Self-directed Learning Behavior among Communication Arts Students in a HyFlex Learning Environment at a Government University in Thailand

Danty James; Kanyapat Utapao; Sawitree Suvanno; Gina Masbad Nunez; Panik Senariddhikrai

doi:10.1515/edu-2024-0028

Article Open Access

Self-directed Learning Behavior among Communication Arts Students in a HyFlex Learning Environment at a Government University in Thailand

Danty James , Kanyapat Utapao , Sawitree Suvanno , Gina Masbad Nunez and Panik Senariddhikrai

Published/Copyright: July 23, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Education Studies Volume 6 Issue 1

Abstract

Purpose

As the HyFlex learning environment becomes increasingly popular, the role of self-directed learning (SDL) cannot be ignored. Therefore, this study aimed to find the levels of SDL behavior among communication arts undergraduate students learning in a HyFlex learning environment, to compare the levels of SDL behavior between gender and year of study at a government university in Thailand, and to confirm the dimensions of SDL among communication arts students.

Design/methodology/approach

Through a stratified random sampling, a total of 560 participants from the communication arts program at a government university were selected. SPSS was used for the descriptive statistics, t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare gender and year of study, and Amos was used to report the constructs of the SDL.

Findings

Although the levels of SDL were at a medium level among the respondents, the creativity (M = 3.91) dimension was higher than the other dimensions in SDL. Among the constructs of SDL, love of learning was higher among female respondents (M = 3.54) compared to that among male students (M = 3.40). When compared among the different years of study, SDL showed no significant differences. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the dimensions of SDL had a second-order factor loading score of 0.42–0.57.

Implications

The results of the study would be beneficial for educational administrators and lecturers in enhancing students’ SDL behavior in a HyFlex learning environment.

Keywords: HyFlex learning; self-directed learning; communication arts; undergraduate students; Thailand; confirmatory factor analysis

1 Introduction

Before the leap of internet technology in higher education, distance learning was popular where educational institutions send their printed materials to students (Clark, 2020). It was beneficial for students as it provided an opportunity for them to complete correspondence courses at well-known universities without physically being in the classroom. As distance learning programs fall under the asynchronous learning category (Pregowska, Masztalerz, Garlińska, & Osial, 2021), it is rather important for students to have self-discipline to complete their correspondence courses, as there is little help provided by the course instructors (NIBS, 2014). However, with the introduction of internet technology, correspondence courses have transformed into online learning where students can access the study materials using the internet (Perry & Pilati, 2011; Singh, Singh, & Chhikara, 2024; Stone, 2019). Although online learning provided more ease of access to courses for students, this type of learning mode still requires utmost self-discipline and motivation (Maini, Sehgal, & Agrawal, 2021; Stark, 2019).

Online learning is becoming increasingly mainstream in many higher educational institutions (Martin & Bolliger, 2023; Treve, 2021). Higher educational institutions are promoting online learning, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which is both synchronous and asynchronous for their students, and this has led to a shift in the educational paradigm (Karawani & Preece, 2022). According to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), up to 75% of postsecondary students enrolled in online courses during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US alone (NCES, 2022). In Thailand, all universities were asked to move their classes online as a preventative measure to tackle the pandemic (Bangkok Post, 2020). As a result of this educational paradigm shift, students who enroll in online programs should take greater responsibility for completing their courses independently and, with little or no guidance from their instructors, they should do so in a manner similar to those enrolled in distance education programs. However, it is important to note that learning effectively in asynchronous or synchronous mode requires utmost interest and discipline, especially for learners in a higher education setting (Wei, Saab, & Admiraal, 2023). Therefore, the significance of self-directed learning (SDL) cannot be ignored in a higher education setting as it empowers learners to assume responsibility for their own learning journey and actively engage in the acquisition of knowledge and skills. As today’s learning landscape demands efficient approach, SDL skills, where students diagnose their own learning goals and formulate appropriate strategies to achieve those goals, align very well with the modern learning approach (Roberson, Zach, Choresh, & Rosenthal, 2021; Singaram, Naidoo, & Singh, 2022). An in-depth view on SDL is provided in the literature review of this article.

Although various course delivery modes exist in higher education, the need for more innovative technology in delivering content to students was inevitable and the COVID-19 pandemic fueled the need (Aboagye, Yawson, & Appiah, 2021; Grynyuk et al., 2022; Zhu, Berri, Koda, & Wu, 2024). As there was a rapid shift from traditional types of classes to more digitized classrooms during the pandemic and the post-pandemic period, many higher educational institutions introduced HyFlex learning (Bozan, Gaskin, & Stoner, 2024; Mentzer & Mohandas, 2022). “Hy” refers to hybrid, and “flex” refers to flexibility (Rosen, 2021). The HyFlex learning mode adopts the idea of both blended learning and flipped learning, where students gain more autonomy (Wong, Li, Chan, & Cheung, 2023). The HyFlex learning environment revolves around four main values: learner choice, equivalency, reusability, and accessibility (Beatty, 2007).

Distance learning is not a new concept in Thailand as this mode of learning has been promoted by the Thai government since 1994 (Poobrasert, Luxsameevanich, & Banlawanit, 2022). However, during the pandemic, online learning gained more popularity, and many Thai educational institutions, especially higher educational institutions, introduced a mix of both synchronous and asynchronous learning for their students (Pal, Sukwanchai, Bhuridadtpong, & Pal, 2022). As mentioned before, there was a need for more innovative educational technology during the pandemic for content delivery, many Thai higher educational institutions began to adopt HyFlex learning for their learners, and it gained more popularity (Raksakul, Yamrung, & Suthasinobon, 2023). It is worthwhile to note that the HyFlex learning environment demands the utmost motivation and independent learning styles from learners to complete their courses successfully, similar to that of online/distance learning because in a HyFlex setting, the instructor and the learners by their choice may physically be separated. Accordingly, as the necessity SDL is stipulated in the Thai National Education Act of 1999 (Orawiwatnakul & Wichadee, 2011), it is important to assess the SDL of students who learn in a HyFlex learning environment.

As studies suggest that a HyFlex learning environment is able to accommodate diverse students due to its flexibility (Abdelmalak & Parra, 2016), to effectively complete courses in a HyFlex learning environment, students should possess the skills of learning by themselves with self-discipline and utmost interest (Athens, 2023); hence, SDL is rather important in the HyFlex learning environment. Edleson (1995) reported that arts education for adults should focus on self-direction and learner control; moreover, Peng (2012) argued that arts students who exhibit strong self-regulation are conscious and have a greater capacity of controlling their behavior to achieve their learning goals. However, it is worthwhile to note that the findings of Edleson (1995) and Peng (2012) are significant before HyFlex learning became important. Therefore, the importance of SDL among communication arts students cannot be ignored, and it needs more exploration in the context of SDL in a HyFlex learning environment. With the rise of the HyFlex learning environment in universities, learners are required to exhibit SDL skills as there is little help from the instructors.

The existing literature acknowledges a gap in examining the levels of SDL in the HyFlex learning environment among communication arts students due to the limited exploration on the impact of this instructional model on specific groups. Wong et al.’s (2023) longitudinal study on HyFlex learning environment does not specify the opportunities and challenges on SDL in the context of HyFlex learning among communication arts students; moreover, Kohnke and Moorhouse’s (2021) exploratory study on the adoption of HyFlex learning during the COVID-19 pandemic did not provide a detailed examination of communication arts students. In the Thai context, although there are many studies pertinent to SDL behavior in traditional classrooms (Chomeya, Phansri, & Piyakun, 2022; Klunklin, Viseskul, Sripusanapan, & Turale, 2010; Malison & Thammakoranonta, 2018; Paiwithayasiritham, 2013; Prabjanee & Inthachot, 2013), they were mostly conducted among nursing students, and education degree students in Thailand, and no studies focused on the levels of SDL among communication arts students in the HyFlex learning environment. It is worthwhile to note that studies pertinent to the HyFlex learning environment and SDL seem to be focusing on general groups, and there is a dearth in studies that focus on the SDL behavior among the specific groups, for instance, communication arts in the Thai context. As communication arts curriculum mainly focus on the design and delivery of content across different online platforms, students in communication arts should be able to adapt to the latest technologies (Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020). Therefore, there is an unquestionable need for further studies pertinent to SDL levels among communication arts students in a HyFlex learning environment.

