Introduction

The path to the creation of this HyFlex offering follows the natural process of growth, expansion, accommodation, and the refreshing of an introductory guitar course. The journey was mirrored by my own professional growth from adjunct instructor to instructional designer for SUNY Broome Community College. And, at its core, this was an intellectual curiosity to see how technology could help learners with a topic - learning to play the guitar - that many peers believed could not be accomplished beyond the traditional classroom environment.

I first began teaching this guitar course as a fully face-to-face offering in the Fall 2012 using the established learning outcomes and an inherited pathway of assignments and content to reach those goals. During the first few semesters, I gradually replaced the content with a different textbook and revised the lesson plans to reflect my preferred pedagogical approach and the experiences I brought in from private music instruction. I adhered to the concept of backward design, making sure every aspect was focused on those still-valid original learning outcomes.

In 2014, a discussion with one of our campus instructional designers led to an experiment - an attempt to build the SUNY systems’ first fully asynchronous musical instrument course. This online iteration of the course launched successfully in 2016 and ran with excellent results until it was replaced in 2021 with a newer and more challenging design - a Hybrid-Flexible or “HyFlex” version (Beatty, 2019)  that would leverage the strengths of both the face-to-face and the asynchronous versions of the course, combining them to create a highly flexible student-centered learning environment.

In 2020, Chair of our Music program suggests that I was propose my existing guitar course as a candidate for the campus’ HyFlex pilot project. The HyFlex pilot project reached out to instructors who had already run asynchronous courses that provided experience with the demands of the digital learning environment. In the end, the HyFlex pilot launched 10 courses from various programs in its initial semester of Spring 2021.

Why HyFlex, and why now?

The need for HyFlex arose from several realities. The first reality is the general demographic of community college students served by SUNY Broome. The community college serves a learner population with diverse and often conflicting priorities. It is not uncommon for our students to have the challenges of either over- or underemployment, transportation issues, and families to care for. This population reflects the diverse economic and ethnic background of the upstate New York communities it draws from, and includes students with varying levels of success and engagement in the K-12 levels. With this variety of learners, a course specifically designed to proactively address learner needs for multi-modal and flexible participation had great appeal to students, the instructor, and the administration.

Another impetus for creating a HyFlex offering came from the fact that the course in its two pre-existing forms had a lower likelihood of running due to a declining student population and varying learner preferences. We had previously offered one section face-to-face and another asynchronous to meet the needs of different learners, but our student population had become small enough that minimum enrollment requirements would likely not be met by either section. We also noticed that in some cases students would willingly move from one course section (and its associated mode) to the other to complete their degree requirements, but not in all cases. Despite this reluctance to certain modes because of structural limitations, the students did see the relative advantages of each. Some asynchronous students still wanted the option of live interaction and feedback, and face-to-face students wanted more flexibility in how they could interact with materials and be assessed. This growing opinion voiced by the students- the desire for a more flexible offering than either of the previous modalities could offer- called for a more dynamic course structure, one that could be answered by HyFlex.

The college’s adoption of HyFlex instruction was a response to both the established wants and needs of the learner population described above, and to the new needs and comfort levels of students returning to the classroom in the later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. After a sudden modality switch in Spring 2020 from face-to-face to fully online learning, the return to the traditional classroom caused trepidation in many learners. Social distancing, vaccine requirements and availability, an unpredictable virus, heightened personal responsibilities, and employment concerns all weighed heavily on the minds of college students in this time.

The stress of this situation (unreliable enrollment) was felt on all sides, as the assigned adjunct instructor was unsure of the workload, the Chair had to work with student schedules to adjust them at the last second if the course did not run (canceled due to low enrollment), and music majors were faced with the unenviable options of either signing up for a course modality they did not want, or waiting to take this required course in a future semester and possibly delaying their graduation. Essentially, the course modalities were competing against each other with the possibility that no course would attract enough enrollment to proceed. This, too, backed the idea that HyFlex could be a solution that worked for all.

Creating This Course

One of my primary goals in adopting HyFlex was to address the concerns and engagement choices of the learners I have seen over the years. Toward that end, the concept of flexible learning paths from the SUNY guidelines (Appendix A, and see Figure 1 below) is emphasized. The course is structured so that students have the option to move between any of the three modalities (face-to-face, synchronous remote, and guided asynchronous) at any time, without confusion as to what is expected and what is available to them. This follows the conceptualization of HyFlex that SUNY set as its standard.

