Exploring HyFlex learning modality through adaption-innovation theory for student learning equity

Ridwan Daud Mahande 1 * , Wirawan Setialaksana 1, Nurul Mukhlisah Abdal 1, Mustari Lamada 1
More Detail
1 Department of Informatics and Computer Engineering Education, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Makassar, INDONESIA
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 14, Issue 1, Article No: e202410. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14170
OPEN ACCESS   418 Views   273 Downloads   Published online: 30 Jan 2024
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Equity is an important issue in student learning. HyFlex as a learning modality provides students an equitable opportunity to access learning through several modalities, which correlate with students’ cognitive styles. The study investigates the relationship between student learning and cognitive styles, student-preferred modalities, and their equity in learning. The digital survey was sent to students and 451 students filled out the survey voluntarily. A structural equation model was developed to investigate the relationship between variables. The results indicate that students with innovation styles had a higher impact than students with an adaption style on the choice of three HyFlex learning modalities. The findings also show that student-preferred modalities encourage them to have equity in their learning. The current research provides novel knowledge on fostering learning equity by developing and adjusting students’ cognitive styles to choose HyFlex learning modalities.
Keywords: HyFlex learning, cognitive styles, adaption-innovation, learning equity

CITATION

Mahande, R. D., Setialaksana, W., Abdal, N. M., & Lamada, M. (2024). Exploring HyFlex learning modality through adaption-innovation theory for student learning equity. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(1), e202410. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14170

