Is This Disability Justice? Hating and Wanting Hyflex

Est ce vraiment cela, la justice pour les personnes handicapées? L’hybride flexible entre désir et rejet

Amy Vidali, Ph.D.
Full Teaching Professor
University of California, Santa Cruz

avidali [at] ucsc [dot] edu

Abstract

This essay examines whether hyflex modalities--loosely defined as being in-person and online/on-Zoom simultaneously--further the goals of disability justice. To do this, I examine a selection of post-pandemic hyflex scholarship, and based on this review, I argue that hyflex: (1) requires curricular and institutional support that is almost always lacking; (2) is falsely premised on “access” and “choice” for students (and not faculty); (3) is deeply stained by the pandemic, and we have not dealt with hyflex’s trauma relations; (4) is/was never about disability justice, and while we may (want to) repurpose it as such, doing so requires us to recognize its neoliberal emphases. Despite these damning critiques, I conclude by questioning my own proclivity for black-and-white thinking and suggest that we are at a precarious impasse with hyflex.

Résumé

Cet essai analyse dans quelle mesure le modèle hybride-flexible, défini comme des dispositifs permettant une participation simultanée en présence et en ligne, peut réellement contribuer aux objectifs de la justice pour toutes les personnes handicapées. À partir d’une revue de travaux universitaires postpandémiques, j’avance que l’hybride-flexible (1) requiert un soutien pédagogique et institutionnel rarement disponible, (2) qu’il repose à tort sur une idée d’« accessibilité » et de « choix » pour les étudiantes et étudiants, mais non pour les enseignantes et enseignants, (3) qu’il demeure profondément marqué par la pandémie alors que nous n’avons pas encore traité les relations traumatiques qu’il a engendrées, et (4) qu’il n’a pas été conçu pour répondre aux exigences de justice pour toutes les personnes handicapées, toute tentative de réorientation devant reconnaitre ses fondements néolibéraux. Malgré ces critiques accablantes, je conclus en remettant en question ma propre tendance à penser de manière binaire et en suggérant que nous nous trouvons dans une impasse précaire face à l’hybride-flexible.

Keywords: Hyflex; Hybrid; Disability Justice; Choice; Modality; Access

Mots-clés : Hybride-flexible; hybride; justice pour toutes les personnes handicapées; choix; modèle; accessibilité



I want in-person events where we don’t all stare at Zoom screens; I want a Zoom option for everything; and I hate hyflex. Hyflex, loosely defined as being in-person and online/on-Zoom simultaneously (more on this below), arouses such contradictory reactions.

Most of us fell into hyflex during the first year or two of the Covid pandemic. For me, it began when I let students “Zoom-in” to my in-person class when they had Covid, where I would sometimes forget they were there or teach almost exclusively to them. Next, without much forethought, I started running hyflex meetings for roughly 50 faculty. In these meetings, there were about 35 people online and 15 in person, so I talked to those on Zoom and those in the room, grappled with videoconference software, and strained to track conversations in the Zoom chat--all at the same time. After multiple meetings where I felt I might literally snap in two, I abandoned my hyflex approach.

But I felt, and still feel, guilty about it. I’ve joined other disability activists in declaring that many of the things we’ve long asked for suddenly went from impossible to routine during the pandemic, including online access to events. I’m worried that by rejecting hyflex, I’m thwarting my own attempts at disability justice (Bennett and Hannah; Berne et al.). In a thoughtful book review, Jonathan Sterne provides a useful “overgeneralization” in differentiating previous disability studies/rights approaches from disability justice, noting that “the unifying concept of disability identity that was so important for an earlier generation of scholars has been challenged by a relational model of crip subjectivity that may or may not operate as identity” (1150). In considering hyflex in the context of disability justice, I’m interested in both the specific needs of disabled people in higher education and issues not situated in specific disabled identities, including how and whether hyflex accords with disability justice principles that question capitalist productivity and honor interdependence and collective liberation.

