English Hybrid Learning Courses Infused with Active Learning and Smart Classroom Concepts

* * * On the Internet * * *

May 2025 — Volume 29, Number 1

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113int

Nur Lailatur Rofiah
School of Languages and General Education, Walailak University, Thailand
<nr.lailaturgmail.com>

Mohammed Yassin Mohd Aba Sha’ar
School of Liberal Arts, Walailak University, Thailand
<mohd.abashaar.edugmail.com>

Budi Waluyo
School of Languages and General Education, Walailak University, Thailand
<budi.business.waluyogmail.com>

Fauziah
Faculty of Education, Universitas Jabal Ghafur, Indonesia
<fziah05yahoo.com>

Evie Kareviati
Faculty of Education, IKIP Siliwangi, Indonesia
<kareviatieviegmail.com>

Abstract

This mixed-methods study delved into the perceptions, experiential narratives, and intricate interplay between students’ technological backgrounds, prior experiences, and their perceptions concerning this innovative pedagogical approach. The study engaged a cohort of first- and second-year (n = 207), soliciting their insights through a combination of closed and open-ended surveys. The quantitative data underwent analyses involving descriptive and correlation analyses, while the qualitative data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis. Findings unveiled a prevalent positive disposition among students towards hybrid learning, primarily rooted in its ability to confer control over the pace of learning, enhance comprehension, and facilitate the seamless integration of onsite and online educational components. Furthermore, hybrid learning emerged as a catalyst for self-regulated learning and proved exceptionally adept at catering to the unique needs of students. The students appreciated hybrid learning environment as it deftly accommodated contextual needs, mitigated anxiety, and played a pivotal role in facilitating the achievement of sustainable learning objectives. However, these positive aspects were tempered by the revelation of challenges that significantly impacted the efficacy of the hybrid learning experience. Besides, findings disclosed statistically significant Pearson correlations, indicating the profound influence of students’ self-reported technology backgrounds on their hybrid learning experiences and ensuing perceptions.

Keywords: Digital literacy, hybrid learning, virtual learning spaces, digital divide, instructional media

Hybrid Learning in Thai Higher Education

Teaching and learning English as a second (ESL) or foreign language (EFL) have been evolving from traditional face-to-face (FTF) to virtual mode due to the rapid development of information technology and the affordances of interaction, engagement, collaboration, and accessibility (Nashir & Laili, 2021; Raes, 2022). As an educational approach, hybrid learning combines physical classroom settings and technology-mediated instruction. It is often incorporated to leverage the advantages of both modalities and create a more effective learning experience. Hybrid learning has transformed the learning process from being static to dynamic, as it has boosted the student-centered approach and made the learning process more adaptable, personalized, and responsive to the students’ needs (Klimova & Kacetl, 2015). These changes have led to pedagogical reforms where technologies and pedagogies, especially those that facilitate access to knowledge, have blurred physical boundaries for students who prefer the flexibility of online learning (Klimova & Kacetl, 2015). They have also created a more adaptable and effective learning space that can cater to diverse learner needs and preferences (Xiao et al., 2020).

Despite this, hybrid learning is not simply a combination FTF and virtual instruction; instead, it focuses on the implementation of suitable learning technologies in a particular learning environment with target students to maximize the achievement of learning objectives (Lin, 2008). The term hybrid learning refers to the integration of FTF with online instruction or delivery media in a way that serves the students’ characteristics, preferences, learning styles, or experiences (Klimova & Kacetl, 2015). It is implemented to address the nature of the course content, online resources, or learning goals (Di Marco, 2017). In connection with hybrid learning, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and blended learning are used to describe the integration of technological tools into traditional FTF classrooms. However, these teaching approaches differ, especially in the context of language learning (Adi, 2023; AlMunifi, 2023). CALL focuses on technology-mediated language learning, while blended learning is a broader term that combines FTF instruction with digital elements. Some educators and institutions often assume that blended learning is synonymous with hybrid learning, although the latter may emphasize different proportions of FTF and online instruction (Klimova & Kacetl, 2015).

Hybrid learning has nuanced interpretations, depending on the context. Therefore, it is crucial to specify the role of technology and clarify the specific characteristics and components of a learning approach to mitigate the confusion. This can help lecturers communicate their instructional approaches more effectively (Xiao et al., 2020). Like other synchronous teaching and learning modalities, hybrid learning modality has been implemented to solve contextual problems and accommodate the students’ needs as well as learning styles (Ulla & Perales, 2022).  Other web-based learning models such as online open courses (MOOCs) and blended learning modality have been incorporated to solve educational inequalities and carry on the teaching and learning processes outside the classroom (Ulla & Espique, 2022). Previous studies highlighted online teaching and learning challenges such as digital divide (Rofiah et al., 2022), students’ digital illiteracy and the substantial deficiencies in these modalities (Sha’ar et al. 2022). Despite, there is an existing gap in understanding how these modalities are perceived and experienced by students with diverse technological backgrounds and prior experiences, especially in EFL contexts. Additionally, while current body of literature (Sanpanich, 2021; Sutisna & Vonti, 2020) has examined online teaching and learning modalities and some related aspects such as students’ motivation, attitudes, satisfaction, and digital literacy, there is a lack of comprehensive study that delves into the experiential narratives of the students, and how their perceptions and background collectively influence their overall learning experience. This present study addresses the gap since it explores the intricate relationship between their technological backgrounds, experiences, and their perceptions of hybrid learning.

The contribution of this study lies in its mixed-methods design which not only captures the students’ perceptions but also evaluates their technological backgrounds and prior experiences using hybrid learning modality. By doing so, the study provides a comprehensive view of how hybrid teaching and learning is implemented in EFL context to achieve specific pedagogical purposes. Insights gained from this study will inform policy makers, course designers and teachers about the implications, challenges and opportunities of hybrid learning models, offering spectrum of teaching and learning strategies that accommodate students’ preferences and learning styles. This study findings will highlight the effectiveness of personalized hybrid education as it delves deeply into the interplay between the students’ technological backgrounds, experiences, and their perceptions of hybrid learning.

Within the Thai EFL context, hybrid learning has emerged as a transformative educational strategy, particularly gaining prominence in the post-pandemic era. It has garnered attention for its potential to enhance the teaching and learning experience for both language educators and students (Nilayon, 2019; Ulla & Espique, 2022). However, the existing body of literature in English language teaching (ELT) predominantly gravitates towards two focal points: synchronous teaching during the pandemic and the challenges associated with the return to traditional FTF instruction in the post-pandemic period (Amiryousefi & Geld, 2019; Guichon, 2010). Consequently, there exists a conspicuous research void concerning hybrid teaching and learning in EFL classrooms during this transformative “new normal” phase. Additionally, the terminology surrounding hybrid learning remains ambiguous, often used interchangeably with blended learning (Nilayon, 2019). Despite its historical presence, little is known about the extent to which hybrid learning assists educators in accommodating student preferences and addressing the myriad challenges encountered within FTF classrooms, including issues such as class size, diverse learning preferences, and the digital literacy divide among students. It is within this scholarly gap that the present study finds its purpose, aiming to scrutinize the perceptions and experiences of students engaged in hybrid learning within the Thai EFL context.

This study aspires to unravel the multifaceted benefits of hybrid learning, specifically delving into its potential for personalization, accessibility, flexibility, independence, time management, collaboration, and self-paced learning within the innovative educational landscape. Its primary contribution lies in shedding light on how EFL students navigate and interact with hybrid learning environments seamlessly integrated with active learning and smart classroom strategies. Moreover, it aims to elucidate how these pedagogical environments have the capacity to transcend the constraints inherent in traditional FTF and synchronous learning modalities. By promoting self-regulated learning and aligning with the contextual needs of students, this study stresses the significance of implementing hybrid learning approaches that are attuned to the ever-evolving educational terrain. The anticipated findings are poised to offer invaluable insights to policymakers, administrators, and educators, facilitating their understanding of the suitability of hybrid learning within the purview of EFL and ESL instruction, particularly within the context of active learning and smart classrooms.

Literature Review

Hybrid Learning Conceptual Framework

The educational landscape has witnessed significant transformations in instructional delivery in recent years, particularly concerning the modalities adopted to align with the evolving needs of both students and educators and to fulfill overarching pedagogical objectives. In this context, the hybrid teaching and learning approach has revolutionized traditional educational methodologies by integrating virtual spaces, thereby enabling continuous and location-independent student learning (Hapke et al., 2021). This approach facilitates a confluence of traditional FTF and virtual learning modalities, offering a multifaceted educational experience. Hybrid learning is characterized by a dual-mode instruction system where some students participate in-person, while others engage remotely, transcending the physical boundaries of the traditional classroom (Vaillancourt et al., 2022). It also encompasses the integration of various teaching and learning methods, irrespective of the technological tools employed for knowledge dissemination and idea exchange (Klimova & Kacetl, 2015). The selection of instructional modalities within this framework is contingent upon several factors, including student proficiency levels, learning objectives, teachers’ digital expertise, student preferences, and specific course content (Klimova & Kacetl, 2015).

Nevertheless, the implementation of hybrid learning is not without challenges. Issues such as the digital divide, digital illiteracy, lack of access to necessary devices, and the inadequacies in planning, design, and development of virtual components can impede the effectiveness of this approach (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020). In addressing these challenges, the integration of FTF and online instruction in a hybrid format has emerged as a viable solution, particularly in response to unforeseen circumstances such as the recent global pandemic (Rofiah et al., 2022). Consequently, pedagogical practices within hybrid language teaching and learning environments have garnered increasing scholarly interest, necessitated a continuous reevaluation and restructured of pedagogical frameworks to remain pertinent in the face of long-term shifts and advancements in the field (Hubbard, 2019; Knight et al., 2020). The potential of hybrid learning to foster a student-centered approach, active learning (Dori & Belcher, 2005), and self-regulated learning (Tumelius & Kuure, 2022) is particularly noteworthy. Kohnke and Moorhouse (2021) emphasize the flexibility inherent in hybrid learning, which offers students the autonomy to choose between face-to-face and online participation based on their individual needs and circumstances. This framework was specifically adapted in the present study to align with the university’s orientation towards incorporating active learning methodologies in the concepts of smart classroom. This hybrid instruction approach was also designed to pedagogically improve the students’ digital literacy skills, and accommodate the preferences of some others who opted for flexibility and location-independent learning. Additionally, integrating this hybrid teaching and learning framework helped catering students’ various learning styles, needs and proficiency levels. It also aimed to foster the students’ autonomy, student-centered approaches, and self-regulated learning.

Academic Analysis of Students’ Perceptions of Hybrid Learning

The existing literature on hybrid learning provides a diverse perspective on students’ experiences, with their perceptions being influenced by various factors such as individual preferences, digital literacy, the availability of technological devices, instructors’ digital proficiency, course structure, content, and institutional support (Klimova & Kacetl, 2015; Vaillancourt et al., 2022). A segment of the student body views hybrid learning positively, valuing the control it offers over their learning pace and the opportunity it provides for personalization and independent knowledge development (Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2021; Moorhouse, 2020). Ulla and Perales (2022) in a reflective study conducted during COVID 19, endorsed the use of hybrid modality as it facilitated students’ understanding and enriched the students’ learning experience by combining social interactions and hands-on activities using digital resources. This mode of learning is also appreciated for its facilitation of innovative collaborative and interactive opportunities with peers and instructors through online platforms. In another study, Hapke et al. (2021) investigated how the hybrid leaning modality caters engagement for academic success, reporting that the students had a positive attitude toward hybrid learning. They reported that. They attributed the students’ high attendance to the flexibility of hybrid modality. However, they indicated that the students missed quizzes and homework which they attributed to the students’ behavior and time management. Moreover, in their case study, Mumford and Dikilitaş (2020) and Dikilitaş (2020) observed that the lack of reliance on specific competencies in hybrid learning aligns well with students’ cognitive abilities, promoting cognitive engagement. The study also highlighted the role of hybrid learning in fostering reflection as it offered a synchronous space that assisted teachers and students to engage with reflective practices.

