I'm not exactly a proponent of hyflex, but I'd like to briefly and gently push back on the notion that it's "twice the amount of work" for faculty. More work? Yes. Twice as much? Only if you are a pure-lecture person. (1/)

Let's say your hyflex course has f2f and asynchronous modes (no online synchronous). Then there's three phases of student work to consider: First contact with new ideas, active work to assimilate new ideas, & extended work to stretch knowledge. (2/)

First contact with new ideas can be the exact same thing for all students if you use a flipped learning approach -- could be video lectures if you like, or a demo or exploratory activity, etc. Both online and f2f experience the same thing, so no extra work. (3/)

Skip ahead to the extended work -- this can also be the same for both modalities: Projects, problem sets, etc. These are done after class so it's the same work for everyone, no extra work for faculty. (4/)

Now for the middle: F2F students would be working actively on the "middle third" of Bloom's Taxonomy in class, like I outlined here: https://rtalbert.org/re-thinking-blooms-taxonomy-for-flipped-learning-design/ Asynchronous students could also work actively, on the same activities with extras added on. (5/)

It's not the same for the two modalities in that case, but it's also not completely different -- more like a "fork" of a single set of active tasks that students do, with considerable overlap. This is more work for faculty but not much more. (6/)

And, it seems like the extra work isn't wasted time -- it gives flexibility for students, and with the possibility of having to go remote 100% again in the fall it's a good thing to have ready. (7/)

I think for people using flipped learning and/or active learning, hyflex is maybe 1.2x the amount of work. For people using pure lecture, though, it's probably 2x. IOW hyflex penalizes passive pedagogies, which makes me kind of like it. (end)