PriMera Scientific Engineering (ISSN: 2834-2550)

Review Article

Volume 7 Issue 1

The FLUENT Model for Flexible, Inclusive, and Competency-Based Course Planning

Sirje Virkus* and Sigrid Mandre

June 10, 2025

DOI : 10.56831/PSEN-07-208

View PDF

Abstract

This paper presents the FLUENT model, Flexible Universal Education Model for a New Hybrid Teaching, a framework for university course planning developed within the Erasmus+ project through a design-based research approach. Rooted in empirical evidence from systematic literature reviews (PRISMA), stakeholder interviews, and cross-national surveys, the model addresses the growing complexity of hybrid education by promoting flexibility, personalization, interaction, collaboration, and adaptability across both face-to-face and online contexts. Underpinned by constructivist and cognitive psychology theories, FLUENT views learning as an active process of knowledge construction, emphasizing competency-based learning and structured learning paths. Its key structural elements - time, space, technology, student agency, and teacher reflectivity - guide the design of reversible, inclusive, and context-sensitive learning environments. A core innovation is the model’s online-first perspective, which ensures readiness for shifting teaching modalities and diverse learner needs. Accompanying the model is the FLUENT curriculum and a modular online course (launching Winter 2024/25), offering practical implementation tools for educators. Developed collaboratively by institutions across four European countries, FLUENT offers a scalable, research-informed approach to hybrid pedagogy - equipping faculty to design engaging, student-centred courses and respond effectively to contemporary challenges in higher education.

Keywords: Hybrid Teaching; Design-Based Research; Course Planning; Flexible Learning; Student Agency; Competency-Based Education

References

  1. Abuhassna H., et al. “Hybrid Learning for Practical-based Courses in Higher Education Organizations: A Bibliometric Analysis”. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development 11.1 (2022): 1055-1064.
  2. Anderson LW and Krathwohl DR. “A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Complete Edition”. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc (2001).
  3. Bandura A. “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective”. Annual Review of Psychology 52.1 (2001): 1-26.
  4. Biggs J. “Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment”. Higher education 32.3 (1996): 347-364.
  5. Detienne L, Raes A and Depaepe F. “Benefits, challenges and design guidelines for synchronous hybrid learning: A systematic literature review”. EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, 2004-2009 (2018).
  6. Dreyfus H and Dreyfus SE. “Mind over machine”. Simon and Schuster (1986).
  7. Euler D. “Design-Research-a paradigm under development”. Design-based research 27 (2014): 15-44.
  8. Geissler G, Sangrà A and Skala FK. “Planning model-based modular course curriculum for higher education didactics”. In EDULEARN24 Proceedings. IATED (2024): 5693-5702.
  9. Linder KE. “Fundamentals of hybrid teaching and learning”. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2017.149 (2017): 11-18.
  10. McKenney S and Reeves TC. “Educational design research. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology”. New York, NY: Springer New York (2013): 131-140.
  11. Meyer H. “Lesson Preparation Guide”. Berlin: Cornelsen Springer (2007).
  12. Maenpaa K., et al. “Nursing students' motivation regulation strategies in blended learning: A qualitative study”. Nursing & health sciences 22.3 (2020): 602-611.
  13. Raes A., et al. “A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified”. Learning Environments Research 23 (2020): 269-290.
  14. Rasmussen RC. “The quantity and quality of human interaction in a synchronous blended learning environment”. Doctoral dissertation. Brigham Young University. Available from: ProQuest Dissertations & theses. (UMI No. 305345928) (2003).
  15. Redecker C., et al. “The Future of Learning: Preparing for Change”. Publications Office of the European Union (2011).
  16. Rogers PC., et al. “Case 2: Blending Face-to-Face and Distance Learners in a Synchronous Class: Instructor and Learner Experiences”. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4.3 (2003): 245-251.
  17. Rosenshine B and Stevens R. “Teaching Functions”. in “Handbook of Research on Teaching” (M. Wittrock, ed.), New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (1986): 376-391.
  18. Sands P. “Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-to-face instruction in hybrid courses”. Teaching with Technology Today 8.6 (2002): 12-23.
  19. Sangrà A., et al. “FLUENT: Towards a more flexible design and planning approach”. Ubiquity Proceedings 4.1 (2024): 22.
  20. S Sangrà, A. (ed.), “Improving online teaching. Practical guide for quality online education”. Barcelona: Editorial UOC (2021).
  21. Sloane PF. “‘Where no man has gone before!’-Exploring new knowledge in design- based research projects: A treatise on phenomenology in design studies”. EDeR. Educational Design Research 1.1 (2017).