ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Home⇛Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal⇛vol. 12 no. 2 (2024)

Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Students’ Perception of Hyflex Learning Modality

Edrian Peter Villanueva | Jayson Caalim

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The HyFlex learning modality, a response to the need for inclusive and high-quality education, has introduced significant transformations in some aspects of the Philippine education system. With students being the primary beneficiaries, understanding their perspectives on the HyFlex is crucial for its effective implementation. This research aims to create and assess the reliability and validity of a questionnaire in gauging students' experiences in a HyFlex environment. Results from early surveys and focus-group discussions have generated a 25-item questionnaire. The researchers have administered the questionnaire to 460 students in the HyFlex environment using Microsoft Forms. Exploratory factor analysis has reduced the items to 23 and generated four factors: interpreted as perceived teacher support, utilization of HyFlex, learning engagement, and learning efficacy. These factors explain 55.1% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analyses confirm the questionnaire's validity and reliability. Results from the initial questionnaire application suggest that students generally perceive HyFlex positively.



References:

  1. Abdelmalak, M. M. M., & Parra, J. L. (2016). Expanding learning opportunities for graduate students with HyFlex course design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 6(4), 19–37. 
  2. Athens, W. (2023). Self-regulation, motivation, and outcomes in HyFlex classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71 (4), 1765–1783. 
  3. Beatty, B. J. (2007). Hybrid classes with flexible participation options – If you build it, how will they come? Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Convention, Anaheim, CA. 
  4. Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes (1st ed.). EdTech Books. 
  5. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86(86), 1–17. 
  6. Chaves, M. G. (2022). The community of inquiry instructional strategies impact on student satisfaction on remote learning. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 10(1), 191–204. 
  7. Daniels, M. L. (2019). Exploring students’ perceptions of video lecture recordings in online and hybrid courses. Trevecca Nazarene University.
  8. DeVellis, R. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  9. Eduljee, N. B., Murphy, L., Emigh-Guy, M., & Croteau, K. A. (2023). Student perceptions about HyFlex/Hybrid delivery of courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. College Teaching, 1–12. 
  10. Funa, A., Renz, A., Gabay, J. A., Estonanto, J., & Prudente, M. (2022). Development and validation of online survey instrument on sustainable development for science teachers: focus on pili (canarium ovatum). Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19 (2), 559-576. 
  11. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5–9. 
  12. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: a simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge. 
  13. Hoon, A., Oliver, E., Szpakowska, K., & Newton, P. (2015). Use of the ‘Stop, Start, Continue’ method is associated with the production of constructive qualitative feedback by students in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 755–767. 
  14. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1). 
  15. Kline, R. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Fourth Ed). The Guilford Press.
  16. Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2021). Adopting HyFlex in higher education in response to COVID-19: students’ perspectives. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 36(3), 1–14. 
  17. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE Publications, Inc. 
  18. Kruz, L. (2020, August 12). Survey your students for a smoother start to the semester. Center for Innovative Teaching & Learning. 
  19. Lightner, C. A., & Lightner-Laws, C. A. (2013). A blended model: Simultaneously teaching a quantitative course traditionally, online, and remotely. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 224–238. 
  20. Liu, H., Spector, J. M., & Ikle, M. (2018). Computer technologies for model-based collaborative learning: A research-based approach with initial findings. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(5), 1383–1392. 
  21. Mallah, N., Rodríguez-Cano, R., Figueiras, A., & Takkouche, B. (2021). Development and validation of a knowledge, attitude and practice questionnaire of personal use of tranquilizers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 224, 108730. 
  22. Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2019). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23(23). 
  23. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38. 
  24. Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94. 
  25. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553. 
  26. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. 
  27. Szeto, E. (2014). A comparison of online/face-to-face students’ and instructor’s experiences: Examining blended synchronous learning effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4250–4254. 
  28. Vaughan, N. (2007, January 1). Perspectives on blended learning in Higher Education. Document - Gale Academic OneFile. 
  29. Vaughan, N., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press, Athabasca University.
  30. Vilhauer, H. (2023). Moving forward with HyFlex. SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 38(2), 130–131. 
  31. Visser-Wijnveen, G. J., Stes, A., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Development and validation of a questionnaire measuring teachers’ motivations for teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 64(3), 421–436.
  32. White, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34–40. 
  33. Wiles, G. L., & Ball, T. R. (2013, June), The Converged Classroom Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. 10.18260/1-2—22561. 

Tools


Copyright © 2025   ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø