Hybrid-Flexible Course Design

Reviewed by April Salerno, Assistant Professor, University of Virginia on 11/29/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

I approached this book as a learner, seeking to learn more about hybrid-flexible course design, and I was able to get what I needed from the book. I especially appreciated that the book has a section that is ongoing in including examples from others about their experiences implementing hybrid-flexible design.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Again, I'm a learner in this topic, but I appreciated that the book is open to new contributions and is thus an ongoing project to include additional voices. I also appreciated the recognition that hybrid-flexible design requires time from faculty, and the book considers various supports that can make this type of work possible.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

I believe that course design is a topic that is currently under discussion in many settings, as we look for new and differentiated ways to serve learners.

Clarity rating: 4

The book was written in a clear way that I could understand.

Consistency rating: 5

The book consistently considers the topic of course-design from various perspectives.

Modularity rating: 5

Because I was seeking to learn from this book, I went first to the topics that most concerned me: how to design and teach a hybrid-flexible course and how to avoid pitfalls along the way. It was easy for me to read the book in this way without going through the text in the given chapter order.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization seems appropriate and considers various aspects of hybrid-flexible course design.

Interface rating: 5

I was able to navigate the book without problems.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The book's grammar seemed appropriate.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I did not read the book cover-to-cover, but I did not see any problems with cultural insensitivity.

Reviewed by Rebecca Dilling, Visiting Assistant Professor, Sweet Briar College on 7/15/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book was extremely comprehensive as it included case studies and worksheets that helped support the research throughout Beatty's book! Remarkable!

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I found Beatty's book to be quite accurate with mountains of research-based information to support its content.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Hybrid-Flexible Course Design is completely relevant to where higher education finds itself currently and where it could be as it peers into the future forecast of higher education.

Clarity rating: 5

It is written with utmost clarity and precision.

Consistency rating: 5

Beatty's book is backed up with research throughout the entire work and so the consistency of terminology and framework is definitely present.

Modularity rating: 5

I could easily maneuver through Beatty's book as it has headings throughout and a solid introduction that gives clarity to the way the book is written and how it is organized.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

This book is extremely clear and maintains a logical flow throughout. I loved it!

Interface rating: 5

Well done in this area also!

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No real grammatical errors were noted throughout, other than a few grammatical uses that gave the writing Beatty's voice.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Beatty was culturally neutral. None of this book would be seen as offensive to anyone reading it, in my opinion.

