The Hybrid-Flexible (HyFlex) design model is a course design model that combines Hybrid learning in a Flexible way, such that students can either attend face-to-face class sessions, participate online or do both (i.e. alternate between face-to-face mode and online mode), according to their needs and availability, without learning deficits. Student satisfaction and learning outcomes (i.e. academic performance) should be the same regardless of the mode they choose. The aim of this study is to address these issues. A total of 376 students enrolled in a HyFlex information systems course responded to an online questionnaire. One-way ANOVA tests results revealed that no significant differences were found between students who chose different delivery modes on satisfaction, multiple choice test, and written exam scores. However, significant differences were observed on continuous assessment scores. The discussion relates to the importance of conducting other studies on this particular design model.

1. Academic Students’ Satisfaction and
Learning Outcomes in a HyFlex Course:
Do Delivery Modes Matter?
Sawsen Lakhal, Ph. D., Universityof Sherbrooke
Hager Khechine, Ph. D., Laval University
Daniel Pascot, Ph. D., Laval University
E-LEARN 2014 -World Conference on E-Learning
New Orleans, Louisiana: October 27-30, 2014

2. Outline
• Introduction
• Study variables and research hypotheses
• Methodology
• Results
• Conclusion

3. Introduction
• The Hybrid-Flexible (HyFlex) instructional model is a course design
model that combines Hybrid learning in a Flexible way, such that
students can either attend face-to-face class sessions, participate
online or do both (Abdelmalak, 2013; Kyei-Blankson & Godwyll, 2010; Educause, 2010).
• 3 course delivery modes: face-to-face, online (synchronous or
asynchronous) and hybrid (alternate between face-to-face mode
and online mode) within the same course.
• Within a HyFlex design model, faculty provide teaching and learning
activities to respond to both face-to-face students and online
students. These activities are not totally separated (Beatty, 2010).

4. Introduction – Advantages
• It responds to student needs by offering flexibility in course attendance (Abdelmalak, 2013;
Beatty, 2007; Educause, 2010; Kyei-Blankson & Godwyll, 2010; Miller et al., 2013).
• It enables students to use the kind of technologies they use in their daily lives for learning
purposes (Miller et al., 2013; Thompson, 2013).
• It enriches the teaching and learning environment (Abdelmalak, 2013; Beatty, 2007).
• It gives students equal opportunities to interact with other students and with faculty,
regardless of the mode chosen (Miller et al., 2013).
• It allows faculty to differentiate instruction to meet different student learning styles,
preferences, approaches and strategies (Abdelmalak, 2013).
• It promotes student engagement in their learning (Abdelmalak, 2013; Miller et al., 2013).
• It may represent a solution for higher education institutions with limited classroom space
(Educause, 2010; Miller et al., 2013).

5. Introduction - Principles
• According to Beatty (2007), four principles are to be applied when
designing a HyFlex course in order to ensure its quality: Learner
Choice, Equivalency, Reusability, and Accessibility.
• Learner Choice means that faculty can “provide meaningful
alternative participation modes and enable students to choose
between participation modes weekly” (Beatty, 2010).
• Equivalency implies that faculty should “provide equivalent learning
activities in all participation modes” (Beatty, 2010).
• Reusability signifies that faculty should allow students to “utilize
artifacts from learning activities in each participation mode as
learning objects for all students” (Beatty, 2010).
• Accessibility means that faculty should “equip students with
technology skills and access to all participation modes” (Beatty, 2010).

6. Introduction – Aimof this study
• In light of these principles, students should have the choice of attending face-to-face
sessions or online sessions without any learning deficits (Beatty, 2007). Student
satisfaction and learning outcomes (i.e. academic performance) should be the same
regardless of the mode they choose.
• The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of HyFlex courses. The level of
student satisfaction and student performance is explored within this learning
environment. Academic performance is measured by three means: multiple choice
test, written exam and continuous assessment scores. Moreover, these outcomes are
explored by course delivery modes chosen by students.
• To our knowledge, very few studies have examined these issues (Kyei-Blankson & Godwyll,
2010; Miller et al., 2013). More broadly, to date, research regarding HyFlex course design
is very limited (Abdelmalak, 2013; Kyei-Blankson & Godwyll, 2010).

7. Study variables and research
hypotheses - Satisfaction
• Hobbs and Osburn (1989) define student satisfaction as elements nurturing
the sense of well-being experienced by students in the course, from both
the technological and the pedagogical perspectives.
• According to Beatty (2010), in a HyFlex course, faculty provides equivalent
learning activities to students, regardless of the course delivery mode they
choose. This principle of Equivalency suggests that students should be
uniformly satisfied in different course delivery mode groups. We thus
formulate the first study hypothesis as follows:
• H1: the level of satisfaction is the same, on average, for students who choose
different delivery modes in HyFlex courses.

8. Study variables and research hypotheses
– Academic Performance
• Student academic performance is considered a key variable in studies
evaluating learning outcomes (Piccoli, Ahmad & Ives, 2001). In a study conducted
among undergraduate students, Miller et al. (2013) reported that no
significant differences were found between online students and face-to-face
students on academic performance measure by homework grades, midterm
scores and final course grades, suggesting that enrolled students in HyFlex
course acquired equivalent learnings (n = 77). These results led us to believe
that academic performance would be the same for students who choose
different delivery modes in HyFlex courses. In the present study, academic
performance is measured by three means: multiple choice test, written
exam and continuous assessment. We put forward the following hypothesis:
• H2: the level of academic performance measured by three means (multiple choice
test, written exam and continuous assessment) is the same, on average, for
students who choose different delivery modes in HyFlex courses.

9. Methodology - Sample
• The study sample was made of students enrolled in a HyFlex undergraduate
management information systems course. The faculty scheduled, for every
week, a classroom session that was broadcasted live and recorded via
Elluminate. Among the 439 students registered in the 2013 winter session,
376 filled the online questionnaire (response rate of 86%).
Age Gender Total
Male Female
20 years and younger 82 84 166
21 – 25 years 99 79 178
26 years and older 24 8 32
Total 205 171 376

10. Methodology - Procedure
• At the beginning of the 2013 winter semester, one of the researchers visited the class
and explained the purpose of the study and the potential involvement of the
students. Online synchronous students were able to ask questions using Elluminate.
These explanations were also recorded using Elluminate system and available for
students who followed the course session online asynchronously. The researcher left
her e-mail address and students were able to ask questions on the study whenever it
suited them.
• The questionnaire used in this study was comprised of 20 items and required 10
minutes to be completed. It was put online during the final five weeks of the 2013
winter semester.
• To encourage students’ participation, four gift-certificates of 100$ were randomly
drawn at the end of data collection. During the data collection period, a reminder
message was sent to students by email to invite them to participate in the study.

11. Methodology -Measures
• Satisfaction
• Student satisfaction was measured using the adapted French version (Fillion, 2005;
Lakhal et al., 2007) of the survey composed of 15 items suggested by Hobbs and
Osburn (1989). These items are rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 0 =
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
• Academic performance
• Academic performance was measured by the scores obtained by students on a
multiple choice test, a written exam and continuous assessment in the HyFlex
course. These scores were all converted in percentages.

12. Methodology -Measures
• Course delivery modes in the HyFlex course
• Fours groups: face-to-face, online synchronous, online asynchronous and hybrid.
• In order to classify students in each group, three items were used:
• (1) How many face-to-face sessions did you attend?
• (2) How many online course sessions did you attend, using Elluminate, in real time?
• (3) How many sessions of the online course did you attend using records of course
sessions on Elluminate?
• Students were asked to rate on a scale ranging from 1 (1 class session) to 10 (10
class sessions) how many times he or she attended course sessions according to
the three modalities described above. Note that the management information
systems course was comprised of 10 course sessions.

13. Methodology -Measures
• Course delivery modes in the HyFlex course
• We used the definition of course delivery modes provided by Allen, Seaman and
Garrett (2007) to classify students in the four groups.
Proportion of course
sessions carried out online
Number of sessions
in the study carried
out online
Course delivery
modes
Number of
students in
each group
0% to 29% 0 to 2 Face-to-face 74
80% and more in real time 8 and more Online synchronous 60
80% and more offline 8 and more Online asynchronous 187
30% to 79% 3 to 7 Hybrid (Blended) 55

14. Results -Descriptive statistics and ANOVA tests on
satisfaction items among the HyFlex course
M SD Agree
%
Disagree
%
Neutral % F p
1. I am satisfied with the course in general. 4.33 1.96 56.40 36.70 6.90 0.40 .75
2. I am satisfied with the quality of teaching. 4.97 1.83 66.80 22.60 40.00 0.68 .57
3. I am satisfied with the technical quality of the course. 4.89 1.89 64.60 24.70 10.60 1.21 .31
4. I am satisfied with the cost of the course as compared to
4.86 1.78 54.52 15.69 29.79 0.84 .47
other alternatives.
5. I am satisfied with the level of difficulty of the course. 4.30 1.94 50.80 37.23 11.97 0.62 .60
6. I am satisfied with the supervision available to me in the
4.99 1.75 65.43 19.68 14.89 0.40 .76
course.
7. I am satisfied with the course content. 4.03 2.06 48.14 43.35 8.51 0.55 .65
8. I am satisfied with the technical support access provided
5.24 1.59 65.69 11.17 23.14 1.95 .12
during the course.
9. I am satisfied with the technological equipment used
during the course.
5.42 1.62 72.61 11.44 15.96 1.62 .18
10. I am satisfied with the ease of use of the technological
equipment during the course.
5.63 1.47 77.13 7.98 14.89 2.87 .04*
11. I am satisfied with the technical reliability of the
technological equipment used during the course.
5.57 1.45 78.19 9.04 12.77 1.22 .30
12. I am satisfied with the support of the university for the
course.
5.32 1.46 65.43 7.45 27.13 0.38 .77
13. I am satisfied with the inclusion of the course in my
curriculum.
4.15 2.15 50.27 39.89 9.84 1.20 .31
14. I am satisfied with the amount of theoretical knowledge
acquired in the course.
4.36 2.05 56.38 34.04 9.57 0.55 .65
15. I am satisfied with the amount of practical knowledge
acquired in the course.
4.17 2.04 51.86 37.77 10.37 0.26 .85

15. Results – Hypotheses testing
• In order to examine the effectiveness of the HyFlex course, four one-way ANOVA tests
were performed on the data (Field, 2013).
Study variables ANOVA tests
F p η2
Satisfaction 1.08 0.36 .01
Multiple-choice test scores 1.04 0.37 .01
Written exam scores 0.28 0.84 .00
Continuous assessment scores 3.47 0.02* .03
• H1, which stated that the level of satisfaction is the same, on average, for students
who choose different delivery modes in HyFlex courses, is thus supported.
• H2, which stated that the level of academic performance is the same, on average, for
students who choose different delivery modes in HyFlex courses, is thus partially
confirmed.

16. Conclusion
• Previous studies considered two groups of students: those who attended face-to-face
sessions and those who followed the course online (Miller et al., 2013). Within the scope
of the present study, online students were divided into two groups: synchronous and
asynchronous. This allowed us to refine our results and to test within subject groups.
Indeed, if we had not considered these two groups, we would not have found any
differences between the groups (face-to-face, online and hybrid), as in previous
studies (Miller et al., 2013).
• Faculty should consider these two groups of students if he or she wishes to give all
students equal opportunities to learn (Beatty, 2007), as online asynchronous students
showed some learning deficits as compared to online synchronous students.
• Online synchronous students were found to be more satisfied with the ease of use of
the technological equipment during the course than online asynchronous students.
The principle of Accessibility (i.e. all students should be able to choose and participate
in different delivery modes, without worrying about access to technology) is clearly
not met. Other studies on technology acceptance should be conducted in this kind of
courses.

17. Thank you!
Sawsen Lakhal, Ph. D.
• Professor
• Department of Pedagogy, PERFORMA
• University of Sherbrooke
• Sawsen.Lakhal@USherbrooke.ca
Hager Khechine, Ph. D.
• Professor
• Department of Management Information Systems
• Laval University
• Hager.Khechine@sio.ulaval.ca
Daniel Pascot, Ph. D.
• Professor
• Department of Management Information Systems
• Laval University
• Daniel.Pascot@sio.ulaval.ca