Effective engagement strategies in HyFlex modality based on intrinsic motivation in students

Abstract

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.

Keywords

engagement HyFlex learning motivation online self-determination theory teaching

There are many challenges facing universities today. Over the past decade, full-time undergraduate enrollment has declined by 11% and part-time enrollment has declined by 6% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). The world has gone through a pandemic, forcing changes in many sectors of human life, including education. The unemployment rate is low, and several jobs are available for high school graduates without advanced degrees (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). Students today also have many competing obligations including their time with families, jobs, and extracurricular activities (Kahu and Nelson, 2018). Universities need to analyze what higher education should look like to meet the needs and wants of their students. To meet these challenges, universities are offering HyFlex courses. HyFlex courses allow for flexibility in attendance and meet the expectations of their students. Previous research shows that one challenge experienced by faculty in the online/hybrid learning setting includes student engagement and interaction (Gamage et al., 2022). The goal of this study is to explore student engagement in HyFlex courses.

The introduction of HyFlex

Throughout this research, the term “HyFlex” was used to describe a course taught using three different delivery modalities at the same time. Hy-Flex courses allow students to choose which setting they used to attend and/or participate in class on any day that the class met (Miller et al., 2013). Students were not required to choose a particular modality ahead of time nor to advise the instructor of their given choice. Students were free to opt between each of the three options at will, for any class meeting, with no notification or other requirements and with no negative impact on their course grade, thus providing them with maximum flexibility (Lefebvre, 2021).

The options available to students for course attendance and/or participation include the traditional setting where students sit in a classroom with the instructor and other students in the room at a scheduled time while the instructor presents the course material to those students in the room, often referred to as face to face. However, with a HyFlex course, the instructor would simultaneously have students that are attending the class virtually. These students are said to be participating synchronously. They are located somewhere other than the classroom but join the class through an internet connection using a video conferencing website. In this way, they can still actively engage in the class using their device’s microphone, web camera, and/or a chat feature available through the conferencing system. They can interact with the instructor and the other students in the classroom, in real time, as if they were in the class too. Finally, there are those students that will opt to attend the class asynchronously. These students will watch a video of the class that had been recorded during the scheduled class meeting time. These students may also join in various activities designed to give them an equivalent engagement experience as students in the face-to-face classroom.

There are many versions of HyFlex courses that are simply a blend of online students with face-to-face students (Littlefield, 2021). The main factor, in this study, revolved around whether there was a limitation of student attendance/participation options or not. For example, if a student lives 3 hours from campus, their choice is either synchronous or asynchronous but there is still that choice. However, if that same course was being taken by a student that lived locally, that student would then have all three attendance/participation modality options available. It is important to note that all students enrolled in a HyFlex class are together in one section where the instructor is teaching one course, not an online class and a separate face-to-face class on the same topic (Miller et al., 2013).

The history of HyFlex

The origins of HyFlex date back to 2005 when San Francisco University (SFU) was trying to find creative ways to navigate enrollment challenges; improve efficiencies for both face-to-face and online classes; and provide a better service to their student body in a way that used their technical abilities but recognized their time and location limitations (Beatty, 2019). Beatty, professor at SFU, is credited for the original design and implementation of HyFlex courses in 2010 and has continued to be instrumental in its evolution where a hybrid solution between face-to-face and online was found to be optimal for meeting student needs (Miller et al., 2013). Traditionally, student choice and attendance flexibility were not available. Course designs included different activities for purely online students and other activities had to be completed in the classroom. Beatty experimented with concepts of hybrid and flexibility and created a new course design called HyFlex (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

History of HyFlex.

Characteristics of HyFlex

Instructors, at most universities, offer face-to-face courses conducted in a physical classroom and online classes which are conducted online. In a HyFlex course, instructors teach the face-to-face and online experiences simultaneously. Some HyFlex faculty found HyFlex easier to manage than teaching the same course in two or three different modes. However, in 2018, Lieberman pointed out that HyFlex is not for all faculty; it is only for those who are capable, qualified, and willing.

The main benefits for students in a HyFlex course are flexibility and autonomy. The flexible approach offered students the option to attend both face-to-face and online sessions for students needing an additional review of the course material (EDUCAUSE: Learning Initiative, 2010). Students excelled when they were allowed to decide how they learned best (Lieberman, 2018). That said, when students were provided the choice, they also took greater responsibility for their individual learning process (EDUCAUSE: Learning Initiative, 2010). The flexibility and autonomy offered in the HyFlex model might be only suitable for those who are highly motivated to engage in the coursework.

“Traditional indicators of engagement include students accessing learning materials sequentially and progressively through the semester” (Tualaulelei et al., 2021: 2). For online learners, engagement was much more complex. Further, the authors noted the need to better understand student engagement in online courses. Investigating how the modalities of attendance in HyFlex courses impacted student engagement should help faculty make informed decisions about course design that would enhance student engagement and learning.

Engagement

Martin Seligman, former President of the American Psychological Association, brought attention to the lack of positivity in psychological research and practice that led individuals to focus more on individual weaknesses rather than focusing on the strengths of individuals. Since then, more focus has been on positive psychology where strengths were the focal point of development (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Luthans (2002) coined a new area of research, positive organizational behavior (POB), and defined it as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement.” (p. 59).

Engagement was one of the positive states often researched in many different organizational contexts. Personal engagement was defined as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” (Kahn, 1990: 694). Other researchers have slightly changed these three dimensions and named them behavioral, cognitive, and affective (Fredricks et al., 2004; Gobert et al., 2015). In the behavioral context, engagement referred to paying attention, being involved, and displaying effort; whereas the cognitive dimension represented the desire to learn and the willingness to think about learning (Gobert et al., 2015). The emotional or affective dimension included the interest or wanting to learn because it brings happiness (Gobert et al., 2015).

Work engagement included the positive experience one feels through the combination of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Vigor was defined as the energy and resilience one experienced while completing something and dedication signified the sense of meaning and pride the project represents to the individual (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2006). Vigor and dedication represented the polar opposites of exhaustion and cynicism which represented burnout (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Absorption symbolized the full dedication and concentration that was utilized when immersed in an activity (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2006). According to Stairs and Galpin (2010), higher levels of engagement led to lower absenteeism rates, higher employee retention, increased effort, increased productivity, and improved quality, to name a few.

Engagement affected performance in various environments; therefore, it is important for those leading learning situations to create activities that create vigor, dedication, and absorption. Professors developing course content might consider assignments or activities that require active learning. The excitement to learn impacted one’s level of commitment to continue, leading to an individual being immersed in the content.

Motivation

Lewin (1935) defined motivation as the psychological drive that empowered action. Motivation was divided into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation referred to the internal satisfaction one felt when completing a task (Pinder, 2011). Intrinsically motivated individuals freely participated in an activity, not because they must, but because they wanted to and found pleasure in the activity (Deci and Ryan, 1985). This intrinsic motivation led to engagement because the individual was full of vigor and dedication. Extrinsic motivation came from the potential of receiving an external reward, such as compensation or a grade (Pinder, 2011). Extrinsically motivated individuals completed an activity out of responsibility to achieve an external goal or reward (Deci et al., 1991).

According to Pintrich et al. (1993), the three indicators of motivation that impacted behavior included the choice of activity, level of engagement or excitement in completing the activity, and one’s willingness to continue with an activity. Often in education, a student does not have a choice in the activity or assignment. With HyFlex education, students had a choice in how they attended class. With this choice in delivery, students may be more excited or engaged in attending class because they had the choice. Students with higher levels of motivation earned higher course grades, had a deeper understanding of the content, and experienced greater levels of engagement (Crumpton and Gregory, 2011; Lepper et al., 2005). Student motivation is crucial to academic achievement.

Student engagement

As a push for positivity in psychological research and practice was occurring, a similar scenario occurred in educational research (Christenson et al., 2012). Engagement was a key component of learning and therefore, a key priority for the students themselves, the teachers, future employers, and society. Student engagement occurred when the student was “oriented toward learning that is intended by the system’s designers.” (Gobert et al., 2015: 44). Student engagement was seen as being malleable, meaning that it could be developed and changed. This development can be fostered by interactions with the teacher and/or peers, the assignments and activities, and even the overall school culture (Reschly and Christenson, 2006).

The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posited that an individual’s desire for growth in a given area and their psychological needs impacted the level of self-motivation and personality one was willing to devote to an activity. SDT has been used in many different contexts including business and education. The theory stated that an individual’s need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy impacts the amount of growth and development experienced (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

Competence represented the confidence one had in their ability to complete a task (Ryan and Deci, 2017). This was directly tied to education. Students needed to be engaged in the course content to understand the concepts and master the academic content. An individual’s motivation and engagement to learn will be impacted by how confident the student is in their ability.

Relatedness signified the connection one feels to others in each situation (Ryan and Deci, 2017). It was viewed as a sense of belonging. Many things within a classroom setting affected a student’s sense of belonging. It can be the teacher, the peers in the classroom, or the overall environment in which the student attends class. Engagement socially and psychologically affected a student’s overall experience with school (Skinner and Pirwe, 2012). It should be noted that it was not explicitly the environment that enforced motivation and engagement. It was more about how the environment supported the psychological needs of the individual (Vallerand et al., 2008).

Autonomy was characterized as an individual’s ability to work independently and initiate appropriate behaviors and decisions. (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Autonomy became important as a student moved through their academic career. Once an individual becomes a student at a university, they should be prepared to take ownership of their education. However, the level of autonomy that an individual elicited can vary greatly at the university level. Engagement has contributed to resilience and coping mechanisms for stress in students (Skinner and Pirwe, 2012). This can help with independent long-term development.

Student engagement in the HyFlex classroom

Engagement in any classroom was a universal concern of many instructors, particularly in the HyFlex classroom. Active learning seemed to be the answer to increased engagement in the classroom and improved learning. In fact, “Active learning pedagogies have become widely accepted in face-to-face teaching as a method of engaging students in their learning” (Riggs and Linder, 2016: 1). Creative instructors took active learning techniques and used them successfully with those students attending synchronously. The ability to engage with students asynchronously remained a challenge for many. Many believed online courses lacked instructor interactions and thus less active learning took place when compared with face-to-face courses.