To explore these issues, I consider a selection of post-pandemic research on hyflex, consisting of 15 studies of faculty and students published from March 2020 to September 2023.[1] (For an overview of the studies, see the Appendix.) I focus on studies of students and faculty to trace reactions to hyflex (and avoid scholarship primarily focused on explaining what hyflex is and how to do it).[2]

The definition of hyflex is every-shifting, with overlap with hybrid learning, blended learning, and other terminology (Eduljee et al.; Nordmann et al.). Hyflex is distinguished by consistently offering in-person and remote versions of courses at the same time, with students able to “choose” which modality on a class-by-class basis. In contrast, blended learning courses typically focus on reducing or replacing in-person content with online content (Bruijn-Smolders and Prinsen; Müller and Mildenberger). In a useful table that compares hyflex to other modalities, Tracey Barr and Tian Luo note that the variously brand-named FlexLearning, Converged Learning, MultiAccess Learning, Peirce Fit, and BlendFlex allow students to choose among modalities in ways similar to hyflex, while other models (Comodal, Flexibly Accessible Learning Environment, Multi-Options) require students to choose their attendance mode on a weekly basis. While the scholarship typically uses the term “HyFlex” (which is a portmanteau of “hybrid” and “flexible”), in this article, I have opted for the simpler (and less corporate) “hyflex.”

My review of 15 hyflex studies and related scholarship leads me to four conclusions, which frame this essay:

Given these arguments, it would seem that I’m done with hyflex, but I’m not sure that I am. As I discuss in the final section, hyflex challenges my propensity for black-and-white thinking, and I’m left in the gray about hyflex, despite everything.

1. Hyflex requires curricular and institutional support that is almost always lacking. (I think we knew that.)

Anyone who has tried teaching or administrating in hyflex modes will be unsurprised by the consistently articulated challenges I found in the hyflex scholarship I reviewed. These include trouble communicating across in-person and online modes, insufficient or complicated technology, increased workload, and faculty stress.

The most commonly articulated difficulty for students and faculty is coordinating in-person and online/on-Zoom participants as a functional class group (Athens; Bockorny et al. 6; Kohnke and Moorhouse 233-4; Marquart et al. 28). Online students feel “‘ignored’ by their face-to-face peers during in-class group work” (Mentzer and Mohandas 1619; also see Detyna et al. 155), and there is overreliance on Zoom chat (Kohnke 58). Hyflex is recognized as requiring more work for students and faculty (Cheng; Kohnke and Moorhouse, 238; Marquart et al. 27; Mentzer et al. “Hyflex”), and there are technological concerns for students (Athens; Cheng; Mentzer and Mohandas) and for faculty (Boehm & Boerboom; Detyna et al.; Kohnke; Marquart et al.; Romero-Hall & Ripine). Two studies of hyflex describe faculty as “overwhelmed” (Boehm & Boerboom, 45; Dentya et al. 155); another describes “the uncertainty that instructors felt about their ability to deliver pedagogically sound lessons in the new blended-learning model” (Kohnke 57). A fourth states that managing multiple modes can be “intimidating” and “awkward” (Marquart et al. 33).

I am concerned that the most commonly articulated challenge of hyflex is teaching and learning in multiple modes. That is, the problem with hyflex is hyflex. Despite this, I found that the scholarship regularly refers to hyflex as a likely “new norm” or “new normal” (Guidry 3; Kohnke, 67). I am more convinced by Detyna et al., who note that we should “not transform this approach into a marketing tool by simply listing positive-sounding adjectives (e.g. flexibility, interactivity) without also recognitising its limitations, both technical and pedagogical” (157).

2. Hyflex is falsely premised on “access” and “choice” for students (and not faculty), and the origin story of hyflex matters.

I have used hyflex in the name of access and choice, but after reviewing the scholarship, I see that hyflex provides a false sense of choice and, at best, uneven access.

In the scholarship, choice is falsely positioned as synonymous with flexibility, autonomy, and freedom (Bockoroy et al., 4; Cheng; Mentzer and Mohandas 1620). In some cases, “choice” is an illusion, as faculty decide who is in-person and who is online (Guidry 4); students must make modality decisions for the full term (Howell et al.); and online is the only option for certain students (Bockorny et al. 2). While several studies claim that hyflex pedagogies support different kinds of learners (Bockorny et al. 6; Cheng; Mentzer and Mohandas 1619; Romero-Hall and Ripine 297), only some recognize that students’ choices are limited by commute times, childcare/work obligations, and pandemic factors (Bohorquez et al. 7).[3] Hyflex is also lauded for preparing students for “future workforce requirements” (Mentzer and Mohandas 1623) and “virtual teams in their professional futures” (Marquart et al. 23), though it isn’t clear that college courses should model or train students for specific corporate environments.

No faculty actively chose hyflex in the studies I reviewed (also see Gillis and Szabo); hyflex was required by outside motivators during the pandemic.[4] Suggested strategies for improving hyflex, such as using the chat as backchannel discussion and flipping the classroom (Howell et al.), push instructors to do even more work. One study claims that hyflex benefits teachers, “as they only need to deliver each course once, instead of separate in person and online versions of the same course” (Kohnke and Moorhouse 232). This ignores that instructors might be paid for teaching two courses if they were not combined into one hyflex course.

Put plainly, institutions of higher education embrace and/or require hyflex because its benefits are in line with neoliberal goals of “efficiently” teaching more and more students, even in a pandemic. Andrew Watermeyer et al. describe this as “pandemia,” which “provides legitimacy to economic opportunism and the surrendering of an ethic of care in universities” (65). Such was the case early in the pandemic, when we all pressed on with no adjustment to pay or tuition, and scholarship on hyflex presents unqualified claims of increased access. For example, one article claims that the goal of hyflex is “to reach more students who cannot halt life activities to make it to the elusive ivory towers of higher education campuses” (Howell et al.; also see Marquart et al. 23; Cheng), when the financial reality is that hyflex can “extend the number of spaces as much as possible to increase the number of classes” (Detyna et al. 148; also see Lightner and Lightner-Laws). That these goals might be achieved through online education, not hyflex education, isn’t addressed.[5]

Finally, hyflex was not built for or in the pandemic. In Higher Education and Disaster Capitalism in the Age of COVID-19, Marina Vujnovic and Johnanna Foster trace the origin story of “HyFlex,” noting it was developed by Brian Beatty at San Francisco State University for graduate students in education technology, who might want to consider and struggle through a complex modality (178-9).[6] Beatty’s four principles of hyflex--which include learner choice regarding modality, equivalency in learning among modalities, reusability of learning artifacts across modalities, and accessibility--are frequently mentioned in the scholarship but are typically distilled to “student choice.” (It is notable that “accessibility” means equivalent access to technology, not disability accessibility.) Vujnovic and Foster conclude that “the Hyflex model is a disaster capitalism response to pandemic fears over loss of revenue and the opportunity to bypass faculty voice in decisions that would transform teaching in the higher education context” (176). This is an important critique, as while I often hear faculty rejecting hyflex because it is technologically and pedagogically challenging, there are more complex reasons why hyflex is problematic.

3. Hyflex is deeply stained by the pandemic, and we have not dealt with hyflex’s trauma relations.

In reviewing hyflex scholarship produced during and directly after the pandemic’s height, I was particularly interested in learning how scholars accounted for pandemic impacts. I was surprised to find that the pandemic is lightly considered in most of the scholarship I reviewed, even though 13 of the 15 studies I examined begin with discussion of the pandemic.[7] Nearly none of the articles deeply consider the pandemic’s impact, though it would seem to be the ultimate confounding variable in assessing the value of hyflex (during the pandemic).

One survey-based study published in 2021 identifies pandemic motivations to teach hyflex, but does not include questions about pandemic-related issues, such as stress and safety, in its extensive survey instrument (Romero-Hall and Ripine). Two studies only mention the pandemic in a single sentence (Bockorny et al. 10; Bohoroquez et al. 2), though both gathered data in spring 2022, when the Omicron spike was at its height (“CDC Museum COVID-19 Timeline”). Another article notes: “Without a control group and given pandemic conditions, it was difficult to explore the differences, nonetheless an analysis was conducted between attendance choices and statements of low motivation in the open responses” (Athens). The use of “nonetheless” is striking.

In all, eight of the 15 studies in my review hardly or lightly consider the impact of the pandemic, and three of the remaining seven have the same lead author (Mentzer). When the pandemic is more deeply engaged, emphasis is on challenges in interpreting the data, and how the pandemic impacted students’ modality choices (Mentzer et al., “Impact”; Mentzer and Mohandas; Kohnke and Moorhouse). Only one of the 15 sources I reviewed considers the intrusive logistics of teaching during the pandemic, such as dealing with muffled sound through masks, surface touching, and the need for additional cleaning staff (Detyna et al. 151).[8] Engagement with the affective elements of the pandemic, which entirely overwhelm my own hyflex memories and efforts, are uncommon.

While the pandemic may be decentered in the hyflex scholarship I considered to make the work appear more widely applicable (rather than pandemic-specific), I think it is more likely that the light treatment of the pandemic indicates a hesitancy to engage with the traumatic nature of our pandemic teaching, which was characterized by an “overall sense of overwhelm, frustration, fear, and powerlessness” (de Vries and Gonzales-Wong, 6), as well as significant increases in PTSD rates (Idoiaga Mondragon et al.). Frankly, I felt confused and gaslit by the minimal attention given to the pandemic in this scholarship, as my memories of teaching in remote synchronous and hyflex modes are mired in pandemic trauma. A piece published in the journal Pedagogy, written by student and writing tutor Owen Farney, captures the pandemic context I remember but do not see reflected in the hyflex scholarship I reviewed:

Though class sessions are often clunky as we navigate the hybrid class model, students and professor work together to communicate the best we can across different mediums. My professor calls on students both online and in the class, hands are raised virtually and in person, and sometimes online students’ comments scroll by in the chat with an entirely independent discussion that gets missed by those of us in person. What is class like for them? Why are they home instead of here? While it’s not ideal, the hybrid model works, and my professor is able to foster conversations about the texts we read week after week. How does she keep going like this? (174)

How did we keep going like that? And why isn’t the research talking about what it was really like? Failing to address the traumatic impacts of teaching and learning during the pandemic, which have surely left their marks on all of us, makes it difficult to know what to do, or not do, with hyflex.

4. Hyflex is/was never about disability justice, and while we may (want to) repurpose it as such, doing so requires us to recognize its neoliberal emphases.

My quickly-made decision to hold hyflex faculty meetings for an academic year was primarily motivated by wanting to include all faculty, particularly immunocompromised and other disabled faculty.[9] While I could have chosen fully remote/Zoom options, I opted for hyflex so that those who needed in-person events--including anxious and depressed folks who are prone to holing-up at home, like me--could also have their needs met. And so, when I discontinued hyflex faculty meetings for the reasons the research identifies, I worried that I was thwarting my disability justice goals.

In “‘Not as a Temporary Fluke but as Standard’: Realising the Affordances of Hybrid and Online Teaching for Inclusive and Sustainable Education,” Martin Compton et al. note that by rejecting hyflex, we may be shunning access tools gained during the pandemic that have been longed for by disability activists:

[Higher education] achieved something unprecedented and remarkable during the Covid-19 lockdowns. It may have been clunky, flawed, inconsistent, and not as good as planned and fully-resourced online education, but it showed that where there was a will, driven by an abled majority, there was a way. The immediate post-lockdown period demonstrated similarly that although beautifully resourced HyFlex rooms were generally out of financial and logistical scope, hybrid options could be enabled swiftly and relatively cheaply. We are therefore concerned that current debates about modality and affordances of hybrid approaches lack nuance and are shutting out the voices of students, particularly those with disabilities. (7-8)

It is undoubtedly true that disabled people have not been listened to in hybrid and hyflex discussions and decisions. In my review of the scholarship, only one article mentions caring for or being immunocompromised and/or at high risk for Covid complications (Guidry 4).[10] Further, I agree with Compton et al. that waiting for elegant or fully-funded options will delay increasing access, and for these reasons, I continue to use hyflex for some smaller meetings. At the same time, hyflex is not inherently accessible to disabled students or teachers; as Brittany Lash notes in their discussion of disability pedagogy and the pandemic, “[T]he true accessibility of a hybrid or hyflex class depends on the accessibility of the learning management system (e.g., Blackboard, Canvas, etc.), the publisher materials (e.g., online text materials, case study examples, notes, etc. provided by the publisher), and the instructor materials (e.g., documents, files, recordings, assignments, etc. produced by the instructor) used in the course” (171; also see Sarchet et al.). Such accessibility is not addressed in the scholarship on hyflex.

In a thoughtful essay focused on place and pace, Ria DasGupta, Liz Lopez, and Emily A. Nusbaum ponder what we, as disabled people, received during the pandemic that we want to keep. Inspired by Stacy Park Milbern, they argue that “what the pandemic has given us, more than anything, is place and pace. Place to keep asking questions and a place for reflection that we have been strangely gifted during this time, and the pace with which to do it” (np). While these gains may be slipping away, I take inspiration from this piece to slow down and ask whether hyflex is really doing what we think it is (and what we want it to do). It seems to me that hyflex has increased demands to do more and do it faster.

Hyflex was never implemented so disabled people could continue to learn and teach, during a pandemic or otherwise. While many access tools prized by disabled people were not originally intended for us, hyflex is misaligned with disability justice because it is fundamentally individualistic; it’s about individual choices and fixes. As such, hyflex is more in line with limited notions of disability accommodation than it is with interdependent disability justice. As Margaret Price notes in her work on accommodations for disabled faculty, “Individual accommodations--and, by extension, individual efforts--no matter how well executed or how enthusiastically put in place, will only lead us further from equity and justice. Collective accountability is not just desirable but necessary if we want academic life to change for the better” (273). Hyflex doesn’t have such collective accountability; some people will get more than others, and the hyflex model assumes everyone gets something that is a semblance of enough. That’s not disability justice (or good teaching).

Perhaps even more than accommodation, hyflex is like universal design (Saenen et al.). I mean this as a critique, for as Aimi Hamraie notes, universal design is a normalizing force that prizes a “‘post-disability’ future, in which disability no longer poses a ‘problem’” (5). Hyflex adopts this logic by assuming that there is a single solution--that must happen in all modes and all at once--to solve access issues created by complex forces (like a pandemic). Much like universal design, which is typically an unworkable ideal to be achieved with few institutional resources, hyflex is an unattainable goal and lacks needed infrastructure.[11]

Finally, hyflex requires hyper-able facilitators/instructors (and arguably, students), because it requires all senses, all at once. The faculty meeting that broke my hyflex camel’s back was one I could scarcely run because I was dealing with a significant intestinal flare that challenged my ability to function in all modes at once. There is no mention of disabled teachers in hyflex scholarship, perhaps because it is clear that hyflex is not accessible to someone who uses various assistive technologies (such as screenreaders, assisted typing, assistive listening devices, and so on), and to people like me, who are anxious.

A disability justice approach to the problems hyflex attempts to solve can instead imagine that equity is achieved by providing different routes to the same goal (or when appropriate, different goals), rather than offering an idealized version of flexibility and choice. Achieving justice for disabled teachers and students requires changing how we assign and assess work, as well as attention to smaller classroom sizes and resourced teachers, none of which hyflex prioritizes. In their comparison of disability rights and disability justice, Kristin Bennett and Mark Hannah note that “[u]nlike justice-based discourse, which recognizes the intersectional complexities of disabled embodiments and seeks the environmental transformation of larger social systems, rights-based discourse provides individuals with equal access to potentially ableist institutional spaces” (327). With its claim that “choice” will provide access and success, hyflex only provides such “access to potentially ableist institutional spaces.” Conversely, achieving the goals of hyflex and disability justice means fully-designed and funded online courses and face-to-face courses, rather than imagining these can easily be combined and taught at once. At its heart, hyflex is only the solution if we are prioritizing neoliberal efficiency, not disability justice and good teaching.

