Hyflex learning and student engagement in higher education: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Introduction:

Hybrid-Flexible (“HyFlex”) course designs have emerged as a prominent modality in higher education, offering students the choice to attend classes in-person, online synchronously, or online asynchronously. This systematic literature review examines the impact of HyFlex learning on student engagement in higher education institutions across diverse disciplinary and geographical contexts, synthesizing empirical studies published from 2019 to 2024.

Methods:

Multiple research databases, including ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched using HyFlex- and engagement-related keywords, supplemented by reference mining, curated bibliographies, and targeted Google Scholar searches, yielding 30 studies reporting empirical evidence on student engagement. The review followed PRISMA 2020 reporting guidance, involving systematic identification, duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and inductive thematic synthesis of the included studies.

Results:

Key findings indicate that when well-implemented, HyFlex courses can sustain student engagement and academic performance on par with traditional face-to-face instruction. Students generally reported high satisfaction with the flexibility and autonomy afforded by HyFlex learning, which allowed them to choose their mode of participation (online or in person), manage their schedules more effectively, and continue learning despite time or location constraints. At the same time, challenges are documented: dispersion of students across modes can strain communication and social presence, potentially undermining engagement if not carefully managed. The review identifies factors influencing engagement in HyFlex - including students' self-regulation skills, sense of community, and instructor support - and highlights evidence-based strategies for enhancing engagement (e.g., active learning across modalities, strong teaching presence, and technology support).

Discussion:

Guided by frameworks such as the Community of Inquiry (CoI) and Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the findings are discussed in relation to how effective HyFlex implementation can fulfill students' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, thereby fostering robust engagement. Institutional considerations and best practices are outlined to guide educators and administrators in leveraging HyFlex for inclusive and engaging learning. The paper concludes with recommendations for practice and future research.

1 Introduction

Student engagement – broadly defined as the time, effort, and active involvement students invest in educationally meaningful activities – is a well-established predictor of learning success and academic achievement. Fostering engagement became especially challenging when the COVID-19 pandemic forced a sudden, large-scale shift to fully online instruction in 2020. Surveys of undergraduates during the early pandemic reported significant declines in student satisfaction and engagement relative to pre-pandemic levels. For example, a national U.S. survey by Means and Neisler (2021) found that students felt less connected and less motivated in hastily implemented remote classes, underscoring the need for innovative instructional models to re-engage learners in virtual or blended settings. One promising approach that gained momentum during this period is the Hybrid-Flexible (HyFlex) learning model, which combines face-to-face instruction with synchronous online sessions and asynchronous learning components within the same course. In a HyFlex course, students have the freedom to choose for each class meeting whether to attend in person, join live online, or participate asynchronously, with the expectation that all modes lead to equivalent learning outcomes (Beatty, 2019). This unprecedented flexibility is intended to empower students to learn in the mode that best suits their needs and circumstances, potentially enhancing engagement by accommodating diverse learning preferences and life situations. Indeed, HyFlex's first principle is learner choice, alongside the principles of equivalency (all participation modes should enable achievement of the same learning objectives), reusability of instructional materials, and accessibility for all students (Beatty, 2019).

Proponents of HyFlex suggest that giving students agency in how they attend class can improve their motivation, sense of ownership, and overall engagement. Many students appreciate the ability to balance studies with other commitments – for example, in one recent study 86% of students agreed that HyFlex course features helped them access and engage with content, with this sentiment especially pronounced among those with greater needs for flexibility. Qualitative feedback likewise indicates that students value the reduced stress of knowing they will not fall behind due to illness or conflicts, since they can always attend virtually or watch a recording (Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021; Mentzer and Mohandas, 2024). By enabling students to participate in the format they find most comfortable, HyFlex can in theory create a more inclusive learning environment that keeps a wide range of students engaged. This aligns with theories of learner motivation such as Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which posits that supporting students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness fosters intrinsic motivation and engagement (Deci and Ryan, 2000). HyFlex directly addresses the need for autonomy by offering choice, and it has the potential to support competence and relatedness as well – but whether it succeeds in doing so depends on implementation.

Critics note that HyFlex courses also present new challenges for student engagement. Distributing students across multiple modes can dilute in-person interaction and make it difficult for instructors to ensure all students participate fully, especially if technological or logistical issues arise. During the pandemic, some faculty observed that students attending online often felt like passive “observers” rather than equal participants in mixed-format classes (Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021). A recurring concern is the sense of community: without intentional design, the physical separation in HyFlex can lead to weaker social presence and peer connection, which are vital components of engagement (Garrison et al., 2000). In some cases, students have reported feeling isolated or unsure if the HyFlex format truly benefited their learning, citing lack of interaction with classmates as a drawback (Eduljee et al., 2023). These issues raise important questions: Does HyFlex learning foster student engagement as intended, or might it inadvertently undermine engagement without careful implementation? What factors or practices are key to making HyFlex courses engaging for all students?

To address these questions, this paper presents a systematic literature review of recent research on HyFlex learning and student engagement in higher education. We synthesize findings from empirical studies (2019–2024) to evaluate how HyFlex delivery impacts student engagement outcomes, what factors moderate this relationship, and what best practices and challenges have been identified for keeping students engaged in HyFlex environments. In interpreting the evidence, we draw on relevant educational frameworks – in particular, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model (Garrison et al., 2000) and SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2000), see Figure 1 below – to ground the discussion of how HyFlex can meet (or miss) the conditions for effective engagement.

Figure 1

Our aim is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the state of knowledge on HyFlex and student engagement, offering insights to instructors and institutions looking to adopt or refine HyFlex models.

2 Methodology

This review followed a systematic approach to identify, select and synthesize studies on HyFlex learning in higher education and student engagement. We focused on literature published between 2019 and 2024. Multiple research databases, including ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched using combinations of HyFlex-related and engagement-related keywords (e.g., “HyFlex”, “hybrid-flexible”, “blended synchronous”, “student engagement”, “student participation”, “flexible learning”). Additional sources were identified by examining reference lists of key HyFlex publications, consulting curated bibliographies from the HyFlex learning community (Beatty, 2019) and conducting targeted searches on Google Scholar. For transparency, reconstructed database-ready search strings based on these keywords are provided in Supplementary Appendix S1. This review is reported with reference to PRISMA 2020 reporting guidance (Page et al., 2021).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined upfront and are summarized in a PICOS table (Supplementary Appendix S2). We included peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings that explicitly discuss or evaluate a HyFlex course model (or closely related hybrid-flexible design) in an educational context and report empirical data on student engagement. Eligible studies reported quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods evidence (e.g., engagement scales, participation rates, academic performance proxies, student interviews, or observational data). To capture early-stage and emerging evidence, grey literature (including doctoral dissertations) was also considered, provided they presented original empirical data with transparent methodological procedures and direct relevance to student engagement. These sources are explicitly labeled as grey literature in the evidence summary (Supplementary Table 1), and their findings are interpreted cautiously. While no formal sensitivity analyses were conducted, the inclusion of these sources is transparently reported, and their methodological quality was assessed using the same criteria applied to peer-reviewed studies. Studies on blended or hybrid learning were included only if they allowed student choice of modality, a defining feature of HyFlex. Purely conceptual papers without new empirical evidence and studies not centered on student engagement were excluded. After deduplication, records were screened by title and abstract for relevance, and eligible full texts were assessed against the inclusion criteria. Thirty studies met the criteria and were included in the synthesis.