Nonetheless, Adedoyin and Soykan (2020) indicated that some students encounter significant challenges with hybrid learning. Technical issues and inconsistent access to technology are major barriers to effective participation in class activities and assignments. In their review they also cited the incompatibility of online platforms and the practical nature of some fields such as engineering, medicine, and sport sciences as they require hands-on practice as a part of their instructional activities. In the South African context, Matli and Phurutsi (2023) identify negative perceptions arising from unsupportive infrastructure and a persistent digital divide, leading to educational inequalities. They suggested that the government should advocate polices that take into consideration the students’ digital disparities as they significantly impact the students’ learning achievements. Examining the role of instructor characteristics, infrastructure, and institutional technical support Ahmed (2010) articulated that these factors influence the students’ acceptance of hybrid learning modality. He also attributed the students negative learning experience to the inadequate design of hybrid learning spaces and difficulties in establishing meaningful virtual interactions. Furthermore, Kozlova and Pikhart (2021) in their qualitative investigation reported that the  e-learning with its various modalities e.g. hybrid learning, blended learning etc. remained challenging in the  Czech Republic context due to some difficulties related to the lack of a conducive home learning environment, limited opportunities for online interaction, and difficulties in developing social and interpersonal skills, along with potential mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and isolation. Therefore, they suggested giving the teachers adequate training and supporting the students with tools and resources to overcome these difficulties.

Hybrid Learning Implementation in English Language Courses

The integration of hybrid learning within the field of language teaching and learning heralds substantial changes, particularly in the modalities of content delivery and assessment styles (Sha’ar et al., 2023). This pedagogical approach transcends the constraints of traditional FTF settings, fostering an environment where students can engage in learning activities without the apprehension of peer judgment or ridicule (Xiao et al., 2020). Research conducted by Sutisna and Vonti (2020) reveals that students generally have positive experiences with hybrid learning, appreciating the flexibility to access materials and complete assignments at their convenience. This study further indicates that hybrid learning can diminish students’ anxiety experienced in FTF environments, while simultaneously enhancing their motivation and critical thinking skills. Moreover, Yang and Spitzer (2020) observed that students found hybrid learning to be a familiar and non-burdensome approach. Participants in their study reported a preference for hybrid over traditional learning methods, citing benefits such as the ability to utilize online resources, like dictionaries, during classes, which bolstered their confidence and active participation in discussions. Furthermore, hybrid learning was found to increase language exposure, as many of the utilized applications and platforms were in English. This approach also encouraged students to engage in written communication, fostering skills in reading and writing through activities such as reflecting on specific classroom tasks. However, some students expressed a preference for the FTF approach, particularly for its benefits in facilitating direct interaction with teachers, especially in understanding complex grammar points (Rofiah et al., 2022).

The hybrid learning approach is also valued for providing students with equal opportunities to participate in both FTF and online classes. Alhusban (2022) highlighted that hybrid learning supports continued learning and maintains contact with peers and teachers, regardless of geographical constraints. The study revealed that hybrid learning experiences enhanced student autonomy, allowing them to progress at their own pace and improving their digital literacy through exposure to various educational tools like Padlet, Google Meet, Socrative, Wordwall, Quizizz, and Zoom. Nonetheless, students faced challenges, including poor internet connectivity, lack of appropriate devices, concentration difficulties, technical issues with microphones and cameras, and reduced interaction compared to FTF settings. Additionally, some students reported a lack of motivation, attributed to time management issues. Sanpanich (2021) also found that Thai EFL students experienced feelings of isolation and boredom with hybrid learning, stemming from limited digital literacy and online learning experience. This research suggests that hybrid learning may be more suited to autonomous learners, implying the need for careful consideration in designing online materials, activities, assignments, and tests to ensure their relevance and engagement. Teachers are advised to provide clear instructions, immediate feedback, and foster interaction during classes to enhance student confidence, motivation, and socialization (Waluyo & Apridayani, 2024).

Research Questions

While the benefits of hybrid learning in the context of Thai higher education are clear, there remains a significant need for further research to fully understand and optimize the integration of this approach with active learning and smart classroom concepts. Such research would provide invaluable insights into designing and implementing effective hybrid learning strategies that cater to the diverse needs of EFL students in Thailand and worldwide, especially as hybrid learning has been increasingly adopted in higher education globally. Thus, this study addresses the following research questions:

1. How do Thai EFL students perceive hybrid learning within the context of active learning and smart classroom concepts?
2. What are the experiences of Thai EFL students with hybrid learning in English language classes that incorporate active learning and smart classroom strategies?
3. How do students’ self-reported technology backgrounds and experiences relate to their perceptions of hybrid learning in this innovative educational setting?

Methods

Research Design

This study adopted an embedded mixed-methods research design to ensure the findings were grounded on the participants’ experiences. The study specifically employed this design to leverage the strengths of both approaches and answer the multifaceted research questions related to the students’ perceptions of hybrid learning that cannot be addressed by quantitative or qualitative methods alone (Creswell et al., 2008). It helped the researchers to explore the students’ experience during hybrid learning as it provided more evidence and strength that offset the weakness of both quantitative and qualitative data. (Creswell & Clark, 2017). It helped the researchers to gain a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon under study. (Guest & Fleming, 2015).

Research Context and Participant

The present study was conducted within the context of an autonomous university located in southern Thailand, notable for its proactive integration of active learning methodologies and the incorporation of smart classroom concepts. These pedagogical enhancements were achieved through a systematic approach that included ongoing training in the implementation of the United Kingdom Professional Framework (UKPSF) conducted by Advance Higher Education, United Kingdom. It is noteworthy that a substantial majority of the English lecturers at this institution have obtained internationally recognized certifications as senior and fellow members of the Higher Education Academy. These certifications serve as a testament to the institution’s unwavering commitment to maintaining the highest standards of quality in the administration of English courses. This unique educational environment, characterized by the intersection of active learning, smart classroom technologies, and a faculty distinguished by their advanced educational credentials, serves as the backdrop against which the current research is situated.

