Enrollment in higher education is declining, while the needs of college students are changing. COVID-19 forced universities to reckon with the changing nature of student profiles. Amid fears of declining enrollment and retention, and COVID safety precautions limiting in-person instruction, faculty began actively implementing new pedagogical approaches. Students now expect flexible learning environments. Universities must develop strategies to support faculty in their efforts and meet student needs. The purpose ot this case study is to explore how a regional public university leveraged shared governance, faculty engagement, and institutional support structures to successfully implement HyFlex teaching as an organizational response to evolving student needs and shifting higher education environments.
This case study outlines the shared governance model to implement and manage HyFlex teaching at Montana State University Billings (MSUB), a public, regional comprehensive university with many online and adult learners. It includes faculty and student feedback regarding HyFlex experiences, explains how faculty were incentivized to participate and explains how administration developed institutional supports to ensure quality courses using this modality.
With more than two-thirds of faculty trained and approved to teach HyFlex, and nearly 100 classes available to students across different disciplines, MSUB is a success story that can be adapted for use at other institutions.
This case study provides a road map for other higher education institutions. Through application of a true shared governance model, university leaders were able to effectively enact changes to course design and delivery, which may otherwise have been controversial. While it is always important when managing the implementation of academic initiatives, the additional workload and pedagogical redesign needed for HyFlex teaching required buy-in among faculty from the start. This study outlines how educational organizations can foster a truly collaborative governance model.
Introduction
The needs and desires of college students are changing. In 2020, students aged 18–20 years old accounted for only 40% of all college undergraduates. Enrollment in higher education in general has been on the decline for a decade, owing to numerous factors, including the declining birth rate in the USA (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences & National Center for Education Statistics, 2022).
While some institutions had the luxury of ignoring these demographic shifts until recently, the COVID-19 pandemic forced colleges and universities to reckon with the changing nature of their student profiles. Amid fears of declining enrollment and retention, and with COVID safety precautions limiting in-person instruction, many began actively implementing new pedagogical approaches. Technological developments created opportunities for distance delivery beyond standard online classes.
Not all stakeholders were enthusiastic. For those accustomed to traditional classroom experiences, online, hybrid, remote synchronous and HyFlex modalities raised concerns. Would students be able to master learning objectives? Would academic success suffer? Would students even enroll in such courses? What about the workload for faculty? Would it increase? Would additional work be compensated, or would instructors be expected to integrate new teaching modalities as part of their regular course preparation? What about the quality of these courses? How could it be ensured? And would these classes meet the standards of governing boards and accrediting bodies?
As a public, regional comprehensive university serving a large proportion of adult learners, Montana State University Billings (MSUB) was well-positioned to answer many of these questions. MSUB is the statewide leader in online education. It has been delivering courses online since 2000 and encouraging faculty to experiment with new and innovative pedagogical approaches. The university was uniquely prepared to weather pandemic-related course delivery requirements. MSUB piloted the HyFlex modality in 2018–2019 and was actively involved in an initiative to implement the approach campus-wide when the coronavirus outbreak began.
This study outlines the shared governance approach used to implement HyFlex teaching at MSUB. It includes feedback from faculty and students on their experiences with HyFlex courses, explains how faculty were incentivized to participate and how the administration developed institutional supports to ensure the quality of courses using this modality. With more than two-thirds of the faculty currently trained and approved to teach HyFlex, and nearly 100 such classes available to students across a range of disciplines, MSUB is a success story that can be adapted for use at other institutions. Despite the easing of pandemic-related restrictions, the demand for non-traditional course modalities is on the rise among students in the USA. A national survey conducted in 2022 suggests that the number of high school juniors and seniors planning to attend fully online colleges has more than doubled since before the pandemic (Link to A Surge in Young Undergrads, Fully OnlineLink to the cited article). Colleges and universities will have to respond to student requests for non-traditional course delivery modes if they hope to maintain or increase enrollment and retention, and this will require collaboration among all stakeholders.
Literature review
A challenge for governance within higher education is ensuring equitable representation and inclusive expertise from diverse stakeholders across the university landscape. In addition to faculty, staff and student constituencies, many US universities share governance with advisory councils to engage with external stakeholder groups. Advisory councils are often created to work with special purpose, industries or community engagement groups (Wise, Dickinson, Katan, & Gallegos, 2018). This unique structure means that colleges and universities must adopt collaborative management styles. The most frequently used approach is a shared governance system. Shared governance was practiced at 90% of 4-year institutions 20 years ago(Minor, 2004).
The benefits of shared governance as a management strategy
Shared governance is an integrated model where administration, faculty, students and staff co-exist in a mutually enhanced relationship of open communication, trust and true collaboration (Jones, 2011). It is designed to support the growth of universities, the achievement of educational excellence and scholarly expression. The concept of shared governance is not to take authority away from executive leadership, but to add to the competence and authority of all involved (Burke, 2010). Administrators continue to operate as the experts in their specific areas, with perspective on financial, demographic and political contexts shaping higher education (Bejou & Bejou, 2016; Sheffer et al., 2022). Faculty, as discipline experts, create curriculum, choose modality of presentation, evaluate students, all while having scholarship and service requirements (Kater & Burke, 2022). Decisions concerning the good of the university are to be made with the informed input of the collective. Shared governance brings together diverse stakeholders in the decision process. It can take time and continual effort, but everyone gains from cooperative deliberation that is based on open communication, information, participation and ad hoc decision-making without judgement (Tierney & Minor, 2004; Bejou & Bejou, 2016; Curnalia & Mermer, 2018; Coler et al., 2023; Renshaw, 2023).
Shared governance requires work, open communication and trust. In turn, it fosters a culture of collaboration and engagement, as it allows faculty, staff and administration to actively be involved in institutional decisions. This process leads to a greater sense of investment and ownership within institutions and enhances job satisfaction (Curnalia & Mermer, 2018). When employees feel valued and are permitted to have a voice in shaping policies, they are more likely to be committed to the institution and its goals over time (Bahls, 2014; Barao, 2023). When universities engage faculty in well-established shared governance systems, this also allows for more equitable and rapid decision-making (Becker, Goode, Rivers, Tyler, & Becker, 2023).
Another benefit of shared governance is the open exchange of ideas that promotes collegiality and innovation. When faculty and staff are encouraged to express their opinions and ideas for resolution, it fosters an environment that is open to exploring ideas and developing new initiatives. The shared governance approach encourages a positive working environment, leading to greater cooperation, higher levels of inclusion and shared commitment to the institution’s mission (Barao, 2023). When implemented properly, it can be an ideal organizational structure for institutions within higher education.
Differentiating shared governance from other management structures
Participative leadership is closely aligned with shared governance, emphasizing employee involvement in decision-making within a broader human relations management framework. Emerging from limitations of classical management theories, Human Relations Management Theory (HRMT) highlights the importance of psychological and social factors, such as recognition, relationships and communication in shaping employee behavior, satisfaction and productivity (Overvold, 1987: Kim, 2002: Omodan, Tsotetsi, & Dube, 2020). HRMT views employees as individuals with distinct motivations rather than uniform workers (Omodan et al., 2020).
Also known as democratic leadership, participative leadership involves employees in organizational decision making, improving outcomes through knowledge sharing while fostering empowerment, commitment and engagement (Kim, 2002; Lam, Huang, & Chan, 2015; Benoliel & Barth, 2017; Chang, Hodgkinson, Hughes, & Chang, 2019; Wang, Hou, & Li, 2022: Miao & JinHua, 2023). While historically marginalized as a feminine way to manage, participative leadership theory’s reputation has improved, as there is greater recognition that involving employees in decision making processes not only leads to better decisions through knowledge sharing but also fosters empowerment, camaraderie, commitment, engagement and a sense of ownership among those involved (Huang, Iun, & Gong, 2010; Arnold & Loughlin, 2013; Chan, 2019; Chang et al., 2019: Usman, Ghani, Cheng, Farid, & Iqbal, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Miao & JinHua, 2023).
In recent years, researchers have asserted that participative leadership is the most effective of the leadership styles when considering the changing landscapes of environment, politics, culture and globalization (Miao, Newman, & Huang, 2014; Shaed, 2018; Chen, Wadei, Bai, & Liu, 2020). Overall, participative leadership has been found to have a consistent, positive effect on numerous organizational outcomes, including retention, performance, innovation and creativity (Kim, 2002; Miao et al., 2014; Ali, Wang, & Johnson, 2019; Chan, 2019; Chang et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020). Decision-making is a collective effort with leaders and employees working together to analyze data, generate ideas and choose the best solutions (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013; Wang et al., 2022). This collaborative method aims to leverage diversity in perspective and expertise (Chang et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022).
Participative leadership emphasizes collaboration and involvement of team members in the decision-making process. This democratic leadership style encourages open communication, trust and input from team members when making decisions (Sagnak, 2016). However, the final decision comes from leadership, not team members, which differentiates it from true shared governance models (Gen, 2016). Indeed, challenges can arise if leadership does not agree with team decisions and overrides them in implementing their policies. The positive aspects of participative leadership are negated if employees begin to think that their input is not valued, or that their leaders’ information sharing is inconsistent (And, Zuhairi, & Ghaith, 2023). Inconsistency leads to states of fear, skepticism, uncertainty and mistrust (Lam et al., 2015). At times, team members end up feeling confused and misinformed, or this approach can escalate to conflicts as the final decision made by leadership may not be the same as that of the team (Glaser, 2020; Petersen & O’Reilly, 2020). A true shared governance structure means that decisions are made collectively at all levels.