HyFlex classes offered an environment that created many opportunities for students to engage in various ways. The student’s choice of attendance was selected based on their level of motivation and learning style. This created flexibility for the student in choosing the environment of classroom instruction. This freedom of choice was seen as a positive feature of HyFlex classrooms (Beatty, 2019).

Self-Determination Theory was relevant to the HyFlex learning environment due to the flexibility and choice that HyFlex offered. Self-determination is defined as “a quality of human functioning that involves the experience of choice. [It is] the capacity to choose and have those choices. . .be the determinants of one’s actions” (Deci and Ryan, 1985: 38). With HyFlex classes, students had the choice in how they attended class.

The three main needs described in the Self-Determination Theory; autonomy, relatedness, and competence, were also presented in HyFlex classes. Students expressed their autonomy by individually choosing which mode of delivery best met their needs and expectations. Relatedness became a factor in how the student interacted with classmates and faculty. Interaction occurred in all three modes of delivery; however, how motivated a student interacted in the different modes can vary and impact engagement. Lastly, competence was related to the content of the course, as well as competence in one’s ability to participate with the mode of delivery selected. The synchronous online and the asynchronous options required competence with technology that some students enjoyed while others will choose to avoid.

Purpose of the study

Prior research analyzed motivation and/or engagement in the classroom (Barton et al., 2021; Coates, 2007; Fisher et al., 2021; Kahu, 2013; Zepke, 2014). However, research suggested there could be competence issues and technology preferences, resulting in engagement challenges among HyFlex students (Northey et al., 2018). Thus, there was a need to address the gap in the literature to better understand engagement strategies in HyFlex courses with students attending in different modalities. This research explored whether engagement levels differed between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses. This research aimed to answer the question, is there a significant difference in engagement, task evaluation, and activity perception levels between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses. Additionally, this research analyzed whether HyFlex delivery impacted students’ perception and overall satisfaction of their learning.

The study was guided by the following hypotheses:

H1. There is no significant difference in the engagement levels between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses.

H2. There is no significant difference in the level of task evaluation between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses.

H3. There is no significant difference in the level of activity perception between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses.

Methodology

Context

This study was conducted at a Midwestern regional state university in the United States during the spring 2022 semester. The study was conducted in 12 courses across campus including three English courses, two business courses, two counseling courses, one communications studies course, one Indian Education course, one theater course, and one Honors course all delivered via HyFlex. The counseling courses were graduate level while one of the English courses and the Indian Education course were cross-listed for undergraduate and graduate students. Researchers are faculty members who received training and proficiency to teach HyFlex classes through the university’s HyFlex Certification Program.

Participants

One hundred fifty-five students who were enrolled in 12 different HyFlex courses were invited to participate in the survey. A total of 85 students responded but unfortunately, 11 responses were removed from the dataset due to significant missing data leaving the researchers with 74 usable responses, of which 45 identified as female and 29 identified as male. Nine students were first-year undergraduate college students, 15 in their second year, 24 in their third year, 11 in their fourth and fifth years, and 15 graduate students. Of the 74 students, 54 attended class mostly face-to-face, 11 watched the recorded lecture on the learning management system, and 9 attended live virtually via Zoom. The research was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board and received written consent from participants.

Instruments and procedures

The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) is a multidimensional measurement device intended to assess participants’ subjective experiences related to a target activity (Ryan, 1982). This was first developed to explore experiences in laboratory experiments. The instrument assesses participants’ interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort, value/usefulness, felt pressure and tension, and perceived choice while performing a given activity, thus yielding six subscale scores. Recently, a seventh subscale has been added to tap the experiences of relatedness, although the validity of this subscale has yet to be established.

This mixed methods research study explored effective engagement strategies in the HyFlex modality using an explanatory design. The explanatory design consists of two phases. In the first phase, the researchers collected quantitative data using the Task Evaluation subscale and the Activity Perception subscale, which are components of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Ryan, 1982). The subscales were used to test H1, H2, and H3. The questionnaire was comprised of a total of 55 questions including 22 questions measuring task evaluation (six of which are reverse scored), 25 questions measuring activity perception (six of which are reverse scored), and 8 demographic questions. Each participant rated how true the statements were on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all true to very true (e.g. “I felt that it was my choice to take this HyFlex class.”).

An electronic survey was administered during weeks 12–14 of the 15-week semester. The link was shared in each class by the professor and posted to the learning management system. Students were advised that their participation in this research was voluntary. Students were able to withdraw consent and exit the survey at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. Before taking the survey, students consented to participate in the research study and were offered no incentives.

This first phase was followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative data was collected using focus groups and individual interviews. The second, qualitative phase of the study is designed so that it follows from (or connects to) the results of the first quantitative phase. The preliminary results of the quantitative data were used to formulate questions for an in-depth qualitative study to explain the quantitative results with more detailed evidence. Two questions were asked to elicit qualitative data to analyze whether HyFlex delivery impact students’ perception and overall satisfaction of their learning. The questions were:

How did the ability/inability to choose how to attend this HyFlex class affect your perception of your learning in these courses? Explain.

How did the ability/inability to choose how to attend this HyFlex class affect your overall satisfaction with these courses? Explain.

Data analysis

Hypothesis testing

After the survey was administered, the data was analyzed to assess the engagement levels based on the method of attendance using an ANOVA test. A series of t-tests were used to assess any significant differences between groups in relation to the subscales. To recap, students were grouped by their primary method of attendance: (1) face-to-face; (2) synchronous virtually on Zoom; and (3) virtual asynchronously. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the attendance method on engagement in face-to-face, synchronous online, and asynchronous conditions. There was no significant effect of the method of attendance on any of the subscales of engagement. The means and standard deviations for each IMI subscale are shown in Table 1 below. Taken together, these results suggest that the method of attendance does not affect engagement in the HyFlex classroom.

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations of intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI) subscales for students attending face-to-face, virtually synchronous, and virtually asynchronous.

	Face-to-face		Virtual dynchronous		Virtual asynchronous
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
Task evaluation interest/enjoyment	5.36	1.36	4.87	1.58	5.16	1.73	0.55	0.578
Task evaluation perceived competence	5.64	1.10	5.25	1.07	5.49	1.24	0.58	0.565
Task evaluation perceived choice	4.76	1.75	4.05	1.96	5.11	1.82	0.99	0.377
Task evaluation pressure/tension	2.43	1.32	2.65	1.33	2.56	1.56	0.15	0.861
Activity perception interest/enjoyment	5.24	1.49	5.24	1.49	5.51	1.21	0.19	0.825
Activity Perception Value/Usefulness	5.65	1.34	6.16	1.16	5.74	0.89	0.73	0.484
Activity perception perceived choice	5.16	1.29	5.09	1.71	4.99	1.58	0.06	0.941

In a follow-up t-test, students were re-grouped by their primary method of attendance: (1) face-to-face; (2) virtual—both synchronous and asynchronous. As shown in Table 2, there was no significant difference between the two groups on the four subscales for task evaluation or the three activity perception subscales of engagement. Specifically, the results suggest that face-to-face students or students attending virtually, whether synchronously online or virtual asynchronously, engagement level levels do not appear to significantly change.

Table 2.

t-Test results comparing face-to-face attendance and virtual attendance on intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI) subscales.

	Face-to-face		Virtual
	M	SD	M	SD	t(72)	p
Task evaluation interest/enjoyment	5.36	1.36	5.00	1.62	0.96	0.341
Task evaluation perceived competence	5.64	1.10	5.36	1.12	0.97	0.335
Task evaluation perceived choice	4.76	1.75	4.53	1.93	0.50	0.622
Task evaluation pressure/tension	2.43	1.32	2.61	1.40	−0.53	0.601
Activity perception interest/enjoyment	5.24	1.49	5.47	1.30	−0.61	0.543
Activity perception value/usefulness	5.65	1.34	5.97	1.04	−0.97	0.338
Activity perception perceived choice	5.16	1.29	5.04	1.61	0.31	0.759

In both t-tests, there was no significant difference in engagement between students based on their primary method of attendance on either the task evaluation subscale or activity perception subscale. The lack of significant difference demonstrated support for H1, H2, and H3.

Post hoc analysis

While not a goal or hypothesis, several post-hoc analyses were performed. First, the researchers analyzed the difference in engagement based on gender. Second, the researchers evaluated engagement of undergraduate students in comparison to graduate students.

In a t-test assessing the difference between gender, the 29 males (M = 5.32, SD = 1.47) compared to the 45 females (M = 4.30, SD = 1.87) demonstrated significantly higher task evaluation perceived choice engagement level (t(72) = 2.47, p = 0.02. In a t-test assessing the difference between gender, the 45 females (M = 5.32, SD = 1.42) compared to the 29 males (M = 5.30, SD = 1.47) showed significantly higher activity perception value and usefulness engagement level (t(72) = −2.32, p = 0.02. Remaining t-tests did not show any significant differences between gender and the other IMI subscales as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

t-Test results comparing gender on intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI) subscales.

	Male		Female
	M	SD	M	SD	t(72)	p
Task evaluation interest/enjoyment	5.62	1.12	5.03	1.57	1.75	0.085
Task evaluation perceived competence	5.87	0.78	5.37	1.24	1.94	0.057
Task evaluation perceived choice	5.32	1.47	4.30	1.87	2.47	0.016
Task evaluation pressure/tension	2.26	1.05	2.61	1.48	−1.11	0.271
Activity perception interest/enjoyment	5.30	1.40	5.30	1.47	−0.02	0.988
Activity perception value/usefulness	5.33	1.42	6.00	1.09	−2.32	0.023
Activity perception perceived choice	5.40	1.04	4.95	1.54	1.40	0.167

A t-test was used to determine significant differences between undergraduate student and graduate student engagement in HyFlex classes. Significant differences were identified for task evaluation perceived choice, activity perception value and usefulness, and activity perception perceived choice as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

t-Test results comparing undergraduate students and graduate students on intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI) subscale.

	Undergraduate students		Graduate students
	M	SD	M	SD	t(72)	p
Task evaluation interest/enjoyment	5.76	1.21	5.14	1.47	1.52	0.132
Task evaluation perceived competence	6.00	0.76	5.45	1.16	1.73	0.088
Task evaluation perceived choice	3.52	1.96	5.00	1.62	−3.02	0.003
Task evaluation pressure/tension	2.84	1.54	2.38	1.27	1.19	0.238
Activity perception interest/enjoyment	5.84	1.06	5.16	1.49	1.66	0.102
Activity perception value/usefulness	6.53	0.54	5.54	1.32	2.82	0.006
Activity perception perceived choice	3.91	1.47	5.43	1.17	−4.24	0.000

Qualitative analysis

Students have been facing many challenges, with all the transitions that took place post-COVID-19. Smaller universities in rural areas are the ones most affected. These universities have mostly first-generation students and students with financial hardships. The qualitative phase consisted of two focus groups and semi-structured interviews. A total of 45 students participated in the qualitative phase. The results of the qualitative phase of the study generated five themes. These themes revolved around student engagement in HyFlex classes. Open-ended interview questions were developed by researchers based on previous literature. The question explored the participants’ perceptions of engagement in HyFlex classes. Each focus group lasted 45 minutes. And the semi-structured interview lasted from 15 to 20 minutes. To protect participant identity, each participant was assigned a coded number, which was used instead of their actual names during the data analysis. On reaching data saturation, interviews were discontinued. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were cleaned and re-read, categories were formed, and themes were generated using thematic analysis.

Theme 1—Decreased stress

Students who participated in the qualitative interview reported decreased stress as one of the reasons for their engagement in HyFlex classes. According to Kahu and Nelson (2018), non-traditional students have high levels of job stress, increased family responsibilities and commute a long distance to get to campus, these can cause additional stress and affect student success by lowering student engagement. The participants of this study were mostly non-traditional, having the option of flexible attendance, gave them the options of engagement face to face, synchronous online, or asynchronous. One of the participants reported that “it was super helpful for me because I do live farther away, so I like to have that option to not have to drive all the way to campus or like be able to go home early so that I’m not getting home at 11 o’clock at night. This reduced my stress a lot.” Another response worth mentioning is “having the course be in HyFlex was good since I didn’t feel so much pressured to attend in-person every day. This is because I knew I could either come on Zoom or watch the lecture recording, and this decreased my stress.” This theme supports H1, by showing that there is no significant difference in the engagement levels between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses. A reduction in stress could be a motivator to the engagement levels in different modalities of attendance. The result of this study points to the fact that, not being physically present in the class, does not take away any experiences from the student.

Theme 2—Positive learning experience

Positive learning experiences create a significant increase in student engagement (Hammill et al., 2022). Participants of this study were of the common opinion that HyFlex provided them with positive learning experiences. Participants reported that “I think that the asynchronous activities went well. And I was able to participate in all of them because the materials were posted prior to the people presenting, and I had a very positive learning experience.” Similar results were found in qualitative research conducted on graduate students who used HyFlex classes. Participants of the research perceived HyFlex as a better option that accommodated student needs and provided increased access to course content and instruction (Abdelmalak and Parra, 2016). Hypotheses H2 and H3 are supported by the theme of positive learning experiences. Participants of the study reported that they experienced a positive learning atmosphere in their HyFlex course. Referring back to the research by Hammill et al. (2022), positive learning experiences can lead to engagement, and thereby support task evaluation and activity perception. By not having a significant difference in the levels of task evaluation and activity perception for students based on different attendance modalities, H2 and H3 are accepted.

Theme 3—Flexibility to choose based on learning styles

As the name of the modality suggests, the participants had the common opinion that HyFlex gave them the flexibility to choose based on their learning styles. This is in line with the results of previous research which revealed that HyFlex pedagogy helped to accommodate participants with different learning styles, different levels of education, and different life experiences (Nweke et al., 2022). Some of the responses that contributed to this theme are “If I am being completely honest, I enjoyed being able to kind of choose my type of learning.” Another student reported that being international took him more time to process and understand the course content, having the option to review the class recording later helped him to take his own time to learn and understand. Flexibility to learn could also be counted as a positive indicator in this study. This could have contributed to the acceptance of H1, where there was no significant difference in the engagement levels between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in their HyFlex course.

Theme 4—Increased control on learning

Previous literature suggests that “here and now” learning has a positive correlation with student engagement (Northey et al., 2018). Additionally, previous research has found that HyFlex gives students a sense of control over their learning (Abdelmalak and Parra, 2016). These were also highlighted in the responses of participants in this study. Participants shared; “And then, if we had like, a synchronous week, it was just a lot easier to like, slowly do the readings throughout the whole week, and then focus on the discussion post, I felt like I had total control over my learning process.” Another response was “I felt like I have a better control/say in my learning. This was extremely helpful on days I didn’t feel well.” These responses supported the acceptance of H1 and pointed to the fact that HyFlex modality increases engagement, by students having increased control over their learning.