Data from each included study were extracted using a structured matrix (Supplementary Table 1). The matrix captured publication type and year, study context (institution and discipline), sample characteristics, research design and methodology, and main findings related to student engagement. We then employed an inductive thematic analysis to organize the findings and identify recurring patterns. Through iterative comparison of results and conclusions across studies, several common themes emerged: (a) comparative engagement outcomes in HyFlex vs. traditional or single-mode courses; (b) student perceptions, satisfaction, and subjective engagement in HyFlex; (c) psychological and contextual factors that influence engagement in HyFlex environments; (d) effective instructional strategies for enhancing engagement in HyFlex; and (e) challenges and considerations for sustaining engagement in HyFlex implementations. Screening workflow details such as the number of reviewers, independent duplicate screening, disagreement resolution and a stage-by-stage PRISMA flow diagram are not reported in this paper and are acknowledged as limitations. A structured PRISMA 2020 compliance note, outlining checklist items addressed in this review and elements not fully reported, is available in Supplementary Appendix S3.

In the following Results section, we first summarize the geographical distribution of the included studies (Section 3.1), followed by the synthesized findings organized under the thematic categories. We emphasize points of convergence in the literature, as well as notable divergences or mixed results. To ensure rigor, multiple sources are cited for key insights where available, and we note where evidence is more limited. All findings are discussed in light of broader engagement theory in the subsequent Discussion section.

3 Results

Supplementary Table 1 summarizes the included studies reviewed in this article, including study context, methodology and key findings on engagement in HyFlex learning environments. The appendix provides a structured extraction matrix for the studies described in this review.

3.1 Geographical distribution of the studies

Table 1 summarizes the geographical distribution of the studies by region, showing the dominance of North American contexts. The majority of studies were conducted in North America (n = 18, 60%), followed by Asia (n = 4, 13.3%), Oceania (n = 3, 10%), Europe (n = 2, 6.7%), and Africa (n = 1, 3.3%).

3.2 Engagement outcomes in HyFlex vs. traditional modes

A central question in the literature is whether HyFlex delivery affects objective student engagement levels or academic performance compared to traditional single-mode instruction. Numerous studies indicate that well-implemented HyFlex courses can achieve student engagement and success outcomes comparable to those of conventional face-to-face classes. In other words, simply introducing flexible modalities does not inherently diminish engagement or learning, as long as course quality is maintained. For example, Adeel et al. (2023) conducted a program-wide study in which undergraduate students could choose to attend lectures in-person or online in a HyFlex format. They found no significant differences in measured engagement or final course grades between students who predominantly attended in person and those who predominantly attended online. Highly engaged students tended to earn high grades regardless of attendance mode, suggesting that allowing mode choice did not negatively impact overall engagement or achievement. Similarly, Bockorny et al. (2024) reported that in their U.S. university setting, student engagement levels did not significantly differ among those attending HyFlex classes face-to-face, via live Zoom, or asynchronously online. Course participation and performance were equivalent across the three groups, echoing findings from Guidry’s (2022) study of business courses that saw no drop-off in success rates when switching from a traditional format to HyFlex. Such outcomes suggest that, when effectively designed and facilitated, HyFlex learning can maintain or enhance student engagement while offering greater flexibility and preserving academic quality.

Beyond grades and completion rates, researchers have compared behavioral indicators of engagement (such as attendance, participation in activities, and time spent on task) across HyFlex and non-HyFlex modalities. These studies likewise generally find no inherent engagement deficit in HyFlex. Students tend to self-select the mode that fits their needs, and motivated students will engage actively via any mode when given the opportunity. In Adeel et al.'s study, for instance, attendance patterns differed (with some students mostly online, others mostly in person), but overall attendance and participation were similar across modes. Bockorny et al. (2024) also noted that students in their HyFlex courses were equally involved in class discussions and activities whether they were physically present or joining remotely – no mode showed systematically lower participation. These findings support the principle of equivalency in HyFlex design: if each modality (in-person, synchronous online, asynchronous) is structured to provide effective opportunities for interaction and learning, then students can succeed and engage via any format (Beatty, 2019). Notably, several studies found that increased flexibility in HyFlex delivery did not result in lower attendance or disengagement; instead, students tended to remain consistently involved across modalities when course design promoted interaction and accountability (e.g., Beatty, 2019; Raes, 2022). In contrast to initial fears that many students might stop coming to class and disengage if given the option to watch later, multiple studies have found that attendance remains strong in HyFlex courses – often because instructors set expectations and because students who need flexibility use it to keep up rather than to drop out (Baker et al., 2024; Nelson et al., 2022). Overall, the weight of evidence to date indicates that HyFlex per se does not reduce engagement or learning. When done right, HyFlex students are just as engaged as their peers in traditional classrooms.

3.3 Student perceptions and satisfaction in HyFlex: in relation to SDT

While objective indicators show engagement can be maintained in HyFlex, it is also important to consider students' subjective perceptions of their engagement and satisfaction of their learning experience. Studies examining students' subjective perceptions generally reported positive views of HyFlex learning, particularly regarding its flexibility and autonomy, though some students expressed several challenges and concerns. On the positive side, students often report high satisfaction with the flexibility and autonomy that HyFlex offers. In the study by Adeel et al. (2023) mentioned earlier, 86 percent of students agreed that features of the HyFlex learning platform were helpful for accessing and engaging with course content, with this view especially common among those balancing work, family, or health obligations. Across various institutions, students frequently describe HyFlex as reducing stress – they appreciate being able to avoid missing class due to illness or commute issues by joining online, for example, and being able to learn in the format they find most comfortable enhances their overall engagement in the course (Eduljee et al., 2023; Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021). These self-reports align with theoretical expectations that giving learners more agency can improve their motivation and investment in learning activities. In terms of classic engagement theory, HyFlex's flexibility can support the autonomy, a core component of SDT, potentially leading to greater intrinsic motivation (Athens, 2023; Deci and Ryan, 2000). In interviews, students have described feeling a greater sense of control and responsibility for their learning in HyFlex courses, which for many is empowering (Bockorny et al., 2024). Notably, even traditionally underserved students – such as those with jobs or family caregiving roles – often say HyFlex enabled them to stay more engaged than they could have been in a less flexible course, because it allowed them to integrate coursework with their complex schedules (Baker et al., 2024). Overall, when asked, a majority of HyFlex students express positive satisfaction with the experience and would choose HyFlex again in the future (e.g., more than 80 percent in Detyna and Koch, 2023; Mentzer and Mohandas, 2024).

At the same time, qualitative findings provide a nuanced picture and highlight areas for improvement. Students shared about challenges they face in HyFlex environments. A recurring theme is that technology and logistical issues can hamper engagement if not well managed. For instance, if the live stream's audio/video quality is poor, or if online participants have difficulty hearing in-class discussions, remote students will feel less engaged and more like observers. In the focus group study by Detyna and Koch (2023) in London, students noted some “non-standard use issues” – essentially, confusion or misuse of the HyFlex system – such as students switching modes at inappropriate times or disengaging because they knew recordings were available. Such issues point to the need for clear guidance and technical support so that students know how to participate effectively in each mode. Another common concern is the lack of spontaneous interaction and connection. Several studies report that students, while valuing HyFlex convenience, miss the organic discussions and peer interactions of a fully in-person class (Eduljee et al., 2023; Nussli and Oh, 2024). In Eduljee and colleagues' survey of undergraduates, approximately 60 percent said a downside of HyFlex was “not enough interaction with my classmates”, and a similar percentage experienced a weaker sense of community compared to a traditional class. Even asynchronous learners, who appreciate working at their own pace, often crave some feeling of belonging to the class. Students in HyFlex courses have expressed uncertainty about whether they are “getting the same experience” as those in the other mode and seek reassurance that they will not be disadvantaged by their choice (Detyna and Koch, 2023). In Mentzer and Mohandas’s (2024) study of a design thinking course, students reported a strong sense of community was achievable in HyFlex through deliberate design (they cited feeling connected through shared activities and collaborative platforms), but they also noted instances of disconnect – for example, remote participants feeling ignored by in-room peers, or vice versa, when etiquette was not enforced. Such findings suggest that student perceptions of engagement in HyFlex courses depend strongly on the quality of course design and implementation. When the model is executed well – with reliable technology, inclusive teaching practices, and equitable learning activities – students view HyFlex very favorably, often preferring it over being constrained to either fully in-person or fully online formats. However, if any mode is under-supported or if interaction breaks down, students' perceived engagement suffers. In particular, students emphasize the importance of feeling like a cohesive class despite being in different locations: they want instructors to unite the group and facilitate cross-modal discussions so that everyone feels part of one community (O’Ceallaigh et al., 2023). Students report higher engagement and satisfaction in HyFlex courses when they experience connection and equitable access; conversely, the absence of these conditions may result in frustration and disengagement. In summary, student perceptions reinforce that the quality of implementation – especially ensuring communication and interaction work well in all modes – drives the success of HyFlex in learners' eyes. Flexibility is valued, but not at the expense of community and support.

3.4 Factors influencing engagement in HyFlex environments

Engagement in HyFlex courses does not occur automatically; recent search has begun to identify which factors and student characteristics most strongly shape engagement in these multi-modal environments. A consistent insight across studies is that student psychological variables and course design features interact to impact engagement. Several researchers have applied established engagement frameworks – such as SDT and the CoI model – to the HyFlex context to identify key drivers of student engagement. These theories provide useful lenses: for instance, SDT emphasizes the roles of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000), while the CoI model highlights the importance of teaching, social, and cognitive presence for meaningful engagement in online/hybrid learning (Garrison et al., 2000). Findings from HyFlex studies tend to support the relevance of these factors.

Motivation and self-efficacy clearly emerge as significant positive predictors of engagement in HyFlex. In a large study of HyFlex courses in China, Xu et al. (2024) surveyed over 200 students and found that those with higher academic motivation and stronger self-efficacy (i.e., confidence in managing their learning) reported significantly higher engagement levels in their HyFlex classes. Students who felt capable and driven were more likely to take advantage of the HyFlex format – attending regularly (in whichever mode they preferred) and actively participating – whereas those lower in self-efficacy were at greater risk of procrastinating or disconnecting, especially when not under in-person supervision. Xu et al. also examined the role of learner control (the degree of choice students have in the course, which is inherent to HyFlex). They discovered that simply having autonomy in mode choice did not automatically increase engagement. Rather, the effect of autonomy on engagement was indirect: HyFlex's built-in flexibility contributed to students' sense of autonomy and convenience, but this translated into higher engagement only if the course also supported other needs – namely, a sense of competence and a sense of social connection in the class. In other words, if a student felt isolated or lost in a HyFlex course, the freedom to choose mode did not help and could even hurt (such a student might opt out of live sessions and further disengage). However, when a course fostered a strong sense of community and clarity (for instance, through the CoI presences of social and teaching presence), students were able to exercise their autonomy without loss of engagement. This finding aligns with SDT: autonomy needs to be accompanied by support for competence and relatedness to yield positive outcomes.

Relatedly, social connectedness and instructor presence are frequently cited as critical factors. A study by Bozan et al. (2024) examined HyFlex and online learning through the lens of SDT, focusing on students' basic psychological needs. They found that in HyFlex courses offered during the pandemic, students' sense of relatedness – feeling connected to peers and instructors – had a direct positive effect on their engagement, while the sense of autonomy (having a choice of mode) influenced engagement only when coupled with feelings of competence. Bozan et al. (2024) reported that students who felt a strong sense of belonging and support in the class remained highly engaged regardless of modality, whereas students who did not feel connected showed lower engagement, even though they technically had more “freedom” in a HyFlex course. This underscores that engagement thrives when students feel both empowered and supported – they should have options (autonomy), but also the skills and scaffolding to succeed in those options (competence), and a sense of community (relatedness) that keeps them emotionally invested. These needs echo the CoI framework as well: teaching presence (instructor guidance and facilitation) and social presence (open communication and group cohesion) are essential to maintain cognitive engagement in any mode. An empirical study by Gascoigne (2025) demonstrated that maintaining physical and social presence across HyFlex modalities fosters a supportive classroom climate, underscoring the importance of instructor presence in sustaining student engagement. If students perceive that the instructor is actively “there” for both in-person and online students – for example, by promptly responding to questions from remote participants, addressing all students by name, and fostering inclusive discussions – they are more likely to participate and less likely to feel that one group is favored. Conversely, if online students feel like second-class participants or asynchronous learners get minimal feedback, their engagement can drop quickly (Eduljee et al., 2023; Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021). In essence, instructor behavior that cultivates a community of inquiry (teaching presence leading to social and cognitive presence) is a strong determinant of engagement in HyFlex settings. This point is reinforced by Diala et al. (2023), who found that students' perceptions of peer engagement and instructor oversight were linked to positive behaviors such as academic integrity – suggesting that when students feel seen and connected, they remain more engaged and even uphold class norms more diligently.

Course content and design features also influence engagement in HyFlex. Although not part of the HyFlex literature reviewed, research in other instructional contexts has long shown that high-quality, interactive course design can spur greater student involvement (e.g., Cheng, 2023; Lee, 2010). In HyFlex settings, this translates to using engaging learning activities that work well both in person and online, and ensuring alignment across modes. For instance, active learning techniques like polls, discussions, and group work should be accessible to all students. If one mode of a HyFlex class primarily gets lecture while another mode gets more interactive exercises, engagement disparities can emerge. Heilporn and Lakhal (2021) emphasized that carefully aligning learning tasks and materials for each modality is crucial to uphold the equivalency principle. Razali and Tasir (2025) found that clear, well-designed course content and structure, supported by effective communication and flexible delivery, significantly enhanced student engagement and positive learning experiences in HyFlex environments. Overall, this highlights the crucial role of pedagogical design in sustaining learner motivation and participation.

Meanwhile, some studies investigated whether student demographic or situational factors moderate engagement in HyFlex. There is tentative evidence that adult learners or part-time students may engage more with HyFlex due to its flexibility (as it allows them to juggle coursework with jobs and family), whereas traditionally aged college students might actually engage better with some structure or face-to-face requirements (McCray and St. Clair, 2024; Stewart and Bishop, 2022). For example, a case study on adult graduate learners in a HyFlex blended-learning environment found that flexible course delivery improved students' satisfaction and persistence because it accommodated their work and family commitments, while strong instructor support and empathy were key to maintaining engagement (McCray and St. Clair, 2024). However, findings on age or background differences are still limited, and more research is needed on how sub-populations (e.g., first-year vs. senior students, or domestic vs. international students) experience HyFlex.

Overall, the literature suggests no single factor guarantees engagement in HyFlex – rather, it is the combination of motivated, self-regulated students, effective course design, and strong instructor facilitation that together drive robust engagement in these environments. When any of these elements is weak (e.g., students lack self-regulation skills, or the course is not well-aligned across modes), engagement may suffer. When all are present, HyFlex can excel.

3.5 Strategies for enhancing engagement in HyFlex

In response to RQ2 (“What factors or practices are key to making HyFlex courses engaging for all students?”), researchers and practitioners have proposed various strategies to maximize student engagement. A recurring theme is that instructors should be intentional and proactive in design and delivery to create an engaging HyFlex experience – merely offering multiple modalities is not enough; the course must be structured to integrate those modalities into a coherent learning journey for students. From the literature, several best practices have emerged, as described below.

3.5.1 Leverage flexibility as a motivator, not an excuse for disengagement

HyFlex's strength is its flexibility, and instructors can encourage students to strategically use that flexibility. Bockorny et al. (2024) suggest that at course outset, instructors explicitly invite students to choose the mode that best fits each week's activities and their personal circumstances, rather than, say, always defaulting to online out of convenience. In their study, students who treated mode choice thoughtfully – sometimes coming in person for hands-on sessions, other times joining online when sick or busy – felt a greater sense of control and accountability for their learning. By promoting this sense of ownership (e.g., having students create a plan for how they will engage via different modes, and reflect on what works best for them), instructors can turn flexibility into a motivator for engagement. At the same time, it is important to set clear expectations that whichever mode students choose, they are expected to actively participate. Some HyFlex instructors implement light accountability measures across all modes, such as short participation quizzes or reflection prompts that every student completes each week. These ensure that even asynchronous participants engage with the material and that online students do more than passively watch. Bockorny et al. (2024) found that HyFlex students appreciated having consistent checkpoints (e.g., weekly discussion posts or polls), as it helped them stay on track and involved – leading to what the authors called “increased accountability” improving engagement. The key is to maintain voluntary choice (an ethos of HyFlex) while gently nudging all students to engage continuously.

3.5.2 Employ active learning techniques across all modalities

A strong consensus in the literature is that active learning is essential in HyFlex. Passive approaches – for example, a scenario where the instructor simply live-streams a lecture and remote students watch without interaction – are deemed insufficient to maintain engagement. Effective HyFlex courses use activities that involve students in doing, thinking, and interacting, whether they are in the classroom or online. Many instructors have adapted classic active learning strategies to HyFlex: live polls (via tools like Mentimeter or Zoom polls) can include both in-person and remote students; discussions can be done in parallel (in-room small groups and breakout rooms for online) with a shared report-out; collaborative documents or forums allow asynchronous students to contribute to ongoing class discussions. By “blurring the line” between modes through common activities, all students feel part of one learning community, which strengthens engagement. For example, an instructor might pose a problem and have in-person students discuss it in small groups, while simultaneously online students discuss in breakout rooms or a chat; then the groups merge by sharing their insights with the whole class (either verbally or via a shared online board). This approach was noted to be very effective in a case at a Canadian university, where mixing modes in discussions led to more diverse perspectives and higher overall participation (Adeel et al., 2023). Using shared collaboration tools (e.g., Google Docs, Padlet boards) that everyone edits in real time is another technique to unite students – as all are contributing to the same task, each student's engagement is visible and valued regardless of mode. Studies have reported that such strategies not only keep students cognitively engaged but also build a stronger sense of social presence, as students see and interact with their peers’ ideas routinely (Nussli and Oh, 2024). In short, HyFlex instructors are advised to design every class session with interactive elements that involve all attendees, rather than treating online students as mere observers of an in-person class.

3.5.3 Maintain a strong instructor presence in all modes

Instructor presence – a concept from the CoI framework referring to the instructor's visibility, responsiveness, and guidance – is repeatedly highlighted as crucial in HyFlex pedagogies. O’Ceallaigh et al. (2023) note that an instructor's timely communication, enthusiasm, and attentiveness in a multi-modal class reassures students that support is available “whenever and however” they attend, which nurtures engagement. Concretely, instructors can demonstrate presence by actively welcoming and addressing both remote and in-person students during class (“I see a question from our online students…”), by ensuring to acknowledge and integrate contributions from all groups, and by providing feedback through multiple channels. Posting recap videos or weekly announcements that summarize key points and discussions (including noting interesting questions raised by remote students, etc.) can help asynchronous learners feel included and keep everyone on the same page. Essentially, the instructor should act as the “bridge” connecting all participants (Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021). Some institutions even assign teaching assistants or use advanced classroom technology (e.g., 360° cameras and ceiling microphones) to help the instructor engage with remote students as naturally as those in the room. For example, if a remote student virtually raises a hand, a teaching assistant might alert the instructor, or an auto-tracking camera might show the class the remote student's video feed, so they can more seamlessly join the conversation. The goal is that no student feels that their mode of attendance limits their access to the instructor. Regular check-ins with online participants (“Are you following along okay? Any questions from Zoom?”) and efforts to humanize the online space (like using student names, encouraging webcams if possible, etc.) all contribute to a high teaching presence, which in turn has been linked to higher engagement and satisfaction (Bozan et al., 2024; O’Ceallaigh et al., 2023).

3.5.4 Invest in reliable technology and instructor training

Technical and organizational supports, while sometimes outside the instructor's direct control, form the foundation of a successful HyFlex experience. Many studies note that even a well-intentioned HyFlex design can falter if the technology fails or if the instructor is uncomfortable managing it. This aspect is particularly context-sensitive, as differences in infrastructure readiness and faculty training across institutions can affect how engaged students are in HyFlex courses, shaping the engagement outcomes. Thus, a key strategy at the institutional level is to equip HyFlex classrooms with robust infrastructure: high-quality cameras and microphones, stable internet, and intuitive integration of conferencing systems and classroom displays. For instance, HyFlex implementations at institutions like King's College London invested in upgraded classrooms with multiple cameras and panoramic microphones to create a better sense of presence for remote students (Detyna et al., 2023). When technology works seamlessly, students are less distracted and more engaged; when it glitches, engagement can plummet quickly as frustration and disconnection set in. Alongside technology, training instructors is vital. Teaching a HyFlex class is essentially like conducting an orchestra of different sections – it requires skillful multitasking and new pedagogical strategies. Many researchers advise that instructors receive professional development on hybrid teaching techniques, tools for engaging remote students, and time to practice before going live (Armstrong, 2022; Penrod, 2023). Instructors who feel confident with the platform and classroom tech can focus on pedagogy rather than troubleshooting, which leads to more dynamic and responsive teaching. For example, an instructor adept with Zoom and classroom audiovisual might incorporate spontaneous polls or switch discussion formats smoothly, whereas an untrained instructor might avoid interaction for fear something might go wrong. Several universities now run workshops or communities of practice for HyFlex instructors to share tips and solutions (Beatty, 2019). The overarching strategy is to ensure that technology enhances rather than hinders engagement, and that instructors are empowered to fully leverage the HyFlex model's potential.

By applying these and other strategies – intentional planning of activities, proactive facilitation, and robust support – HyFlex courses have been shown to be just as engaging as traditional classes, and in some cases even more so. When done well, HyFlex can tap into students' intrinsic motivation by providing a more personalized and convenient learning experience, without sacrificing the interactive and social elements of learning. As Baker et al. (2024) note, HyFlex requires a “both/and” mindset: instructors must simultaneously attend to the needs of in-person and online students, creating a unified experience. While challenging, those who succeed in this regard report seeing students respond with high levels of interest, effort, and connection, confirming that HyFlex's flexibility can go hand-in-hand with strong engagement.

3.6 Challenges and considerations

Despite its promise, implementing HyFlex at scale comes with significant challenges that educators and administrators must consider – especially insofar as these challenges relate to sustaining student engagement. One commonly cited hurdle is the increased logistical and workload demand on instructors. In a HyFlex course, the instructor is essentially managing what can feel like three versions of the class (in-person, synchronous online, and asynchronous online) at once. Detyna et al. (2023) detailed this in their paper subtitled “climbing the mountain of implementation”, which recounted the trials of introducing HyFlex seminars during the pandemic. Instructors reported technological glitches, difficulties engaging online and in-room students simultaneously, and feelings of cognitive overload in trying to monitor multiple channels. Without adequate support, these demands can negatively impact the quality of instruction – an overextended instructor may resort to a simpler, lecture-centric approach just to survive the class, which undermines the interactive benefits of HyFlex and thus student engagement. As Beatty (2019) acknowledged in his HyFlex handbook, designing and delivering a HyFlex course typically requires more upfront effort than a single-mode course, since activities and assessments must be planned for multiple modalities. Instructors need time and possibly assistance (e.g., instructional designers or teaching assistants) to redesign materials so that, for example, group work has an online equivalent, or assessments are fair across modes. If institutions do not adjust workload expectations or provide resources (like stipends, training, or tech support), instructors might burn out or run HyFlex in a suboptimal way that shortchanges engagement. Therefore, from an administrative perspective, it is crucial to treat HyFlex implementation as a team effort and invest in it. Departments that have successfully launched HyFlex programs often provided faculty with training sessions, released time for course development, and sometimes co-teaching models or tech assistants to help manage live sessions (Penrod, 2023). The payoff for doing so is higher-quality HyFlex instruction where the instructor can focus on engaging students rather than battling logistics.

Another challenge lies in ensuring equitable engagement and preventing an “engagement gap” between modes. If not carefully managed, students attending via one mode might receive a richer or more interactive experience than others. For example, in early HyFlex trials during the pandemic, some faculty struggled to give remote students equal attention, resulting in those students feeling like passive observers (Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021). Similarly, asynchronous learners can easily become disengaged if most course activities cater to the live sessions. The equivalency principle of HyFlex is critical here – instructors must deliberately design learning activities so that whether a student is sitting in the classroom, joining on Zoom, or watching a recording later, they can fully participate and achieve the same outcomes. This may entail developing additional components: for instance, asynchronous students might do a follow-up discussion board post to substitute for real-time discussion, or instructors might employ a flipped classroom approach (having pre-recorded lectures for all) so that live sessions focus on interactive problem-solving which is then accessible to async learners via recordings and online forums. Baker et al. (2024) emphasized the importance of acknowledging student agency and the need for contingency plans in HyFlex. In practice, this means building flexibility not just for students, but for the course itself – having backup options if technology fails, or alternative assignments if a student has to switch mode due to an emergency. For engagement, the implication is that no group of students should feel left behind. One concrete consideration is technology access and literacy: not all students may have the devices or reliable internet to participate seamlessly online. If a subset of students struggles with connectivity, they will disengage no matter how pedagogically sound the course is. Thus, some institutions have set up laptop loaner programs or designated on-campus spaces where students can attend the online portion if needed (Beatty, 2019). Ensuring a baseline of access helps prevent digital inequities from translating into engagement gaps.

Student accountability and motivation in a HyFlex setting can also be a double-edged sword. While motivated students tend to thrive with greater autonomy, less self-regulated learners may struggle to use the flexibility effectively, often engaging inconsistently or with reduced focus during online participation. Bohórquez et al. (2023) observed that engagement in HyFlex environments depends heavily on students' ability to self-manage their learning and maintain active participation across modes. Similarly, Adi Badiozaman et al. (2024) found that students' self-efficacy and agentic competence, such as their ability to self-regulate and adapt, were key determinants of successful engagement in HyFlex learning. These findings suggest that flexibility alone does not ensure equitable learning outcomes unless supported by factors like students' self-directed learning skills and instructor scaffolding.

To address this concern, several studies suggest incorporating gentle participation incentives. As noted earlier, requiring at least some synchronous engagement (e.g., “attend at least one live session per week” or participate in an interactive activity) or giving small credit for contributing to discussions can nudge students to stay involved (Bockorny et al., 2024; Dziuban et al., 2018). However, this must be balanced with the spirit of HyFlex, which is voluntary choice. The pedagogical challenge is to design such that students want to engage – making sessions valuable and interactive – rather than relying too much on mandates. Some instructors explicitly communicate to students that attending live (in person or virtual) will make their learning easier (due to immediate feedback, etc.), while also providing a path for those who truly need asynchronous. Research is still mixed on the best approach: some HyFlex classes have excellent engagement with no attendance rules (likely due to highly motivated cohorts or very engaging teaching), whereas others have struggled without some requirements. This remains an area for continued experimentation, with the consensus being that any requirements should be minimal and supportive (e.g., a required one-on-one check-in for those not attending live, to keep them connected) rather than punitive.

