This document summarizes a presentation about the HyFlex course design model, which provides students with flexible participation options to attend class either face-to-face, online synchronously, or asynchronously. The presentation discusses how HyFlex aligns with adult learning principles by accommodating students' life circumstances and providing choice. It also describes a graduate course that used the HyFlex model and students' positive perceptions of having control over their learning. Students appreciated being able to choose the participation format that fit their needs.

1. Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education International Conference 2014
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
March 17-21, 2014

2. Towards Flexible Learning for Adult
Students: HyFlex Design
Mariam Abdelmalak, Ph.D.
The New Valley College of Education
Assiut University

3. Agenda:
• HyFlex Design
• HyFlex Design and Andragogy
• The Purpose of the Study
• Methodology
• The Design of an Educational technology Course That
Followed the HyFlex Design
• Students’ Perspectives
• Conclusion

4. HyFlex Design:
HyFlex
Hybrid
Face-to-face
approach
Online
approach
Flexible
Choices

5. HyFlex Design and Andragogy
Andragogy HyFlex Design
Self-concept of self-directedness,
resulting in a desire of having some
control over learning
The differences and richness of
adult experiences; a need for
avoiding “one size fits all”
approach;
Students as learning resources for
one another
Providing choices regarding their
mode of participation, resulting
in a sense of control
The combination of face-to-face
and online approaches results in
multiple paths to instruction;
Students learn from each other
through threaded discussions
and other out-of-class activities.

6. Andragogy HyFlex Design
Adult orientation to
learning;
Relevance to real world
situations
Motivated by having
choices about how, where,
and when to learn
Motivated by having a
sense of personal control
of the learning context.
Flexibility to attend class in person or
online, depending on their schedule,
personality, work/family requirements,
etc., results in increase the relevance of
the learning environment to adult
learners’ life circumstances.
Flexible choices to participate online, F2F,
or both;
Students control the time & place of their
participation

7. The Purpose of the Study
• The purpose of this study was to answer the
following question:
What are students’ perceptions of HyFlex design

8. Methodology
• Qualitative Case Study.
• Data Gathering Methods:
Observation: a graduate educational technology
course for one semester.
In Depth-Interview: 6 graduate students.
Recordings of class meetings
Students’ coursework such as assignments and
presentations
• Analysis: The cross case analysis

9. The Design of an Educational technology Course That
Followed the HyFlex Design:
Before the HyFlex Design After the HyFlex Design
Face-to-face
Meeting every week
Face-to-face + online
(adobe connect room) +
class recordings
Meeting twice a month

10. Sample Week:
Face-to-face
students
Online students Students who do not
attend either face-to-
face or online
Share verbally thought
& ideas
Can use chat in adobe
connect room
Face-to-face students
collaborate together
Share verbally using
microphone and share
screen features in adobe
connect room
Use chat
Online students
collaborate together
using adobe connect
room
Listen to the class recording,
and respond in the discussion
area.
Discussion area

11. Students’ Perspectives
Accommodating students’ needs and their life
circumstances
[The instructor] is flexible. It is logical flexibility. She
accommodates the fact that we have a life outside our academic
life. It is recognition of the fact that she is working with people
who have jobs, kids, and family, and what else can happen. She
recognizes we are adults; we are running things that can interfere
with the class schedule and prevent us from making the face-to-
face sections, so the recordings and the online options are there in
case something happens. (Sonia)

12. Students’ Perspectives
Accommodating students’ needs and their life
circumstances
By doing that [having face-to-face and online sections], [the
instructor] accommodates her students’ needs. She recognizes
that in order to meet students’ needs, accommodations need to
be met in more ways than just learning accommodations. It is
also a physical presence accommodation. I appreciate that.
(Sara)
She accommodates my needs of time by allowing me to attend
online. Otherwise I would not be able to take this course.

