A Modified Version of HyFlex

Piloting Remote Live Participation at Columbia University's School of Social Work

I. Introduction to Our Remote Live Participation (RLP) Course

At Columbia University’s School of Social Work, we piloted a version of Hybrid-Flexible (HyFlex) courses, which we called Remote Live Participation (RLP). Just as HyFlex courses are “multi-modal courses which combine online and onground (classroom-based) students” (Beatty, 2019), CSSW’s RLP courses entail teaching online and residential students simultaneously. The name RLP was chosen to emphasize that the online students would be expected to participate as actively as the residential students.

During CSSW’s two-year pilot, all students needed to attend class live, as there was no asynchronous option to review the recording of class afterwards, unlike many HyFlex courses. For this pilot, we needed students to come to class in order to fully test RLP as a modality. If a student missed class, the absence was treated the same way that absences in residential courses were treated -- students could review the class slides and ask the instructional team questions about the content or borrow notes from a classmate. Live class sessions were recorded, however students were not provided access to the recordings except if an online student experienced technical issues that caused them to miss part of class; if that happened, they would be given access to view the recording. In the end, no students needed access to the recordings.

The authors taught a RLP course in Spring 2019 as part of this pilot. In this chapter we share our experiences, recommendations, lessons learned, and student feedback from this course.

II. Why Remote Live Participation at Columbia University’s School of Social Work?

CSSW’s Online Campus is growing (Figure 1). This growth presented a unique challenge in our third and fourth years around course offerings. During the spring semesters of 2018 and 2019, we wanted to give the online students in our management method area access to a larger number of course topics and instructors than they would have otherwise had in the early days of the Online Campus. This approach was inspired in part by the University of Arizona College of Education’s approach to bringing distance students into their face-to-face classes (Griffith, 2017).


Figure 1: An illustration of the growth of CSSW’s Online Campus (source: Báez et al, 2020)

These RLP courses were envisioned both as a short term solution to a unique problem during a period in which the Online Campus was growing and as an opportunity to learn about the logistics and possibilities of this type of modality.  The lessons learned and results of the pilot will inform the School in considering whether to continue offering RLP as a modality in the longer term.

III. What RLP Looked Like for Our Course

During the spring semester of 2019, the authors taught a seven-week RLP course on Staff Development, Training, and Coaching. We built on the lessons learned from year one of CSSW’s RLP pilot, including feedback from the students and another instructor involved in the pilot (Marquart, Englisher, Tokieda, & Telfair-Garcia, 2018a; Marquart, Englisher, Tokieda, Samuel, Standlee, & Telfair-Garcia, 2018; Marquart, Verdooner, Englisher, Standlee, & Samuel, n.d.).

Martin Englisher taught one of the 2018 pilot courses and provided feedback in these two videos (Marquart, Englisher, Tokieda, & Telfair-Garcia, 2018b):

The course included two online students logging into the classroom via Zoom and residential students attending in-person, meeting weekly for an hour and 50 minutes, with a 5 minute break in the middle.  The teaching team included an instructor who presented the lecture and led in-class activities and a teaching associate who was responsible for the technology and online-student experience.

Throughout the course, students completed a combination of asynchronous and synchronous class activities. The asynchronous activities included weekly discussion forum assignments completed in Canvas, the learning management system used for this course, where students had the opportunity to engage deeply with their peers and the course content. During the synchronous class activities, we mixed students together for breakout groups and group presentations in order to fully engage and integrate the online and residential students. This sometimes involved grouping online and residential students together.

The classroom technology included a projector; two cameras, one in the front of the room and one in the back; ceiling microphones and speakers; a remote control clicker to move through the slides; and a teaching station at the front of the room to manage the equipment (Figure 2). In order to create the sense that the online students were integral members of the class, the online student’s images were projected during class on the screen in the front of the room alongside the presentation slides. The associate sat at the front of the room with a laptop to manage the Zoom room and navigate the two cameras while the instructor moved around at the front of the room, positioning herself to see both the online and residential students. The School’s IT department provided the associate with the laptop at the start of each class, and took it back at the end of class.


Figure 2: Classroom setup and relevant technology


The personal technology involved in running the class sessions included the instructor’s personal mobile devices and the online students’ devices (Table 1).