The Communication Arts College selected for the current study is under the management of Rajabhat University. The college has aligned its strategy with the university’s policy of providing a more flexible learning environment by implementing a HyFlex learning environment for its students, and it recently announced (CCA, 2023) that all the courses for the communication arts program will be provided in a HyFlex learning environment as it provides more flexibility for students, especially for those students who are not able to travel to the main campus in Bangkok. As communication students have the freedom to select the modality of learning in the HyFlex learning environment, it is imperative to explore the SDL levels of the students as SDL plays a vital role in successfully completing courses in the HyFlex learning environment. Therefore, it is vital to explore and understand the implications of the HyFlex learning environment for communication arts students in the college of communication arts selected for the current study. Moreover, as sustainable development goals are important in education sectors (Chankseliani & McCowan, 2021), one of the significances of this study is to promote quality education for all students; therefore, this study would help students and lecturers to promote quality education at the college and university level.

Studies related to SDL in the Thai context are prevalent (Grande et al., 2022; Patphol et al., 2023), but studies that focus on SDL among communication arts students in the HyFlex learning environment are none in the Thai context. Therefore, this study aimed to shed light on a less researched area of SDL in the HyFlex learning environment and its applicability in today’s educational system among communication arts students at a government university in Thailand. This study would be beneficial for any educational institution, especially higher education intending to promote SDL and HyFlex learning environments for their students to promote better outcomes.

The objectives of this study are as follows:

To assess the levels of SDL behavior among communication arts students in the HyFlex learning environment.

To compare the levels of SDL between the genders and years of study.

To report the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of SDL among communication arts students.

2 Review of the Literature

2.1 SDL

Although there have been many definitions of SDL from the beginning of adult education, Malcolm Knowles, a prominent figure in the field of adult education, provided a clear definition of SDL as a process where people diagnose their learning needs, set goals, identify the resources, select the best learning strategies, and assess their own learning results with or without anyone’s help (Knowles, 1975). According to Knowles, adult learners transform from a dependent person to a more self-directed human being, and he further argued that teacher-directed learning is often called as pedagogy where learners depend on teacher but self-directed learners have the concept of not being dependent (Loeng, 2020). Therefore, it can be said that self-directed learners take responsibility for their own learning and set own learning styles and every self-directed learner possesses certain qualities such as the ability to take initiatives, identify appropriate resources, implement right strategies, and the ability to evaluate own performance.

SDL is a type of learning where learners design, conduct, and evaluate their own learning process, and it does not need to be done individually (Brookfield, 2009). SDL is a practical approach that encourages learners to be responsible for their educational path and be proactive in their learning procedure. Self-directed learners are proactive in identifying their learning needs and setting goals that strengthen their growth and development. Similarly, these learners often decide what, when, and how to learn while taking responsibility for the outcome (Wiriyakarun, 2018). SDL is positively correlated with motivation, self-efficacy, and support (An, Xi, Yu, & Zhang, 2022; Pan, 2020). Therefore, self-directed learners are required to reflect on their learning journey to assess their learning progress, evaluate their approach, and modify it to suit their circumstances (Anshu, Gupta, & Singh, 2022; Bucura, 2020). This self-reflective behavior means that they can progressively monitor their learning process by breaking down their goals into smaller and actionable steps (Callan et al., 2022). To strengthen this behavior, these learners actively seek out and utilize various resources such as books, online courses, videos, mentors, or other sources of information and guidance to acquire knowledge and skills. SDL empowers learners to take ownership of their own learning journey, and it helps learners create learning goals (Quartey, Eksteen, Pickworth, Bello, & Ahenkorah, 2020). Studies have also suggested that SDL has a positive relationship on students’ academic performance in an online environment (Wang, Xiong, & Liu, 2021). SDL skills are key to lifelong learning (Charokar & Dulloo, 2022) and that the participants of the study inquired about new skills through SDL. Moreover, online platforms, such as Google and Moodle, empowered SDL skills among the participants. Thus, SDL plays a vital role in students’ online learning achievements.

Using SDL assessments provides valuable insight into learners’ attitudes and actions toward SDL. To educators, students’ self-report surveys are also a powerful tool to gather first-hand information regarding the perception of their own SDL skills, for example, their ability to take the initiative, work independently, manage their learning process, and seek resources when needed. The Guglielmone’s 1977 Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale tool is used to evaluate an individual’s SDL behavior. This evaluation comprises four dimensions, which include self-management, the primary dimension examined to uncover an individual’s aptitude in controlling their academic progress effectively (Chen & Fan, 2023). It also evaluates the students’ ability to determine goals accurately and productively handle educational tasks. The second dimension primarily revolves around appraising one’s genuine thirst for knowledge as scrutinized on their motivation levels, inquisitiveness toward learning, and focus toward engaging oneself with SDL. Self-control evaluates an individual’s self-discipline, self-regulation, and ability to stay focused during the learning process. Finally, self-planning often assesses an individual’s capacity to develop plans, strategies, and schedules to guide their SDL activities. Thus, the SDL assessment enables educators and learners to tailor their approach to learning experiences (Chung, Noor, & Mathew, 2020).

Several studies pertinent to SDL among Thai students have been carried out. As the Thai government emphasizes on the importance of SDL for young people, it is important to look at previous studies regarding SDL in Thailand and its effects on Thai students. A study by Wiriyakarun (2018), which assessed students’ perceptions of learning through self-access and SDL in Thailand, revealed that most students demonstrated positive perceptions toward SDL. The author argued that learners were more comfortable learning independently, choosing their own ways of learning, and using resources such as cassettes, videos, and computers effectively without a teacher. Pimdee, Ridhikerd, Moto, Siripongdee, and Bengthong (2023) conducted a study to explore the impact of social platforms and peer learning on SDL competency among learners and instructors in the context of virtual learning due to the coronavirus pandemic. The results revealed that student–teachers placed the highest value on self-control, accompanied by learning desire, and self-management. Interestingly, a significant proportion of the participants expressed the belief that SDL is better facilitated through social platforms than peer learning.

The aforementioned findings collectively suggest that the SDL culture exists among Thai learners, and these studies explored the various factors that affect SDL, how it can impact a student’s academic success, and instructional techniques to improve SDL policies. Each study acknowledges that empowering students with support tools like practical knowledge of promoting mechanisms or behavior can help them become successful lifelong independent learners within today’s rapidly changing education industry. Since SDL has been an area of focus for many scholars, several studies conducted by researchers in Thailand reveal that SDL varies across schools and universities because institutions may implement specific programs or initiatives focused on promoting SDL.

