Evaluating the Impact of Collaborative Hyflex Training (CHT) on Teaching Effectiveness: Evidence from Student Course Experience

This study evaluates the impact of cross-institutional Collaborative HyFlex Training (CHT) on university teachers’ instructional effectiveness through student course experience. The Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) was administered to 755 students taught by three teacher groups (CHT group, n=263; Control A, n=244; Control B, n=248), with confirmatory factor analysis confirming scale validity. Due to violations of parametric test assumptions, Kruskal-Wallis H tests and Dunn’s post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction were employed. Results demonstrate that the CHT group significantly outperformed both control groups across all CEQ dimensions (p<0.001), with medium to large effect sizes (δ=0.28-0.69). The most substantial improvements relative to Control B were observed in Good Teaching (GTS, δ=0.69), Generic Skills (GSS, δ=0.58), and Empowering Learners (ELS, δ=0.61). Notably, the CHT group significantly exceeded the high-performing Control A group (GTS: δ=0.48; Total CEQ: δ=0.44), confirming the model’s incremental value for teachers with diverse baseline competencies. The research reveals CHT’s dual-effect mechanism: “promoting equity” by elevating underperforming instructors while “enhancing excellence” among accomplished educators, providing empirical evidence for reconstructing faculty development systems during higher education’s digital transformation.

intercollegiate collaboration; HyFlex training; course experience

1. Amirova, A., Zhumabayeva, A., Zhunusbekova, A., Kalbergenova, S., Nygymanova, N., & Arenova, A. (2023). Effect of Using Hyflex Technology Learning on Preservice Teachers’ Success and Attitudes. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 11(3), 623-642. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Armstrong, E. D. (2022). Gaps in professional development and knowledge of teaching HyFlex courses in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Southwest). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Beatty, B. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design (pp. 31-31). London, UK: EdTech Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Brown, C., & Poortman, C. (Eds.). (2018).Networks for learning: Effective collaboration for teacher, school and system improvement. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: An evaluation of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 135-145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cai, H., Lu, L., Dong, H. , & Gu, X. (2022). A new approach to fostering teacher professional development in the intelligent era: Constructing a practice-based community through collaborative design between teachers and researchers. Journal of Distance Education, (6), 83–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. David A. Kenny. (1975). A Quasi-Experimental Approach to Assessing Teatment Effects in Nonequivalent Control Group Designs. Psychological Bulletin, 82(3), 345-362. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181-199. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Gu, X., & Bai, X. (2019). A new pathway for advancing educational informatization: Building a design-centered research–practice community. Open Education Research, (6), 66–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Harris, A. (2009). Distributed leadership: What we know. Distributed leadership: Different perspectives, 11-21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving schools, 13(2), 172-181. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Higgins, S., & Simpson, A. (2011). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. By John AC Hattie: Pp 392. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Huang, Y., Zhou, X., & Shi, J. (2021). The quality of undergraduate teaching and learning in China: a ten-year exploration based on China college student survey. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 39(1), 116. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?. Review of educational research,86(4), 945-980. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. King, E., & Boyatt, R. (2015). Exploring factors that influence adoption of e‐learning within higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1272-1280. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Association for Talent Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Li, M., & Qiao, W. (2020). New exploration of the “synchronous remote” classroom teaching mode: taking the Tsinghua Clone Class as an example. China University Teaching,(10), 79-83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lu, G., & Li, L. (2020). The questionnaire design and basic characteristics of undergraduates’ course experience: a survey of 2018 graduates in Shaanxi province. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 38(11), 78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Miller, A. N., Sellnow, D. D., & Strawser, M. G. (2021). Pandemic pedagogy challenges and opportunities: Instruction communication in remote, HyFlex, and BlendFlex courses. Communication Education, 70(2), 202-204. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mineshima-Lowe, D., Mihai, A., Le Bourdon, M., Pears, L., Bijsmans, P., Hadjipieris, P., & Lightfoot, S. (2024). Hyflex and hybrid teaching and learning in higher education: Evolving discussions in the post-Pandemic era. European Political Science, 23(3), 321-337. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric Theory (1978).New York. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Raes, A. (2022). Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: Does presence matter?. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 138-159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Ramos, A. M., Lee, H., & Mabuan, R. A. (2025). Exploring the Relationship Among Preservice Teachers’ E-Learning Readiness, Learning Engagement, and Learning Performance in HyFlex Learning Environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 26(2), 89-110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in higher education, 16(2), 129-150. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of modern applied statistical methods, 8(2), 26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. In The educational forum, 69( 2), 143-150. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of curriculum studies, 37(4), 395-420. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development. Best Evidence Synthesis iteration (BES). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Uzorka, A., Namara, S., & Olaniyan, A. O. (2023). Modern technology adoption and professional development of lecturers. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 14693-14719. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), 80-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes(Vol. 86). Harvard university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Wang, X., & Guo, S. (2022). The Practice and Enlightenment of Online and Offline Hybrid Learning in Tsinghua University. Modern Educational Technology, (4), 106-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33-53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Yu, X. (2023). The Development Process and Future Prospects of Digital Teaching in Higher Education. China Higher Education, (3/4), 4-7,11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zhu Z, & Hu, J.(2021). Technology-Enabled Educational Innovation in the Post-Pandemic Era: New Forms of Online Merge Offline Teaching. Open Education Research, 027(001), 13-23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar