An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study of Thai English as a foreign language students’ engagement with emergency online learning in an English medium instruction university
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May 1, 2025
An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study of Thai English as a foreign language students’ engagement with emergency online learning in an English medium instruction university
During the COVID-19 pandemic, students’ language learning engagement through various forms of technology has received great attention among educators across institutions worldwide. This mixed-methods study attempts to investigate Thai EFL students’ engagement in online English courses, created by an English medium instruction (EMI) University, during the pandemic. A closed-ended questionnaire surveyed 248 Thai EFL students’ engagement with their English course and of this cohort, 56 participants were selected randomly to participate in a semi-structured interview. The statistical results revealed that the average level of students’ engagement with online English courses was generally above average. Significant and positive correlations existed between the four key dimensions of skill, psychological, participation, and performance engagement. In the qualitative inquiry, results suggested a range of issues contributing to positive and negative experiences. These were mainly focused on content, presentation styles, and student involvement. Findings contribute to understanding key success variables in English learning via an online environment.
Abou-KhalilVHelouSKhaliféE, et al. (2021) Emergency online learning in low-resource settings: effective student engagement strategies. Education Sciences11(1): 1–18.
2.
Alonso-TapiaJMerino-TejedorEHuertasJA (2023) Academic engagement: assessment, conditions, and effects—a study in higher education from the perspective of the person- situation interaction. European Journal of Psychology of Education38: 631–655.
3.
AlqabbaniSAlmuwaisABenajibaN, et al. (2021) Readiness towards emergency shifting to remote learning during COVID-19 pandemic among university instructors. E-Learning and Digital Media18(5): 460–479.
4.
BesserAFlettGLZeigler-HillV (2020) Adaptability to a sudden transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: understanding the challenges for students. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology8(2): 1–22.
5.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
6.
ChiuTKF (2022) Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education54: 14–15.
DeciELRyanRM (2008) Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne49(3): 182–185.
9.
DengRBenckendorffPGannawayD (2020) Learner engagement in MOOCs: scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology51: 245–262.
10.
DincerAYeşilyurtSNoelsAK, et al. (2019) Self-Determination and Classroom Engagement of EFL Learners: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Self-System Model of Motivational Development. London, UK: Sage Open, 1–15.
11.
DixsonMD (2015) Measuring student engagement in the online course: the online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning19(4): 143–157.
12.
DonhamCBarronHAAlkhouriJS, et al. (2022) I will teach you here or there, I will try to teach you anywhere: perceived supports and barriers for emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of STEM Education9: 19–25.
13.
ErragchaNBabayHBchirS, et al. (2022) Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on perceptions and behaviors of university students in Tunisia. E-Learning and Digital Media19(5): 456–474.
14.
FergusonMR (2021) Internationalizing higher education with Thainess: a narrative case study of a rural-based university in Thailand. International Journal of Leadership in Education1–22.
15.
FerrerJRingerASavilleK, et al. (2020) Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: the importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Education83: 317–338.
16.
FredricksJABlumenfeldPCParisAH (2004) School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74(1): 59–109.
17.
FredricksJABlumenfeldPFriedelJ, et al. (2005) School engagement. In: MooreKALippmanLH (eds) What Do Children Need to Flourish? Conceptualizing and Measuring Indicators of Positive. New York, NY: Springer, 305–321.
18.
HairJFSarstedtMHopkinsL, et al. (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. European Business Review26(2): 106–121.
19.
HandelsmanMMBriggsWLSullivanN, et al. (2005) A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research98(3): 184–192.
20.
HenritiusELöfströmEHannulaMS (2019) University students’ emotions in virtual learning: a review of empirical research in the 21st century. British Journal of Educational Technology50(1): 80–100.
21.
HsuHCKWangCVLevesque-BristolC (2019) Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment. Education and Information Technologies24(3): 2159–2174.
22.
HuangYWangS (2022) How to motivate student engagement in emergency online learning? Evidence from the COVID-19 situation. Higher Education85: 1101–1123.
23.
Imsa-ardP (2020) Thai university students’ perceptions towards the abrupt transition to ‘forced’ online learning in the covid-19 situation. Journal of Education Khon Kaen University43(3): 30–44.
24.
Inside Higher Ed (2020) Responding to the COVID-19 Crisis: A Survey of College and University Presidents. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed.
25.
JohnsonRDHornikSSalasE (2008) An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies66(5): 356–369.
26.
KahnPEveringtonLKelmK, et al. (2017) Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: the role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research & Development65(1): 203–218.
27.
KhuankaewSTrailA (2021) Unveiling online English learning during the Covid-19 era: an analysis of maejo university students’ perceptions and achievement in fundamental English 2 online learning. Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University9(1): 136–156.
28.
KlineRB (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
29.
LeeJSongHDHongA (2019) Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability11(4): 2–12.
30.
LewinsASilverC (2007) Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide. London, UK: Sage Publications.
31.
LimHMurdochDYChoJ (2021) Online EMI learner engagement and perceptions of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education & Teaching International59(5): 1–12.
32.
ManeesriwongulWDixonJK (2004) Instrument translation process: a methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing48: 175–186.
33.
MartinFBolligerDU (2018) Engagement matters: student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning22(1): 205–222.
34.
OraifIElyasT (2021) The impact of covid-19 on learning: investigating EFL learners’ engagement in online courses in Saudi Arabia. Education Sciences11(3): 1–19.
35.
PhilpJDuchesneS (2016) Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics36: 50–72.
36.
RabayahKSAmiraN (2022) Learners’ engagement assessment in e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: nation-wide exploration. Education and Information Technologies27: 10647–10663.
37.
RamsinAMayallJH (2019) Assessing ESL learners’ online learning self-efficacy in Thailand: are they ready?Journal of Information Technology Education: Research18: 467–479.
38.
ReeveJ (2012) A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In: ChristensonSReschlyAWylieC (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 149–172.
39.
ReeveJ (2013) How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: the concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology105(3): 579–595.
40.
SariFM (2020) Exploring English learners’ engagement and their roles in the online language course. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics5(3): 349–361.
41.
SriwiyantiSWYusoffSHM (2021) Self-efficacy and student engagement in online learning during pandemic. Global Journal of Educational Research and Management (GERMANE)1(4): 219–231.
42.
TashakkoriATeddlieC (2010) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. 2nd edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
43.
WesterERWalshLLArango-caroS, et al. (2021) Student engagement declines in STEM undergraduates during COVID-19–driven remote learning. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education22(1): 1–15.
44.
WilliamsLJVandenbergRJEdwardsJR (2009) 12 structural equation modeling in management research: a guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals3(1): 543–604.
45.
WuJHTennysonRDHsiaTL (2010) A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education55(1): 155–164.
46.
YatesAStarkeyLEgertonB, et al. (2021) High school students’ experience of online learning during Covid-19: the influence of technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education30(1): 59–73.
47.
Zapata-CuervoNMontes-GuerraMIShinHH, et al. (2021) Students’ psychological perceptions toward online learning engagement and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative analysis of students in three different countries. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education35: 108–122.