2.2 HyFlex Learning Environment

As there was a sudden shift in the educational paradigm due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many higher education institutions were forced to select alternative methods to deliver their courses, and many institutions chose to provide their courses online (Alam et al., 2022). As there was a great pressure for the higher education institutions to provide classes online to meet the needs of the students in different geographical locations, many institutions adopted HyFlex learning for their students, which enabled students to attend classes without geographical barriers and could easily maintain social distancing (Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2021). Unlike the correspondence learning, HyFlex learning provides greater autonomy to learners as it is a combination of both hybrid and flexible learning. Due to HyFlex learning environment’s ability to combine both online and face-to-face learning modality, it gained huge popularity in higher education settings (Okoye, Rodriguez-Tort, Escamilla, & Hosseini, 2021). In the HyFlex learning environment, an instructor provides content or activities that are suitable for students who study online and in a face-to-face classroom similar to that of a traditional classroom (Beatty, 2014). However, in order to effectively implement a HyFlex learning, institutions need to consider the four aspects of a HyFlex, such as equivalency, reusability, accessibility, and learner choice (Detyna, Sanchez-Pizani, Giampietro, Dommett, & Dyer, 2023). Although it is argued that any form of online learning has its own barriers such as technological knowledge, disengagement, and anxiety (Baticulon et al., 2021; Bergdahl, 2022), HyFlex learning environment promotes engagement in classroom as the learners can choose their own learning style (Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2021; Nakasun & Chaiwchan, 2024). Therefore, one of the greatest benefits of HyFlex learning is that a learner can select the mode of study according to his or her preferences and learning styles (Abdelmalak & Parra, 2016). As technology-facilitated learning is the primary setting of a HyFlex learning environment, there is a greater autonomy for both the instructor and the learners.

Autonomy for learners in a HyFlex can be considered as a learner choosing to study one part or the whole online or face-to-face (Binnewies & Wang, 2019). As there is more autonomy, learners are able to decide their own learning goals and learning styles, and develop SDL skills (Wong et al., 2023). Thus, it is worthwhile to note that SDL is important in the HyFlex learning environment. In the HyFlex learning mode, the instructor’s role is merely a facilitator, and learners take full responsibility for their learning. However, instructors need to be extremely aware of the learners’ learning preference and styles because it is often challenging for instructors to manage students in two different settings, namely, online and onsite (Romero-Hall & Ripine, 2021). Bogatyrets (2021) reported that there is greater autonomy in a HyFlex learning environment as students are able to adjust and adapt in a HyFlex learning environment; moreover, students will have a wealth of information provided to them unlike traditional classrooms where the information is usually teacher-centered only.

As the HyFlex learning environment provides more autonomy to students, it is important to assess the SDL of learners learning in the HyFlex environment. As mentioned earlier, SDL plays an important role in life-long learning, and as different instructional technologies are being introduced, SDL skills would help learners to achieve their goals. With SDL skills, learners would be able to self-monitor their learning progress.

2.3 Methodology

As quantitative study produces data that can be clearly communicated via statistics and numbers and reducing bias (Fox, MacLehose, & Lash, 2021), the current study utilized a quantitative approach to examine the SDL levels among communication arts students studying in a HyFlex learning environment at the college of communication arts. The college of communication arts campus is situated in Bangkok and Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. Communication arts students who were in their second to fourth year of learning in the HyFlex learning environment at the college of communication arts were included in the study. First-year students were excluded from the study as they did not begin their learning in the HyFlex environment.

At the college of communication arts, HyFlex learning environment mainly involves instructor providing the flexibility for students to join the classes face-to-face or online. In a HyFlex learning environment, the instructor creates a pre-class content that the students can access and get to know the content the instructor is going to teach. The content is usually made in a video format or document (pdf) which is sent to all the students. With the use of digital media, the instructors create interactive learning content, which enhances interactivity between the instructors and students. Post-class activities include assessments that measure the understandings of a particular topic that was taught. The assessments can be completed both online or offline; thus, HyFlex learning environment provides greater autonomy to the students. Figure 1, taken from the university website, shows the components of a HyFlex learning environment, such as pre-class content, instruction, and post-class activities. Figure 2 shows an actual HyFlex learning environment at the university.

Figure 1

Model of HyFlex learning retrieved from the college’s website.

Figure 2

Students in a HyFlex learning environment.

From a total of 1,586 communication arts students, a stratified random sampling technique was used to (second year, third year, and fourth year) randomly select participants. A sample size of 560 was selected for the data analysis by calculating 10 samples per item in the questionnaire to confirm the constructs as suggested by Hair, Howard, and Nitzl (2020) using a CFA technique to confirm the constructs.

2.4 Instrument

The instrument for assessing the SDL was first developed by Guglielmino in 1997 and has been used in many studies (Ahmad, Saad, Aminuddin, & Abdullah, 2023; Chen, Chen, & Tsai, 2022; Juve & Kirsch, 2019). This Likert-type scale was first used by Khomson (1997) to assess high school students’ SDL readiness in the Thai context. Prabjanee and Inthachot (2013) modified the instrument to make it more suitable for undergraduate students. They retranslated the questionnaire using the iterative translation approach for the conceptual equivalence, which was then examined by experts with experience in creating English surveys in Thailand. They reported that the tool had a significance of 0.85 (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha). The present study uses the same scale as that used by Prabjanee and Inthachot (2013). The instrument consists of 56 items and eight constructs, which are openness to learning opportunities, self-concept as an effective learner, initiative and independence in learning, informed acceptance of responsibility, love for learning, creativity, positive orientation to the future, and finally, the ability to use basic study skills.

In the pilot study Cronbach’s Alpha was used for reliability test. The result showed that the 56 questions in the instrument was 0.94, followed by each dimension, Openness to learning for 0.93, Self-Concept as an effective learner for 0.95, Initiative and independence in learning for 0.95, Informed acceptance of responsibility for 0.92, Love of learning for 0.93, Creativity for 0.89, Positive orientation to the future for 0.89, and Ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills for 0.90.

An online questionnaire measuring SDL behavior was distributed to all communication arts students at the university. The questionnaire was divided into two sections: the first section collected demographic information, and the second section collected SDL behavior.

2.5 Data Analysis

Frequencies and descriptive techniques were used to analyze demographic information and SDL assessment. The level of SDL was divided into three groups calculated by highest score – lowest score and divided by 3. The low groups had a score from 1.00 to 2.33, the medium group had a score from 2.34 to 3.67, and the high group had a score from 3.68 to 5.00. The independent sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the participants’ gender and year. SPSS was used to analyze the descriptive statistics, and the reliability test of Cronbach’s alpha and Amos were used for the CFA. The model fit indices, including p-value of chi-square (X ²), should be more than 0.05 and relative chi-square (X ²/df) should be lower than 0.20 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and comparative fit index (CFI) should be more than 0.90 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999), and root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) should be lower than 0.05 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

Research ethics: Prior to the data collection, the researcher obtained the approval for the research project from the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the researcher had received the human ethics certificate from the IRB. Once the researcher received the approval, the researcher had asked the students at the college if they were willing to participate in the study. All participants provided their written informed consent before joining this research; moreover, they were told that the participation in the research was voluntary and they could withdraw from the study anytime.

3 Results

Demographic information of the respondents showed that female respondents were 283 (50.50%) and male respondents were 277 (49.50%). Students aged 20 were the highest, 193 (34.50%), followed by those aged 21, 173 (30.90%), and those aged 19, 104 (18.60%). The lowest were students aged 22, 90 (16.10%). The study year data showed that the second-year students were 201 (35.90%), followed by third-year students, 189 (33.80%), and fourth-year students, 170 (30.40%).

The overall SDL behavior levels among the respondents showed it was at a medium (M = 3.52, SD = 0.47) level. When considering each dimension, it showed that creativity was at a high level (M = 3.91, SD = 0.78), followed by initiative and independence in learning at a medium level (M = 3.51, SD = 0.79), and love of learning dimension had the lowest score (M = 3.46, SD = 0.83).

The result of the comparison of SDL between gender using the independent sample t-test result showed that only love of learning had a difference between genders (t = −1.99, p = 0.04), with females (M = 3.54) having an average score higher than males (M = 3.40), while other dimensions did not have a different effect (Table 1), and one-way ANOVA result showed that there was no difference in SDL dimensions among the years of study, and there was no statistical difference between SDL and the year of study (Table 2).

Table 1

Comparison of SDL between gender

Dimensions	Male		Female		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Openness to learning	3.45	0.81	3.50	0.81	−0.65	0.51
Self-concept as an effective learner	3.46	0.82	3.51	0.85	−0.67	0.49
Initiative and independence in learning	3.49	0.76	3.53	0.81	−0.57	0.56
Informed acceptance of responsibility	3.49	0.80	3.51	0.83	−0.18	0.85
Love of learning	3.40	0.88	3.54	0.79	−1.99	0.046*
Creativity	3.90	0.77	3.92	0.78	−0.37	0.70
Positive orientation to the future	3.44	0.80	3.50	0.81	−0.86	0.38
Ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills	3.44	0.86	3.51	0.85	−0.86	0.38
Overall	3.49	0.48	3.55	0.46	−1.43	0.15

*significant level at 0.05. t = t-test; p = p-value.

Table 2

Comparison of SDL between years

Dimensions	2nd		3rd		4th		F	p
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
Openness to learning	3.46	0.83	3.49	0.75	3.45	0.84	0.07	0.93
Self-concept as an effective learner	3.44	0.82	3.44	0.84	3.56	0.84	1.21	0.29
Initiative and independence in learning	3.53	0.80	3.52	0.76	3.46	0.81	0.32	0.72
Informed acceptance of responsibility	3.51	0.84	3.47	0.77	3.51	0.83	0.12	0.88
Love of learning	3.42	0.84	3.43	0.83	3.56	0.83	1.67	0.18
Creativity	3.93	0.81	3.88	0.78	3.91	0.72	0.22	0.80
Positive orientation to the future	3.48	0.79	3.37	0.86	3.56	0.76	2.43	0.08
Ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills	3.54	0.93	3.39	0.84	3.48	0.77	1.54	0.21
Overall	3.52	0.49	3.49	0.46	3.52	0.47	0.79	0.45

The CFA of SDL among communication arts students in the first-order level showed that the overall model fit had a GFI (X ² = 1379.88, df = 1,454, p = 0.91, X ²/df = 0.94, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, and SRMR = 0.02). Overall factor loading had a score ranging from 0.79 to 0.86, which is more than 0.70, which indicated a high factor loading score. In addition, the results of composite reliability (CR) were more than 0.77 and average variance extraction (AVE) (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010) were more than 0.50. From this result, the researchers decided to perform further analysis in second order to confirm the dimension of SDL scales (Table 3).

Table 3

Mean, SD, factor loading, CR, and AVE of first-order CFA

Dimensions	Mean (SD)	Factor loading	CR	AVE	SDL level
Openness to learning	3.47 (0.81)	—	0.93	0.68	Medium
Q1. I’m not as interested in learning as some other people seem to be.	3.49 (0.91)	0.79
Q2. I’ll be glad when I’m finished learning.	3.45 (0.95)	0.83
Q3. I think libraries are boring places.	3.51 (0.96)	0.82
Q4. I have a hard time dealing with questions where there is not one right answer.	3.47 (0.93)	0.82
Q5. It bothers me when people who really know what they’re doing point out mistakes that I am making.	3.43 (0.96)	0.82
Q6. If I can understand something well enough to get a good grade on a test, it doesn’t bother me if I still have questions about it.	3.47 (0.97)	0.84
Q13. When I see something that I don’t understand, I stay away from it.	3.48 (0.94)	0.82
Self-concept as an effective learner	3.48 (0.83)	—	0.95	0.70	Medium
Q7. I am capable of learning for myself almost anything I might need to know.	3.49 (0.96)	0.82
Q8. If there is something I have decided to learn, I can find time for it, no matter how busy I am.	3.48 (0.98)	0.82
Q9. I can make myself do what I think I should.	3.47 (0.98)	0.85
Q10. I know when I need to learn more about something.	3.48 (0.98)	0.82
Q11. If there is something I really want to learn, I can figure out a way to learn it.	3.51 (0.97)	0.83
Q12. I have a lot of curiosity about things.	3.49 (0.97)	0.85
Q23. I can tell whether I’m learning something well or not	3.47 (0.95)	0.84
Q55. I am an effective learner in the classroom and on my own	3.49 (0.98)	0.82
Q56. Learners are leaders	3.48 (0.97)	0.85
Initiative and independence in learning	3.51 (0.81)	—	0.95	0.66	Medium
Q14. I know what I want to learn	3.48 (0.91)	0.81
Q15. In a classroom, I expect the teacher to tell me exactly what I’m supposed to do	3.48 (0.93)	0.82
Q17. If I discover a need for information that I don’t have, I know where to get it	3.55 (0.93)	0.82
Q18. Even if I have a great idea, I can’t seem to develop a plan for making it work	3.52 (0.96)	0.84
Q19. Difficult study doesn’t bother me if I’m really interested in something	3.50 (0.97)	0.80
Q35. I don’t work very well on my own	3.53 (0.91)	0.80
Q36. I can learn things on my own better than most people	3.49 (0.93)	0.80
Q40. I’m better than most people are at trying to find out the things I need to know	3.53 (0.93)	0.80
Q41. I become a leader in group learning situations	3.55 (0.92)	0.80
Q53. I learn several new things on my own each year	3.49 (0.907)	0.832
Informed acceptance of responsibility	3.49 (0.81)	—	0.89	0.67	Medium
Q20. I believe that thinking about who you are and where you are going should be a part of every person’s education.	3.48 (0.94)	0.81
Q21. I prefer classes where I am encouraged to take part in deciding what will be learned and how.	3.53 (0.93)	0.81
Q22. If I don’t learn, it’s my fault.	3.48 (0.94)	0.82
Q37. No one but me is truly responsible for what I learn.	3.50 (0.94)	0.82
Love of learning	3.46 (0.83)	—	0.95	0.69	Medium
Q24. I admire people who are always learning new things	3.46 (1.06)	0.83
Q25. There are so many things I want to learn that I wish that there were more hours in a day	3.47 (0.93)	0.82
Q26. I really enjoy tracking down the answer to a question	3.47 (0.96)	0.83
Q44. I have a strong desire to learn new things	3.49 (0.96)	0.85
Q46. Learning is fun	3.48 (0.97)	0.84
Q48. I want to learn more so that I can keep growing as a person	3.49 (0.95)	0.81
Q50. I will never be too old to learn new things	3.44 (1.00)	0.83
Q51. Constant learning is a bore	3.47 (0.98)	0.82
Q54. Learning doesn’t make any difference in my life	3.48 (0.99)	0.81
Creativity	3.91 (0.78)	—	0.91	0.67	High
Q27. I’m good at thinking of unusual ways to do things	3.91 (0.90)	0.86
Q28. I can think of many different ways to learn about a new topic	3.93 (0.90)	0.82
Q39. I like to try new things, even if I’m not sure how they will turn out	3.93 (0.90)	0.80
Q43. I don’t like challenging learning situations	3.89 (0.90)	0.81
Q47. It’s better to stick with the learning methods that we know will work instead of always trying new ones	3.90 (0.91)	0.81
Positive orientation to the future	3.47 (0.85)	—	0.92	0.67	Medium
Q29. I like to think about the future	3.47 (0.96)	0.81
Q30. I think of problems as challenges, not stop signs	3.47 (0.91)	0.82
Q33. I’m looking forward to learning as long as I’m living	3.46 (0.99)	0.82
Q38. I try to relate what I am learning to my long-term goals	3.45 (0.94)	0.84
Q45. The more I learn, the more exciting the world becomes	3.48 (0.97)	0.81
Q52. Learning is a tool for life	3.52 (0.94)	0.81
Ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills	3.47 (0.85)	—	0.93	0.70	Medium
Q16. Understanding what I read is a problem for me	3.44 (1.01)	0.83
Q31. I don’t have any problems with basic study skills	3.52 (0.94)	0.82
Q32. I’m happy with the way I investigate problems	3.48 (0.97)	0.84
Q34. It takes me a while to get started on new projects	3.46 (1.01)	0.84
Q42. I enjoy discussing idea	3.47 (0.97)	0.83
Q49. Learning to learn is more important to me	3.49 (1.01)	0.85
Overall	3.52 (0.47)	—	—	—	Medium

X ² = 1379.88, df = 1,454, p = 0.91, X ²/df = 0.94, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.02.