Another problem with participative leadership is that it can be inefficient. Not only might leadership override the input provided by stakeholders, but participative decision-making, unfortunately, can slow down the process and reduce organizational effectiveness (Chen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). Legal concerns, policies and other barriers can disrupt a participative leader’s ability to meet employees’ needs and expectations (Khassawneh & Elrehall, 2022). There may also be complex factors at the administrative level that limit the ability of the administration to trust lower-level employees and implement their recommendations (Khassawneh & Elrehall, 2022; Miao & JinHua, 2023). Providing regular feedback and input can lead to increased workload for employees, potentially increasing their stress, especially if they feel that their contributions are ignored (Wang et al., 2022). In educational settings that embrace participatory leadership, faculty burnout is common (Benoliel & Barth, 2017). Ensuring that employees receive feedback from participative leadership is important (Kim, 2002; Lam et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2019). Formal recognition programs, stipends and simple public recognition in organizational communication are effective methods for recognizing employees and reducing burnout (Chan, 2019).
Shared governance can mitigate some of these issues by formalizing collective decision-making and ensuring diverse input through established processes. While challenges may remain, effective design and implementation can reduce inefficiencies and strengthen trust, making shared governance a more robust model for participatory decision making.
Characteristics of an effective shared governance management model
One of the biggest management issues in higher education is the slow decision-making and “red tape” of process channels. Although not completely avoidable in any system that includes input from stakeholders, inefficiencies in decision-making can be reduced through a robust shared governance system. When higher education institutions decentralize and promote autonomy, they increase their adaptability and allow for higher creativity in challenging times and quickly respond to changing environmental conditions (Heifetz, 1994; Wheatley, 1999; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). In a shared governance, collaborative approach, organizations are challenged to look beyond the skillset of the highest leader and instead focus energy on cultivating environments that highlight authentic team connections, respectful relationships and a shared vision for the future and collective accomplishments (Coler et al., 2023; Bowen & Tobin, 2015).
Higher education is under pressure to better respond to both internal and external calls for change. Research has shown that shared governance enables campuses to create sustainable change with more authentic faculty buy-in. Shared governance is based on the premise that faculty and administration have distinct areas of expertise and authority in decision-making. Faculty members have skill sets and expertise in areas of curriculum, and administrators oversee the areas of budgeting (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). When universities engage in faculty-led shared governance practices, institutional decisions may move at a faster rate, allowing for many voices to be heard and fostering a sense of equity in the conversation (Becker et al., 2023).
Faculty is the heart of governance in higher education. Faculty members expect a high degree of autonomy in their professional lives and the freedom to apply their expertise across the range of their duties. The input and feedback provided by faculty must be actively solicited and valued (Sujitparapitaya, 2014; Bejou & Bejou, 2016; Kater, 2017; Becker et al., 2023). Thus, shared governance is particularly important in higher education. The structural and cultural components should be considered when reviewing the shared governance of an institution. The structural components include the systems side of standardization, communication and workflow. The cultural component of shared governance suggests a need for increased trust, engagement and responsiveness (Becker et al., 2023; Ben-Ruwin, 2010). Faculty buy-in increases with improved job satisfaction. Institutions that promote an intellectual atmosphere, prioritize faculty morale and foster a positive sense of community with strong collegial relationships and participatory decision making will have greater buy-in (Watt & Richardson, 2020). This is beneficial to leadership because it improves employee retention, and it is directly correlated with lower employee turnover (Curnalia & Mermer, 2018). Additionally, allowing employees to participate in decision-making improves perceptions of fairness and is a strong component of ethical leadership. Academic work involves significant emotional labor and faculty members who have a voice in the organization are likely to be more committed and productive members of the university (Pautz & Diede, 2022). This may lead to improved performance among educators and scholars, which benefits the entire organization (Curnalia & Mermer, 2018).
In the current rapidly changing environment, higher education institutions must be flexible and adaptable. Despite the need for flexibility, implementing such change can be difficult (Kezar, 2018). In responding to multiple forces surrounding higher education, interpersonal relationship principles, such as those promoted by HRMT, need to be applied and all stakeholders must be legitimately included in decision-making.
Shared governance is at the heart of many universities’ core values, and this indicates a strong commitment on the part of both the faculty and administration to work as a team to strengthen the university for the benefit of students (Bejou & Bejou, 2016). When followed properly, shared governance promotes employee empowerment, especially through academic freedom, encourages authentic staff and faculty participation and results in improved morale (Minor, 2004; Simplicio, 2006; Jabnoun, 2009). In addition, it can result in more efficient decision-making and initiative implementation than participative leadership. An institution with a collaborative approach that includes all stakeholder inputs is more likely to make successful contributions, culture and initiatives (Kezar, 2004). This paper illustrates how a shared governance approach was used effectively to cultivate faculty buy-in and leadership in the successful adoption of the HyFlex course delivery mode at a public university in the Western USA.
Theoretical framing
Organizational change and innovation
This case study is theoretically grounded in organizational change theory, faculty motivation and workload theory and Crisis Change theory. These perspectives explain how instructional innovation is adopted, supported and institutionalized in a unionized university setting. It aligns with theories of planned change, shared governance and change management, particularly participatory models of change. The introduction of HyFlex at Montana State University Billings (MSUB) illustrates a bottom-up innovation process, beginning with a faculty-led pilot program and evaluated through structured feedback mechanisms. This approach reflects key principles of change theory, including experimentation and pilot testing, stakeholder engagement, feedback loops and alignment between innovation and organizational culture (Kotter, Akhatar, & Gupta, 2021). The gradual expansion of HyFlex demonstrates that educational innovations are more sustainable when embedded within shared governance structures rather than imposed from the top down.
Faculty workload and motivation theory
This case is shaped by faculty motivation and workload theories, emphasizing professional autonomy, recognition and fairness (Yuker, 1984). Research in higher education shows that faculty adoption of pedagogical innovation is influenced by perceptions of workload equity, institutional support and respect for expertise. Here, faculty feedback indicated that HyFlex course development requires significantly more effort than traditional formats, particularly during initial design. This aligns with the workload Effort Reward Imbalance Model, Job Demand Resources Model and motivation theory, which suggests that increasing task difficulty without compensation or recognition can hurt motivation and long-term success (Siegrist, 2017; Tummers & Bakker, 2021). The decision to formalize stipends through an MOA reflects institutional response grounded in equity and incentive alignment, demonstrating that faculty work is valued.
Crisis-accelerated change theory
The timing of the MOA during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic situates the case within crisis-accelerated change theory. HyFlex expansion began before the pandemic, but the crisis heightened urgency and accelerated institutional decision-making. This link between prior innovation efforts and crisis response suggests that organizations investing in experimentation and faculty development before disruption are better prepared to adapt (Schneider, 2024). The case demonstrates how incremental change initiatives serve as organizational learning mechanisms that increase resilience under uncertainty.
Theoretical contribution
Pedagogical innovation in higher education is most sustainable when organizational change processes, faculty labor considerations and instructional theory are aligned through shared governance. Examining HyFlex adoption within a unionized context, this case extends organizational and management theory by demonstrating how shared governance translates localized experimentation into formal policy, aligns incentives with increased task complexity and legitimizes employee effort during change. Rather than constraining innovation, shared governance functions as a catalyst that supports trust, commitment and institutionalization of new work practices.
Methodology
This study uses a descriptive case study methodology to examine the pilot implementation and early institutionalization of a HyFlex instructional model at MSUB. A case study approach was selected because it allows for in-depth examination of a complex pedagogical innovation within a real-world organizational and shared governance context.
The case focuses on the Spring 2019 pilot semester through November 2020, when the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) formalizing faculty incentives for HyFlex instruction was signed. The organizational focus includes faculty participants, students enrolled in HyFlex courses, the Faculty Administration Collaborative Committee (FACC) and university administrators.
Several data sources were used to improve credibility and provide a comprehensive view of the initiative:
faculty feedback reports submitted to the FACC following course delivery;
student survey data across four HyFlex courses capturing participation modality and learning experiences;
institutional documents, including committee discussions, training plans and the finalized MOA; and
administrative records documenting faculty training and course development incentives.
Faculty participants provided reflective feedback on course design, instructional delivery, workload and perceived effectiveness. Students completed a standardized survey providing participation mode, clarity of expectations and satisfaction with the flexible format. Institutional documentation was reviewed to trace decision-making related to faculty workload, compensation and governance approvals.
Data were analyzed using descriptive and thematic approaches. Quantitative survey results were summarized to identify participation patterns and satisfaction levels. Qualitative feedback and documents were examined for recurring themes related to instructional design challenges, workload, motivation and organizational support. Patterns were compared across sources to identify similarities and differences. Credibility was strengthened through data triangulation across student surveys, faculty reflections and institutional records. Identifying information was minimized to protect confidentiality, and the case is presented at an aggregate level. Because data were collected for program evaluation and institutional decision making, the study represents a practice-based evaluation rather than human subjects research requiring individual consent.