The study focused on two subjects of the General English Courses (GEC): English for Communication Skills (ECS) (n = 110) and English for Conversation Skills (ECS) (n = 97). The students ranged from 18 to 22 years old with an average age of 20, and represented 10 different faculties within the university. The largest segment (48 students) came from the School of Public Health. These two courses are usually offered to first- and second-year students. The students took these two courses in 12 weekly periods, and each period was for two and a half hours. The university designed this type of hybrid instruction for two primary objectives: first, to improve students’ digital literacy skills, and second, to accommodate the preferences of some students who are still afraid and want to avoid socializing, particularly in crowded and confined places. To ensure the viability of the collected data, two criteria were implemented: 1) The participants must be regular students, and 2) they were taking the courses mentioned above in hybrid learning mode. The participants were purposefully selected to fill out quantitative and qualitative surveys. This allowed for uniformity in learning experiences and provided a comprehensive insight into the specific characteristics of this cohesive group (Chulee et al., 2023). The study complied with the university’s ethical guidelines. The participants were informed about the study’s purpose and the data collection procedure. They were also informed about the confidentiality of the data and their optional participation in the study. Students’ consent was obtained before the data collection process. Table 1 presents the participants’ characteristics.

Table 1. Students’ Demographic Characteristics

		Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender	female	133	64.3
	male	74	35.7
Subject	English for Communication Skills	110	53.1
	English for Conversation	97	46.9
Year of Study	first year	110	53.1
	second year	97	46.9
Place of study	at home	46	22.2
	at the dormitory	159	76.8
	at computer lap/library	2	1.0
Connection	Personal internet at home/dormitory (WIFI)	94	45.4
	Personal internet from mobile	92	44.4
	University Internet	21	10.1
Do you have previous online learning experiences	yes	193	93.2
	no	14	6.8
Have you ever chosen to go hybrid in this English course class?	yes	174	84.1
	no	33	15.9
Frequency to choose hybrid learning instead of offline learning during English course	never attended online	20	9.7
	1-3 sessions	135	65.2
	4-7 sessions	31	15.0
	8-10 sessions	6	2.9
	more than 10 sessions	15	7.2

The university adopted hybrid teaching and learning at the beginning of the 2023 academic year. The classrooms were prepared with cameras and speakers that would make hybrid and FTF classes possible. The lecturers were required to deliver FTF and online classes (Figure 1) simultaneously. To this end, the university provided an online platform, i.e., Zoom, for the students who wanted to study online while others attended FTF classes. Those who opted for online learning were either afraid of socializing with other students or resided in provinces far away from the university. During the classes, students who study online can learn, interact, and participate in classroom activities. The demographic data (Table 1) showed that the participants had the experience of studying online during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, most of the participants preferred to study remotely (online) instead of attending class. Most of the students chose to study online for 1 to 3 sessions and a smaller number of students attended more than three sessions. They preferred to study from their dorms, home, or library, using their dorms/home Wi-Fi or their mobile hotspot. However, some other students attended class regularly, while others never attended English hybrid online classes. The university allowed the students to select their preferred learning mode and did not specify a particular percentage of onsite or online attendance.

For this hybrid learning, the Zoom Video Conferencing System (ZVCS) was used for two reasons: First, the university subscribed to Zoom and provided teachers with a username and password. Students were given links to join the classes and log in by inputting their student ID and full name. The teachers were able to identify and check the students’ attendance by their names and IDs (Figure 1). Second, Zoom provides several synchronous functions, such as a whiteboard, breakout rooms, screen sharing from both teachers and students, and instant messaging. These features make hybrid learning more effective. The teachers also employed applications such as Facebook (Figure 2), Socrative, Google Forms, Quizizz, Kahoot (Figure 3), and Google Spread Sheet to facilitate the students’ hybrid learning experience.

Figure 1. Hybrid Learning Class Schedule

The Facebook application was used as a hybrid teaching tool and a learning management system (LMS). All of the students in the class joined the teacher’s private Facebook group. Teachers could facilitate interactions and give the students a sense of community through this additional tool. It also helped the students to download the PowerPoint materials uploaded by the teacher, get the instruction and feedback, and upload their assignments (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Learning Management System for Asynchronous System

Socrative and Google Forms were also employed for the formative and summative assessments. The formative assessments were vocabulary and grammar quizzes. For other tasks, including listening and reading, the teachers used Google Forms and private Facebook groups. These applications helped the teachers to check and input the students’ scores into Google Spreadsheets. The teacher utilized other applications, such as Quizizz and Kahoot, for class practice (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Using Quizizz as a Tool for Practice during Hybrid Teaching and Learning

Data Collection and Analysis

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to examine the students’ perceptions and experiences of hybrid learning. The data were collected through a questionnaire with closed and open-ended items. The questionnaire items were adapted from Lin (2008), Alhusban (2022), and Sanpanich (2021), who similarly explored the implementation of hybrid learning in their contexts. Some of the questionnaire items were modified and reworded to suit the study’s context and objectives. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: (1) demographic data; (2) students’ perceptions of hybrid learning; and (3) open-ended items about the students’ experiences. The second part consisted of 10 items (α =.960). The questionnaire was designed on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The Cronbach’s alpha value for Section 2 was (α =.943). The questionnaire was adjusted in Google Forms. A QR code or the questionnaire link was shared with the students to collect the data.

The data were analyzed through mixed-method analyses. For the quantitative data, statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviation were used to analyze the data and answer the first and second research questions. Besides, Pearson’s correlation analyses were used to answer the third question. For the qualitative survey’s open-ended questions, the data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The steps for qualitative content analysis outlined by Harding (2018) were followed. First, researchers transcribed the data and immersed themselves by reading the transcripts thoroughly. Second, initial codes were highlighted and categorized into themes and sub-themes. Significant themes contributing to answering research questions were defined, and other sub-themes collapsed. Third, major themes that contributed to answering the research questions were listed, aligned with quantitative findings, and reported.

Results

RQ 1: Thai EFL Students’ Perception of Hybrid Learning

Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to assess students’ perceptions of hybrid learning, which was implemented over a full 15-week semester at the university. The study examined the attitudes of students enrolled in two General English (GE) courses, with perception scores classified into five distinct levels: very (1-1.8), low (1.9-2.8), moderate (2.9-3.4), high (3.5-4.1) and very high (4.2-5). This classification enabled a precise interpretation of students’ experiences with hybrid learning. The effect size, calculated using Cohen’s d = (3.412 – 4.046) ⁄ 1.108896 = 0.57174, reflected a medium effect, suggesting a moderate difference between positive and negative perceptions. The findings indicate that Thai EFL students held both favorable and unfavorable views on hybrid learning, emphasizing the complexity of their responses to this instructional format (Table 2).