5. And yet.

It feels good to write this way, to have four strong arguments against hyflex that justify my decision to stop using it for faculty meetings, and perhaps even justify tossing hyflex onto the neoliberal trash heap.

And yet. While I was writing this essay, I was also deeply questioning my own propensity for black-and-white thinking (which is the result of a complicated childhood). Black-and-white interpretations are still my baseline, and I struggle to be in the gray, where multiple and sometimes contradictory understandings and needs exist.

And I believe that hyflex, for all its problems, belongs in the gray. That so many of us have strong feelings about hyflex is, counterintuitively for me, precisely the reason to avoid definitive conclusions. As Kristi Costello and Jacob Babb note in their work on emotional labor and writing program administration, “[T]he act of negotiating emotional labor is an ongoing process that is not intended to eliminate emotions….it’s necessary to feel and to reflect upon emotional states as opposed to the continual movement away from emotions” (11). As such, rather than tossing hyflex aside, we can resist hyflex for all the reasons the research articulates and allow ourselves to be curious about its purpose and context. Perhaps I can allow hyflex to be problematic but not foreclosed, because I don’t have a ready replacement for some of the issues hyflex tries to address.

This gray space feels like an impasse: we hate hyflex and we want it. In “Pedagogical Impasses: Posthuman Inquiry in Exhaustive Times,” Guyotte and Flint note that impasses are part of living in the precarity of our current moment, where “it becomes cruel to orient toward the future when the precarity of the present moment means that the future will never arrive,” or that “if that moment one orients toward does arrive, the future has already moved on” (640). Hyflex seems animated by this “cruel optimism”--it imagines something that it never really achieves. Perhaps hyflex is a feature of precarity, not a response to it. That is, while hyflex purports to expand the ways students can access education, allowing students to “choose” among simultaneous modalities does not address the various financial, emotional, embodied, and pedagogical reasons students struggle to access, and succeed within, our classrooms. Indeed, as I look back, I can’t fully understand why we bent over backwards with approaches like hyflex (and other pandemic modalities), when we should probably have simplified our efforts to focus on the most achievable ends for the most vulnerable populations.

With hyflex, what I believe and know sits tensely alongside what I want and sometimes need. And so, I won’t ever run hyflex faculty meetings again, except maybe I will because I miss seeing people and few are coming to in-person events. I won’t teach hyflex, except I will when I teach from the video conference TV in my classroom when I’m sick. I don’t like to Zoom-in to talks and events, but I will go to hyflex conferences so I don’t have to travel. I have completely made up my mind about hyflex, and I am in the gray. I want definitive answers, but instead, I flex.