Figure 1: HyFlex excerpt from Appendix I: SUNY Online Learning Data Definitions

In a course with this amount of flexibility, it is crucial that expectations, standards, and learning pathways are clearly communicated to the learner. An introductory module in the LMS covers vital topics that must be addressed in a multiple-modality learning environment, such as participation, attendance, communication avenues, content access, and assessment options. See Figure 1.

For participation and attendance, students in the classroom and remote settings can meet expectations by regular interaction with the instructor and other learners. In the asynchronous setting, student activity within the LMS is reviewed, and assessment submission counts as active participation.

Attendance Policies

As this course involves three modalities, and the students have the right to change modality as frequently as they want, clear instructions for things such as attendance, participation, assessment requirements, etc. had to be established and clearly communicated (Figure 2). One endeavor was the creation of an equitable attendance policy. For face-to-face modality a traditional determination of attendance is applicable, but some thought had to go into the other two modes. For live remote, it was decided that students would need to be actively involved in the class meetings and not merely observers. For asynchronous learners, I decided that regular interaction with content in the LMS along with timely submission of assessments would be sufficient. I avoided the inclusion of “busy work” activities that could indicate students being involved on specific days as not only does that defeat the purpose of an asynchronous option, but can also create inequity between synchronous and asynchronous learners.

Figure 2. Explaining HyFlex Course Policies to Students in the Brightspace LMS

Student Participation Expectations 

Participation is another aspect that needed to be figured out. Again, for face-to-face the traditional expectations were used (e.g.: be present, be involved, do not detract from the classroom experience for other). For remote learners, participation was assessed primarily from how they interacted when working on playing materials. Remote students would need to be ready to play just as the face-to-face students, and when they played they would need to have their camera on. There was no resistance to turning on cameras for instructor review. Students understood that proper technique is not just about the resulting sound, but how the body works to make that sound come out. Asynchronous participation focused on timely submission of graded and ungraded assessments, along with heightened expectations in communication. If students had no questions and could do the work on their own time they were free to do so, but it was made clear that if the instructor reached out to them they were expected to respond, and without unnecessary delay if the topic was time sensitive.

Communication

Avenues of communication range from traditional face-to-face interaction and remote office hours and appointments to email or messaging communications through the LMS and official campus Gmail accounts. Implementing the best practice of regular and substantive interaction, which emphasizes creating and maintaining a steady instructor presence throughout the semester, students also receive emails and scheduled announcements (Figure 3) from the instructor, along with personal and actionable feedback on all assignment submissions. This feedback happens verbally and in written form.

Figure 3: Sample of Announcement from Instructor to Students

Content Access and Format

Learning materials (content) for all three modalities are housed in the LMS. The content is the same for each modality. The use of physical copies of materials is at the student’s discretion. Physical copies of content can be obtained by downloading and printing materials from the LMS. If the student has a technology issue preventing them from printing, they are encouraged to request copies from the instructor.

To gain access to materials beyond the course kickoff, students[BB6]  are required to complete the Brightspace Basics for Student Orientation course to receive certification in LMS usage, as they will all be using the LMS in their chosen mode of participation whether face-to-face or online. The initial module in the LMS contains a link to this certification, but since students also have access to this directly through the LMS some come into the semester having it already completed. In either instance, students are to submit a PDF copy of their certification to the instructor before continuing with the course.

Assessment Options

Coursework consists primarily of self-quizzes, titled “topics exercises” (Figure 4), and performance assignments. The topics exercises are brief multiple-choice reviews that are designed to help the student assess if they are ready to move forward in the course or not. Students have an unlimited number of attempts available for each exercise. Once they achieve an 85% or higher on an exercise, the LMS releases additional content activities to them, which they can use to apply the just-learned content to playing instruments (these are practice assignments[BB7] ). These knowledge checks also form a means of course review at the end of the semester as students can retake them as refreshers and the system will pull a new random pool of questions on the topic for them to respond to. There is a cumulative written final component for this course that is also housed in the LMS. This follows the format of the knowledge checks, with the key differences being the size, and scope, and it is limited to one attempt per student.

Figure 4: Screenshot of Topics Exercise in Brightspace LMS

For their performance assignments, students have two options for how they demonstrate learning, live demonstration or video submission. To balance out the advantage that students using the video option have (in that they can keep doing “takes” and submit their best effort), the live performance option consists of two demonstrations of the same piece. For the live performance format, students are graded on an overall assessment of their performances. For example, playing errors that happen one time but not the other may not result in a grade reduction if it is decided that the error does not represent an ingrained flaw in the student's technique. However, errors in reading sheet music are graded strictly as the students have had adequate time to build up the piece (requiring the skill of reading the sheet music) before it is assessed in class.