Personal technology


Tablet to lend to students for use during breakouts

Mobile devices to lend to students for use during breakouts rather than requiring residential students to provide devices, which promoted equity. This also allowed the associate to log into the breakout groups ahead of time on the device.


None.  The associate used the school’s laptop to host the online Zoom meeting and monitor the chatbox, and the room’s control panel to adjust the room’s built-in cameras.

Residential students


Online students


Headset with microphone

Built-in or separate webcam

Hardwired internet connection

Table 1: Technology used by the instructor, associate (TA), and students

IV. Logistics: Technical Set-Up

One of the primary considerations when planning for this course was how to use the technology to best facilitate engagement for both the online and residential students.  Before the semester began, to ensure we understood the logistics of how to use the technology, we were trained by the School’s IT department on how to use Zoom and the classroom technology, including the cameras, mics, and computer station.  During the semester, to make sure that the technology was working each week, we conducted tech checks at the start of each class. These tech checks included testing the ceiling microphones, positioning the in-class cameras and preset camera angles, and setting up the Zoom room. To prepare for each class, at the start of the semester, the associate created the worksheet, Steps and Tips for Managing the Online Classroom in Zoom, which included pre-class setup (Figure 3) and instructions for managing the chat box and breakout groups during class (Figure 4).


Figure 3: Steps and Tips for Managing the Online Classroom in Zoom pre-class setup instructions



Figure 4: Steps and Tips for Managing the Online Classroom in Zoom in-class instructions

V. Logistics: Creating Community Agreements

In the first class of the semester, we created community agreements that would be used to guide and facilitate our time together in the classroom (Marquart & Verdooner, 2020). We wanted every student to be included when drafting the agreements and deciding to follow them in our class, so we structured this as a group discussion where everyone could contribute their ideas. We included a blank slide in the presentation, where the associate typed the proposed community agreements that the residential students shared out loud and the online students shared via mic or chat; the associate then edited the list based on the group discussion. The presentation was projected at the front of the room for the residential students, and the associate shared the screen in Zoom for the online students, so everyone could see the list of agreements evolving at the same time. Once the list was agreed on, we posted a screengrab in Canvas for students to reference throughout the semester (Figure 5). We revisited and recommitted to the community agreements at the start of class each week, allowing students to suggest updates each week.


Figure 5: Screengrab from our community agreements

VI. Logistics: Breakout Group Discussions

To include and engage both online and residential students equitably, we intentionally paired online and residential students together during in-class activities (Figure 6). To do this, the instructor and associate logged onto Zoom using personal mobile devices, added the mobile devices to Zoom breakout rooms that included the online students, and asked the residential students to use the devices to talk with the online students. Using the instructor and associate devices saved time, and also promoted equity for any students who couldn’t afford a mobile device or laptop. The instructions and discussion questions for the breakout activities were included in the class slides, which residential students could see projected in the physical classroom and online students could see in the learning management system, as Zoom didn’t have an option to display instructions in breakout groups.


Figure 6: Diagram of how breakout groups were conducted, with groups that included a combination of in-person students and an online student joining via mobile device

VII. Logistics: Handouts During Class

To share in-class handouts with the online students, we uploaded the documents in Canvas prior to class each week so that the online students could download and/or print them ahead of time.  We included a section each week that included materials from class (Figure 7). The handouts for students to download were labeled as “blank.”

For handouts that needed to be turned in, we created an assignment page for online students to upload their responses (Figure 8). So that they didn’t need to worry about uploading them during class and potentially missing part of the class while doing so, we gave online students the option of uploading a filled-out Word document, a scanned PDF, or a photo of a handwritten version by the end of the day. The assignment was worth 0 points in Canvas and graded as complete or incomplete for the online students as part of the participation grade; as it was only assigned to the online students, the residential students did not see this in Canvas.

Examples of class activities that required handouts included self-assessments on the course objectives during the first and last class sessions, short reflections at the end of each class session, and a longer reflection at the end of the course (Verdooner & Marquart, 2020).