REFERENCES

  • Ainscow, M. (2016). Collaboration as a strategy for promoting equity in education: Possibilities and barriers. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-12-2015-0013
  • Akter, S., Fosso Wamba, S., & Dewan, S. (2017). Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality. Production Planning and Control, 28(11-12), 1011-1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1267411
  • Andrewartha, L., & Harvey, A. (2017). Employability and student equity in higher education: The role of university careers services. Australian Journal of Career Development, 26(2), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416217718365
  • Athanases, S. Z., & Martin, K. J. (2006). Learning to advocate for educational equity in a teacher credential program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(6), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.008
  • Beatty, B. J. (2007). Hybrid classes with flexible participation options–If you build it, how will they come. In Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Anaheim (pp. 15-24).
  • Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1039::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S
  • Binnewies, S., & Wang, Z. (2019). Challenges of student equity and engagement in a HyFlex course. In C. N. Allan, C. Campbell, & J. Crough (Eds.), Blended learning designs in STEM higher education: Putting learning first (pp. 209-230). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_12
  • Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 239. https://doi.org/10.2307/749740
  • Bowen, R. M., & Cooper, M. M. (2021). Grading on a curve as a systemic issue of equity in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(1), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00369
  • Brandisauskiene, A., Buksnyte-Marmiene, L., Cesnaviciene, J., & Jarasiunaite-Fedosejeva, G. (2023). The relationship between teacher’s autonomy-supportive behavior and learning strategies applied by students: The role of teacher support and equity. SAGE Open, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231181384
  • Burgess, T., & Williams, A. K. (2022). Utilizing theory to elucidate the work of creating equity for transformation within the science classroom. Science Education, 106(5), 1071-1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21721
  • Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834
  • Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02
  • Esteron, M. A. S. 2021. Equity in online learning amidst pandemic in the Philippines. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 6(5), 139-151. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.65.23
  • Foxall, G. R., Payne, A., & Walters, D. (1992). Adaptive-innovative cognitive styles of Australian managers. Australian Psychologist, 27(2), 118-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050069208257592
  • Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2023). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515
  • Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems. Comparative Education, 40(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006042000184863
  • Graf, S., Lin, T., & Kinshuk. (2008). The relationship between learning styles and cognitive traits–Getting additional information for improving student modelling. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 122-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.004
  • Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
  • Haynes-Mendez, K., & Nolan, S. A. (2021). Fostering diversity of membership and leadership in psychology teaching and learning organizations. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 20(2), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725721996219
  • Henseler, J. (2021). Composite-based structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  • Hodge, L. L. (2006). An orientation on the mathematics classroom that emphasizes power and identity: Reflecting on equity research. The Urban Review, 38, 373-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-006-0041-7
  • Howell, E. (2022). HyFlex model of higher education: Understanding the promise of flexibility. On the Horizon, 30(4), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-04-2022-0019
  • Hutchinson, L., & Skinner, N. P. (2007). Self-awareness and cognitive style: Relationships among adaption-innovation, self-monitoring, and self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(4),551-560. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.4.551
  • Johnson, K. P., Danis, W. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (2008). Are you an innovator or adaptor? The impact of cognitive propensity on venture expectations and outcomes. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/neje-11-02-2008-b003
  • Khan, B. H. (2007). Flexible learning in an information society. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-325-8
  • Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622
  • Kirton, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and innovators–Why new initiatives get blocked. Long Range Planning, 17(2), 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(84)90145-6
  • Kirton, M. J. (2004). Adaption-innovation: In the context of diversity and change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203695005
  • Kono, K. G., & Taylor, S. (2021). Using an ethos of care to bridge the digital divide: Exploring faculty narratives during a global pandemic. Online Learning Journal, 25(1), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2484
  • Kyei-Blankson, L., Godwyll, F., & Nur-Awaleh, M. A. (2014). Innovative blended delivery and learning: Exploring student choice, experience, and level of satisfaction in a HyFlex course. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 16(3), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2014.064728
  • Lakhal, S., Bateman, D., & Bédard, J. (2017). Blended synchronous delivery modes in graduate programs: A literature review and how it is implemented in the master teacher program. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 47-60. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4747
  • Lambert, S. R. (2020). Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014-18. Computers & Education, 145, 103693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693
  • Lamm, A. J., & Telg, R. W. (2015). Using the Kirton adaption-innovation inventory to strengthen extension programs. EDIS, 2015(7), 2. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-wc235-2015
  • Lamm, A., Rhoades, E., Irani, T., Roberts, G., & Snyder, L. (2011). Utilizing natural cognitive tendencies to enhance agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02012
  • Lapp, S., Jablokow, K. W., & McComb, C. (2019). KABOOM: An agent-based model for simulating cognitive style in team problem solving. Design Science, 5, e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.12
  • Lo, J.-J., Chan, Y.-C., & Yeh, S.-W. (2012). Designing an adaptive web-based learning system based on students’ cognitive styles identified online. Computers & Education, 58(1), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.018
  • Lomberg, C., Kollmann, T., & Stöckmann, C. (2016). Different styles for different needs–The effect of cognitive styles on idea generation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12188
  • Mahande, R. D., & Abdal, N. M. (2022). A HyFlex learning measurement model based on students’ cognitive learning styles to create equitable learning. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 14(5), 1469-1481. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7777
  • Mahande, R. D., & Abdal, N. M. (2023). HyFlex learning in higher education: What is the conceptual model for realizing equitable learning? International Journal of Innovative Research in Education, 10(1), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7777
  • Mahande, R. D., Abdal, N. M., Setialaksana, W., & Mappeasse, M. Y. (2023). Students’ perceptions of and preferences for equity in hybrid flexible learning modalities. Journal of Educators Online, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2023.20.4.15
  • Malczyk, B. R. (2019). Introducing social work to HyFlex blended learning: A student-centered approach. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39(4–5), 414-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2019.1652226
  • McLeod, A., Clark, J. G., Warren, J. J., & Dietrich, G. (2008). The impact of information systems on end user performance: Examining the effects of cognitive style using learning curves in an electronic medical record implementation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 22. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.02209
  • Mentzer, N. J., Isabell, T. M., & Mohandas, L. (2023). The impact of interactive synchronous HyFlex model on student academic performance in a large active learning introductory college design course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09369-y
  • Nweke, L. O., Bokolo, A. J., Mba, G., & Nwigwe, E. (2022). Investigating the effectiveness of a HyFlex cyber security training in a developing country: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10107-10133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11038-z
  • Passig, D., & Cohen, L. (2014). Measuring the style of innovative thinking among engineering students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 56-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.878328
  • Richards, N. (2022). The equity turn in palliative and end of life care research: Lessons from the poverty literature. Sociology Compass, 16(5), e12969. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12969
  • Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results the importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(9), 1865-1886. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0449
  • Sadler-Smith, E., Spicer, D. E., & Tsang, F. (2000). Validity of the cognitive style index: Replication and extension. British Journal of Management, 11(2), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.t01-1-00159
  • Sellar, S., & Gale, T. (2011). Mobility, aspiration, voice: A new structure of feeling for student equity in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 52(2), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.572826
  • Shek, D. T. L., Zhu, X., Li, X., & Dou, D. (2022). Satisfaction with HyFlex teaching and law-abiding leadership education in Hong Kong University students under COVID-19. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(5), 2833-2858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-022-10040-4
  • Simon, F., Małgorzata, K., & Beatriz, P. (2007). Education and training policy no more failures ten steps to equity in education: Ten steps to equity in education. OECD Publishing.
  • Stone, C. (2022). From the margins to the mainstream: The online learning rethink and its implications for enhancing student equity. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8136
  • Stone, C., Freeman, E., Dyment, J., Muir, T., & Milthorpe, N. (2022). Equal or equitable? the role of flexibility within online education. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 29(2), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.47381/aijre.v29i2.221
  • Streukens, S., & Leroi-Werelds, S. (2016). Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European Management Journal, 34(6), 618-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.003
  • Super, L., Hofmann, A., Leung, C., Ho, M., Harrower, E., Adreak, N., & Manesh, Z. R. (2020). Fostering equity, diversity, and inclusion in large, first-year classes: Using reflective practice questions to promote universal design for learning in ecology and evolution lessons. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3464-6472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6960
  • Triyason, T., Tassanaviboon, A., & Kanthamanon, P. (2020). Hybrid classroom. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology (pp. 1-8). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406601.3406635
  • Wright, D. (2015). The HyFlex course design: A case study on adult and career education courses. National Social Science Proceedings, 60(1), 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131724409341014
  • Zheng, R., Flygare, J., & Dahl, L. S. (2009). Style matching or ability building? An empirical study on FD learners’ learning in well-structured and ill-structured asynchronous online learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 195-226. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.41.2.d