Designing this course

The HyFlex version of this course grew organically from its predecessors. My traditional offering was initially developed with feedback from the previous instructor, who was also the Music program coordinator. First being offered in the Fall of 2012 it was refreshed repeatedly over five semesters to reflect the preferred content and teaching style of the instructor, and in response to learner preferences expressed in course feedback.

In its fifth year (the Fall semester of 2016), this face-to-face course was adapted to fit the current LMS as a fully asynchronous offering, thereby creating the SUNY system’s first fully asynchronous musical instrument course. In this stage of the course's evolution, it went through a thorough review by a campus instructional designer, who emphasized the need to reinforce the connection between content and assessments to the established learning outcomes.
Through the extensive collaborative efforts with this instructional designer, instructor preferences and pedagogy were augmented by deeper considerations of best practices to help learners navigate digital learning environments.

The HyFlex iteration of this course would come into existence in 2021. In March of 2021, with students struggling to return to the face-to-face environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, the suggestion to run the course as a HyFlex course came from the Chair of the Music Department. Working with another instructional designer who took the lead on this pilot program, the two pre-existing course structures were charted along with potential adaptations of assessment and content for the remote modality. (Figure 5) This chart was used as a prototype for future course conversions to HyFlex. The result of these efforts was the course being offered as one of the first set of HyFlex courses on the campus, reflecting SUNY’s three-mode approach to HyFlex. Each weekly module's content could be viewed across any of the three modes. The design team carefully reviewed the learning experience in each mode to ensure students in any mode were receiving consistent instruction and that the course would be easy to follow if a student switched among modes at any point.

Figure 5: Modality Cross-Mapping for a HyFlex Course

The reworking into HyFlex structure presented no challenges as the asynchronous version and the face-to-face version had, on several occasions, run in the same semester. In those semesters, I had adjusted the courses in the interest of my own time management, resulting in these two offerings closely resembling each other, with the LMS as a natural repository for all learning materials. The only part of the design that needed reflection was the equity of assessments since some students would be evaluated in one format and compared to students assessed in a different mode with a slightly different format.

As the design team needed little time to create the HyFlex design framework, allocated design time was spent augmenting or bolstering the already existing content. Extant instructor demonstration videos were updated to ensure that their content matched the live class demonstrations. Additional instructional videos were added at points that previous assessments revealed were difficult for students to learn. Lesson plans and learning materials were updated to augment the flexibility afforded by HyFlex. This in turn led to a sense of mindfulness about the need for the instructor to keep the live course session on topic (and pace) with the online mode, unlike the original face-to-face format where a live course session could morph (and subsequent lesson plans would change) in a moment in response to synchronous interactions with the learner group. While this approach (immediate modifications to session content or activity) was effective in retaining student engagement in a live setting, it would not work in a multi-modality approach such as HyFlex. The adjustment that was made lessened the spontaneity of the live course and replaced it with the development of flexible learning paths and content options in the HyFlex environment.

Assessing Learning Outcomes

As this is an introductory level course intended to teach students the foundation techniques and concepts of playing a musical instrument, the learning outcomes are few and straightforward. (Figure 6) These outcomes represent the program’s expectations for students preparing for independent study, moving on to other courses, or preparing for audition/ transfer to a four-year institution. The four primary goals include proper physical technique for both hands, execution of chords, a foundational understanding of chord and scale theory, and understanding rhythmic foundations.

Figure 6: Brief Course Description with Learning Outcomes 

While there is a variety of gradable activities, the majority of a student’s grade is determined by knowledge checks in the LMS, and playing demonstrations with choice as to how to submit. The knowledge checks serve as learning checkpoints, with access to follow up material restricted until a grade of at least 85% is achieved. This format was chosen in order to increase student interaction with the digital learning environment to ensure navigation would not be foreign to them as the course progressed. The review exercises act as bi-weekly checkpoints where student and instructor can confirm learning before moving on to the physical exercises that use the information involved. As the course is not designed to be punitive in nature, students have unlimited chances to demonstrate a sufficient level of content understanding, with their highest grade being added to their official grades. The written final exam follows the formatting as the topics review exercises, with the only differences being the lack of multiple attempts and the added weight in grading.

The other primary means of assessment come from bi-weekly performance assignments which serve as checkpoints for physical application of concepts. Students have the option to do them live in class, remote through Zoom, or to submit videos for assessment. All students have all three options and the advantages and disadvantages of each are communicated by the instructor so students can make an informed decision as to which format may work best for them. Students are actively encouraged to choose the one that they feel allows them to perform at their highest level and in their most comfortable medium.

Negotiation Process

The negotiation process for acceptance of this HyFlex offering was easily navigated. The college had already decided its criteria for instructors to teach in this pilot program with those being a history of running asynchronous courses, the effective mapping of the course to the three-mode structure, and the limitation that an instructor could only run one HyFlex section at a time to start. I had already run the course asynchronously, which is one reason why it was recommended that I pursue this effort. The course mapping to the three modes (see Figure 5, above) was a logical requirement to ensure course quality, and my experience running face-to-face and asynchronous in the same semester prepared me for the demands of a HyFlex structure. Lastly, as this was an experiment for me and I wanted to do my best to ensure quality and learner experience did not suffer, I had no interest in running more than one section.

Implementation Issues

The majority of issues I encountered came once the course was implemented; these were primarily “technology issues”. The first major challenge involved technology in the teaching environment. Overall, the adoption of HyFlex had to fit into the economic realities and policies of the campus. HyFlex “super rooms” were not an option at the time, and it is only in the last few weeks that we have a classroom on campus that could be described as such (see Figures 10, 11, and 12 in “Looking Forward”, below)

Room technology 

This specific course was housed in the building where the music majors took the other courses in their field. At the time this program was seeing declining enrollment, so the room was not going to be used as much as other standard classrooms in the main campus building. Combining this trend with the budge-mindedness of those in charge of technology procurement, the technology for this specific room was not reflective of a strong HyFlex-dedicated room.

Instead, the room setup consisted of the standard campus computer system (Figure 7), with the addition of two large HD screens (Figure 8) for sharing content with both remote and in-class learning simultaneously. These screens could also be used to show remote learners if the instructor did not want to use the desktop screen. A Logitech C270 webcam (Figure 9) was used for capturing not just video, but any sound within the room. Located in the front of the room, it resulted in the instructor needing to be mindful of their positioning and projection in a course that relies on the freedom of the instructor to move about the room and interact with students on an individual basis. There was an additional logistical element involved as the classroom media area was mobile, so instructors in other courses would adjust what worked best for their learning environment, thereby altering the more demanding setup of the HyFlex environment and requiring more pre-class meeting setup time.

Figure 7: Standard Campus Computer Podium

Figure 8: A Logitech C270 webcam

Figure 9: HD Screens as seen from the rear of the room

Student technology

The second technology challenge involved the devices used by the students for accessing digital content. Many were using their phones as a primary means of accessing content in the LMS, and others were using Chromebooks, both of which proved problematic with the LMS being used in the first two runs of the course.  This problem was corrected over time as students over the pandemic years acquired more reliable technology, and the switch to the Brightspace LMS which was more adaptive to the mobile experience.

Lack of Remote Mode Participation

Conversations between learners and the instructor over the three semesters of HyFlex also revealed “remote burnout” among the learners, with the latest wave of students having virtually no interest in utilizing the online synchronous option. As this is the case, it is made clear by the instructor that the remote live option exists but there is no pressure to choose that modality. The remote option was used by one student on two occasions in the Fall 2021 semester, once by one student in the Fall 2022 semester, and the latest learner group, who expressed the highest level and most widespread remote burnout, did not use the remote option at all in the Fall 2023 semester.

Student understanding of HyFlex 

Another challenge of note was student comprehension of what HyFlex entailed. HyFlex was a structure they had never encountered, and as such a good deal of clarification was needed. To that end, the first meeting of each semester required face-to-face attendance unless the student made a reasonable case for the other options. Materials in the LMS and syllabus explained the HyFlex experience and emphasized how their choice of learning mode could affect their experience in the course. Lastly, the required syllabus quiz (which included a release condition so they could not gain access to any later materials before achieving a perfect score), was updated to include all of the primary points of HyFlex that they would need to be familiar with to succeed in the course.