Student demographics and course delivery needs
MSUB is a public, regional, comprehensive university with an embedded two-year college. Available programs range from certificates to master’s degrees. In 2022, 4,111 students were enrolled at MSUB, including 328 graduate students and 812 high school students taking university-offered and dual credit courses. Primarily a commuter institution, MSUB serves a large proportion of adult learners (median age of undergraduates is 25.3 years) and a significant number of low-income, first-generation college students (56% are Pell-eligible). Nearly all MSUB students hold paid employment in addition to their academic responsibilities, and many are raising children and supporting their families. Time pressures require flexibility in course scheduling and delivery. MSUB began offering online courses in the year 2000.
However, online, asynchronous classes were not a panacea. MSUB students historically opted into online classes, not because they preferred it or lived far from campus (though some do), but because their work and family obligations made it difficult to attend classes consistently in the middle of the day several days a week. Even evening or early morning options presented problems for those whose work and family schedules are unpredictable. Moreover, at small institutions with limited resources, offering multiple course sections in different modalities was often not feasible. Sometimes, departments experimented by offering both an in-person and an online section of the same class. However, the online section would quickly fill to capacity and have a long waiting list, while the in-person section had such low enrollment that it was in danger of being cancelled for financial reasons. When this occurred, and two online sections were offered, a quarter to one-third of MSUB students who preferred face-to-face learning were understandably upset because no in-person options were available.
Against this backdrop, the eLearning Office at MSUB sent two faculty members to the World Conference on eLearning in the fall of 2015, where they learned about what was being called at the time, true hybrid course design. It was the forerunner to what is now called HyFlex, and its aim was the development of courses that would allow students to participate and attend classes in ways that aligned with their scheduling needs and their learner preferences. In their report to the MSUB eLearning Office following the conference, the faculty members requested additional opportunities to learn about true hybrid course design. Providing faculty members with the resources and opportunities to attend such professional development events meant that the faculty were the ones who first discovered the potential of HyFlex. The hurdle of faculty buy-in had already been cleared. The following year, the eLearning Office worked with the MSUB administration to secure funding and put out a call to faculty. In the spring of 2018, MSUB sent four faculty members, an instructional designer and the director of eLearning attended a specially organized HyFlex training at San Francisco State University (SFSU), led by Dr Brian Beatty.
The pilot program
The faculty and staff involved in the training at SFSU returned to MSUB enthusiastic about bringing HyFlex course design to campus. They firmly believed the flexible delivery mode would serve MSUB students because it would allow them to choose between multiple modalities within a single course according to their changing needs. However, they expressed several concerns:
HyFlex would need to be tailored to the needs of specific institutions.
Students would need clear and consistent instructions on modes of participation.
Designing and delivering HyFlex courses would add significantly to faculty workload.
In cooperation with this staff and faculty group, the MSUB administration launched a pilot program during the 2018–2019 academic year. Four trained faculty members agreed to each develop and deliver a HyFlex course, to collect data from students enrolled and to report those and their own experiences to the FACC, a formal aspect of the shared governance approach at MSUB. The FACC comprises members of the faculty union and the upper administration. This group also worked with the registrar’s office and the advising center to develop strategies for communicating to students what HyFlex meant and to identify such classes in the course scheduling software system. The involvement of a wide range of stakeholders was crucial in establishing an initiative for success. The courses selected for the pilot were diverse, ranging from an introductory business course at the embedded two-year college, a senior-level sociology course and undergraduate and graduate-level communications classes.
Assessing the pilot program
In the spring of 2019, faculty who participated in the pilot program shared their feedback with the FACC. They reported on the development and teaching of classes, as well as the results of a survey that students in all four of the classes completed, regarding their own participation type and experience with the flexible delivery approach. Student feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with 95% of respondents stating that they would be “likely” or “very likely” to take another HyFlex course. The most significant challenge they identified was confusion over their options regarding class requirements, according to the various participation options. The participation method varied between in-person class attendance and asynchronous online attendance, but most students reported participating in the same way throughout the semester. In other words, very few students varied their participation method from week to week.
Faculty feedback was also largely positive. The pilot faculty noted that it was easier to begin with a fully developed online class and build out the face-to-face components than it was to start with an in-person class and try to expand it into an equal online experience. All four participants agreed that they would be interested in teaching future HyFlex classes. However, they were unanimous in their assessment that developing and delivering a HyFlex class requires substantially more effort than creating either an in-person or a fully online class. This was particularly the case in the initial development of the course, as it entailed creating multiple learning activities capable of assessing learning outcomes across a range of participation modes.