Lastly, assessment and group work in HyFlex pose challenges that can affect engagement. Collaborative learning is a known enhancer of engagement, but doing group projects or discussions when students are split across modes is tricky. Some instructors form groups composed of students within the same mode to simplify logistics, but that can segregate the class. Others try to mix modes (one in-class student paired with one remote student, etc.) to build community, but that requires careful coordination and sometimes additional tools (for instance, having in-class students bring a device to communicate with remote partners). If not executed well, group work can frustrate students and decrease engagement – for example, an asynchronous student may feel powerless in a group that mostly meets in real-time. Possible solutions documented include scheduling occasional all-class synchronous sessions (even if mostly asynchronous otherwise) for teamwork, or using asynchronous collaboration tools that allow equal contribution over a window of time. Another concern is academic integrity and the different perceptions across modes. Diala et al. (2023) explored whether HyFlex environments affect students' likelihood to report cheating and found that students who feel more engaged and connected in HyFlex classes are more likely to uphold and enforce academic integrity), whereas disengaged students are less likely to do so. This implies that fostering a strong community and sense of mutual accountability across modes not only helps learning but also maintains ethical standards. Conversely, if online students feel “less seen”, they might be more tempted to cut corners or simply not invest effort. The takeaway is that maintaining a cohesive class culture and clearly communicating expectations is important in HyFlex – instructors should articulate that all students, regardless of mode, are held to the same standards and are part of the same learning community. Regular reminders of the honor code, and designing assessments that encourage honest work (e.g., authentic assignments, or oral follow-ups for online submissions), can mitigate integrity issues while keeping students engaged in meaningful ways.

In summary, the literature acknowledges that HyFlex implementation is not a trivial undertaking. There are genuine challenges in technology, pedagogy, and student management that educators must navigate. However, none of these challenges are insurmountable. Pilot implementations and case studies (e.g., Detyna et al., 2023; Penrod, 2023) suggest that with careful planning, continuous improvement, and institutional backing, the obstacles can be mitigated. It is crucial to remember the ultimate aim of HyFlex: increasing access and engagement. That goal is highly worthwhile, especially in a post-pandemic landscape where student needs and expectations have evolved towards greater flexibility. Each challenge identified has prompted creative solutions in the literature, contributing to a growing set of best practices for HyFlex. For instance, concerns about student isolation led to new approaches for community-building online; technical difficulties spurred investments in better tools; issues of unequal participation resulted in new pedagogical techniques to integrate modalities. By sharing these lessons, the higher education community is gradually moving towards models of HyFlex that maximize its benefits while minimizing drawbacks. The next section discusses these implications in a broader context and offers conclusions and future directions.

4 Discussion

This review did not include a formal study quality appraisal or risk-of-bias assessment, which limits the ability to weight findings by methodological rigour. Conclusions are therefore presented as a synthesis of reported patterns rather than definitive causal effects.

Across the included studies, HyFlex is often reported as a viable approach for supporting engagement when implementation is well supported. However, reported outcomes vary by context, course design and technology conditions, and the strength of evidence differs across studies. This review therefore summarises descriptive patterns rather than establishing causal effects. The body of literature reviewed in this paper suggests an overall encouraging overall picture of HyFlex learning as a potentially viable model for supporting student engagement in higher education. Across diverse contexts (North America, Europe, Asia) and study designs, a common finding among the studies reviewed is that HyFlex courses can achieve equivalent student engagement and academic outcomes comparable to traditional single-mode courses, provided that they are designed and facilitated with careful attention to quality and inclusivity. Concerns that giving students choice in how to attend will automatically lead to disengagement or lower performance are not consistently supported in the available evidence. On the contrary, multiple studies report no significant drop-off in engagement among online or asynchronous participants relative to in-person students. This suggests that, from an outcome standpoint, HyFlex is generally a “no harm” innovation – it does not hurt engagement or grades on average. In some cases, it may even be a “win-win”: when executed well, HyFlex can maintain quality while also providing flexibility that students highly value. Especially in the wake of the COVID-19 disruptions, this flexibility has been characterised as supporting resilience and accessibility. Students who might otherwise miss classes due to illness, work, or other life events can continue to participate through alternative modes, which several studies suggest may help sustain their engagement and success (Baker et al., 2024).

However, the review also indicates that realizing HyFlex's potential for engagement hinges on certain conditions. Chief among these is an emphasis on pedagogy over technology: simply enabling multiple modes is unlikely to be sufficient; instructors must intentionally foster interaction, community, and active learning in all modes. Studies reporting more favorable engagement outcomes commonly describe high instructor presence, thoughtful synchronization of activities across modalities, and continuous efforts to ensure inclusion (for example, repeating in-class questions so remote students hear them, using tools that aggregate responses from both in-person and online participants, etc.). When those practices are in place, HyFlex is associated with higher levels of student engagement by providing students with multiple avenues for participation, as reported in the reviewed studies. For example, a shy student might contribute more in an online discussion forum than they would by speaking up in a crowded physical classroom, while an extroverted student might thrive with the energy of in-person sessions. In this way, HyFlex can allow each type of student to engage in the environment where they feel most comfortable. Over several courses, this can lead to higher overall engagement, as more students are able to select a mode that suits their learning styles or situational needs (Beatty, 2019; Detyna and Koch, 2023). Conversely, studies describing poorly implemented HyFlex – lacking structure, interactivity, or equity – report risks of disengagement. If students perceive that one mode is “second class” or that it is easy to disappear in an asynchronous setting, some will inevitably become less involved. Thus, a clear takeaway is that quality matters: institutions should invest in preparing instructors and equipping classrooms for HyFlex, and instructors should apply evidence-based teaching strategies to keep students engaged across modalities. HyFlex is not presented as a magic bullet; its positive outcomes emerge when sound pedagogical principles (e.g., active learning, prompt feedback, social connection, etc.) are applied in a multi-modal format.

The findings also highlight the role of student characteristics and support in HyFlex engagement. Not all students appear to have equal ability to self-regulate and thrive in a flexible environment. Several studies noted that students with strong time-management skills, self-discipline, and intrinsic motivation tend to flourish in HyFlex – they take advantage of the freedom to craft an optimal learning routine for themselves. In contrast, students who struggle with procrastination or who rely on the structure of mandatory class meetings may need additional scaffolding to remain engaged (Eduljee et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2024). This raises an equity consideration: if HyFlex is to fulfill its promise of expanding access, it may need to include structures that support all learners, including those less prepared for autonomous learning. In practice, this might involve incorporating extra touchpoints for disengaged students (e.g., an instructor might reach out if a student isn't participating, or use learning analytics to flag when someone hasn't logged in for a while). It could also involve front-loading student training – for example, providing an “orientation to HyFlex learning” at the start of the term, where students are taught how to manage their time, how to use the technology, and strategies for staying engaged when learning remotely. Some instructors build in small-group mentoring or buddy systems, pairing in-person and online students to check in with each other, thus fostering accountability and relatedness. Essentially, the review findings suggest that intentional scaffolding can help level the playing field so that less self-directed students do not fall behind in an online or flexible learning environment. For instance, Abdullah and Mohamad Said (2022) show that in open and distance learning contexts, scaffolding supports student engagement and empowerment. Future research would benefit from further examining how different student sub-populations engage with HyFlex and what targeted supports can help under-engaged groups succeed (e.g., first-generation college students, students with disabilities, etc.). The equity dimension is crucial – HyFlex should not only increase access in theory, but also ensure that students from all backgrounds can benefit from it in practice.

In terms of broader theoretical implications, the reviewed studies support the applicability of established engagement frameworks to the HyFlex modality. The CoI framework (Garrison et al., 2000) appears highly relevant: many effective HyFlex practices are essentially about strengthening teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence across physical and virtual spaces. Several studies explicitly referenced CoI, showing that HyFlex courses where instructors deliberately foster social connections (social presence) and guide learning both in-person and online (teaching presence) see better student engagement and satisfaction (e.g., Mentzer et al., 2023; O’Ceallaigh et al., 2023). This suggests that CoI can serve as a guiding framework for HyFlex design – instructors can ask, how am I facilitating discourse and thinking (cognitive presence) for all students, how am I projecting myself as a supportive instructor in each mode, and how am I encouraging students to interact and bond? Likewise, SDT provides insight: HyFlex clearly supplies autonomy, but the studies show that autonomy alone is not sufficient – competence support (clear instructions, resources, self-efficacy coaching) and relatedness (community, belonging) must accompany it to keep students fully engaged (Bozan et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2024). From an SDT perspective, evidence suggests that HyFlex is most effective when it does not neglect the basic human need for connection. It is striking that in Diala et al.’s (2023) survey, “campus connectedness” was a positive predictor of students' proactive engagement in HyFlex classes, reinforcing that feeling part of a community influences student behaviours and engagement even when learning remotely. In summary, our review confirms that time-tested principles of student engagement still apply in novel formats: students are reported to engage when they feel motivated, competent, and connected, and when the learning activities are interactive and purposeful. HyFlex represents a new arena in which to apply these principles, albeit one that requires some innovations in practice.

In addition to the practical and theoretical implications, the review findings carry important implications for higher education policy makers. To translate the synthesized evidence into actionable guidance, Table 2 outlines a set of operational policy levers grounded in the key themes identified across the review. These levers may be implemented progressively, with infrastructure readiness serving as a baseline, pedagogical strengthening occurring at intermediate stages, and systematic monitoring and institutional integration characterizing more advanced implementation. However, the feasibility and sequencing of these stages will vary across institutional and regional contexts, particularly where digital infrastructure and financial resources are uneven.

It is therefore necessary to situate these recommendations within the geographic distribution of the evidence base. As shown earlier, 60% of the reviewed studies originate from North America, with substantially lower representation from other regions. This concentration suggests that the proposed maturity progression largely reflects institutional environments with relatively stable technological ecosystems and established funding structures. In underrepresented or resource-constrained contexts, institutions may require extended baseline phases, phased infrastructure investment, or low-bandwidth pedagogical adaptations before advancing further. Accordingly, the framework should be interpreted as an adaptable scaffold rather than a universally transferable standard, particularly in settings facing structural digital inequities. For low-resource or rural settings, this may be operationalized through staged readiness criteria and capacity-building priorities, beginning with baseline connectivity and staff capability before scaling more resource-intensive HyFlex infrastructure.

5 Limitations and future research

Building on these limitations, future studies should examine HyFlex outcomes across more diverse geographic and cultural contexts to validate the applicability of findings globally. Longitudinal studies are recommended to assess whether engagement patterns persist as students and instructors gain experience with HyFlex over multiple semesters. The development of standardized engagement metrics would facilitate more robust comparisons across studies and contexts. Future reviews could strengthen methodological rigor by incorporating a formal quality appraisal or risk-of-bias assessment. In particular, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) may be employed as a suitable framework for systematically assessing the methodological quality of studies with diverse research designs, enabling the inclusion of a structured quality summary table and allowing conclusions to be more explicitly weighted according to methodological rigour (Hong et al., 2017). Research should also explore subgroups of students to ensure equitable access and outcomes, as well as discipline-specific factors (e.g., laboratory, studio, or K–12 settings) where engagement dynamics may differ. Finally, sharing best practices for faculty training and support will be critical to scaling HyFlex implementations effectively while addressing challenges related to infrastructure, instructor preparedness, and student engagement.

6 Conclusion

This systematic review finds that HyFlex learning, when carefully implemented, can support student engagement as effectively as traditional and other blended learning models, while offering the added benefit of flexibility. The research to date provides a roadmap of best practices – from upholding rigorous equivalency across modes to fostering active learning and instructor presence – that can guide educators in designing engaging HyFlex experiences. At the same time, the challenges of HyFlex are acknowledged: technology issues, heavier instructor workload, and the need for student self-regulation are real concerns that must be addressed through thoughtful course design and institutional support. HyFlex is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a framework that requires adaptation to the context and continual refinement. When its principles are followed and necessary supports are in place, HyFlex has the potential to make education more accessible and resilient without sacrificing quality. This is especially salient in a post-pandemic world where both students and institutions have recognized the value of flexibility.

In conclusion, the evidence thus far indicates that HyFlex is a promising model for the future of higher education. It offers a way to combine the best of both worlds – the engagement and richness of face-to-face interaction with the convenience and personalization of online learning – in a manner that maximizes student engagement and success. Universities implementing HyFlex at scale should heed the lessons from early adopters and the growing research base to ensure the model lives up to its promise. With continued attention to pedagogical best practices and equity, HyFlex can play a key role in making education more flexible, inclusive, and engaging for the diverse student populations of the 21st century.

References

• 1

  AbdullahZ.Mohamad SaidM. N. H. (2022). Engaging and empowering Malaysian students through open and distance learning in the post-COVID era. Front. Educ.7, 853796. 10.3389/feduc.2022.853796

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AdeelZ.MladjenovicS. M.SmithS. J.SahiP.DhandA.Williams-HabibiS.et al (2023). Student engagement tracks with success in-person and online in a hybrid-flexible course. Can. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn.14, 12. 10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2023.2.14482

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Adi BadiozamanI. F.LingV. M.NgA. (2024). University students’ experiences and reflection on their transition to HyFlex learning during post-COVID times. J. Educ. Technol. Syst.52 (4), 448–470. 10.1177/00472395231226407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  ArmstrongE. D. (2022) Gaps in professional development and knowledge of teaching HyFlex courses in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation). University of the Southwest.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AthensW. (2023). Self-regulation, motivation, and outcomes in HyFlex classrooms. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.71, 1527–1544. 10.1007/s11423-023-10243-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BakerS.WatkinsonM. G.HoneymanF.MowllJ.TyulkinaS. (2024). Rethinking student engagement for HyFlex teaching and learning in post-compulsory settings: acknowledging flexibility and agency needed for unplanned events. Int. J. Lifelong Educ.43, 432–447. 10.1080/02601370.2024.2359595

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BeattyB. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible Course Design: Implementing Student-Directed Hybrid Classes. Irvine, CA: EdTech Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BockornyK. M.GiannavolaT. M.MathewS.WaltersH. D. (2024). Effective engagement strategies in HyFlex modality based on intrinsic motivation in students. Act. Learn. High. Educ.25, 455–472. 10.1177/14697874231161364

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BohórquezE. B.KhanS.BattestilliL.FogelmanA. (2023). Measuring student engagement in a HyFlex environment. E-J. High. Ed. Res.6, 1–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BozanK.GaskinJ.StonerC. (2024). Student engagement in the HyFlex and online classrooms: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Technol. Knowl. Learn.29, 509–536. 10.1007/s10758-023-09661-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ChengK. Y. (2023). Hyflex challenges and strategies for matured learners: construction engineering higher education in New Zealand during the pandemic. J. Educ. Online20, (2). 10.9743/JEO.2023.20.2.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CummingT. M.GilanyiL.HanC. (2024). Hyflex delivery mode in a postgraduate course: instructor and student perspectives. Discov. Educ.3, 1–14. 10.1007/s44217-024-00110-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol.55, 68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  DetynaM.KochM. (2023). An overview of student perceptions of hybrid flexible learning at a London HEI. J. Interact. Media Educ.2023, 1–14. 10.5334/jime.784

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DetynaM.Sanchez-PizaniR.GiampietroV.DommettE. J.DyerK. (2023). Hybrid flexible (HyFlex) teaching and learning: climbing the mountain of implementation challenges for synchronous online and face-to-face seminars during a pandemic. Learn. Environ. Res.26, 145–159. 10.1007/s10984-022-09408-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DialaL. U.ZhaoL.ParraF.DavisL. (2023). Does the HyFlex learning environment affect student likelihood to whistle-blow on academic dishonesty?J. Leader. Account. Ethics20, 159–174. 10.33423/jlae.v2023i20.6519

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DziubanC.GrahamC. R.MoskalP. D.NorbergA.SiciliaN. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ.15, 1–16. 10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  EduljeeN. B.MurphyL.Emigh-GuyM. T.CroteauK. (2023). Student perceptions about HyFlex/hybrid delivery of courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Coll. Teach.72 (1), 346–357. 10.1080/87567555.2023.2208815

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High. Educ.2, 87–105. 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  GascoigneC. (2025). Examining the effect of physical presence on perceived classroom climate in HyFlex spaces. Research on Education and Media17, 49–55. 10.2478/rem-2025-0006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GuidryK. (2022). Hyflex courses: a “flex” or a flop?J. Instruct. Pedagog.27, 1–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  HeilpornG.LakhalS. (2021). Converting a graduate-level course into a HyFlex modality: what are effective engagement strategies?Int. J. Manag. Educ.19, 100454. 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100454

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  HongQ. N.PluyeP.BujoldM.WassefM. (2017). Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst. Rev.6, 61. 10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  HowellE.HubbardK.LinderS.MadisonS.RyanJ.BridgesW. C. (2024). Hyflex pedagogy: six strategies supported by design-based research. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ.16, 1042–1054. 10.1108/JARHE-02-2023-0050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  KohnkeL.MoorhouseB. L. (2021). Adopting HyFlex in higher education in response to COVID-19: students’ perspectives. Open Learn.36, 231–244. 10.1080/02680513.2021.1906641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  LeeM. C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: an extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Comput. Educ.54, 506–516. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  McCrayP. D.St. ClairN. S. (2024). Exploring perspectives of HyFlex blended learning with adult learners in higher education environments: an instrumental case study, in American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) 2024 Conference; 2024 Oct 28–Nov 1; Reno, NV, United States, eds. L. B. Holyoke, A. Ayers, T. Ferro, A. L. McClain, and K. Znamenak (Bowie, MD: American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE)).

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  MeansB.NeislerJ. (2021). Teaching and learning in the time of COVID: the student perspective. Online Learn.25, 8–27. 10.24059/olj.v25i1.2496

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  MentzerN.KrishnaB.KotangaleA.MohandasL. (2023). Hyflex environment: addressing students’ basic psychological needs. Learn. Environ. Res.26, 271–289. 10.1007/s10984-022-09431-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  MentzerN.MohandasL. (2024). Student experiences in an interactive synchronous HyFlex design thinking course during COVID-19. Interact. Learn. Environ.32, 1613–1628. 10.1080/10494820.2022.2124423

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  NelsonT. A.BergE. A.WoodN.HillB. (2022). Student engagement in HyFlex courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Coll. Stud. Dev.63, 101–105. 10.1353/csd.2022.0007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  NwekeL. O.BokoloA. J.MbaG.NwigweE. (2022). Investigating the effectiveness of a HyFlex cyber security training in a developing country: a case study. Educ. Inf. Technol.27, 10107–10133. 10.1007/s10639-022-11038-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  NussliN.OhK. (2024). Creating a “space in-between”: learning on the physical–hybrid–virtual continuum. J. Educ. Technol. Syst.52 (4), 471–506. 10.1177/00472395241252139

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  O’CeallaighT. J.ConnollyC.O’BrienE. (2023). Hyflex pedagogies: nurturing teacher presence in multi-modal learning spaces post-pandemic. Routledge Open Res.2, 2. 10.12688/routledgeopenres.17674.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med.18 (3), e1003583. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  PenrodJ. M. (2023). Considerations for implementing and supporting hybrid and HyFlex learning in a higher education institution (Doctoral dissertation). OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. Ohio University, OH, United States

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  RaesA. (2022). Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: does presence matter?. Postdigit. Sci. Educ.4 (1), 138–159. 10.1007/s42438-021-00274-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  RazaliN. A. M.TasirZ. (2025). Students’ learning experiences in a HyFlex learning environment. Int. J. Instr.18, 457–484. 10.29333/iji.2025.18324a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  StewartM. N.BishopC. (2022). Pathways to learning: preliminary findings of a HyFlex pilot implementation. North Carolina Community Coll. J. Teach. Innov.1, 18–79.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  WatsonM. K.BarrellaE. M.SkenesK. (2023). Impact of modality on workload among engineering undergraduates during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Civil Eng. Educ.149, 04023004. 10.1061/JCEECD.EIENG-1879

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  XuY.Abdul RazakR.HaliliS. H. (2024). Factors affecting learner engagement in HyFlex learning environments. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ.13, 3164–3176. 10.11591/ijere.v13i5.28998

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar