Synchronous Hybrid Learning in Higher Education: Exploring the Perceptions and Experiences of EFL Students and Teachers in Thailand
Keywords:
synchronous hybrid learning, English as a foreign language (EFL), pedagogical, social, and technical (PST) designs, the technology acceptance model (TAM), higher educationAbstract
Synchronous hybrid learning (SHL), which combines simultaneous delivery of face-to-face and online learning, has become an alternative approach for English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction in Thai higher education in the post-COVID-19 era. This mixed methods study explored and compared the perceptions and experiences of EFL undergraduate students and teachers regarding SHL in the English courses at an international college of a public university in Thailand. Data were collected from online questionnaires (240 students and 10 teachers) and semi-structured interviews (15 students and 5 teachers). The findings indicated significant differences between the perceptions and experiences of students and teachers in terms of pedagogical, social, and technical (PST) designs, attitudes, willingness, and benefits of SHL. Most EFL students had positive perceptions and experiences with SHL due to its flexibility, convenience, cost-time savings, their familiarity with technology, and enjoyment of English learning activities. In contrast, EFL teachers reported more negative perceptions and experiences with this learning format due to significant challenges, including difficulties in balancing attention between online and on-site students, increased workload, communication issues, isolation of online students, and technical issues. To improve the effectiveness of SHL, teachers’ attentiveness toward online students, use of interactive activities, professional development, and suitable classroom facilities were necessary. Implications, recommendations, and limitations are also discussed in this study.
References
Adi Badiozaman, I. F., Ling, V. M., & Ng, A. (2024). University students’ experiences and reflection on their transition to HyFlex learning during post-COVID times. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(4), 448–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395231226407
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chen, N. S., Ko, H. C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500062599
Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the disembodied: Othering and activity systems in a blended synchronous learning situation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1793
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Erliza, S., & Septianingsih, P. A. (2022). Undergraduate students’ perception of hybrid learning: Voices from English language education students in pandemic era. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(1), 231–243. https://dx.doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i1.782
Fetters, M. D., & Freshwater, D. (2015). Publishing a methodological mixed methods research article. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815594687
Francescucci, A., & Foster, M. K. (2014). Virtual interactive real-time instructor-led (VIRI) learning: The case of synchronous blended learning in introductory undergraduate course. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14(2), 36–45. http://www.na-businesspress.com/JHETP/FrancescucciA_Web14_2_.pdf
Kampookaew, P. (2020). Factors influencing Thai EFL teachers’ acceptance of technology: A qualitative approach. Thai TESOL Journal, 33(2), 46–69. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/thaitesoljournal/article/view/248617/168777
Kanchai, T. (2021). EFL teachers’ ICT literacy acquisition to online instruction during COVID-19. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(2), 282–312. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/253270/171961
Lakhal, S., Mukamurera, J., Bedard, M. E., Heilporn, G., & Chauret, M. (2021). Students and instructors perspective on blended synchronous learning in a Canadian graduate program. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1383–1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12578
Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491
Melcher, M., Rutherford, J., Secker, J., Wells, R., & Knight, R. A. (2025). Evaluating hybrid teaching practices: A case study of staff and student experiences at City St George’s, University of London. Cogent Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2448356
Pham, A. N., Nguyen, H. N., Huynh, T. N., Ngo, C. N., & Le, N. N. (2023). Students’ perceptions on blended synchronous learning in the postcrisis era. Essays in Education, 29(1), 1–16. https://openriver.winona.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1300&context=eie
Pimentel, J. L. (2019). Some biases in Likert scaling usage and its correction. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 45(1), 183–191. https://www.gssrr.org/index.php/JournalOfBasicAndApplied/article/view/9874
Podolsky, A., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of US research. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 4(4), 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-12-2018-0032
Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23, 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Suleman, O. A. (2018). Student perception’s, motivation, and anxiety in learning English as lingua franca: An action research in EFL setting. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 11(5), 260–278. https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/Veridian-E-Journal/article/view/158884/114979
Szeto, E. (2015). Community of inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Computers & Education, 81, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.015
Taylor, P., Argavipart, K., Kanokpermpoon, M., Rattanawisadrat, N., Dyamond, B., & Hrylytskyy, A. (2023). Stakeholders’ perceptions related to technology acceptance of reading progress in Microsoft Teams: A case study of a trilingual program at a secondary school in Thailand. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(2), 718–736. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/266981/180248
Teo, T. (2019). Students and teachers’ intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117749430
Turner, R. C., & Carlson, L. (2003). Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0302_5
Ulla, M., & Espique, F. (2022). Hybrid teaching and the hybridization of education: Thai university teachers’ perspectives, practices, challenges. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.758
Wadkar, S. K., Singh, K., Chakravarty, R., & Argade, S. D. (2016). Assessing the reliability of attitude scale by Cronbach’s Alpha. Journal of Global Communication, 9(2), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-2442.2016.00019.7
Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290802377307
Wang, Q. (2019). Developing a technology-supported learning model for elementary education level. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 6(1), 141–146. http://doi.org/10.17509/mimbar-sd.v6i1.15901
Wang, Q., & Huang, C. (2018). Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a blended synchronous learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12558
Wang, Q., Quek, C. L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.3034
Watanapokakul, S. (2022). Blended online learning: Perceptions and experiences of EFL university students and teachers. rEFLections, 29(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v29i1.258511
Watanapokakul, S. (2024). Enhancing active grammar learning in a synchronous online EFL undergraduate classroom: Development and assessment of the LPCR online instructional model. rEFLections, 31(3), 990–1022. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v31i3.276044
White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-010-0418-z
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pasaa Paritat Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