Figure 7: Screengrab of an example of where online students could access the in-class materials in the Canvas course site



Figure 8: Screengrab of an example of instructions for how online students submitted in-class handouts in the Canvas course site

VIII. Logistics: Recording the Class Sessions

Everyone attending the class, both students and guest speakers, were required to sign a “remote live participation consent form.” This form notified participants that the course would be recorded for quality assurance, future course development, and for review by online students if technical issues were to arise that caused them to miss part or all of class. The School did not prioritize sharing the recordings with all students because the focus of the pilot was on testing this modality. We were already asking residential students to participate in a pilot modality, and because residential courses are not usually recorded, we didn’t want to burden the students with a further request. Students in the residential classroom were invited to sit in a “no film” section if they did not want to be on camera but were asked to acknowledge that their audio would still be recorded. None of the students opted to sit in the “no film” section, and based on our perceptions of student engagement, recording the class did not inhibit class participation. This consent form was shared with students in the form of a quiz on Canvas (Figures 9 and 10) and with guest speakers in the form of a PDF that was emailed by the associate for them to complete and return.


Figure 9: Screengrab of RLP Recording Consent Form set up as a quiz in Canvas



Figure 10: Screengrab of RLP Recording Consent Form text in Canvas

IX. Logistics: Group Presentations

One required assignment was to complete a group presentation, and two of the groups included a mix of online and residential students. Students self-selected into groups of two to four based on presentation topics, and each group did a 10-20 minute presentation. To facilitate group collaboration, we asked everyone to list their email address when signing up for a group, and we uploaded the sign-ups to Canvas to share with the other members of the group. In some instances, without us prompting, students also listed their phone numbers to more easily connect with one another. To prepare their presentations, the groups chose how they wanted to meet, whether via web conferencing using their student Zoom or BigBlueButton account, phone, another preferred method, or asynchronously over email or Google Documents.

During the presentation, residential student presenters stood in the front of the room and the online presenters’ webcams were visible alongside the slides on the projected screen. One of the residential students was given the remote control clicker to move through the slides, and the members of the group were responsible for planning how they would move through the presentation. This included planning how to address questions during the presentation because the online students couldn’t clearly see whether hands were raised for questions or who raised their hands, as the webcam that showed the classroom was a bird’s eye view with very small images of the people in the room.

X. Logistics: Guest Speakers

We invited three guest speakers to speak during our course, and gave them the choice  to join class in-person or online. All three chose to join class via Zoom, which saved them from having to commute to campus and enabled them to more easily fit guest speaking into their busy schedules. This also potentially benefitted the online students who could enjoy the dynamic of having the guest speakers with them in Zoom, as opposed to watching them via the classroom webcam. In order to give our speakers time to log on early and to test their technology without disrupting class, we had the speakers log into Zoom during our break halfway through class.

In preparation for our speakers to join class, the instructional team sent them an overview of what to expect on the day of their presentation. This email included a link to join the class, the tech requirements for speakers, a request to sign the media release form, some information about the course content and student interests, and guidance on how to prepare slides that aligned with our formatting. For example, we shared, “the students are in their final semester of their MSSWs. They're in the leadership & administration track, which means they're planning for careers as nonprofit leaders, human services leaders, consultants, HR, etc.” For information on how to structure the slides so no content was covered by the Zoom videos, we shared, “we need a black bar on the right side as a place to put everyone's webcams so they don't cover up content on the slides.  If you'd like to send us your slides on Tuesday, we can copy-paste them into the overall slide deck;  if you'd like to send us your slides by Weds noon or so, we can show them separately.” We also offered to meet with the speakers in Zoom prior to class if they wanted to try out the technology, but none of them took us up on this, as they all had experience with Zoom and felt comfortable with the technology.

XI. Feedback From the Students

We were lucky to have a group of students who were engaged in the course material and open to this pilot collaboration between online and residential students. Regarding feedback on this pilot course, the online students shared their appreciation via informal anecdotal feedback throughout the semester, whereas the residential students were neutral about the modality and expressed minor frustration when technology issues slowed down the class. The open-ended questions on the course evaluations did not include any feedback about the modality, either positive or negative. After the course ended, grades were submitted, and students had graduated, we asked a residential student and an online student to share their thoughts about the RLP course and advice for students and instructors considering this type of course (Table 2).


Online student feedback

Residential student feedback

What are your thoughts about your experience as a student in this RLP course?

Kristina Moore-Jager (CSSW ‘19): “Being a student from Alaska, I was curious about how this blended-format course would work and if participation in an online course would be as valuable. I was pleasantly surprised!  It was really unique to be an online student but also to see the students in their physical space in the classroom. Having this level of accessibility, even from so far away, was encouraging. The content was relevant and the instructional team encouraged dialogue between the online students and the classroom students, it seemed like we all found it easy to navigate and valuable.”