Results of Implementation

The impact of the HyFlex approach applied to this course exceeded expectations. During the first two semesters of its implementation, enrollment in the music program overall had been on the decline. Yet success levels in this specific course echoed those of pre-COVID offerings in other modalities. When looking at students who see the course through to completion, there was a marked decrease in failing grades as HyFlex technology was adapted and multiple modalities were introduced. The traditional face-to-face course showed 18 fails over 12 offerings (an average of 1.5 students/semester) and the asynchronous-only version showed 4 fails over 6 offerings (an average of 0.667 students/semester). The HyFlex iteration of the course has so far shown markedly better success rates, with only one student failing over 3 offerings (an average of 0.334 students/semester).

It is important to bear in mind, however, that this is a low-capacity course with pre-semester enrollments capped in the high teens. The roster usually decreases in the days and hours leading up to course launch, as students switch courses, fail to meet financial obligations for enrollment, or decide to not enter school. As a result, the roster as of the start of the first course meeting is usually around ten people. It should also be noted that low enrollment reflected by courses across campus in these semesters (Fall 2021, Spring 2022, and Fall of 2023) mirror lower enrollment in the program and on the campus as students explored their comfort levels with social distancing, COVID vaccine adoption, and the consideration of whether or not to add the pressures of college during a period of social and economic upheaval.

In comparing completion vs incompletion numbers, which include administrative drops and late semester withdrawals, similar success to other modalities is seen. However, the increase in flexibility and choice on the part of the student in the HyFlex setting has seen a shift in grade distribution away from the fail-line, creating a more even grade distribution.

If we exclude administrative moves such as drops and withdrawals, single modality offerings still reflect a bimodal distribution with many A’s and A-’s, a few medium passing grades, and a high number of low grades, fails, and withdrawals. The HyFlex structure a saw more even grade distribution (Figure 10) than the other single modality offerings, which reflects a course more able to let students engage successfully in their preferred pathways. Beyond that, we can see a shift away from the fail line and into the higher grade brackets (Figure 11).

Figure 10: Grade Distribution: HyFlex vs. Single Modality 

Figure 11: High/ End Low Grade Distribution

 

Student Flexibility

On an individual level, the HyFlex experience has helped our returning students. One of our students who had been unable to complete the course in the two previous iterations, was able to pass the course by using the robust build and support that comes from HyFlex. This student was able to attend in person for the majority of classes, but in the parts of the semester when conflicting obligations kept them out of the classroom, or when materials were especially difficult for them, they were able to turn to the online format and the video lessons and access to materials to stay on track in the course.

Another student, who had withdrawn from HyFlex in the Spring of 2022, was able to complete the course in the Fall 2023. This was made possible despite the student now having a 45-minute commute to the campus as they had moved to a new city in preparation for their next academic steps. The ability to work remotely when travel was not an option made success in the course, and completion of their degree, feasible.

Looking Forward

The next step for me with HyFlex is to turn my attention to helping other faculty members build and run their own versions of a HyFlex course. On our campus, the Business program was an early adapter with multiple courses running in the pilot program. Some of these courses are now beginning to use the eGlass technology (Figure 11) to update content for in person presentation, remote learning, and digital content creation. The primary HyFlex room on campus has been built over time, and now includes a Viewsonic Viewboard for a front of room smartboard (Figure 12) and a Samsung LED display on the back wall so instructors can interact with live and remote learners without shifting focus

For video and audio, this room houses a Logitech Meetup camera for the front of the room, an AVER TR530+ camera for the back of the room and a Logitech C920 Webcam. There are also Catchbox Plus microphones (Figure 13) Vaddio EasyIP ceiling microphones, and Extron FF120 ceiling speakers for audio interaction.

So far in this effort to expand our HyFlex offerings, we have seen instructor enthusiasm for considerations of online course quality, just as I found in myself when addressing the needs of students in the digital environment. While HyFlex at first sounded like a large effort for some, once they realize just what they can do to their courses to make them a more successful and engaging experience for themselves and their learners, trepidations subsided.

Figure 11: eGlass system

Figure 12: Front of Primary HyFlex Room

 

Figure 13: Catchbox Microphones

 

References

 

 

Beatty, B. (2021). Can HyFlex options support students in the midst of uncertainty? The Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/5/can-hyflex-options-support-students-in-the-midst-of-uncertainty

Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-Flexible Course Design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes (1st ed.). EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex

 

Tobin, Thomas J., and Kirsten T. Behling. (2018) Reach Everyone, Teach Everyone: Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education. West Virginia University Press.

Appendix A: SUNY Online Learning Data Definitions