Table 2. Students’ Perception of Hybrid Learning

Survey Items	n = 207	%	Mean	SD	Value
Positive perceptions
Online classes were easy to follow, and understanding the course content	159	76.8	4.01	0.93	High
It was helpful as I could control the pace of my own learning.	175	84.5	4.07	0.83	High
The connection between what I did online and in class was clear.	179	86.5	4.20	0.82	High
I did not have any difficulty managing my time for online learning	172	83.1	4.14	0.89	High
I would recommend taking hybrid courses for other students	150	72.5	3.92	1.05	High
I would choose an English class that has hybrid learning next term	154	74.4	3.94	1.05	High
Negative perceptions
The online course materials were difficult to follow	119	57.5	3.47	1.25	Moderate
I found participating in the online discussion board useless for my learning.	97	46.9	3.21	1.39	Moderate
I was unable to share ideas with other students regularly.	103	49.8	3.30	1.28	Moderate
The time I spent online would better have been spent in class because it helps developing my interpersonal skills.	128	61.8	3.67	1.16	High

The data in Table 2 shows that Thai EFL learners had a positive perception of hybrid learning as it was easy to follow and understand the course content. The students found hybrid learning helpful as they could control their learning pace and connect the new knowledge with the one, they learned in the FTF classes. The students did not report any difficulty related to time management and thus recommended other students to try hybrid courses. As the students were content with hybrid learning, they determined they would enroll in hybrid English classes in the next term. The students acknowledged the flexibility and comfort of hybrid learning; however, it could not help them develop their cognitive and interpersonal skills as traditional classrooms used to do.

Similarly, the quantitative findings unfolded that the Thai EFL learners had positive perceptions of the hybrid learning space for different reasons. They perceived hybrid learning beneficial as it promoted self-regulated learning, increased their understanding, and developed their digital literacy, as some students explained:

Studying through hybrid classes enriched our vocabulary as we dealt with applications and platforms in English. It helped us translate the new words’ meanings into Thai, keep these in our minds, and understand better. If we could not understand during the class, we sought from YouTube or Google until we got a clear idea (S147, S115)

Unlike learning in the classroom, the slides shared by the teachers during hybrid classes helped us to get guidelines from the teachers and learn on our own pace. I prefer hybrid classes because they help us improve areas such as vocabulary and pronunciation through applications like Quizlet. (S8, S102, S183)

Second, the Thai EFL learners perceived hybrid learning helpful as it served their special needs better than studying in the classroom, as they asserted:

We liked hybrid learning because we could follow the teacher through the subtitles in the ZOOM. Online learning makes me more confident. I can participate in the classroom. I was not shy to speak English during online classes because it helped me to disregard my classmates’ reactions to my answers. (S46, S56)

Third, the students viewed the incorporation of hybrid learning useful as it reduced their anxiety and helped them to focus on their learning as they expressed:

Hybrid classes reduced my fear and helped me to continue my study. I can study without thinking of any problem. It is very convenient for me as I can study either in class or online. (S16, S73)

RQ 2: Narratives of the Students’ Learning Experiences

To explore the students’ experience, an open-ended questionnaire was employed. The findings disclosed that it was not an enjoyable experience for all the students as some encountered different challenges, including digital illiteracy, unsupportive learning environment at home and lack of devices. However, some students had positive experiences during hybrid learning as they focused on its flexibility and convenience as they expressed:

I prefer hybrid learning because we can learn anywhere at home, in the library, or the dormitory. Most of us opted for hybrid classes as we often have just one class in a day, and I feel comfortable studying at the dormitory. (S108)

The students enjoyed hybrid learning as it was suitable for their contextual needs, as they explained.

Hybrid learning was suitable for us as it reduced the distance and made learning outside the classroom possible. I do not need to wake up early during hybrid classes and travel to the university. It is quite time-consuming, especially when traveling by the university shuttle. I log in and go inside the class from my room (S115, S141)

They could achieve sustainable goals like digital literacy as they indicated:

On-site classes will influence our future education because some students may not know what kind of applications to use to improve a particular skill or area. We enjoyed online classes, and I am sure this experience will help us to be more proficient. Everything was perfect. It also gave me a chance to use some applications that I did not know before. (S83, S107)

Despite these benefits of hybrid learning, some students reported some challenges, particularly in terms of internet connection, technical problems during tests or activities, and lack of calm atmosphere for studying, as they articulated:

“We use Zoom in our hybrid classes, but sometimes there will be problems such as poor internet connection, glitches in the camera, or the sound due to the long day use. We also experienced blackouts during hybrid learning, especially during the rainy season”. (S31). “Studying online for me was somehow difficult because our house is near the main road and it is very noisy. Sometimes I cannot hear what the teacher was saying”. (S26)

Besides, other students articulated challenges related to the digital divide, digital literacy, and health, which they proportionately influenced their hybrid learning experiences as they mentioned:

“Studying during the hybrid learning was challenging for me because I had to study on my mobile all day. It was challenging because it had a small screen, which might have affected my eyesight” (S22). Accessing some applications and participating in activities during hybrid learning required downloading the application, which took a long time. One more thing is when we study online and are asked to do an activity in an application using a mobile, and we have to exit the class because the mobile cannot perform two tasks at a time, like a laptop (S74, S193).

RQ 3: Correlations of Students’ Self-reported Technology Backgrounds and Experiences to Their Perceptions of Hybrid Learning

To identify the relationships between students’ self-reported technology backgrounds (Appendix 1), their experiences, and perceptions (Table 2) of hybrid learning, the data revealed that 77.8% of students had stable computer proficiency that enabled them to navigate the internet and search on websites, 77.4% demonstrated proficiency in using all the required features for Zoom applications and 74.8% of were capable of creating and filling out Google Forms for assessments and assignment submissions. To answer this question, Pearson’s correlation analyses were employed in Table 3.