Samantha Arthur (CSSW ‘19): “As a student in this RLP course I was able to build relationships and collaborate with online campus students in a way I had not previously been able to. I enjoyed learning in a space that thoughtfully bridged the online and residential campuses together. I was able to engage with my peers via online discussion boards, in-class breakout groups, and presentations.  It was clear that the instructional team made a concerted effort to ensure that students from both campuses had an enriching learning experience.”

What advice do you have for future students and instructional teams in RLP courses?

Kristina Moore-Jager: “Just to embrace the experience! It’s often new for most of the participants but if you keep an open mind, allow for any technical glitches that may need adapting to, and be ready to engage in different ways, you find it worthwhile.”

Samantha Arthur: “I believe that for a RLP course to be an engaging experience the instructional team should consider the realities that exist for students in both campuses. This relates to necessary technology, how students participate in live sessions or course content, and possible barriers to engagement. My advice for future students is to make an effort to connect with the instructional team and be open to collaborate and build relationships with their peers.”

Table 2: Feedback from online and residential students in year two of the RLP pilot

XII. Feedback From the Instructional Team

The authors also shared their feedback about this RLP course (Table 3).


Associate feedback

Instructor feedback

What are your thoughts about your experience as a member of the instructional team in this RLP course?

Elise Verdooner (CSSW ‘17): “Being part of the instructional team for this type of course can be incredibly rewarding, and I was grateful for the opportunity. It gives you the chance to interact with a diverse group of students from around the country (and possibly world) who bring thoughtful perspectives and experiences to group discussions. This experience gave me the opportunity to start thinking about what it means to meaningfully engage with others in both in-person and online settings which can be transferred beyond the classroom and into a workplace setting. In my full-time job, I used insights from this experience to design and implement an intern onboarding training that included both online and in-person components.”

Matthea Marquart (CSSW ‘05): “I enjoyed the chance to pilot one of CSSW’s first RLP courses and explore a new way to teach with technology. It was rewarding to do this in order to meet an identified student need, and it was fun to try things out and continuously improve. Having taught the course before made this manageable, as it would have been too time-consuming to also deal with new course prep. I greatly appreciated the team approach, as having a partner for the course was essential to be able to teach this way without splitting my attention between the course content and the technology, and Elise was an excellent partner. While it’s common for colleagues to join in-office meetings via web conferencing, implementing interactive teaching and active learning is more complex and requires much more planning.”

What advice do you have for future students and instructional teams in RLP courses?

Elise Verdooner: “Mistakes and technology glitches are part of the experience -- be patient with yourself and be ready with a backup plan if necessary. At times it was difficult to follow along with the class lecture while simultaneously managing the cameras, online chat, and/or preparing for breakout rooms. The more streamlined you can make the process, the more attention can be given to the class discussion. In addition, don’t let distance become a barrier when building relationships with online students. It was easy to stay and chat with residential students after class, but it was equally important to leave the Zoom room open and give online students the same opportunity to stay after and connect with the instructional team.”

Matthea Marquart: “For our pilot, we spent a lot of time before and during the course thinking about the best ways to facilitate every activity and take maximum advantage of all the instructional time. For future students and instructional teams, I’d actually recommend the opposite, because otherwise this type of course can take up a disproportionate and demotivating amount of time -- simplify everything as much as possible, and be ready to change your class plan when inevitable technical glitches come up. I also recommend patience, a sense of humor, and a sense of curiosity or exploration about how to connect with colleagues differently and develop transferable professional skills in this modality.”

Table 3: Feedback from the instructional team for this course

XIII. Applying Our Lessons Learned to RLP-Style On-Campus Workshops and Events

While we hope that sharing our experience will be valuable for those planning potential future RLP or HyFlex courses, we also see the value of applying our lessons learned when planning on-campus workshops and events that include online students.

As an example, the authors presented a RLP-style professional development workshop for students who attended in-person and online, incorporating the online students in the interactive activities in ways similar to those implemented in our class sessions. Mirroring the associate’s role during our class sessions, a designated virtual host for the event moderated the typed chat and managed the technology. Figure 11 shows the slide design, which included space reserved for webcams, so that the virtual participants could have a visual presence if they chose, without their webcams covering up workshop slide content.

