How not to write about HyFlex or online learning

As higher ed slides into year three of the pandemic, some of us reflect on what we’ve learned from the experience. These reflections are important and can be useful, but too many repeat popular mistakes and don’t help us as we work and plan ahead.

Today’s case in point is an odd article in Insider Higher Ed. “HyFlex Is Not the Future of Learning” starts off by complaining about that form of teaching, then becomes a general complaint about online learning.

I’m writing not to pick on the column for its own sake. Instead, as I’ve done before, I want to identify some of its tropes and arguments as ones that are visible elsewhere, and which we need to get past.

A quick summary: Loyola University New Orleans English professor Christopher Schaberg describes hearing a faculty colleague present on some of the difficulties in teaching in HyFlex style. Schaberg describes HyFlex, then argues for its problems, pointing to popular dislike of it at his institution. Next he praises the on-campus experience, in contrast to online learning.

So what went wrong?

To begin with, the article fails to connect with or even name anyone else’s work on the subject. I’ve seen this for decades in the ed tech space, commentators speaking or writing as if they’ve been the first to come across or reflect on a given technology or problem. It’s a weird slip, and one which looks less excusable every year as the sheer amount of scholarship and general media about…