Effects of EFL Students' Interaction on Their Subjective Learning Performance in UNIPUS-LMS Facilitated College English Learning

Authors

  • Fang He

    Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Malaysia

    College of ASEAN Studies, Nanning University, China
  • Supyan Hussin

    Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Malaysia
  • Azlina Abdul Aziz

    Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i10.11039
Received: 13 July 2025 | Revised: 28 July 2025 | Accepted: 4 August 2025 | Published Online: 24 September 2025

Abstract

This study explores the impact of four types of student interaction—learner-content, learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-technology—on EFL learners' subjective learning performance in a blended College English course supported by the UNIPUS LMS. Grounded in the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework and social constructivist theory, the research adopts a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative data from 504 EFL student questionnaires with qualitative data from classroom observations. Multiple regression analysis revealed that all four interaction types significantly predicted students' perceived learning outcomes, accounting for 46% of the variance. Learner-content interaction (β = 0.317) was the strongest predictor, followed by learner-learner (β = 0.213), learner-instructor (β = 0.194), and learner-technology (β = 0.115) interactions. Thematic analysis of classroom observations further illustrated how content engagement promoted language mastery, peer collaboration enhanced motivation and understanding, and instructor support boosted learner confidence and accountability. Technology, while a less influential predictor, enabled meaningful interaction when supported by instructional guidance and digital readiness. These findings underscore the critical role of cognitive, social, and teaching presence in blended EFL contexts and highlight the need for intentional instructional design. The study concludes that interaction is central to learning in technology-enhanced environments and that pedagogical strategies should balance content delivery, peer collaboration, and responsive teaching support.

Keywords:

EFL Student Interaction; UNIPUS-LMS Facilitated Learning; Subjective Learning Performance

References

[1] Nur, N.A., Aminah, A., Amir, R., et al., 2022. Barriers and prospects of LMS application in Islamic higher education. Lentera Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan. 25(2), 218–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24252/lp.2022v25n2i4

[2] Slamet, J., Mukminatien, N., 2024. Developing an online formative assessment instrument for listening skill through LMS. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network. 17(1), 188–211. Available from: https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/264361 (cited 24 June 2025).

[3] Anderson, T., 2003. Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction defining and valuing interaction in distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 4(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149

[4] Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B.L., 2022. Facilitating synchronous online language learning through Zoom. Relc Journal. 53(1), 296–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220937235

[5] Ayotunde, O.O., Jamil, D.I., Cavus, N., 2023. The impact of artificial intelligence in foreign language learning using learning management system: A systematic literature review. Information Technologies and Learning Tools. 95(3), 215–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v95i3.5684

[6] Qi, Y., Binti Othman, R., 2023. Investigating Chinese tertiary EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices in the application of learning management systems using Q methodology. Arab World English Journal. 14(4), 111–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no4.8

[7] Kukulska-Hulme, A., Shield, L., 2008. An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL. 20(3), 271–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000335

[8] Pulker, H., Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2020. Openness reexamined: Teachers’ practices with open educational resources in online language teaching. Distance Education. 41(2), 216–229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757403

[9] Chugh, R., Turnbull, D., Cowling, M.A., et al., 2023. Implementing educational technology in higher education institutions: A review of technologies, stakeholder perceptions, frameworks and metrics. Education and Information Technologies. 28, 16403–16429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11846-x

[10] Muñoz-Basols, J., Fuertes Gutiérrez, M., Strawbridge, T., et al., 2023. Interactional patterns in the online language classroom: A quantitative analysis across proficiency levels and lesson types. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2214145

[11] Tiwari, T.D., 2021. Classroom interaction in communicative language teaching of public secondary schools in Nepal. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 5(2), 373–386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v5i2.788

[12] Wang, C., Tseng, W.T., Chen, Y.L., et al., 2020. Classroom interactions in the target language: Learners’ perceptions, willingness to communicate, and communication behavior. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 29(5), 393–404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00496-1

[13] Kurniatillah, R.E., Hidayat, D.N., Husna, N., et al., 2022. Teacher-student interaction in English classroom setting. Journal of Applied Studies in Language. 6(1), 53–63. Available from: http://ojs2.pnb.ac.id/index.php/JASL (cited 20 June 2025).

[14] Gao, F., 2020. Investigating Chinese learners’ interactions in relation to gender and sexuality in the ESL classroom in the UK. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. 19(4), 246–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1777864

[15] Chew, S.Y., Ng, L.L., 2021. Interpersonal interactions and language learning: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated communication. Springer: Cham, Switzerland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6981-5

[16] Matiso, N.H., Makena, B., 2022. Rethinking social interaction in English first additional language classrooms during the post-COVID-19 era. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science. 11(8), 312–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i8.2193

[17] Baek, J., Lee, C.H., 2018. University students’ perceptions and engagement in mobile-assisted blended learning in English speaking classes. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning. 21(1), 11–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2018.21.4.11

[18] Baek, J.S., Lee, C.H., 2021. Effects of mobile-assisted blended learning on university students’ English speaking proficiency in Korea. Journal of Asia TEFL. 18(4), 1266–1284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.4.1.1266

[19] Garrison, D.R., 2017. E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice, 3rd ed. Routledge: London, UK.

[20] Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., 1998. Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In: Gibson, C.C. (Ed.). Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Atwood Publishing: Madison, WI, USA. pp. 97–112. Available from: https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/801/learning_in_a.pdf (cited 4 June 2025).

[21] Friesen, N., Kuskis, A., 2013. Modes of interaction. In: Moore, M.G. (Ed.). Handbook of distance education. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 351–371. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254406024 (24 June 2025).

[22] Moore, M.G., 1989. Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education. 3(2), 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659

[23] Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J., Gunawardena, C.N., 1994. Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education. 8(2), 30–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853

[24] Fiock, H.S., 2020. Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 21(1), 135–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i1.3985

[25] Olpak, Y.Z., 2022. Community of Inquiry framework: Research trends between 2000–2020. Online Learning Journal. 26(1), 350–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2612

[26] Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S.R., et al., 2008. Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education. 11(3–4), 133–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003

[27] Vygotsky, L.S., 1962. Thought and language. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[28] Palincsar, A.S., 1998. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology. 49(1), 345–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345

[29] Saleem, A., Kausar, H., Deeba, F., 2021. Social constructivism: A new paradigm in teaching and learning environment. Perennial Journal of History. 2(2), 403–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52700/pjh.v2i2.86

[30] Creswell, J.W., 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 2nd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[31] Quoc, N.L., Van, L.H., 2023. Enhancement of EFL learners’ lexical retention: The role of social constructivism. Cogent Education. 10(1), 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2223811

[32] Wilson, B.G., Novak, K., 2017. Constructivism for active, authentic learning. In: West, R.E. (Ed.). Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books: Provo, Utah. pp. 83–100. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/constructivism (cited 19 June 2025).

[33] Bordios Jr, R., Gajeto, A., Singco, A.R., et al., 2024. Blended learning: The impact of constructivist learning approach in the learning process of nursing students. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 17(1), 11–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10644904

[34] Al Abri, M.H., Al Aamri, A.Y., Elhaj, A.M.A., 2024. Enhancing student learning experiences through integrated constructivist pedagogical models. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning. 2(1), 130–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2024.2(1).11

[35] Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., 2005. Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education. 19(3), 133–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2

[36] Young, M.R., Klemz, B.R., Murphy, J.W., 2003. Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education. 25(2), 130–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475303254004

[37] Ekwunife-Orakwue, K.C., Teng, T.L., 2014. The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education. 78, 414–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011

[38] Wulandari, P., Budiyanto, C.W., 2017. Improving foreign language learning by the mean of learning management system: Review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Research. 5(9), 217–226. DOI: 10.2991/ictte-17.2017.67

[39] Hubackova, S., 2016. Geocaching as a motivation to foreign language teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 232, 321–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.047

[40] Mukhibat, M., Wilujeng, H., 2021. Effectiveness of learning management system (LMS) on course learning outcomes in Islamic higher education amidst the COVID-19 outbreak. Didaktika Religia. 9(2), 271–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30762/didaktika.v9i2.3343

[41] Tumskiy, S., 2019. The use of learning management systems in the teaching of English to high-level learners at tertiary level. Arab World English Journal. 10(1), 64–76. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no1.6

[42] Qaddumi, H.A., Smith, M., 2024. Implementation of Learning Management Systems (Moodle): Effects on students’ language acquisition and attitudes towards learning English as a foreign language. Trends in Higher Education. 3(2), 260–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu3020016

[43] Santiana, S., Margana, M., Putro, N.H.P.S., et al., 2024. Students' attitudes toward the use of CANVAS in the EFL virtual learning environment. International Journal of Language Education. 8(2), 267–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v8i2.44404

[44] Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R., 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. Wiley: New York, NY, USA.

[45] Krejcie, R.V., Morgan, D.W., 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30(3), 607–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

[46] Lan, G.S., Zhong, Q.J., Lv, C.J., et al., 2018. Construction of a Chinese version of the community of inquiry measurement instrument. Open Education Research. 24(3), 68–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2018.03.008

[47] Cassidy, S., Eachus, P., 2002. Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 26(2), 133–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/JGJR-0KVL-HRF7-GCNV

[48] Yang, J.C., Quadir, B., Chen, N.S., et al., 2016. Effects of online presence on learning performance in a blog-based online course. The Internet and Higher Education. 30, 11–20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.04.002

[49] Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W., 2000. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education. 2(2–3), 87–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

[50] Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[51] Li, R., 2022. Effects of blended language learning on EFL learners' language performance: An activity theory approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 38(5), 1273–1285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12697

[52] Gerasimova, I.G., Pushmina, S.A., Carter, E.V., 2022. A fresh look at blended learning: boosting motivation and language acquisition in an ESP course for engineering students. Global Journal of Engineering Education. 24(1), 52–58. Available from: https://wiete.com.au/journals/GJEE/Publish/vol24no1/08-Gerasimova-I(2).pdf (cited 19 June 2025).

[53] Yang, L., 2023. An “interactive learning model” to enhance EFL students’ lexical knowledge and reading comprehension. Sustainability. 15(8), 64–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086471

[54] Slamet, J., Basthomi, Y., 2024. Assessing gamification-based LMS for EFL students: A self-directed learning framework. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT. 12(2), 100–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46687/CVHT3942

[55] Kreijns, K., Yau, J.Y.K., Weidlich, J., et al., 2024. Towards a comprehensive framework of social presence for online, hybrid, and blended learning. Frontiers in Education. 8, 1286594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594

[56] Edumadze, J.K.E., Govender, D.W., 2024. The community of inquiry as a tool for measuring student engagement in blended massive open online courses (MOOCs): A case study of university students in a developing country. Smart Learning Environments. 11(1), 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00306-9

[57] Paramma, M.A., Nurhuda, P., Tajrin, I.A., 2023. Exploring students' engagement in blended learning: Insights from ELT classroom at an Islamic university. Borneo International Journal of Islamic Studies. 5(2), 83–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21093/bijis.v5i2.6667

[58] Deng, Y., Sitthitikul, P., 2025. The effects of the guided dialogic peer feedback-based writing instruction on Chinese EFL students’ writing performance in an integrated blended learning environment. rEFLections. 32(1), 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v32i1.277804

[59] Khodabandeh, F., Khoshsima, H., Abbaszadeh, S., 2023. Investigating the implementation of peer scaffolding on speaking proficiency in blended versus traditional classes at the advanced level. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. 15(31), 83–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2023.57103.2548

[60] Li, L., 2022. Teaching presence predicts cognitive presence in blended learning during COVID-19: The chain mediating role of social presence and sense of community. Frontiers in Psychology. 13, 950687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.950687

[61] Cheng, X., Liu, Y., Wang, C., 2023. Understanding student engagement with teacher and peer feedback in L2 writing. System. 119, 103176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103176

[62] Feng, L., Sumettikoon, P., 2024. An empirical analysis of EFL teachers’ digital literacy in Chinese higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 21(1), 42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00474-1

[63] Setyadi, A., Pawirosumarto, S., Damaris, A., et al., 2025. Risk management, digital technology literacy, and modern learning environments in enhancing learning innovation performance: A framework for higher education. Education and Information Technologies. 30, 15095–15123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13380-4

[64] Garrison, D.R., Vaughan, N.D., 2008. Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA.

[65] Wang, J., 2024. In-service teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in English as a foreign language classroom in China: A multiple-case study. ECNU Review of Education. 7(2), 333–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231193692

[66] Simon, P.D., Jiang, J., Fryer, L.K., et al., 2024. An assessment of learning management system use in higher education: Perspectives from a comprehensive sample of teachers and students. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 30(2), 741–767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09734-5

[67] Zhu, M., Berri, S., Zhang, K., 2021. Effective instructional strategies and technology use in blended learning: A case study. Education and Information Technologies. 26(5), 6143–6161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10544-w

Downloads

How to Cite

He, F., Hussin, S., & Abdul Aziz , A. (2025). Effects of EFL Students’ Interaction on Their Subjective Learning Performance in UNIPUS-LMS Facilitated College English Learning. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(10), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i10.11039

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 10 (October 2025): In progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Fang He, Supyan Hussin, Azlina Abdul Aziz

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.