For each of the activities, we planned specific instructions for the in-person and the online attendees, and we clearly communicated the virtual host’s role in supporting the online attendees. For example, during the icebreaker activity, we asked in-person participants to respond out loud and online participants to respond on mic or via the typed chat, and the event’s virtual host read responses from the chat out loud to the group.  Because the workshop was only one hour, we did not mix online and in-person participants during the quick turn-and-talk activity.

We hope that our experience and lessons learned will encourage event planners to include remote students, alumni, and other community members in their on-campus events.


Figure 11: A slide from a RLP-style workshop (source: Verdooner & Marquart, 2019)

XIV. Applying Our Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic

An unexpected benefit of this RLP pilot came when the COVID-19 pandemic required institutions of higher education to adjust our teaching in order to incorporate social distancing into residential classrooms and enable students to avoid coming to campus when feeling unwell.  We didn’t plan any RLP courses in response to the pandemic because we wanted to keep logistics simple during this time.  However, it was helpful that our School had developed expertise in coming up with creative solutions to deal with technical challenges, and that we had the capacity to implement RLP if needed. We anticipate that this expertise and capacity will also be helpful as we transition back to campus when COVID-19 vaccines become readily available, particularly during the period when some students, staff, and faculty are vaccinated and ready to return to campus, and others are not yet ready.

The next time we implement an RLP course, we expect to make updates based on our experience with the pilot and also because of the pandemic.  For example, during our pilot, online students enrolled in the course with the expectation that they would be on webcam throughout class. However, during the pandemic, expectations for student webcam presence have shifted in the direction of increased student choice, allowing students to decide when and for how long they are on webcam (Marquart & Russell, 2020). Students are also more comfortable with classes being recorded, and faculty are more comfortable with students watching class recordings instead of attending class in cases of emergency.


The authors are grateful to the online and residential students who participated in these pilots, the IT department, the Online Operations group, the Online Campus team, and Columbia University’s School of Social Work. In addition, we would like to thank the following people: Alejandra Kennedy Love, Alexis Telfair-Garcia, Ana Angeles, Ann McCann Oakley, Carol Ellison, Craig Schwalbe, Eddie N. Cardona, Jackie Martinez, Joanne Standlee, Johanna Creswell Báez, Josephine Tatel, Katy Tokieda, Kita Lantman, Kristin Garay, Kristina Moore-Jager, Lacarnly A. Creech, Martin Englisher, Molly Hanessian, Rebecca Y. Chung, Samantha Arthur, Steven Schinke, Teis Jorgensen, and Valerie Samuel.


Báez, J. C., Marquart, M., and Chung, R. (2020, November 16). Training Online Social Work Educators: An Award-Winning Institute for Virtual Faculty. Virtual workshop for the Council on Social Work Education’s Annual Program Meeting. Online via ConferenceHarvester. Slides deposited in Columbia University’s Academic Commons: https://edtechbooks.org/-vReu

Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-Flexible Course Design (1st ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex

Griffith, M. (2017, November 17). Fully Integrating Distance Students Into Traditional Face-To-Face Classes With A Low-Cost Telerobotics Platform.  Workshop presented at the Online Learning Consortium Accelerate Conference, Orlando, FL.

Marquart, M., Englisher, M., Tokieda, K., Samuel, V., Standlee, J., and Telfair-Garcia, A. (2018, November 16). Can online students be fully integrated into residential courses via web conferencing? Lessons learned from two pilot courses at Columbia University.  Workshop presented at the Online Learning Consortium Accelerate Conference, Orlando, FL, and also streamed for a simultaneous virtual audience via Sonic Foundry’s Mediasite. Materials deposited in Columbia University’s Academic Commons: https://edtechbooks.org/-XfLs

Marquart, M., Englisher, M., Tokieda, K., and Telfair-Garcia, A. (2018b, April 11). Can online students fully participate in on-campus courses? Lessons learned from two pilot courses.  Workshop presented at the Social Work Distance Education Conference, San Antonio, TX.  Slides, handouts, and videos deposited in Columbia University’s Academic Commons: https://edtechbooks.org/-FyvR

Marquart, M., Englisher, M., Tokieda, K., and Telfair-Garcia, A. (2018a, February 22). One class, two modes of participation: Fully integrating online students into residential classes via web conferencing. Poster presented at the Columbia University Center for Teaching and Learning’s Celebration of Teaching and Learning Symposium, New York, NY. Poster deposited in Columbia University’s Academic Commons:  https://edtechbooks.org/-MqgS

Marquart, M. & Russell, L.R. (2020, September 10). Dear Professors: Don’t let student webcams trick you: Instructors who teach live online classes should thoughtfully consider whether to require students to use their webcams during class. EDUCAUSE Transforming Higher Ed Blog. https://edtechbooks.org/-eCNQ

Marquart, M. & Verdooner, E. (2020, September). Strategy: Co-creating Classroom Community Agreements. Journal of Faculty Development, 34(3). Special section on Pedagogy: Modifying Active Learning Strategies to Fit HyFlex/BlendFlex Instruction. https://edtechbooks.org/-raBE

Marquart, M., Verdooner, E., Englisher, M., Standlee, J., and Samuel, V. (n.d.). A hybrid approach to HyFlex teaching: Lessons learned from a two-year pilot with online and residential students [Manuscript submitted for publication].

Verdooner, E. and Marquart, M. (2019, March 25).  Presenting yourself professionally online and in-person.  Workshop presented at Columbia University School of Social Work’s Community Day.  New York, NY and online via Zoom.  Slides deposited in Columbia University’s Academic Commons: https://edtechbooks.org/-ZSwR

Verdooner, E. & Marquart, M. (2020, September). Strategy: End of Semester Reflection. Journal of Faculty Development, 34(3). Special section on Pedagogy: Modifying Active Learning Strategies to Fit HyFlex/BlendFlex Instruction.  https://edtechbooks.org/-raBE

Elise Verdooner

Columbia University

Elise Verdooner, a Fulbright Scholar and returned Peace Corps volunteer, has worked in international development for eight years. She is the former Executive Director of TEEEM, a global nonprofit organization focused on health, education, and economic empowerment in Ethiopia, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cambodia, Mongolia, Slovakia, and Peru. She holds a master’s degree in social work from Columbia University with a focus on social enterprise administration and international social work and a master's degree in global affairs from the University of Notre Dame. As a Fulbright Scholar in India, she is researching international social welfare, corporate social responsibility, and culture. Elise started as a Teaching Associate at Columbia University School of Social Work in 2019 before transitioning to Adjunct Faculty in 2022. As a youth development volunteer with the Peace Corps in Botswana, Elise worked on organizational capacity building, HIV prevention and outreach, and gender equality initiatives. Elise is a member of National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) New York City Chapter and the Immigration and Global Social Work Committee. She is a member of the Network for Social Work Management (NSWM) and was the 2019 recipient of the NSWM Mark Moses Distinguished Fellowship Award, which is presented annually to one exemplary practitioner or academic working in the field of social work management. She publishes and presents on topics of international development and teaching with technology.
Matthea Marquart

Columbia University School of Social Work

Matthea Marquart is a social worker, leader, educator, and online education expert. She is the Assistant Dean of Online Education at Columbia University’s School of Social Work (CSSW), a Senior Lecturer teaching innovative courses, and the creator and co-facilitator of CSSW’s Institute on Pedagogy and Technology for Online Courses. She began working with CSSW's Online Campus in 2014 during beta testing and launch preparation, helped launch the Online Campus in 2015, and has focused on collaborating on the online program's continuous improvement and growth since then. Her team’s work with CSSW’s Online Campus has won numerous awards, including from the International E-Learning Association, the University Professional and Continuing Education Association, the United States Distance Learning Association, and Chief Learning Officer Magazine. Matthea publishes and presents frequently, including over 125 invited and refereed talks, workshops, keynote speeches, and conference sessions about education, training, teaching with technology, and nonprofit management.

She is honored to have been recognized by the Council on Social Work Education’s Women’s Council as a Feminist Mentor, by the Network for Social Work Management with an Exemplar Award for exemplary performance and leadership as a social work executive leader, by the White House and Americorps with a President’s Gold Volunteer Service Award in recognition of volunteer service to community and country, and by the NYC chapter of the National Association of Social Workers with an Emerald Leadership Award for 16-25 years of exemplary leadership and contributions to the Social Work profession. Matthea began working in education in 1997, and in online education in 2008. She holds a BA in English from Emory University and an MS in Social Work from Columbia University. She is passionate about student-centered teaching and learning, and can be reached on Twitter, on LinkedIn, or on her website.

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex/modified_hyflex_rlp.