As student and faculty feedback was positive, both the faculty leadership and the administration agreed it would be worthwhile to expand HyFlex at MSUB. As the university has a unionized faculty that puts emphasis on ensuring appropriate workload and compensation, administrators recognized the importance of valuing faculty efforts by incentivizing participation in training and course development. Recognizing this cultural value, the FACC voted to generate an MOA stating that faculty members wishing to try teaching HyFlex would earn a $1,000 stipend for successfully completing training and another $2,000 for the development and delivery of their first HyFlex course. A competitive application process was developed for potential compensation for subsequent HyFlex classes. Training would be completed through an arrangement with Brian Beatty at SFSU, who would offer a series of online, remote workshops specifically for MSUB faculty. Twenty-two additional instructors were trained during the 2019–2020 academic year. The agreement was then signed by the provost and the faculty union president in November 2020, at the peak of the initial wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic: a natural experiment
It was in the middle of this expansion program at MSUB that the COVID-19 pandemic hit and forced all educational institutions to immediately transition to remote class delivery. In the summer of 2020, it became obvious that face-to-face coursework would be limited and that many students would not feel comfortable attending in-person classes in the fall, even when they were permitted by governing bodies. MSUB did deliver classes in person that year, but with limited capacity, to maintain physical distancing policies. As there were few large lecture halls, instructors had to find ways to stagger attendance and develop ways to integrate students who could not attend safely in person. The result was a quasi-experiment, in which faculty experimented with different HyFlex options and students were exposed to a wide variety of course formats.
Another shared value at MSUB is student success. The university prides itself on serving a high proportion of first-generation college students, and many of its faculty were also proud first-generation college students. So, “students first” is an accepted aspect of MSUB culture. This means that it is crucial to assess student experiences regularly and robustly and to use feedback to improve the institution. As part of the effort to assess student experiences during the pandemic, the MSUB administration, faculty leaders and Institutional Research staff conducted a survey in November of 2020. A portion of the survey asked about student experiences with diverse course delivery approaches. Over 700 students responded (n = 664 if high school students are excluded). The survey asked about all the course modalities students had experienced and included explanations of both hybrid and HyFlex design. Hybrid classes were defined as “some in-person and some online, with instructor choice of participation method,” and HyFlex courses were defined as “some in-person and some online, with student choice of how to participate.” Over 20% of students had taken at least one course that met the definition of HyFlex. The instrument also asked which mode students liked the best. Of the hybrid/HyFlex options, HyFlex was the overwhelming preference of respondents. That sentiment was reflected in qualitative comments, as well. The single most common answer to the question of what students hoped their instructors would keep doing was “allowing flexible participation.”
Fall 2020 was also the first semester that included HyFlex as a distinct registration code in the MSUB course scheduling database, thanks to coordination with staff in the Registrar’s Office, so that students understood the participation options for their selected classes. With 26 fully trained faculty members, the number of HyFlex courses grew over the 2020–2021 academic year. However, there were still significant misunderstandings regarding the definition of the modality across all campus constituents. Part of the issue was that each instructor’s class was uniquely designed, and student experiences varied widely between classes. The fact that the pandemic forced experiments with additional creative course delivery modes only added to the confusion. It became clear that MSUB needed a more precise definition of what HyFlex was and what it was not. Brian Beatty’s HyFlex model was developed to meet the specific needs of students at SFSU. And the faculty at MSUB had been trained under him. However, the MSUB student body looked very different and faced different challenges. The campus needed to create and define its own course delivery modes and a system to qualify instructors to teach them. Thus, working with faculty leaders, administrators and the eLearning Office staff, MSUB moved the program in-house.
The development and role of the Center for Teaching and Learning
By the end of spring of 2021, the eLearning Office had moved HyFlex training internally, and by the summer, had trained more than half of all its instructors. Led by faculty trained during the pilot program, and who were compensated for their duties as trainers, the three-part workshop culminated in a review of a fully developed course and, upon approval by the trainers, a stipend. MSUB needed to build an infrastructure for the eLearning faculty trainers to conduct the workshops, evaluate the proposed courses and award stipends. And it needed a budget. The eLearning Office began to play a much larger role in assisting faculty with overall course design and pedagogy as education became more digitalized. This made sense to grow it into a more comprehensive center.
The eLearning director, who had moved into the position from a faculty role, approached the provost’s office and, in the summer of 2021, MSUB launched an initiative to create the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) with a call for nominees to serve as the faculty co-directors. The inclusion of faculty members as co-directors was an explicit effort to ensure faculty buy-in and shared governance. The leadership team recognized that this effort would be unlikely to succeed without direct faculty involvement. In the fall of 2021, the Center was launched with two faculty co-directors: one from the two-year college and another from the university campus. A full-time executive director was hired, and the e-Learning instructional designer and instructional technologist continued in their full-time roles. The mission of the CTL is broad, but training and certifying instructors in HyFlex is an important part of its role.
