We will share a theoretically and empirically grounded framework developed to guide hybrid/flipped learning design, a course design process that helps apply the framework to different course contexts, and a cohort-based grant program for scaling up hybrid/flipped learning based on the design framework using the course design process.

The adoption of hybrid and flipped learning has been accelerated during and after the pandemic, which gave rise to a growing need for instructional design support on hybrid/flipped course design across disciplines. As a centralized learning technology organization in a large public university, we would like to share our story of a) developing a theoretically and empirically grounded framework to guide hybrid/flipped learning design, b) creating a holistic course design process to effectively apply the framework, and c) scaling up hybrid/flipped learning, informed by the framework and the process, through a cohort-based grant program. The learning outcomes of our session include: - Define and differentiate hybrid learning and flipped learning concepts. - Describe the hybrid/flipped learning design framework supported by teaching and learning theories. - Identify examples of applying the hybrid/flipped learning design framework in specific course contexts. - Describe the hybrid/flipped course design process structured based on the holistic 4D model of instructional design. - Discuss ways and values of implementing the hybrid/flipped course design process through a cohort-based grant program. Hybrid/Flipped Learning Concepts and Framework We will start the presentation by clarifying the definitions of hybrid learning (also referred to as blended learning) and flipped learning, as well as asking the audience to participate in a polling activity about their experience with these learning modes and their roles. We will then discuss various factors driving hybrid/flipped learning and the challenges associated with this approach, such as the lack of theoretical guidance, the conflicts with traditional teaching and learning, and the limited self-regulation skills and motivation from students. To address those challenges, we explored effective ways to design hybrid/flipped learning by collaborating with a few instructors before the pandemic and gradually developed a learning design framework as we worked with more instructors during and after the pandemic. Our design framework is founded on four theoretical underpinnings, including Merrill's (2013) first principles of instruction, Zimmerman’s (2011) self-regulated learning, Jones’s (2018) model of academic motivation, and Flavell’s (1979) model of metacognitive knowledge. We integrated these theories into three main design aspects: Hybrid/Flipped Learning Cycle, Self-Regulated Learning Cycle, and Metacognitive Orientation. Each design aspect is broken down to several design components with specific design strategies supported by the theoretical principles and our experience from designing 10+ large undergraduate courses in various disciplines. After introducing the design framework, we will share highlights of course design and assessment results from recent courses revamped using the most updated version of the framework. Findings across multiple courses indicated that students taking the hybrid/flipped course, designed based on the framework, scored significantly higher in exams or projects than those taking the traditional lecture course. There were also improvements in students’ perceived self-efficacy, learning motivation, and interests in the subject area, with minimal increase in their self-reported cost of time and effort. Hybrid/Flipped Course Design Process Given the promising outcomes of the hybrid/flipped learning design framework, we started investigating ways to effectively apply this framework to different courses, which led us to create the hybrid/flipped course design process structured based on Reigeluth’s (2021) holistic 4D model of learner-centered instructional design, which includes Define, Design, Development, and Deployment phases. We will share about our application of each phase as described below: The hybrid/flipped course design process starts with Defining the project, including the course design goals, course learning objectives and settings, student characteristics, instructional challenges, and potential needs for media and technology. The Design phase is broken into top-level, mid-level, and lower-level design according to the holistic 4D model. Top-level design involves knowledge/skill analysis and course structure design based on the identified content topics and skill demonstration contexts. Mid-level design creates generic hybrid/flipped learning cycle(s) with progressive steps of a) acquiring the basic concepts/skills through online learning, b) applying concepts/skills by solving problems during class with guidance and interactions, and c) integrating the concepts/skills by solving new problems independently or with reduced support after class. Lower-level design instantiates the generic learning cycle(s) with specific topics, activities, and/or projects and directly informs course development and technology use. The mid and lower-level Design and the follow-up Development phases are interconnected and iterate in two stages: Stage 1 Preliminary Design and Development applies the generic learning cycle to a sample unit of content to prototype the learning materials and activities, whereas Stage 2 Full-Blown Design and Development extends the breadth and depth by applying the refined generic learning cycle to develop detailed materials and activities for more units. Stage 2 also involves creating Self-Regulated Learning Cycle activities and Metacognitive Orientation materials based on the learning design framework. The redesigned course is implemented during the Deployment phase and assessed by collecting data on learning outcomes, learning process, and student perceptions, which provides evidence for making adjustments to the course design. Baseline data regarding learning outcomes and student perceptions are also collected during the Design and Development phases, when the live course remains in the original format, to compare with post-redesign outcomes and perceptions. Hybrid/Flipped Learning Grant Program To scale up the application of the design framework to more courses, we began to implement the hybrid/flipped course design process through a two-year cohort-based grant program. Faculty who are interested in adopting hybrid/flipped learning apply for the grant to work with us in redesigning their courses and conducting assessment research. They complete the Define, Design, and Development phases during the first year following predetermined milestones and tasks that are organized as 19 two-week-long modules. Faculty attend bi-weekly cohort sessions where they learn about the design tasks, strategies, examples, etc., and share or discuss design ideas with other faculty. They also attend bi-weekly mentoring sessions where they work with an assigned course mentor on their specific course design project. The course mentor can be an instructional designer or a faculty member who has successfully completed the grant program. During the second year, faculty complete the Deployment phase by implementing the redesigned course, collaborating with us to collect assessment data, and eventually sharing their course design and assessment results with their field of teaching. We have piloted the first year of this program during the 2023-2024 academic year with a cohort of three courses, and are currently reviewing new applications for the official program in the 2024-2025 academic year, to gradually increase the cohort size. We will talk about our experience in conducting this program and welcome the audience to share their experiences with similar initiatives or ask questions. Toward the end of the session, we will invite the audience to participate in another polling activity about their interests in using the hybrid/flipped learning design framework and the course design process, as well as the relevance of the cohort-based grant program to their institutions. References - Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906. - Jones, B. D. (2018). Motivating students by design: Practical strategies for professors (2nd ed). Charleston, SC: CreateSpace. - Merrill, M. D. (2013). First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing effective, efficient and engaging instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. - Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2021). Merging the instructional design process with learner-centered theory: The holistic 4D model. Routledge. - Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). New York, NY: Routledge.