Theme 5—Increased accountability

Any kind of flex mode can provide opportunities for student engagement by giving students the option to choose when they need in-person instruction and when online synchronous, or asynchronous, instruction. But when students get this flexibility, there is an added responsibility or accountability that comes with it. Participants in this study did provide some insight into this. “I feel that HyFlex learning style helped me to get the most out of the class and it made me realize that being held accountable for my learning style really benefited me,” shared one of the participants. Another participant added that “sometimes I felt like, I had to make sure my group members had all watched the videos, so we could complete the project.” According to Doyle (2022), accountability in HyFlex classrooms helped students to effectively navigate through each other’s experiences and thereby contributed to increased engagement. The responses of the participants support this previous literature, which provides students with more experiences with each other, while trying to be accountable and thereby promoting engagement. Additionally, this is another factor that supported H1, where there was no significant difference in the engagement levels between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous).

The results from the data analysis and the conclusions reached regarding each hypothesis are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5.

Summary of research hypotheses.

Notation	Hypothesis	Decision
Hypothesis 1 (H1)	There is no significant difference in the engagement levels between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses.	Supported
Hypothesis 2 (H2)	There is no significant difference in the level of task evaluation between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses.	Supported
Hypothesis 3 (H3)	There is no significant difference in the level of activity perception between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses.	Supported

Discussion

The primary purpose of this research was to explore whether engagement levels varied between students based on their primary method of attendance (face-to-face, online synchronous, and asynchronous) in HyFlex courses. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Statistical analysis of quantitative data in this study suggested that the method of attendance does not influence engagement in the HyFlex classroom.

The analysis revealed significant differences between genders for task evaluation perceived choice and higher activity perception value and usefulness engagement levels. Specifically, males demonstrated significantly higher engagement levels for task evaluation perceived choice and females showed significantly higher activity perception value and usefulness engagement levels than males. This contradicts the findings from Baloran et al.’s (2021) study which indicated no statistically significant results regarding engagement when analyzing gender. In another study, McGregor and Elliot (2002) males were viewed more positively than females. This could be because males evaluate themselves more positively in the classroom (Pomerantz and Ruble, 1998).

In addition, significant differences between undergraduate and graduate students emerged. Graduate students rated higher than undergraduate students on task evaluation perceived choice and activity perception perceived choice, while undergraduates exhibited higher levels of activity perception value/usefulness than graduate students. These findings are similar to Artino and Stephens (2009) study which had mixed results for undergraduate versus graduate students. In comparison to graduate students, undergraduates found online classes more interesting and valuable. Undergraduates also showed a higher incidence of procrastination, which in some studies indicated a lower level of motivation (Wolters, 2004).

Themes that were generated from the qualitative data highlighted an increased engagement in HyFlex. Participants were not specific about their mode of attendance, but in general, having a variety of attendance modalities helped students to be more engaged in classes. Participants took ownership of their learning. Students felt like it was their responsibility to help each other succeed, and this in turn helped them to stay engaged.

The results of this study indicate that students appreciate the flexibility and control to choose the modality in which to attend classes. The Self-Determination Theory posits that individuals require a certain level of competence, relatedness, and autonomy to motivate their desire to grow. In this study, the desire to grow was impacted by the choice of modality in which to attend class. Students’ competence, relatedness, and autonomy were all impacted by the decision of the student. The results from this study indicate that students liked the flexibility HyFlex teaching provided, along with a sense of control in their education. This directly ties to competence and autonomy. This study also revealed the level of accountability to their classmates was important. Relatedness is also an important factor in HyFlex teaching and learning.

Strategies for effective engagement in HyFlex courses are presented below in Table 6. The strategies and examples of activities are based on the researcher’s experience of HyFlex training, teaching HyFlex classes, and the results and findings of this study. The university’s HyFlex-certified faculty, from across disciplines, implemented these strategies in their HyFlex undergraduate and graduate courses.

Table 6.

Strategies for effective engagement with examples of activities and digital tools.

Strategies	Examples of activities/digital tools
Creating connections	Providing opportunities for purposeful discussions in smaller groups.
	Helping to build trusting relationships.
	Helping students to get more comfortable with their classmates through small group activities for engagement.
Creating equitable learning experiences	Similar experiences were provided for students who attended in all three delivery modes.
Creating equitable learning experiences	Similar expectations were set for students who attended in all three delivery modes.
Preparing students for classroom technology	Technology was tested ahead of time and students and faculty were familiarized with it.
Preparing students for classroom technology	On-call support was provided for faculty by the instructional technology staff.
Setting clear expectations	The syllabus was revised to include specific instructions for HyFlex.
Setting clear expectations	Assignments and expectations along with rubrics were communicated at the beginning of the semester through the syllabus.
Strengthen engagement	Technology was wisely used to provide engaging opportunities for students- Kahoot, Jam board, Nearpod, Padlet, Poll Everywhere, Jigsaw, fishbowl discussions, Coggle, etc. were used.
Synchronous and asynchronous discussions	Engaging discussion boards were used to provide equal opportunities for students who attended in all three delivery modes.

The goal of this study was to explore student engagement in HyFlex courses. Faculty in this study were able to achieve equitable engagement across attendance modalities by utilizing some specific strategies as outlined in Table 5. The strategies and examples of activities are based on the researcher’s experience of HyFlex training, teaching HyFlex classes, and the results and findings of this study. The university’s HyFlex-certified faculty, from across disciplines, implemented these strategies in their HyFlex undergraduate and graduate courses. These strategies may have contributed to the results of this study. Future faculty who are teaching HyFlex classes could use these to facilitate active learning and effective engagement in students.

Limitations and future research

Despite the encouraging results offered by this study, it had some limitations. The first limitation of this study was the sample size. With the class size of the courses surveyed, only 74 surveys were deemed usable of the 85 surveys received. For greater clarification, additional students’ responses should be obtained and evaluated. Secondly, the qualitative phase used only two open-ended questions, which limited the richness of student responses, based on their experiences. Future research can utilize focus groups and critical incident techniques, which can generate insightful results from the in-depth conversation. The third potential limitation of the study was that the data was self-reported. Student motivation outcomes were obtained from the students. Adding more stakeholders like faculty, academic advisors, and academic administrators to evaluate student engagement would add newer dimensions to future research. The fourth limitation of this study was limited in scope to students at a small, Midwest regional state university. A future path of research would include other universities differing in size, region, diversity, programs, private versus public, etc. Grade Point Average (GPA) could be another variable to consider in future research.

The results of this study offer opportunities for future research in the area of innovative pedagogy. HyFlex is taking different forms and styles with its increased usage in higher education. Faculty could be interviewed to explore their experiences and satisfaction with HyFlex teaching. Models like flipped HyFlex and blend HyFlex can be studied. This study revealed a significant difference between the engagement of genders as well as engagement among undergraduate and graduate students. These groups could be further explored in terms of intrinsic motivation and engagement independently. Future researchers can also investigate cross-disciplinary approaches in HyFlex teaching and learning.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the findings of the quantitative study did not find a significant difference in engagement between the primary method of attendance and the four subscales for task evaluation or the three activity perception subscales. In other words, engagement remains the same for students attending face-to-face, virtually live via Zoom (synchronous), and online asynchronously via recordings. The qualitative results confirm that students felt that they benefited greatly from the HyFlex course design. Directly related to the course, students stated they experienced less stress during the semester and were better able to balance their course load with work and family obligations. Students felt that HyFlex was the wave of the future and that if their university did not fully embrace HyFlex courses, future students may choose to go somewhere that did.

Additionally, HyFlex was instrumental in allowing students to spend more time working at local businesses and internships not only learning what is discussed in class through real-world interactions with clients. The increase in work hours enabled them to reduce the amount of borrowed funds needed to complete their education. Finally, the increase in work hours during college ensured that they had full-time employment opportunities presented to them immediately following graduation as employers have had the opportunity to observe their work qualifications.

The strategies for effective engagement in HyFlex courses discussed in this paper have shown to engage students equitably across multiple disciplines and delivery methods. For universities and educators, this means careful planning, appropriate training, and flexibility are needed when implementing HyFlex courses. For HyFlex courses to be engaging, universities and educators can lean on the Self-Determination Theory. Students need competence and confidence, relevance and connection to others, as well as autonomy and choice in their HyFlex courses. Ultimately, this may impact the student’s growth and development. Given the challenges that universities are facing today, HyFlex offers a potential solution to a university’s enrollment challenges while providing more autonomy to students which becomes more important as a student moves through their academic career.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kristi M Bockorny

Theresa M Giannavola

Shalini Mathew

Hannah D Walters

Author biographies

Kristi Bockorny joined Northern State University (NSU) in the spring of 2010. She is an associate professor of management and the Honors Program Director. Her research interests include psychological capital, gratitude, leadership, employee motivation and engagement, training and development, and workforce recruitment and selection.

Theresa Giannavola is an assistant professor for the banking and financial services program at NSU. She is a licensed attorney in Massachusetts, Rhone Island and New York with five years of experience in higher education and over 20 years of experience in the private sector and federal government combined.

Shalini Mathew is an assistant professor, field coordinator and CACREP liaison for NSU's master's in counseling program. She is a Nationally Certified Counselor, who has five years of experience in higher education in the U.S. and 12 years of experience in private mental health setting and K-12 schools in India.

Hannah Walters joined Northern State University in 2012. As an associate professor of marketing, she teaches marketing, marketing for e-commerce, marketing management, integrated marketing communications, consumer behavior, marketing research, and international marketing. Her research interests include ethical issues in marketing, consumer behavior, ethical decision making, and marketing education.

References

Abdelmalak

MMM

Parra

(2016) Expanding learning opportunities for graduate students with HyFlex course design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design 6(4): 19–36.

Artino

Jr Stephens

(2009) Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education 12(3–4): 146–51.

Baloran

Hernan

Taoy

(2021) Course satisfaction and student engagement in online learning amid COVID-19 pandemic: A structural equation model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 22(4): 1–12.

Barton

Adams

Browne

, et al. (2021) The effects of social media usage on attention, motivation, and academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education 22(1): 11–22.

Beatty

(2019) Hybrid-Flexible Course Design Implementing Student-Directed Hybrid Classes, 1st edn. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) The employment situation. Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (accessed 30 June 2022).

Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(2012) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer.

Coates

(2007) A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32: 121-141.

Crumpton

Gregory

(2011) I’m not learning: The role of academic relevancy for low-achieving students. Journal of Education & Psychology 104: 42–53.

10.

Deci

Ryan

(1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

11.

Deci

Vallerand

Pelletier

, et al. (1991) Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist 26(3–4): 325–46.

12.

Doyle

(2022) Video lab HyFlex: Practical experiences of courses with practical applications: Cabrini University. In: Beatty

(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.

Fisher

Perenyi

Birdthistle

(2021) The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2): 97–113.

15.

Fredricks

Blumenfeld

Paris

(2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1): 59–119.

16.

Gamage

KAA

Gamage

Dehideniya

SCP

(2022) Online and hybrid teaching and learning: Enhance effective student engagement and experience. Education Sciences 12(10): 651.

17.

Gobert

Baker

Wixon

(2015) Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science microworlds. Educational Psychologist 50(1): 43–57.

18.

Hammill Nguyen

Henderson

(2022) Student engagement: The impact of positive psychology interventions on students. Active Learning in Higher Education 23(2): 129–42.

19.

Kahn

(1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 33(4): 692–724.

20.

Kahu

(2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38(5): 758–73.

21.

Kahu

Nelson

(2018) Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development 37(1): 58–71.

22.

Lefebvre

(2021) So, what is HyFlex anyway? HyFlex Learning Community. Available at: https://www.hyflexlearning.org/2021/05/24/so-what-is-hyflex-anyway (accessed 16 April 2022).

23.

Lepper

Corpus

Ivengar

(2005) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Education & Psychology 92(7): 184–96.

24.

Lewin

(1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

25.

Lieberman

(2018) Introducing a New(-ish) Learning Mode: Blendflex/Hyflex. Inside HigherEd. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/01/24/blendflex-lets-students-toggle-between-online-or-face-face (accessed 20 August 2022).

26.

Littlefield

(2021) Overwhelmed by three modalities at once? HyFlex Learning Community. : Available at: https://www.hyflexlearning.org/2021/10/05/overwhelmed-by-three-modalities-at-once (accessed 16 April 2022).

27.

Luthans

(2002) Positive Organizational Behavior: Developing and Managing Psychological Strengths [and executive commentary]. The Academy of Management Perspectives 16(1): 57–75.

28.

McGregor

Elliot

(2002) Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Education & Psychology 94(2): 381–95.

29.

Miller

Risser

Griffiths

(2013) Student choice, instructor flexibility: Moving beyond the blended instructional model. The University of Arizona, Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies 1(1): 8–24.

30.

National Center for Education Statistics. Undergraduate enrollment. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cha/undergrad-enrollment (2022, accessed 2 May 2022).

31.

Northey Govind

Bucic

, et al. (2018) The effect of “here and now” learning on student engagement and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology 49(2): 321–33.

32.

Nweke

Bokolo

Mba

, et al. (2022) Investigating the effectiveness of a HyFlex cyber security training in a developing country: A case study. Education and Information Technologies 27: 10107–33.

33.

Pinder

WCC

(2011) Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

34.

Pintrich

Marx

Boyle

(1993) Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research 63(2): 167–99.

35.

Pomerantz

Ruble

(1998) The multidimensional nature of control: Implications for the development of sex differences in self-evaluation. In: Heckhausen

Dweck

(eds) Motivation and Self-Regulation Across the Life Span. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.159–84.

36.

Reschly

Christenson

(2006) Promoting school completion. In: Bear

Minke

(eds) Children’s Needs III: Understanding and Addressing the Developmental Needs of Children. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists, pp. 103-113.

37.

Riggs

Linder

(2016) Actively Engaging Students in Asynchronous Online Classes, (IDEA Paper #64) Oregon State University E-campus. Available at: https://www.ideaedu.org/idea_papers/actively-engaging-students-in-asynchronous-online-classes/

38.

Ryan

(1982) Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43(3): 450–61.

39.

Ryan

Deci

(2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55(1): 68–78.

40.

Ryan

Deci

(2017) Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: The Guilford Press.

41.

Schaufeli

Bakker

(2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(3): 293–315.

42.

Schaufeli

Bakker

(2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(4): 701–16.

43.

Seligman

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000) Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist 55(1): 5–14.

44.

Skinner

Pirwe

(2012) Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In: Christenson

Reschly

ALL

Wylie

(eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer, pp.21–44.

45.

Stairs

Galpin

(2010) Positive engagement: From employee engagement to workplace happiness. In: Linley

Harrington

Garcea

(eds) Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.155–72.

46.

Tualaulelei

Burke

Fanshawe

, et al. (2021) Mapping pedagogical touchpoints: Exploring online student engagement and course design. Active Learning in Higher Education 1(1): 1–15.

47.

Vallerand

Pelletier

Koestner

(2008) Reflections on self-determination theory. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49(3): 257–62.

48.

Wolters

(2004) Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Education & Psychology 96(2): 236–50.

49.

Zepke

(2014) Student engagement research in higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education 19(6): 697–708.