The CTL also worked with faculty groups to develop a definition of HyFlex that is appropriate for MSUB. In its most flexible form, HyFlex courses offer at least three participation options: fully in-person, remote synchronous, using video conferencing technology and online asynchronous. However, this fully flexible model presents numerous challenges. First, synchronous remote options require technologically equipped classrooms so that students attending virtually are fully integrated with those in the physical space. Instructors had limped along in 2020, sometimes resorting to using their personal laptops in class, so that students could attend remotely. Recognizing the limitations of this approach, the administration collaborated with the CTL and the Information Technology office at MSUB to initiate a program to convert traditional spaces to “connected classrooms.” Information Technology used federal funding allocated by the leadership team to equip classrooms with audio and motion-sensor video capabilities, along with smart screens that permitted students attending remotely to not only see the content online but also participate by adding material to the virtual whiteboard. They worked with the CTL to test and demonstrate these technologies and to train faculty to use them.
The second challenge of the fully flexible model was that it needed to align with Montana University System (MUS) policies governing online education. In addition to its principles of quality online instruction, MUS policy prohibits online classes from requiring synchronous participation. All online classes must have an asynchronous option, to accommodate students with scheduling limitations. To be fully flexible, HyFlex courses also needed to include an online, asynchronous option.
This requirement generated a third challenge for the faculty wishing to offer HyFlex classes. They often became overwhelmed as they tried to imagine developing and delivering a course that seemed like it would be like running a three-ring circus. Even with state-of-the-art technology that worked perfectly, managing students in person, on video and in an asynchronous online learning management system requires significant development time and instructor energy. Some faculty at MSUB began to sour on the modality. The CTL staff and faculty trainers realized that MSUB needed to design HyFlex in a way that would still offer flexibility for students but would also be manageable for instructors. They brought together a group of experienced HyFlex instructors and, beginning with the MUS principles, developed a draft of a HyFlex definition specific to MSUB. When the draft was finalized, it was presented to the faculty senate, where it was approved in the fall of 2021. The official definition of HyFlex at MSUB reads,
This class allows fully flexible participation for students. Students may choose to participate fully online, fully in-person or a combination of both and may change their participation mode at any time. HyFlex courses must comply with the Montana State University Billings Core Principles of Quality for Online Courses. There is no synchronous requirement.
Thus, HyFlex at MSUB requires a minimum of two options: in-person and online asynchronous. Remote synchronous attendance is an option that faculty are free to choose, but it is not required. Providing faculty with the autonomy to define HyFlex in a way that worked for their students and their own pedagogical needs increased buy-in and demonstrated MSUB’s commitment to shared governance.
Expanding HyFlex across the Montana University System
MSUB’s CTL was officially approved by the MUS Board of Regents in the spring of 2022. In the process of developing a mission and vision and preparing to present to the Board, the staff at the CTL consulted with faculty centers at other campuses in the system, as well as with the system office. As word of the success of the HyFlex program at MSUB spread, so did interest in the modality. In April of 2022, the deputy commissioner of academic affairs in the system office asked CTL staff to offer a HyFlex training seminar for faculty at other campuses at the Extended Learning Institute program. Over 30 faculty members in the MUS attended the pre-conference workshop.
Recognizing MSUB’s position as both the statewide leader in distance education and its success with implementing a HyFlex training and teaching program, the MUS Commissioner’s Office asked the CTL staff to participate in a system-wide initiative to codify course modalities at the system level and to assist in training additional faculty across the campuses in the state. This effort was completed and approved by the MUS Board of Regents in May 2024. The current goal is the development of a system-wide teaching and learning conference series offered annually, with the MSUB CTL as a member of the steering committee. This demonstrates a commitment to authentic shared governance, not only at the individual institution but also at the system level.
Results
Student demand for flexibility drives innovation adoption
Student preference for flexible participation consistently drove HyFlex growth. Survey data from the pilot and pandemic periods show strong positive responses, with flexibility as the most valued feature. Findings indicate that the availability of choice, not frequent modality transition, was the primary source value.
Pedagogical innovation increases faculty workload and task complexity
Faculty feedback highlights that HyFlex design and implementation require significantly greater effort than conventional formats, especially during development. Increased workload emerges as a structural barrier to adoption and a potential source of resistance.
Incentive alignment related to labor
The formalization of stipends through an MOA marked a turning point. By tying compensation to training, development and delivery, the institution recognized faculty effort as organizational labor, particularly important in a unionized context, emphasizing equity and transparency.
Shared governance enables institutional change
Shared governance played a central role. Faculty involvement through the FACC, Faculty Senate and CTL leadership ensured policies reflected instructional realities. Governance processes translated pilot efforts into formal policy while preserving professional autonomy.
Crisis conditions accelerate but do not create change
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated HyFlex adoption but did not initiate it. Prior investments in training and pilot testing positioned the institution to respond quickly while exposing the need for clearer structures and support.
Role of organizational infrastructure in sustaining innovation
The evolution of the eLearning Office to the CTL reflects a shift from informal support for formal infrastructure. The CTL streamlined training, certification and coordination while maintaining instructional quality.