13. Students’ Perspectives
Differentiating Instruction
It is how I learned in the past. I am older, and face-to-face is
more comfortable to me, technology is not comfortable for me. I
like to be in the class and learn from other students and from
the instructor; it just felt more comfortable for me. (Tina)
I LOVE online learning. It is the best way to learn. You get the
online content, discussion and resources that are quickly
delivered and available 24 hour. This lesson needs to be shared
with many instructors, that we can learn online and do not have
to be sitting in chairs listening to a lecture in order to learn.
(Sara)

14. Students’ Perspectives
• Increasing access
I think there are many advantages of having multiple delivery
modes, like the advantage of just having the option if something
happens, so you do not feel like you are missing out. Last class, I
did not attend the face-to-face meeting because I was sick, but I
listened to the recording. I felt like I was there, and then I
participated in the discussion area [Canvas’ discussion]. (Karl)

15. Students’ Perspectives
• Encouraging student control
Traditional delivery is a matter of control from the school and
from the instructor, it forces you to conform to what they want
and what they believe is the most efficient method of delivery.
But in this class, we recognize that the most efficient method of
delivery may be different for each person. Due to constraints
external to our academic life, we may not be able to attend
class in person but will benefit from the online option. If
something comes up where we cannot even attend the online
section, then we benefit from the recordings because we can
listen to what was covered. So it is recognizing that not
everyone has to attend every class and take notes. We are
taking control of our own learning situation, rather than
someone else taking control of it. (Sonia)

16. Conclusion:
• Adult learners need flexible learning so they can balance
study, work, family and other commitments.
• The HyFlex course design acknowledges that learners
have different needs and preferences concerning
participation in the instructional environment and
activities.
• The HyFlex course design encourages students to study
when and where they are able to so.
• Educators of adult learners are actively encouraged to
find effective and flexible delivery models to provide all
students with more convenient access to quality learning
experiences than is possible with traditional on campus
offerings alone.

17. References:
• Beatty, B. (2006, October). Designing HyFlex world - Hybrid, flexible courses for all students.
Processing of the 2006 Association for Educational Communication and Technology
International Conference, Dallas, TX.
• Beatty, B. (2007a). Hybrid classes with flexible participation options – If you build it, how will
they come? Processing of the 2007 Association for Educational Communications and
Technology Annual Convention, Anaheim, CA.
• Beatty, B. (2007b). Transitioning to an online world: Using HyFlex courses to bridge the gap. In
C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2701-2706). Chesapeake, VA:
AACE.
• Beatty, B. (2008). Using the "HyFlex" course and design process. 2008 Sloan-C Effective
Practice Award. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from
http://sloanconsortium.org/effective_practices/using-quothyflexquot- course-and-design-
process
• Beatty, B. (2010). Hybrid courses with flexible participation- HyFlex design. Retrieved Sep. 24,
2012, from http://itec.sfsu.edu/hyflex/hyflex_course_design_theory_2.2.pdf
• Beatty, B. (2012). HyFlex course design: The advantages of letting students choose the blend.
9th Annual Sloan Consortium Blended Learning Conference & Workshop. Retrieved October
7, 2012, from http://sloanconsortium.org/conference/2012/blended/hyflex-
course-design-advantages-letting-students- choose-blend
• Beatty, B. (2013). Analyzing the feasibility of HyFlex. Retrieved April 6, 2013, from
http://www.drbrianbeatty.com/wordpress/2013/02/15/analyzing-the-feasibility-of-hyflex/
• Cordova, D., & Lepper, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial
effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(4), 715-730.
• Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532-582.

18. References:
• Holton, E., Swanson, R., & Naquin, S. (2001). Andragogy in practice: Clarifying the
andragogical model of adult learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(1), 118-143.
• Kehoe, J. E (1979). Choice time and aspects of choice alternatives. In L. C. Perlmuter and R. A.
Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived control (pp. 67- 82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Cambridge Adult Education.
• Knowles, M. (1995). Designs for adult learning. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training
and Development.
• Knowles, M., Holton III, E, & Swanson, R. (2005). The adult student: The definitive classic in
adult education and human resource development. USA: Elsevier.
• Korr, J., Derwin, E, Greene, K, & Sokoloff, W. (2012). Transitioning an adult-serving university
to a blended learning model. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60, 2-11.
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development.
• Miller, J, Risser, M., & Griffiths, R. (2013). Student choice, instructor flexibility: Moving
beyond the blended instructional model. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology,
1(1), 8-24.
• Watson, J. (2008). Blending learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education.
Promising Practices in Online Learning, North American Council for Online Learning.

19. Q & A
Thank You