Discriminant validity showed the relationship between constructs, which indicated a correlation score from 0.15 to 0.34. The values in the diagonal were the square roots of AVE, indicating that every construct was independent when that value was higher than its correlation as presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Discriminant validity of SDL

Dimensions	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Openness to learning	0.82
Self-concept as an effective learner	0.15	0.83
Initiative and independence in learning	0.22	0.19	0.81
Informed acceptance of responsibility	0.24	0.20	0.22	0.82
Love of learning	0.31	0.20	0.29	0.25	0.83
Creativity	0.21	0.23	0.24	0.27	0.24	0.82
Positive orientation to the future	0.28	0.24	0.25	0.27	0.34	0.24	0.82
Ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills	0.29	0.28	0.27	0.23	0.26	0.21	0.30	0.83

The values in the diagonal were the square roots of AVE.

Finally, Table 5 shows the results of the analysis of SDL among communication arts students in the second order of SDL dimensions. The overall model fit has a good fit of indices, which are X ² = 1396.97, df = 1,474, p = 0.92, X ²/df = 0.94, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, and SRMR = 0.03. All dimensions had a second-order factor loading score of 0.42–0.57, which is more than 0.30. Therefore, these eight dimensions could represent the SDL scales for this study (Figure 3).

Table 5

Second-order CFA

Dimension	Factor loading	SE	p-value
SDL
Openness to learning	0.50	—	—
Self-concept as an effective learner	0.42	0.14	0.00
Initiative and independence in learning	0.48	0.14	0.00
Informed acceptance of responsibility	0.48	0.14	0.00
Love of learning	0.55	0.16	0.00
Creativity	0.46	0.13	0.00
Positive orientation to the future	0.57	0.17	0.00
Ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills	0.53	0.16	0.00

X ² = 1396.97, df = 1,474, p = 0.92, X ²/df = 0.94, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.03.

Figure 3

Second-order CFA model.

4 Discussion

As HyFlex learning environment provides certain benefits to learners such as increased autonomy, accessibility, and engagement, this type of learning environment is crucial to the success of students in a higher education context. The current study explored the levels of SDL behavior among communication arts students in a HyFlex learning environment at a government university in Thailand. This study is one of the first to provide empirical evidence of SDL behavior levels in a HyFlex learning environment in the Thai context. The results showed that the SDL levels were at a medium level among all the participants; however, the creativity dimension of SDL was at a higher level among the participants. Thus, this major finding is partially consistent with the findings of Klunklin et al. (2010) and Prabjanee and Inthachot (2013). The relationship between SDL and the online environment is multifaceted and is often complex. As reported by Justus, Rusticus, and Stobbe (2022), not all learners will favor SDL and the levels of SDL would vary when learners are more resistant, and in the context of the population being studied, it could be said that the levels of SDL were at a medium level due to the resistance to their new learning styles. Communication arts students at the college do not have much experience learning in a HyFlex environment as it was recently introduced by the college to make learning more flexible; therefore, it is possible that the sample being studied could be resistant to a sudden change in the modality of instruction and learning. Although HyFlex learning provides more flexibility compared to other modalities, it might also cause some problems for the learners. As reported by Li and Wu (2023), in a hypermedia learning system where learners have control over their own learning space, some learners may not succeed due to their lack of strategies in identifying their own goals and monitoring their own learning. Therefore, it can be said that learners in a HyFlex learning environment should improve their SDL skills in order to accomplish their learning goals.

Although the current study reported that the levels of SDL were at a medium level among the communication arts students, the creativity dimension was at a higher level. This finding is in alignment with the previous findings of Saengpanya, Upasen, and Kaewkohsaba (2021), who reported that students studying at the Rajabhat university network had higher CQ compared to other universities in Thailand; moreover, creativity quotient is an important competency for students’ future development. As the participants are the students of Rajabhat University, it is worthwhile to note that the certain dimension of SDL, such as creativity, is a common characteristic among Rajabhat university students. Therefore, the creativity dimension of SDL is significant for communication arts students because they create content that appeals to the general public; thus, being creative is important for the communication arts students. Moreover, Buasuwan (2018) reported that the Thai government’s national agenda 4.0 is to develop a creative society with more innovation, and various activities have been implemented from schools to universities to emphasize the importance of creativity.

A study carried out by Power (2015) assessing the creativity of Thai undergraduate students in a Thai context reported that students were positive about being creative and wanted to express themselves; thus, the findings of this study further support the argument that Thai undergraduate students are creative, and when students are exposed to more flexible learning environment, such as HyFlex, they would become more creative as HyFlex learning modality offers freedom to learners. Rosar and Weidlich (2022) reported that creative students exhibited better motivation in an unstructured online learning environment, and on the other hand, non-creative students showed better motivation in a structured environment. Similar to other dimensions of SDL, creativity is also an important factor that helps learners to achieve their learning goals. As instructional modality like HyFlex learning offers more freedom to learners, SDL skills of students are vital in an unstructured learning environment, such as HyFlex. It is also important to note that in order to be successful in a more flexible learning environment like the HyFlex, communication arts students need to improve their SDL skills and be creative in order to accelerate the learning pace as there is little help from instructors. As reported by Raksakul et al. (2023), a HyFlex learning environment provides more flexibility and motivation to students; thus, the SDL skills are key to the academic success of the learners in this type of modality.

In the current study, the dimensions of SDL behavior levels between male and female participants were similar, and there was no statistical significance. Although many studies have shown that there is no significant difference in SDL between genders, only a few studies have shown that there is a significant difference in SDL between male and female learners as reported by Tekkol and Demirel (2018). Therefore, the findings of this study are in support of the notion that there is no difference in SDL between genders. Communication arts students, regardless of their gender, are required to access courses in the HyFlex learning environment and are required to create and present content in creative ways; thus, the role of SDL between genders is equal. However, another key finding of this study was that the “love of learning” dimension of the SDL was higher among the female respondents. Many previous studies in Thailand pertinent to the assessment of SDL among undergraduate nursing and education students showed that the students showed a higher level of love of learning (Klunklin et al., 2010; Malison & Thammakoranonta, 2018; Prabjanee & Inthachot 2013), and the results of this study are consistent with previous studies. Love of learning is one of the aspects being taught in Thailand as Thai students and teachers consider being happy is very important (Karnchanasubsin & Jotaworn, 2023). As love of learning and motivation are intertwined (Renninger, Sansone, & Smith, 2004), it can be said that the population being studied are motivated to engage in learning. Moreover, generally, female students reported to have higher motivation in certain areas than their male counterparts due to various factors, such as self-respect, certain goals, and interpersonal focus (Renninger et al., 2004). Grande et al. (2022) reported that motivation, especially intrinsic, is one of the main factors in improving SDL, and they reported that Thai students’ intrinsic motivation was higher. The findings of this study further support the idea that love of learning comes from intrinsic motivation; thus, it can be noted that participants who display a higher level of love of learning have a higher level of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, it is highly recommended that instructors when designing courses in a HyFlex learning environment should incorporate content that improves the motivation of the learners. As previous studies did not indicate if love of learning dimension had a statistical difference between genders in the Thai context, this study is important to educational institutions and educators to enhance love of learning among learners.

When comparing the SDL levels among different years of study, it was reported that there were no significant differences between the year of study and SDL level. This finding supports the previous findings of Prabjanee and Inthachot (2013) and Tekkol and Demirel (2018) that there was no statistical difference in SDL between different years of study level. However, a recent study by Chen, Tang, Liu, and Zhang (2023) highlighted that first-year undergraduate students had higher SDL, but it reduced in the second year and increased in the final year. Nonetheless, the current study shows that there is a slight variation in SDL levels in different years of study, but it was not statistically significant. Therefore, students learning in a HyFlex learning environment ought to maintain their SDL during their academic years because it is vital to better learning outcomes. Students should also seek activities that would enhance their SDL behavior to successfully complete their courses, as digital transformation in education is already happening. As SDL equips learners with the ability to learn independently and continuously, it will be beneficial to self-direct one’s own learning; moreover, SDL skills enhance the organization of self-learning skills and make learners more task-oriented (Charokar & Dulloo, 2022). In addition, SDL skills encourage learners to take responsibility on their own learning goals and foster creativity, autonomy, and motivation (Pokhrel, Sharma, Poudel, Sharma, & Luitel, 2024). Thus, SDL skills, regardless of age and gender, are vital to today’s ever-evolving education landscape.

The CFA of the SDL dimensions (Prabjanee & Inthachot, 2013), namely, openness to learning opportunities, self-concept as an effective learner, initiative and independence in learning, informed acceptance of responsibility, love for learning, creativity, positive orientation to the future, and finally, the ability to use basic study skills, showed a good fit to the communication arts students. All these factors confirmed by CFA are essential in order to manage the SDL of communication arts students effectively; moreover, the CFA report further confirmed that the dimensions of SDL are suitable for different years of study. As SDL is often measured among nursing students, the findings of this study contribute to the advancement of SDL among communication arts students in Thai academia.

5 Implications of the Study

The findings of this study shed light on less researched areas on the levels of SDL among communication arts students in the HyFlex learning environment. As HyFlex learning is gaining significant popularity in Thailand, studies pertinent to SDL in a HyFlex learning environment would be beneficial for educational institution administrators, stakeholders, instructors, and learners. The findings of this research would be beneficial for lecturers teaching in a HyFlex learning environment. Moreover, the study would be beneficial, especially for communication arts students in regards to their self-monitoring of their performance in the HyFlex learning environment and to find creative ways to maximize their learning performance in the HyFlex mode. As SDL is vital to improving life-long learning skills, communication arts students are encouraged to work collaboratively and independently in order to improve their SDL skills. Although the study findings do not show a significant difference between genders, it is recommended that communication arts students, regardless of gender, should enhance their problem-solving skills in order to improve the levels of SDL. As learning environment such as HyFlex provides greater autonomy to students, communication arts students should fully utilize the HyFlex learning environment in order to be independent in their learning and for seeking knowledge. It is also suggested that communication arts students should diagnose their learning preferences, set goals, and evaluate their learning outcomes, and by doing so, communication arts students become more creative and independent.

As learners become increasingly independent in their learning styles due to the online delivery of classes and as educational institutions around the globe seek innovative ways to deliver their classes, both administrators and instructors play a vital role in promoting and enhancing SDL in both classrooms and in a virtual environment. It is rather the responsibility of both educational institutions and learners to keep up to date with technological advancements in parallel with their own innate abilities, especially being creative and independent in teaching and learning. As the HyFlex learning environment provides more autonomy to students, instructors are recommended to motivate learners to improve their SDL skills in order to accelerate their learning achievements. The findings of this study would also be beneficial to policy makers to draft policies that would help adults in their life-long learning process by promoting the importance of SDL.

6 Limitations and Future Studies

Although the sample size of the current study provides a good dataset for analysis, the current study is limited to a single government university; therefore, this may affect the generalizability of the findings to other universities in different cultural contexts. The study design limits the ability to observe changes in SDL behaviors over time. Therefore, future research should address these gaps, and further studies are recommended based on the current findings to enhance the understanding of SDL in HyFlex environments.

As the current study focuses on the levels of SDL in the HyFlex learning environment, future studies should focus on the study group’s perception and attitude toward the HyFlex learning environment. Moreover, future studies should focus on the implications of SDL in the HyFlex learning environment on different groups of students. It is also recommended that the future studies should include longitudinal studies to better understand the underlying factors that affect the SDL behavior of learners in the HyFlex learning environment.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the editor-in-chief and the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable suggestions.

Funding information: This study did not receive any grant from any organization.
Author contributions: Danty James designed the conceptual framework and performed the data collection. Kanyapat Utapao and Sawitree Suvanno contributed to the literature review, and reviewed and prepared the questionnaire. Panik Senariddhikrai performed the data analysis and the interpretation. Gina Masbad Nunez drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Abdelmalak, M. M. M., & Parra, J. L. (2016). Expanding learning opportunities for graduate students with HyFlex course design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD), 6(4), 19–37. doi: 10.4018/IJOPCD.2016100102.Search in Google Scholar

Aboagye, E., Yawson, J. A., & Appiah, K. N. (2021). COVID-19 and E-learning: The challenges of students in tertiary institutions. Social Education Research, 2(1),1–8. doi: 10.37256/ser.212021422.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmad, B. E., Saad, Z. A., Aminuddin, A. S., & Abdullah, M. A. (2023). Self-directed learning of Malay undergraduate students. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 14(3), 244–266. doi: 10.37237/140302.Search in Google Scholar

Alam, M., Al-Mamun, M., Pramanik, M. N. H., Jahan, I., Khan, M. R., Dishi, T. T., & Hossain, M. J. (2022). Paradigm shifting of education system during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study on education components. Heliyon, 8(12), 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11927.Search in Google Scholar

An, F., Xi, L., Yu, J., & Zhang, M. (2022). Relationship between technology acceptance and self-directed learning: Mediation role of positive emotions and technological self-efficacy. Sustainability, 14(16), 10390. doi: 10.3390/su141610390.Search in Google Scholar

Anshu, G. P., & Singh, T. (2022). The concept of self-directed learning: Implications for practice in the undergraduate curriculum. Indian Pediatrics, 59(4), 331–338. doi: 10.1007/s13312-022-2501-x.Search in Google Scholar

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide (pp. 1995–2005). Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.Search in Google Scholar

Athens, W. (2023). Self-regulation, motivation, and outcomes in HyFlex classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71, 1765–1783. doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10243-y.Search in Google Scholar

Bangkok Post. (2020). Universities urged to move classes online until May. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1879460/universities-urged-to-move-classes-online-until-may.Search in Google Scholar

Baticulon, R. E., Sy, J. J., Alberto, N. R. I., Baron, M. B. C., Mabulay, R. E. C., Rizada, L. G. T., & Reyes, J. C. B. (2021). Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Medical Science Educator, 31, 615–626. doi: 10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z.Search in Google Scholar

Beatty, B. (2007, June). Transitioning to an online world: Using HyFlex courses to bridge the gap. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007–World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 2701–2706). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Search in Google Scholar

Beatty, B. (2014). Hybrid courses with flexible participation: The HyFlex course design. In L. Kyei-Blankson & E. Ntuli (Eds.), Practical applications and experiences in K-20 blended learning environments (pp. 153–177). Hershey: IGI global.Search in Google Scholar

Bergdahl, N. (2022). Engagement and disengagement in online learning. Computers & Education, 188, 104561. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104561.Search in Google Scholar

Binnewies, S., & Wang, Z. (2019). Challenges of student equity and engagement in a HyFlex course. In C. Allan, C. Campbell, & J. Crough (Eds.), Blended learning designs in STEM higher education. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_12.Search in Google Scholar

Bogatyrets, V. (2021). Benefits of HyFlex learning in creating a positive students’ experience. Mediaforum, 8, 165–172. doi: 10.31861/mediaforum.2020.8.165-172.Search in Google Scholar

Bozan, K., Gaskin, J., & Stoner, C. (2024). Student engagement in the HyFlex and online classrooms: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(1), 509–536. doi: 10.1007/s10758-023-09661-x.Search in Google Scholar

Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Self-directed learning. In R. Maclean & D. Wilson (Eds.), International handbook of education for the changing world of work. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5281-1_172.Search in Google Scholar

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Buasuwan, P. (2018). Rethinking Thai higher education for Thailand 4.0. Asian Education and Development Studies, 7(2), 157–173. doi: 10.1108/AEDS-07-2017-0072.Search in Google Scholar

Bucura, E. (2020). Becoming self-directed and self-determined: Learning music pedagogically, andragogically, and heutagogically. Problems in Music Pedagogy, 19(1), 7–24. https://pmp.du.lv/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/07-24_PMP_2020_Vol-19-1-BUCURA.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Callan, G. L., DaVia Rubenstein, L., Barton, T., & Halterman, A. (2022). Enhancing motivation by developing cyclical self-regulated learning skills. Theory Into Practice, 61(1), 62–74.Search in Google Scholar

Chankseliani, M., & McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. Higher Education, 81(1), 1–8.Search in Google Scholar

Charokar, K., & Dulloo, P. (2022). Self-directed learning theory to practice: A footstep towards the path of being a life-long learne. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 10(3), 135. 10.30476/JAMP.2022.94833.1609.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, C. H., Chen, K. Z., & Tsai, H. F. (2022). Did self-directed learning curriculum guidelines change Taiwanese high-school students’ self-directed learning readiness?. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(4), 409–426. doi: 10.1007/s40299-021-00582-w.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, L., Tang, X. J., Liu, Q., & Zhang, X. (2023). Self-directed learning: Alternative for traditional classroom learning in undergraduate ophthalmic education during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Heliyon, 9(5), 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15632.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, S. L., & Fan, J. Y. (2023). Validation of the psychometric properties of the Self‐Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Nursing Open, 10(3), 1639–1646. doi: 10.1002/nop2.1418.Search in Google Scholar

Chomeya, R., Phansri, G., & Piyakun, A. (2022). Students’ self-directed learning behavior: Cross cultural research (Thailand and Australia). Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 43(2), 279–284. doi: 10.34044/j.kjss.2022.43.2.03.Search in Google Scholar

Chung, E., Noor, N. M., & Mathew, V. N. (2020). Are you ready? An assessment of online learning readiness among university students. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 9(1), 301–317. doi: 10.6007/IJARPED/v9-i1/7128.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, J. T. (2020). Distance education. In Clinical engineering handbook (pp. 410–415). Cambridge: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-813467-2.00063-8.Search in Google Scholar

College of Communication Arts. (2023). cca news. https://cca.ssru.ac.th/news/view/030766-12.Search in Google Scholar

Detyna, M., Sanchez-Pizani, R., Giampietro, V., Dommett, E. J., & Dyer, K. (2023). Hybrid flexible (HyFlex) teaching and learning: Climbing the mountain of implementation challenges for synchronous online and face-to-face seminars during a pandemic. Learning Environments Research, 26(1), 145–159. doi: 10.1007/s10984-022-09408-y.Search in Google Scholar

Edelson, P. J. (1995). Self-direction in adult art education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Adult Education and the Arts (4th, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, July 10–14).Search in Google Scholar

Fox, M. P., MacLehose, R. F., & Lash, T. L. (2021). Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data (pp. 105–139). Cham (Switzerland): Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Grande, R. A. N., Berdida, D. J. E., Cruz, J. P., Cometa‐Manalo, R. J., Balace, A. B., & Ramirez, S. H. (2022, May). Academic motivation and self‐directed learning readiness of nursing students during the COVID‐19 pandemic in three countries: A cross‐sectional study. Nursing Forum, 57, 382–392. 10.1111/nuf.12698.Search in Google Scholar

Grynyuk, S., Kovtun, O., Sultanova, L., Zheludenko, M., Zasluzhena, A., & Zaytseva, I. (2022). Distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: The experience of Ukraine’s higher education system. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 20(3), 242–256. doi: 10.34190/ejel.20.3.2198.Search in Google Scholar

Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (1977). Self-directed learning readiness scale. Boca Raton: Guglielmino.Search in Google Scholar

Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed). London, UK: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar

Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110.Search in Google Scholar

Justus, B. J., Rusticus, S. A., & Stobbe, B. L. (2022). Does self-directed learning readiness predict undergraduate students’ instructional preferences? Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), n1. doi: 10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.10879.Search in Google Scholar

Juve, A. K. M., & Kirsch, J. R. (2019). Does participation in written guided reflective practice exercises affect readiness for self-directed learning in a sample of US anesthesiology residents?. The Journal of Education in Perioperative Medicine: JEPM, 21(2), 1–7.Search in Google Scholar

Karawani, M., & Preece, A. S. (2022). The relationship between synchronous and asynchronous learning and self-directed learning in the remote teaching environment. Al-Hikmah: International Journal of Islamic Studies and Human Sciences, 5(6), 66–82. doi: 10.46722/hikmah.v5i6.329.Search in Google Scholar

Karnchanasubsin, T., & Jotaworn, S. (2023). Learning with happiness and academic achievement of University students in Thailand. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 38(3), 509–522. doi: 10.33824/PJPR.2023.38.3.29.Search in Google Scholar

Khomson, K. (1997). The development of a self-directed learning model in English reading comprehension for upper secondary school students. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Thailand: Chulalongkorn University.Search in Google Scholar

Klunklin, A., Viseskul, N., Sripusanapan, A., & Turale, S. (2010). Readiness for self‐directed learning among nursing students in Thailand. Nursing & Health Sciences, 12(2), 177–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00515.x.Search in Google Scholar

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York, NY: Association Press.Search in Google Scholar

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. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2021.1906641.Search in Google Scholar

Li, J., & Wu, C. H. (2023). Determinants of learners’ self-directed learning and online learning attitudes in online learning. Sustainability, 15(12), 9381.Search in Google Scholar

Loeng, S. (2020). Self-directed learning: A core concept in adult education. Education Research International, 2020, 1–12. doi: 10.1155/2020/3816132.Search in Google Scholar

Maini, R., Sehgal, S., & Agrawal, G. (2021). Todays’ digital natives: An exploratory study on students’ engagement and satisfaction towards virtual classes amid COVID-19 pandemic. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(5), 454–472.Search in Google Scholar

Malison, K., & Thammakoranonta, N. (2018). An exploratory study of self-directed learning: The differences between IT and non-IT employees in Thailand. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(3), 1–16.Search in Google Scholar

Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2020). Together but apart: Creating and supporting online learning communities in an era of distributed studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(4), 826–840. doi: 10.1111/jade.12331.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2023). Designing online learning in higher education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & I. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_72.Search in Google Scholar

Mentzer, N., & Mohandas, L. (2022). Student experiences in an interactive synchronous HyFlex design thinking course during COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2124423.Search in Google Scholar

Nakasun, W., & Chaiwchan, P. (2024). Exploring student satisfaction with HyFlex learning in digital literacy courses. Internationl Academic Multidisciplinary Research Conference in Hokkaido 2024 (pp. 131–137).Search in Google Scholar