Table 3. Pearson’s Correlation Analyses

Students self-reported technology background	1
Students’ experience in hybrid learning	.420**	1
Students’ perception of hybrid learning	.286**	.377**	1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N=207. Negative items on students’ experience using ICT were reversed

The data in Table 3 shows significant and positive relationships between students’ self-reported technology background, hybrid learning experience and perceptions of hybrid learning.

Discussion

This study undertook a comprehensive examination, delving into the perceptions of Thai EFL students regarding English hybrid learning courses infused with Active Learning and Smart Classroom Concepts. It sought to uncover their experiential narratives and explore the intricate relationship between their technological backgrounds, experiences, and their perceptions of this innovative learning approach. The discussion pivots around three salient points.

Regarding the first research question (RQ 1), the findings align with prior research (Raes, 2022; Ramsey, 2016), revealing that the students had positive perceptions of hybrid learning as it empowered them with autonomy over their learning pace. This mode of delivery accommodated diverse learning styles while preserving the guidance, comfort, and interaction which are typical characteristics of traditional FTF instruction. Students had the flexibility to attend live lectures either in-person or online, with supplementary recorded lectures available to address any learning gaps. These results corroborate earlier research by AlMunifi and Alfawzan’s (2023) as they reported that the students positively viewed hybrid learning as a facilitator in the learning process, simplifying understanding and bridged the onsite-online learning continuum. In contrast to Raes (2022), who previously reported a preference for onsite classes for affective engagement and motivation, this study found no significant difference in comprehension between physical and remote attendance.

In alignment with the findings reported by Shamsuddin and Kaur’s (2020), our study revealed that hybrid learning was perceived as a catalyst for self-regulated learning. This learning modality emphasizes student-driven efforts and strategies, encompassing practices like elaboration, time management, organization, peer learning, and effort regulation (Di Marco et al., 2017). Hybrid learning encouraged students to seek online resources, enhancing their language skills and comprehension (Adi, 2023). In contrast with the common challenge of time management in hybrid learning, students in our context efficiently managed their tasks, perhaps owing to the accessibility of performance tracking and score monitoring through the university’s Centre for Education Service (CES). Moreover, the findings reveal that hybrid learning was perceived to boost confidence and cater to individual needs. This finding is consistent with Anthonysamy, et al. (2020) Hamouda (2020), who reported increase in the students’ confidence in virtual classes, which they attributed to a non-threatening learning environment that tolerates language usage errors. Echoing previous studies (Rofiah et al.,2022; Sha’ar et al., 2023), the findings of this study indicated that the flexibility and non-punitive nature of the hybrid learning environment reduced students’ anxiety and fostered a more relaxed learning atmosphere. However, it’s crucial to note that these perceptions are context-specific and may not be universally applicable.

Despite these advantages, a sense of isolation and disconnection was found prevalent among students engaged in hybrid learning. This resulted in limited opportunities for interpersonal skills exchange and development. This observation aligns with Arkorful and Abaidoo, (2015) and Dung (2020), who noted concerns that diminished interactions with teachers and peers in hybrid settings, could potentially impact socialization skills and alter the teacher’s role. Contrarily, Irvine et al. (2013) suggested that a well-designed hybrid learning space, simulating face-to-face interaction, could foster closer connections among learners.

The second research question (RQ 2) delved into the experiences of Thai EFL learners within the hybrid learning model, particularly emphasizing how this approach was intertwined with active learning and smart classroom concepts in Thai higher education. The study uncovered that the students predominantly perceived hybrid learning positively, valuing its flexibility and convenience. This aligns with findings by Bouilheres et al. (2020), where students appreciated the ability to engage in their studies at any time and place, particularly at their own pace. Such flexibility fostered greater autonomy among learners, enhancing their motivation and engagement (Xiao et al., 2020). Irvine et al. (2013) further accentuates the egalitarian aspect of this flexible learning model, noting its facilitation of equal educational access, allowing students to participate in synchronous courses from various locations. This adaptability was instrumental in the university’s decision to offer learners diverse choices in learning timing and location (Table 1), aiming to provide a parallel and efficient learning experience. Notably, this approach was particularly beneficial for students traveling long distances across Southern Thailand, as it significantly reduced their travel time and associated costs.

Moreover, the study revealed that the students’ experiences in hybrid learning were conducive to developing their digital literacy, a skill increasingly essential in the modern job market. Johnson et al. (2021) findings supported this aspect, noting that hybrid learning environments nurture digital literacy through a blend of onsite and online pedagogical strategies. This development transcends basic digital competencies, encompassing critical evaluation of information sources, effective collaboration in virtual spaces, and adaptability to new technologies. In an increasingly digital world, this enhancement of digital literacy through hybrid learning positions students favorably in both national and international job markets. Nevertheless, the study also identified several challenges that negatively impacted students’ experiences with hybrid learning. These included poor internet connections, power outages, audio-visual glitches, and the need for a conducive study environment. This finding was confirmed by Raes (2022) who pointed out that such technical issues can significantly influence the success of hybrid learning experiences. Similar challenges were also noted by Bülow (2022) and Xiao et al. (2020), who identified factors like inadequate digital literacy, a lack of supportive learning environments, appropriate devices, and high-speed internet access that could adversely affect student attitudes and performance in hybrid classes. To mitigate some of these challenges, Raes (2022) suggested that teachers should actively engage remote students in classroom activities to reduce feelings of isolation and enhance their learning experience.

Furthermore, the findings are consistent with those of Rofiah et al. (2022), who reported ongoing issues related to the digital divide and digital illiteracy among Thai EFL students, leading to inequalities and adversely affecting their learning outcomes. Another critical concern identified in this study was the health implications of prolonged exposure to digital screens during hybrid classes. Kozlova and Pikhart, (2021) corroborated these findings as they reported that students experienced physical and mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and feelings of isolation. This underscores the need for a balanced approach in the implementation of hybrid learning models that considers the holistic well-being of learners.

Regarding RQ 3, the study uncovered substantial and affirmative correlations between students’ self-reported technology backgrounds, prior experiences, and their perceptions of hybrid learning. It is essential to underline that the quality of a student’s hybrid learning experience is intricately tied to their perceptions and the technological foundation they bring to the educational setting. For instance, individuals with limited digital literacy are less likely to derive satisfaction from the hybrid learning environment. Likewise, those who harbor negative perceptions of hybrid learning may opt to adhere to the traditional, onsite learning model. In contrast to this discovery, the research by Xiao et al. (2020) posited that a gratifying hybrid learning experience need not be contingent upon possessing specialized competencies related to e-learning or digital literacy. This divergence in findings can be attributed to the versatile nature of hybrid learning, which offers learners a spectrum of options to explore and find gratifying educational experiences. This versatile nature of hybrid learning catered the students’ various learning styles and needs despite their prior experiences and self-technology backgrounds. For instance, the flexibility in hybrid learning provides self-paced learners with a space to access digital resources and continue their learning at their own pace while simultaneously offering an environment for those who prefer direct interaction, collaborative learning activities and immediate feedback in traditional classroom settings (Rofiah et al. 2022; Ulla & Espique, 2022). This blended instructional modality ensures that the students adapt the instructional method that suits their individual needs, making it customizable to effectively fulfil their learning experiences.

Conclusion and Implications

This study sought to delve deeply into the perceptions and experiences of Thai EFL students within the framework of hybrid learning infused with active learning and smart classroom concepts, as well as the intricate relationships between their self-reported technology backgrounds, prior experiences, and their perceptions of this educational modality within the Thai higher education landscape. The findings brought to light a positive student perception of hybrid learning, primarily driven by its role in affording them greater control over the pace of their learning, simplifying comprehension, and bridging the gap between onsite and online learning. It is noteworthy that these perceptions were notably influenced by the students’ previous online learning experiences during the pandemic. The transition into the contemporary hybrid learning environment was widely embraced, despite the occasional technical challenges, as it seamlessly amalgamated the strengths of traditional and web-based learning experiences. The preference for hybrid learning stemmed from its ability to cater to specific needs, align with diverse learning styles, and offer flexible, independent, and convenient learning modalities. Importantly, the implications of these findings extend to administrators, course designers, and educators, who can now draw upon empirical evidence to provide learners with a spectrum of learning choices and designs, thus facilitating a more parallel and accommodating learning experience.

Furthermore, the study’s results accentuated the positive experiences students encountered within the hybrid learning environment, as it effectively met their contextual needs and facilitated the attainment of sustainable learning objectives. These positive experiences were further shaped by the inherent convenience and enhanced accessibility that hybrid learning offered, providing students with a heightened degree of flexibility in their learning journey. By amalgamating the advantages of both onsite and online instruction, hybrid learning emerged as a versatile approach capable of accommodating a diverse range of learning styles, preferences, and needs among students. However, the study also revealed the existence of challenges that adversely impacted the hybrid learning experience, pointing to the need for educators to reconsider their online teaching methodologies and strategies to address these challenges effectively. The study unveiled significant relationships between students’ self-reported technology backgrounds, their hybrid learning experiences, and their overall perceptions. This finding highlights the paramount importance of assessing students’ digital literacy levels and recognizing their potential to influence perceptions and experiences in the hybrid learning landscape. Consequently, it is recommended that educators incorporate hybrid course orientation sessions, particularly tailored for students with limited digital literacy and/or limited prior exposure to hybrid learning environments. As a final note, it is imperative to acknowledge the study’s limitations, as it primarily focused on students’ perceptions and experiences. Future research endeavors should consider incorporating additional metrics such as course outcomes, student withdrawals, or failures as a more comprehensive measure, especially given the ongoing debates surrounding the effectiveness of onsite versus hybrid learning.

Data Availability

Data analyzed during this study are available from the authors on request.

About the Authors

Nur Lailatur Rofiah is an Assistant Professor at the School of Languages and General Education, Walailak University, Thailand and a member of the Research Center for Language Teaching and Learning. She holds a Master’s degree in English literature. Her research interests involve minority literatures, educational technology, and Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1816-6730

Mohammed Yassin Mohd Aba Sha’ar (corresponding author) is an Assistant Professor at The School of Liberal Arts, Walailak University, Thailand and a member of the Research Center for Language Teaching and Learning. His research interests include Teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL), translanguaging, English medium of instruction, Arab American literature, and educational technology. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7375-1911

Budi Waluyo, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching at the School of Languages and General Education, Walailak University, Thailand and a member of the Research Center for Language Teaching and Learning. His research interests involve English language teaching, educational technology, and international education. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1919-2068

Fauziah is a faculty member of School of Education at Universitas Jabal Ghafur Aceh, Indonesia. She holds a master degree in English Education from Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia in 2015. Her current research interests include critical English language pedagogy, literature in language teaching and learning, reflective practice, and teacher professional development. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0568-94471

Evie Kareviati is a faculty member of teacher training and education faculty at IKIP Siliwangi  Cimahi, Indonesia. She holds an M.A. in Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, focusing on English Education. Her research interests involve aspects of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). ORCID ID: 0009-0005-4868-0943

To Cite this Article

Rofia, N. L., Aba Sha’ar, M. Y. M., Waluyo, B., Fauziah, & Kareviati, E. (2025). English hybrid learning courses infused with active learning and smart classroom concepts. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(1). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.28113int

References

Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

Adi, S. S. (2023). Hybrid learning of ESP in Agriculture field: Students’ perceptions and learning experiences. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 8(1). https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v8i1.1725

Alhusban, H. (2022). A novel synchronous hybrid learning method: Voices from Saudi Arabia. Electronic Journal of e–Learning, 20(4), 400–418. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.4.2340

AlMunifi, A. A., & Alfawzan, M. S. (2023). Back to the new normal in engineering education towards student-centered learning: Remote? In person? Hybrid? Sustainability, 15(18), 13510 https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813510

Amiryousefi, M., & Geld, R. (2019). The role of redressing teachers’ instructional feedback interventions in EFL learners’ motivation and achievement in distance education. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1654482

Anthonysamy, L., Koo, A. C., & Hew, S. H. (2020). Self-regulated learning strategies and non-academic outcomes in higher education blended learning environments: A one decade review. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 3677–3704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10134-2

Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages, and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29-42. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_15/Jan15.pdf#page=33

Bouilheres, F., Le, L. T. V. H., McDonald, S., Nkhoma, C., & Jandug-Montera, L. (2020). Defining student learning experience through blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 3049-3069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10100-y

Bülow, M.W. (2022). Designing synchronous hybrid learning spaces: Challenges and opportunities. In Gil, E., Mor, Y., Dimitriadis, Y., Köppe, C. (Eds) Hybrid Learning Spaces. Understanding Teaching–Learning Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88520-5_9

Chulee, W., Ketwadee K., Natrut C., Sha’ar, M. Y., M. A., Buddharat, C. (2023) “Why still we cannot speak English?” Examining internal demotivating factors among Thai tertiary learners. Mextesol Journal, 47(4) 1-17. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v47n4-5

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.

Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. Advances in Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 66-83. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024329.d7

Di Marco, L., Venot, A., & Gillois, P. (2017). Does the acceptance of hybrid learning affect learning approaches in France? Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 14. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2017.14.24

Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3

Dung, D. T. H. (2020). The advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 10(3), 45-48. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-10 Issue-3/Series-5/H1003054548.pdf

Ahmed, H. M. S. (2010). Hybrid E‐Learning acceptance model: Learner perceptions. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(2), 313-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2010.00259.x

Guest, G., & Fleming, P. (2015). Mixed methods research. Public Health Research Methods, (5), 581-614. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398839.n19

Guichon, N. (2010). Preparatory study for the design of a desktop videoconferencing platform for synchronous language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221003666255

Hamouda, A. (2020). The effect of virtual classes on Saudi EFL students’ speaking skills. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(4), 175–204. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/322600357.pdf

Hapke, H., Lee-Post, A., & Dean, T. (2021). 3-in-1 hybrid learning environment. Marketing Education Review, 31(2), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2020.1855989

Harding, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: From Start to Finish. SAGE Publications.

Hubbard, P. (2019). Five keys from the past to the future of CALL. International Journal of Computer–Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2019070101

Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (2013). Realigning higher education for the 21st-century learner through multi-access learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2). https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/irvine_0613.pdf

Johnson, B., & Whitehead, A., & Main, J. B. (2021, July), Institutional Supports for Student Experiential Learning in Hybrid/Remote Learning Contexts. Paper presented at 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference. https://peer.asee.org/37349

Klimova, B. F., & Kacetl, J. (2015). Hybrid learning and its current role in the teaching of foreign languages. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 477-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.830

Knight, J., Dooly, M., & Barberà, E. (2020). Navigating a multimodal ensemble: Learners mediating verbal and non-verbal turns in online interaction tasks. ReCALL, 32(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000132

Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2021). Adopting HyFlex in higher education in response to COVID-19: students’ perspectives. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e–Learning, 36(3), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1906641

Kozlova, D., & Pikhart, M. (2021). The use of ICT in higher education from the perspective of university students. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 2309-2317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.221

Lin, O. (2008). Student views of hybrid learning: A one-year exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2008.10784610

Matli, W., & Phurutsi, M. (2023). Students’ concerns about online remote learning during COVID-19 pandemic in the 4IR digital society. Procedia Computer Science, 219, 971-976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.374

Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Adaptation of face-to-face initial teacher education ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609-611. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205

Mumford, S., & Dikilitaş, K. (2020). Pre-service language teachers’ reflection development through online interaction in a hybrid learning course. Computers & Education, 144, 103706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103706

Nashir, M., & Laili, R. N. (2021). Hybrid learning as an effective learning solution in intensive English programs in the new normal era. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 9(2), 220232. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v9i2.2253

Nilayon, N. (2019). Hybrid learning: Upgrading English classrooms with technology integration. Association of Private Higher Education Institutions of Thailand under the Patronage of Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, 8(2), 87–99. https://journals.apheit.org/jounal/Inter-vol8-2/inter__1.pdf

Raes, A. (2022). Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: Does presence matter? Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00274-0

Ramsey, D., Evans, J., & Levy, M. (2016). Preserving the seminar experience. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(3), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2015.1077713

Rofiah, N. L., Aba Sha’ar, M. Y. M., & Waluyo, B. (2022). Digital divide and factors affecting English synchronous learning during COVID-19 in Thailand. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 633-652. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15136a

Sanpanich, N. (2021). Investigating factors affecting students’ attitudes toward hybrid learning. REFLections, 28(2), 208-227.

Sha’ar, M. Y. M. A., Buddharat, C., & Singhasuwan, p. (2022). Enhancing students’ English and digital literacies through online courses: Benefits and challenges. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 153-178. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1137256

Sha’ar, M. Y. M. A., Singhasuwan, P., Buddharat, C., & Markphan, P. (2023). Investigating Thai lecturers’ perceptions about factors that undermined the reliability of summative assessment during COVID-19. International Journal of Education Economics and Development, 14(1), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEED.2023.127630

Shamsuddin, N., & Kaur, J. (2020). Students’ learning style and its effect on blended learning: Does it matter? International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20422

Sutisna, E., & Vonti, L. H. (2020). Innovation development strategy for hybrid learning-based English teaching and learning. English Review: Journal of English Education, 9(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v9i1.3783

Tumelius, R., & Kuure, L. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ professional vision and agency emerging in orchestrating language learning in a hybrid space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2092154

Ulla, M. B., & Espique, F. P. (2022). Hybrid teaching and the hybridization of education: Thai university teachers’ perspectives, practices, challenges. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.758

Ulla, M. B., & Perales, W. F. (2022). Hybrid teaching: Conceptualization through practice for the post-COVID-19 pandemic education. Front. Educ, 7, 924594. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.924594

Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Krygsman, A., Farrell, A. H., Pepler, D., Landon, S. & Vitoroulis, I. (2022). In-person versus online learning in relation to students’ perceptions of mattering during COVID-19: A brief report. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(1), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829211053668

Waluyo, B., & Apridayani, A. (2024). Better learning and practice with teacher corrective feedback in higher education: a lesson from Thailand. Learning: Research and Practice, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2024.2357552

Xiao, J., Sun‐Lin, H. Z., Lin, T. H., Li, M., Pan, Z., & Cheng, H. C. (2020). What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competencies as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1203-1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12949

Yang, Z., & Spitzer, L. (2020). A Case for hybrid learning: Using a hybrid model to teach advanced academic reading. ORTESOL Journal, 37, 11-22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1263580.pdf

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.