In order to navigate enrollment challenges, universities are scheduling more online and blended courses including HyFlex courses which offer students flexibility in their method of attendance. The goal of this study is to explore student engagement in HyFlex courses. However, there is limited research supporting the effectiveness of HyFlex courses in terms of student engagement. This two-pronged study, conducted at a regional state university in the U.S., utilized quantitative and qualitative data to explore the engagement levels between students attending the three different modalities offered in HyFlex courses. The findings of the quantitative study showed no difference in engagement levels between students attending face-to-face, virtually synchronously on Zoom, or virtually asynchronously. The results from the qualitative study generated five themes: (1) decreased stress; (2) positive learning experience; (3) flexibility to choose based on learning styles; (4) increased control on learning; and (5) increased accountability. These findings are discussed and strategies for effective engagement in HyFlex courses are shared.
AbdelmalakMMMParraJL (2016) Expanding learning opportunities for graduate students with HyFlex course design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design6(4): 19–36.
2.
ArtinoARJrStephensJM (2009) Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education12(3–4): 146–51.
3.
BaloranETHernanJTTaoyJS (2021) Course satisfaction and student engagement in online learning amid COVID-19 pandemic: A structural equation model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education22(4): 1–12.
4.
BartonBAAdamsKSBrowneBL, et al. (2021) The effects of social media usage on attention, motivation, and academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education22(1): 11–22.
ChristensonSReschlyALWylieC (2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
8.
CoatesH (2007) A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education32: 121-141.
9.
CrumptonHGregoryA (2011) I’m not learning: The role of academic relevancy for low-achieving students. Journal of Education & Psychology104: 42–53.
10.
DeciELRyanRM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
11.
DeciELVallerandRJPelletierLG, et al. (1991) Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist26(3–4): 325–46.
12.
DoyleJ (2022) Video lab HyFlex: Practical experiences of courses with practical applications: Cabrini University. In: BeattyBJ (ed.) Hybrid-Flexible Course Design. EdTech Books. Available at: https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex/practical_experience
13.
EDUCAUSE: Learning Initiative (2010) 7 Things you should know about the HyFlex course model. Educause.
14.
FisherRPerenyiABirdthistleN(2021) The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education22(2): 97–113.
15.
FredricksJABlumenfeldPCParisA (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74(1): 59–119.
16.
GamageKAAGamageADehideniyaSCP (2022) Online and hybrid teaching and learning: Enhance effective student engagement and experience. Education Sciences12(10): 651.
17.
GobertJDBakerRSWixonMB (2015) Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science microworlds. Educational Psychologist50(1): 43–57.
18.
Hammill NguyenTHendersonF (2022) Student engagement: The impact of positive psychology interventions on students. Active Learning in Higher Education23(2): 129–42.
19.
KahnWA (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal33(4): 692–724.
20.
KahuER (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education38(5): 758–73.
21.
KahuERNelsonK (2018) Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development37(1): 58–71.
LepperMRCorpusJHIvengarSS (2005) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Education & Psychology92(7): 184–96.
24.
LewinK (1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
LuthansF (2002) Positive Organizational Behavior: Developing and Managing Psychological Strengths [and executive commentary]. The Academy of Management Perspectives16(1): 57–75.
28.
McGregorHAElliotAJ (2002) Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Education & Psychology94(2): 381–95.
29.
MillerJRisserMDGriffithsRP (2013) Student choice, instructor flexibility: Moving beyond the blended instructional model. The University of Arizona, Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies1(1): 8–24.
Northey GovindRBucicT, et al. (2018) The effect of “here and now” learning on student engagement and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology49(2): 321–33.
32.
NwekeLOBokoloAJMbaG, et al. (2022) Investigating the effectiveness of a HyFlex cyber security training in a developing country: A case study. Education and Information Technologies27: 10107–33.
33.
PinderWCC (2011) Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, 2nd edn.New York, NY: Psychology Press.
34.
PintrichPRMarxRWBoyleRA (1993) Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research63(2): 167–99.
35.
PomerantzERubleD (1998) The multidimensional nature of control: Implications for the development of sex differences in self-evaluation. In: HeckhausenJDweckC (eds) Motivation and Self-Regulation Across the Life Span. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.159–84.
36.
ReschlyAChristensonSL (2006) Promoting school completion. In: BearGMinkeK (eds) Children’s Needs III: Understanding and Addressing the Developmental Needs of Children. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists, pp. 103-113.
RyanRM (1982) Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology43(3): 450–61.
39.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist55(1): 68–78.
40.
RyanRMDeciEL (2017) Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: The Guilford Press.
41.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior25(3): 293–315.
42.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB (2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement66(4): 701–16.
43.
SeligmanMECsikszentmihalyiM (2000) Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist55(1): 5–14.
44.
SkinnerWPirweJE (2012) Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In: ChristensonSLReschlyALLWylieC (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer, pp.21–44.
45.
StairsMGalpinM (2010) Positive engagement: From employee engagement to workplace happiness. In: LinleyPAHarringtonSGarceaN (eds) Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.155–72.
46.
TualauleleiEBurkeKFanshaweM, et al. (2021) Mapping pedagogical touchpoints: Exploring online student engagement and course design. Active Learning in Higher Education1(1): 1–15.
47.
VallerandRJPelletierLGKoestnerR (2008) Reflections on self-determination theory. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne49(3): 257–62.
48.
WoltersCA (2004) Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Education & Psychology96(2): 236–50.
49.
ZepkeN (2014) Student engagement research in higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education19(6): 697–708.