NCES. (2022). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2021 and fall 2022. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_311.15.asp.Search in Google Scholar

NIBS. (2014). Difference between distance education & Correspondence education. https://www.nibs.in/blog/difference-between-distance-education-correspondence-education/.Search in Google Scholar

Okoye, K., Rodriguez-Tort, J. A., Escamilla, J., & Hosseini, S. (2021). Technology-mediated teaching and learning process: A conceptual study of educators’ response amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7225–7257. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10527-x.Search in Google Scholar

Orawiwatnakul, W., & Wichadee, S. (2011). A comparison of students’ outcomes in two classes: Business administration students vs communication arts students based on self-directed learning activities. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(5), 23–32.Search in Google Scholar

Paiwithayasiritham, C. (2013). The factors affecting the characteristics of self-directed learning of the students from Faculty of Education, Silpakorn University. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University (Humanities, Social Sciences and Arts), 6(7), 1–12.Search in Google Scholar

Pal, I., Sukwanchai, K., Bhuridadtpong, A., & Pal, A. (2022). Impacts of pandemic on education sector in Thailand. Pandemic Risk, Response, and Resilience, 457–469. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-99277-0.00016-4.Search in Google Scholar

Pan, X. (2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 564294. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294.Search in Google Scholar

Patphol, M., Saengloetuthai, J., Intalapaporn, C., Nakwijit, R., Kanoksinlapatham, H., & Meekhobtong, S. (2023). A learning management model to enhance creative self-directed learning skills in Thailand. The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 31(1), 1. doi: 10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v31i01/1.Search in Google Scholar

Peng, C. (2012). Self-regulated learning behavior of college students of art and their academic achievement. Physics Procedia, 33, 1451–1455. doi: 10.1016/j.phpro.2012.05.237.Search in Google Scholar

Perry, E. H., & Pilati, M. L. (2011). Online learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2011(128), 95–104.Search in Google Scholar

Pimdee, P., Ridhikerd, A., Moto, S., Siripongdee, S., & Bengthong, S. (2023). How social media and peer learning influence student-teacher self-directed learning in an online world under the ‘New Normal’. Heliyon, 9(3), 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13769.Search in Google Scholar

Pokhrel, M., Sharma, L., Poudel, M. P., Sharma, L., & Luitel, S. (2024). Empowering students through a self-directed learning Pedagogy in mathematics education. Communications on Applied Nonlinear Analysis, 31(1), 238–252. doi: 10.52783/cana.v31.409.Search in Google Scholar

Poobrasert, O., Luxsameevanich, S., & Banlawanit, A. (2022). Online learning platform for students with disabilities: Possible path to progress. 2022 XII International Conference on Virtual Campus (JICV) (pp. 1–4). Arequipa, Peru. doi: 10.1109/JICV56113.2022.9934700.Search in Google Scholar

Power, J. B. (2015). An investigation into the factors affecting student creativity in higher education in Thailand. Thammasat Review, 18(1), 177–198.Search in Google Scholar

Prabjanee, D., & Inthachot, M. (2013). Self-directed learning readiness of college students in Thailand. Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 2(1), 2.Search in Google Scholar

Pregowska, A., Masztalerz, K., Garlińska, M., & Osial, M. (2021). A worldwide journey through distance education – from the post office to virtual, augmented and mixed realities, and education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(3), 118. doi: 10.3390/educsci11030118.Search in Google Scholar

Quartey, J., Eksteen, C., Pickworth, G., Bello, A., & Ahenkorah, J. (2020). Self-directed learning: A paradigm shift for physiotherapy education. Journal of Preventive and Rehabilitative Medicine, 2, 47–52. 10.21617/jprm2020.218.Search in Google Scholar

Raksakul, R., Yamrung, R., & Suthasinobon, K. (2023). HyFlex learning: The next normal instructional strategies. Journal of Education and Innovative Learning, 3(1), 89–100. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jeil/article/view/261313.Search in Google Scholar

Renninger, A., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. (2004). Love of learning. Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification (pp. 161–179). https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-education/56.Search in Google Scholar

Roberson Jr, D. N. D. N., Zach, S., Choresh, N., & Rosenthal, I. (2021). Self directed learning: A longstanding tool for uncertain times. Creative Education, 12(5), 1011–1026. doi: 10.4236/ce.2021.125074.Search in Google Scholar

Romero-Hall, E., & Ripine, C. (2021). Hybrid flexible instruction: Exploring faculty preparedness. Online Learning, 25(3), 289–312. doi: 10.24059/olj.v25i3.2426.Search in Google Scholar

Rosar, M., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Creative students in self-paced online learning environments: An experimental exploration of the interaction of visual design and creativity. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1), 8. doi: 10.1186/s41039-022-00183-1.Search in Google Scholar

Rosen, D. J. (2021). BlendFlex and HyFlex models to increase student engagement and retention. Adult Literacy Education, 3(2), 73–78. doi: 10.35847/DRosen.3.2.73.Search in Google Scholar

Saengpanya, W., Upasen, R., & Kaewkohsaba, S. (2021). Creativity quotient of undergraduate students in higher education institutes within Thailand. Journal of Population and Social Studies [JPSS], 29, 311–324. doi: 10.25133/JPSSv292021.020.Search in Google Scholar

Singaram, V. S., Naidoo, K. L., & Singh, S. (2022). Self-directed learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of South African final-year health professions students. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 13, 1–10. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S339840.Search in Google Scholar

Singh, A., Singh, D., & Chhikara, S. (2024). Online learning: Challenges and suggestions to enhance student engagement in higher education institutions. In Reshaping entrepreneurial education within an Industry 4.0 context (pp. 59–80). IGI Global.Search in Google Scholar

Stark, E. (2019). Examining the role of motivation and learning strategies in student success in online versus face-to-face courses. Online Learning, 23(3), 234–251. doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i3.1556.Search in Google Scholar

Stone, C. (2019). Online learning in Australian higher education: Opportunities, challenges and transformations. Student Success, 10(2), 1–11. https://search.informit.org/ doi: 10.3316/informit.592230377097081.Search in Google Scholar

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. (5th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Search in Google Scholar

Tekkol, İ. A., & Demirel, M. (2018). An investigation of self-directed learning skills of undergraduate students. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2324. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02324.Search in Google Scholar

Treve, M. (2021). What COVID-19 has introduced into education: Challenges facing higher education institutions (HEIs). Higher Education Pedagogies, 6(1), 212–227. doi: 10.1080/23752696.2021.1951616.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Q., Xiong, C., & Liu, J. (2021). Does culture or self-directed learning drive online performance? International Journal of Educational Management, 35(6), 1077–1098. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-06-2020-0327.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, X., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2023). Do learners share the same perceived learning outcomes in MOOCs? Identifying the role of motivation, perceived learning support, learning engagement, and self-regulated learning strategies. The Internet and Higher Education, 56, 100880. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100880.Search in Google Scholar

Wiriyakarun, P. (2018). Can Thai students become self-directed learners? REFLections, 4, 31–40. doi: 10.61508/refl.v4i0.114334.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, B. T., Li, K. C., Chan, H. T., & Cheung, S. K. (2023). HyFlex learning research and practice: A longitudinal analysis. Sustainability, 15(12), 9699. doi: 10.3390/su15129699.Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, M., Berri, S., Koda, R., & Wu, Y. J. (2024). Exploring students’ self-directed learning strategies and satisfaction in online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 2787–2803.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-01-25

Revised: 2024-06-03

Accepted: 2024-06-20

Published Online: 2024-07-23

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2024-0028

Keywords for this article

HyFlex learning; self-directed learning; communication arts; undergraduate students; Thailand; confirmatory factor analysis

Creative Commons

BY 4.0