Local adaptation enhances innovation and buy-in
Although based on an external model, the institution developed a localized HyFlex approach aligned with student needs, policy and faculty capacity. Allowing flexibility within defined standards reduced complexity and increased faculty acceptance.
Discussion
This paper outlines HyFlex implementation at one university during a specific and unique time. MSUB already had a well-developed online presence and had begun experimenting with HyFlex courses when the COVID-19 pandemic arrived. It was serendipitous that student flexibility needs increased while faculty members were empowered to explore creative course design and delivery modes. The influx of federal funding for investment in classroom technologies and pedagogical training meant that it was financially feasible to scale up the initiative.
There are lessons to take from MSUB’s experience that can assist other institutions in developing their own HyFlex programs. First, HyFlex must be tailored to meet the needs of students, faculty and institutions. There is no one-size-fits-all model for HyFlex. Some students have geographic challenges, while others have time constraints. Some universities are committed to a traditional brick-and-mortar classroom experience, while others are focused on expanding online learning. HyFlex must be defined and implemented through a collaborative effort at the campus level. It must align with institutional culture and values, meet the unique needs of the learners it serves and support the pedagogical orientation of the faculty.
The second lesson is that institutions must involve all stakeholders in the design and implementation process. Student needs, as well as faculty concerns and feedback, should be considered. A full-scale HyFlex program will require collaboration with registrars, professional advisors, information technology, instructional designers and technologists, as well as upper administration in academic affairs. Decisions regarding classroom technology should be informed by faculty and students. Communication about course modality options and definitions must involve the participation of student affairs staff. Registrars need to be included to ensure that federal and state requirements and accreditation standards are met, and to work through the logistics of listing different course modality options in the student registration system. This means that a formalized and legitimate shared governance structure must exist, in which all constituents have the opportunity to provide meaningful input. Pedagogical innovations will not be successful without faculty buy-in. Ideally, changes to teaching and learning methods should be initiated by faculty and supported by other institutional units.
A third lesson is that HyFlex, or other pedagogical initiatives that require support from faculty and students, will be more effective if institutions have a central office or department tasked with overseeing the program. At MSUB, the CTL serves this purpose. It provides training for faculty, reviews newly developed courses, certifies instructors to teach in the modality, assesses student and faculty needs and coordinates with other stakeholders on campus and at the system level. This is possible because the university administration invested in its development and growth, and because it operates rather autonomously, with its own organizational structure of directors, designers, technologists and faculty co-directors. This collaborative structure has helped the CTL gain legitimacy, particularly among faculty. For HyFlex to be successful, faculty need to have instructional and technological support, and the autonomy to experiment with course design and to decide for themselves what pedagogical approaches work best for them and their students. Furthermore, they must be valued and compensated appropriately for their efforts. How this is achieved depends on the specific culture of the institutions.
Other continued HyFlex success 2022–2025
University of Cincinnati Clermont College continues to see success with HyFlex offerings, with 13 dedicated classrooms by May of 2024. As a regional, open-access institution serving many non-traditional students, flexibility is central to its mission (Ricks, 2023). HyFlex meets the needs of students with geographic and life constraints, supporting access, retention and enrollment growth even as other institutions faced declines (Chalifoux, 2024, 2025). Its success beyond the pilot phase is tied to the effective integration of technology, course design and student engagement.
Similarly, the University of St. Thomas (MN) expanded HyFlex organically through teaching innovation, active learning design and institutional support. Rather than relying on specialized classrooms, the university integrates technology into collaborative learning environments using widely available tools. This approach enabled scalable, student-centered learning, allowing fluid movement across modalities without duplicating programs (Hinck, 2018; Scott, 2025).
Conclusion
Colleges and universities considering HyFlex and other creative course delivery modes should be realistic about the challenges. Full implementation requires financial and organizational investment, which can be expensive, especially in large institutions. Campuses that do not have much experience in online education will have a heavier lift. HyFlex courses often begin with a well-developed online course and build out from there. For faculty without online teaching experience, there is a steep learning curve. There may be resistance among faculty, students and staff members. Change is uncomfortable, and institutional leaders must acknowledge and invite faculty and staff to be part of the conversation from the very first discussions of new initiative ideas. They must fully adopt a shared governance approach and not simply give lip service to the concept. Communication alone is not shared governance management, and faculty will not respond positively to being informed after decisions have been made. However, change is also inevitable. As students increasingly demand flexibility and colleges and universities work to retain them and grow enrollment, new course delivery approaches such as HyFlex can be part of the solution. With appropriate resources and stakeholder buy-in, institutions can diversify their offerings, better meet student needs and support faculty as they develop the pedagogical skills needed to teach effectively in the future.