Endnotes

  1. I excluded hyflex research not based on studies of students and/or faculty (for example, Chan et al.; Mertes; Miller et al.; Noor et al.; O’Ceallaigh et al.; Raman et al.; Padilla Rodriguez; Rosen; Thomson et al.; Vilhauer; Zascerinska et al). I also removed research that was secondarily about hyflex (for example, Chen on online discussion; Eshet et al. on academic integrity; Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald on post-pandemic learning; Garner-O’Neale on flipped classrooms; Gascoigne on hybrid; Korson on place-based learning; Magana et al. on teamwork; Nelson on BELS). Finally, I did not consider research where only abstracts were available (for example, Chiang; Khan et al.).
  2. For systematic literature reviews, see Barr and Luo; Gloria and Pelayo; Mahrishi et al.; Romero et al.
  3. I’m grateful to Stephanie Kerschbaum for reviewing this article and noting that making choices takes mental energy and time; more choice isn’t always desirable or better.
  4. One article states: “For those considering teaching this [hyflex] course, we advise having your eyes open to the fact that it is significantly more work to teach this way, both before and throughout the semester. We enjoyed being part of the pilot but would have to carefully weigh other commitments before committing to teaching this way in the long term” (Marquart et al. 29). It doesn’t sound enjoyable.
  5. It concerns me that hyflex potentially negates arguments that students taking online courses should be able to pay less tuition (as they are not using the full range of on-campus resources), because with hyflex, students (supposedly) have the choice to come in-person. At the same time, online courses are not necessarily cheaper than in-person or hyflex courses, depending on institutional context. .
  6. Beatty has since argued the broader “benefits” of hyflex, noting that it might be appropriate “for many emergency situations,” including “local and regional emergencies such as, transit strikes, electrical outages, building closures, wildfires (and the smoke they generate), and major storms” (Beatty). This ignores that strikes are intended to close things down, that if a campus is impacted by smoke or outages so are local communities, etc.
  7. Ten mention it in the first or second line of the article, two note the pandemic context in the first few lines of their abstracts, and the remaining three first mention the pandemic in the body of the article.
  8. On audio quality in hyflex classrooms, see Sanchez-Pizani.
  9. While nearly all hyflex research focuses on teaching, hyflex has also been considered for academic conferences, with attention to the climate impact of conference travel (Donlon; Niner; Parncutt et al.).
  10. Outside my review, I located scholarship that addresses captioning in hyflex (Mertes), and a conference paper abstract focused on making hyflex accessible to those who are hard of hearing or deaf (Gale et al.).
  11. For a highly-resourced example of hyflex, see Welch et al.

References

Appendix

author + title journal/collection type
Athens, “Self-Regulation, Motivation, and Outcomes in HyFlex Classrooms” Educational Technology Research and Development survey of 876 undergraduate students
Bockorny et al., “Effective Engagement Strategies in HyFlex Modality Based on Intrinsic Motivation in Students” Active Learning in Higher Education survey of 74 undergraduate students
Boehm and Boerboom, “Faculty Experiences of HyFlex: An Exploratory Study” Educational Research survey of six faculty; six faculty interviews
Bohorquez et al., “Measuring Student Engagement in a HyFlex Environment” Journal of Educators Online survey of 21 undergraduate students
Detyna et al., “Hybrid Flexible (HyFlex) Teaching and Learning: Climbing the Mountain of Implementation Challenges for Synchronous Online and Face-to-Face Seminars during a Pandemic” Learning Environments Research infrastructure study with 104 mock/induction faculty sessions
Guidry, “Hyflex Courses: A ‘Flex’ or a Flop?” Journal of Instructional Pedagogies survey of 165 undergraduate students
Howell et al., “HyFlex Pedagogy: Six Strategies Supported by Design-Based Research” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education survey of 60 graduate students
Kohnke, “Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective” The Use of Technology in English Medium Education (book) survey of nine faculty members
Kohnke & Moorehouse, “Adopting HyFlex in Higher Education in Response to COVID-19: Students’ Perspectives” Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning survey of nine graduate students
Marquart et al., “A Hybrid Approach to HyFlex Teaching: Lessons Learned From a 2-Year Pilot With Online and Residential Students” Distance Learning structured faculty reflections
Mentzer et al., “HyFlex Environment: Addressing Students’ Basic Psychological Needs” Learning Environments Research survey of 686 students (F2F course) survey of 658 students (hyflex course)
Synchronous HyFlex Model on Student Academic Performance in a Large Active Learning Introductory College Design Course” Journal of Computing in Higher Education same data as Mentzer et al., “Hyflex”
Mentzer & Mohandas, “Student Experiences in an Interactive Synchronous HyFlex Design Thinking Course during COVID-19” Interactive Learning Environments focus groups with 84 students
Romero-Hall & Ripine, “Hybrid Flexible Instruction: Exploring Faculty Preparedness” Online Learning survey of 121 faculty members