student satisfaction with HyFlex modality
(Abdelmalak & Parra, 2016; Binnewies & Wang, 2019; Kyei-Blankson et al., 2014; Kyei-
Blankson & Godwyll, 2010; Miller et al., 2013) or student performance (Lakhal et al., 2014;
Miller et al., 2013). My experience searching for sources confirmed the scarcity of research
available, especially on the topic of equity in HyFlex learning environments. There are limited
articles about HyFlex, as most of the literature available is theoretical in nature. Although
theoretical literature is useful, more empirical research is necessary to help advance the field’s
understanding of HyFlex and its implications in general, and more specifically for advancing the
field’s understanding of the experiences of minoritized students in HyFlex courses.
23
In a pilot study at a public Midwestern university, Miller et al. (2013) investigated the use
of HyFlex instruction in a large (n = 161) undergraduate statistics course with 98.8% of students
participating in the study. Detailing the use of several instructional technologies designed to
increase student engagement in all participation modes, the authors compared student
performance in one section of the course piloting a localized HyFlex approach against student
performance in two other sections of the course with the only difference being the instructor.
Miller et al. used a standardized test pre and post class, focus groups, and an end-of-term survey
to collect data. They stated three goals for the study: (a) providing students with attendance
options, (b) serving more students with reduced space, and (c) standardizing the student
experience across all participation modes. The study’s findings indicated when comparing the
pilot against the two control sessions, the “classroom model had no significant effect on student
learning” (Miller et al., 2013, p. 15). In general, students found the instructional technology easy
to use and helpful to their learning. According to the authors, the students “overwhelmingly
replied that instructional technology increased their participation in class” (Miller et al., 2013, p.
19), and only 5% of participants stated they preferred a face-to-face only course with no
instructional technology.
With the purpose of exploring student perspectives regarding HyFlex course design,
Abdelmalak and Parra (2016) conducted a case study grounded in andragogy to investigate
student’s perceptions of a graduate-level HyFlex course in an educational technology program at
a medium-sized university in the southwest United States. The course was chosen for the study
based on the instructor’s apparent commitment to HyFlex instruction. The sources of data
collection included interviews with six graduate students, class observations, recordings of class
24
meetings, students’ course work, and relevant online course artifacts. The findings were
generally positive; according to the authors, data findings indicated participants perceived
HyFlex as (a) a good way to accommodate for their lives’ needs and circumstances, (b) a way to
provide increased access to content and instruction, and (c) a mode of differentiated instruction
that meets the needs of adult students while giving them a sense of control over their own
learning.
More recently, Gobeil-Proulx (2019) conducted an explanatory study on the self-reported
perceptions of 311 students from nine different HyFlex courses taught by four instructors. A
questionnaire was administered to all students in all nine courses, and 311 students voluntarily
responded. Three major findings emerged from the data analysis; according to the author, (a)
students appreciate the HyFlex format greatly, (b) most students choose online learning, and (c)
students tend to choose one modality and stay with it throughout the course (Gobeil-Proulx,
2019).
Reporting insights drawn from an action research study of an information technology
course offered in HyFlex at an Australian university, Binneweis and Wang (2019) set out to
investigate the following questions: (a) What methods can be employed to ensure equity and
enhance engagement in a practice oriented HyFlex course? and (b) What are students’
perceptions on the choice and implementation of these methods? Although the authors reported
generally positive findings as in the other studies, I could not help but notice the color-blindness
and other types of blindnesses in this study.
Although Binneweis and Wang’s (2019) study was the only study to explicitly mention
and attempt to investigate equity in HyFlex, it made no mention of students whose
25
instersectionalities may place them in situations in which they are minoritized. These authors did
not mention (explicitly or implicitly) students of color, first-generation students, gender, race and
ethnicity, or any of the personal characteristics I investigated in this dissertation. Although the
authors did use the term equity, it became clear upon first read they were not using the same
definition this dissertation employed.
Binneweis and Wang’s (2019) interpretation of the term equity was inadequate: “the
fundamental aspects of a course should also be made equitable for all students” (p. 212), and
more of a declaration than a definition. It appeared their definition was an overly simplified
understanding of the HyFlex principle of equivalency: “provide learning activities in all
participation modes which lead to equivalent learning outcomes” (Beatty, 2019, para. 8). There
is nothing wrong with equivalency; it is one of the founding principles of HyFlex, and it helps
build equity, but the two terms are not the same. For example, one could have a HyFlex course
that is terrible face-to-face and has dismal outcomes for on-site participants and have a similarly
terrible online mode with equivalently dismal outcomes for the online participants in the course.
In this scenario, one would have a course with equivalency but not necessarily a course with
equity. In sum, although the authors of this study embraced a more relaxed and colorblind
(perhaps, intersectionality-blind) interpretation of the term equity that emphasized sameness, for
this dissertation, the term equity connoted and denoted social justice practices that go beyond
offering sameness and instead created fairness by placing success outcomes for minoritized
students at center focus.
The scarcity of empirical literature on the general topic of HyFlex calls for more studies
to help augment the field’s knowledge of the subject. More importantly, there is a bigger need to
26
investigate the intersection of equity, as defined in this dissertation, and the HyFlex model of
teaching and learning to inform educational leaders and practitioners interested in creating
experiences that promote social justice practices in teaching and learning.
|