Comments

Given the current unprecedented condition of our education system in the United States, the book, Hybrid-Flexible Course Design, is uncannily timely. This realistic and relative book seeks to assist higher education administrators and faculty by nose diving into a real problem and providing at least one real solution. Like many higher education programs, San Francisco State realized in the early 2000s, that enrollment concerns had to be addressed, and that programs needed to change in order to attract more new students and to provide more participation options for current students. Thus began the consideration and debate circulating around the option to “move the program online” (Beatty, B. 2020, pg. 10). The struggle, as with all institutions, was how to do this effectively; allowing the well-being of the students to remain the priority. Brian Beatty’s well-researched, literary presentation is quite pertinent and worthy of much attention from those similarly impacted by the 21st century educational shift and from those whose eyes are focused on the future forecast of higher education. To begin to understand the topic of this literary piece, there has to be a clear understanding of what a Hybrid-Flexible course is. Beatty deems the official definition of a Hybrid Flexible Course (HyFlex) as one in which students “can choose to attend class either in an assigned face-to-face environment or in an online environment, synchronously or asynchronously” (Beatty, B. 2020, pg. 12-13). Beatty then describes the process of how the institution began to develop a HyFlex program; delving first into the pool of what was already being done (and written about) in higher education. He provides an extensive pool of research and findings within his book. San Francisco State wanted to know what existed already that was successfully meeting the changing needs of students. Naturally brought to light was the ever limited set of resources that academic institutions would most likely face in program implementation such as time, faculty, and space. In Hybrid-Flexible Course Design, the focus was how San Francisco state, while thoroughly and realistically spotlighting the challenges to consider, also began meeting those challenges with a feasible solution such as a Hyflex program design. Beatty discusses other challenging and familiar factors such as: 1) the level of institutional support to build and grow a fully online program, 2) the level of proven faculty expertise in teaching fully online courses or serving fully online students, and 3) the level of student interest in a fully online program (Beatty, 2020) Through research, Beatty discovered that two factors contributed to the superiority of blended (hybrid) instruction over online and face to face instruction: additional learning time and additional instructional elements (Beatty, 2020). One of the traditional approaches to hybrid course design is that the student does not have the freedom to choose how to participate in course assignments or activities. This also pertains to how students attend class, whether online or in-class. Instructors can develop multi-avenues for which students can complete activities, however, students with schedule conflicts, travel difficulties, or other legitimate reasons that prevent their in-class attendance, will still miss out on those learning opportunities. This in turn reduces the effectiveness (amount of learning) within the course. Beatty suggests that in a HyFlex class, the instructor is challenged to design effective learning experiences for students in both online and in-class modes. This may require additional resources for online students. Also, the additional time made available for the asynchronous online mode is thought to directly improve learning for students who take advantage of either or both (Beatty, 2020). A great question that Beatty brings up in his book (and one of realistic importance) is Why put all this effort into supporting students who direct their own hybrid learning experience? His response makes so much sense to me as a college professor. Beatty argues that students may be better able than instructors to make the “best mode of participation” decisions for themselves. Equally intriguing is the idea that the HyFlex course model rids college instructors of the common student excuses for non-participation associated with schedule conflicts, travel difficulties, and such. The HyFlex model allows no room for excuses or for "skipping class" (Beatty, 2020). Almost as if answering an invisible question that would naturally come to the minds of educators and administrators today, Beatty uses a list of benefits to argue his case for the use of the HyFlex course model. Some of these benefits include: an overall increase in course enrollment due to offering additional schedule and location flexibility to students; an increase per unit course load and reduced time to graduation; and an increase of individual class section enrollment beyond the seat capacity of a physical classroom. A few other benefits include: the ability of HyFlex to reduce space requirements for expanding enrollment and to increase the availability of courses, as well as providing support for innovative approaches to instruction that should contribute to greater student success (Beatty, 2020). All of this, according to Beatty’s book, can lead to increased student learning, provide opportunities for faculty research and publication, and create institutional marketing opportunities to external stakeholders. As with all innovation, the HyFlex model does impose some cost. In Beatty’s book, he intentionally makes these costs clear… “The cost for students: {would imply} personal management related to learning path: decision-making (which way to participate?) and when online is chosen, requires substantial time management skills. Personaland technical resources are required to participate in the online version of the course: (most commonly) hardware, network, ability to engage in online learning platforms, and the ability to learn through mediated experiences The greatest cost, or challenge, to students is almost always s the additional effort required to self-manage online participation requirements when in-class participation is not possible or desired. Many students still are not used to managing time effectively, especially when they may have low internal motivation to learn required content in required courses that aren’t personally interesting to them. Distractions and non-educational options to spend time continue to proliferate in students’ lives, further competing for their cognitive engagement; personal time management is a critical success factor for HyFlex students who choose online participation.” “The Costs to Faculty: {would show up in the} designing and development of a course that supports multiple and simultaneous modes of student participation, essentially creating both fully face to face and online formats. In addition, managing the technical complexity of multi-modal instruction, especially when synchronous participation is supported would be added. Administrating the participation of students in varied formats: tracking attendance and participation, practice and assessment activities, and providing interaction and feedback would also be at cost. Time, time, time… the clear cost to faculty.” “Costs to Administrators/institution: Support for additional faculty development and workload; formally or informally would entail certain cost. This may require additional financial resources. Increased cost would be the provision for technology-equipped classrooms to support online students as well: lecture/discussion capture, synchronous learning platform. Also, cost would be associated with enabling students to realize the scheduling flexibility value associated with HyFlex; modifications to class scheduling system, student registration system, managing clear communications. Perhaps the most important cost to the administration of an institution embarking on a HyFlex journey is the leadership’s willingness to address the range of costs associated with the effort” (Beatty, 2020, pp. 26-27). One of the things that I particularly found valuable is that after listing out the benefits and cost of developing a HyFlex program, Beatty suggests that all institutions complete a Cost-Benefit Analysis before any effort to implement HyFlex is begun, whether for a single course or for an entire program or curriculum. This is wise advice and good counsel. Overall, I found Beatty’s book, Hybrid-Flexible Course Design, remarkably interesting in addressing pertinent issues in higher education today and in the specific college in which I teach. It had great personal value to me as an educator, just trying to figure things out, moving forward. I loved his sort of “closing remarks” to me: “The claim of universal applicability is not something I would ever make for the HyFlex design, nor do I agree with the presumption that one pedagogical approach is (or even can possibly be) suitable for all learners” (Beatty, 2020, p. 6) With clarity and an encouraging tone, however, it is determined in the research of this book, that “when students are given the freedom and ability to choose which mode to participate in from session to session, they are able to create their own unique hybrid experience” (Beatty, B. 2020, pg. 6) It can be concluded, then, that the HyFlex approach can, in fact, deliver a “student-directed hybrid” learning experience, which seems to fit many of the newly developing needs of higher education students, faculty, and institutions today. I enjoyed this easy to read but in-depth and intricate book by Brain Beatty and believe that all institutions of higher education would benefit from its content-specific information and research-based strategies and case-studies that could lead to higher levels of student and institutional success.