Cognitive and Interactive Factors Influencing Students’ Critical Thinking in Online Distance Learning: The Mediating Role of Student Engagement in Myanmar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64297/jmrsmet.v2i2.53Keywords:
Online Distance Learning, Critical Thinking, Student Engagement, Cognitive Factors, MyanmarAbstract
This study examines the effects of cognitive and interactive factors on students’ critical thinking in online distance learning (ODL) in Myanmar, with a particular focus on the mediating role of student engagement. A quantitative research design was employed, and data were collected from 365 students across different educational levels using a structured questionnaire. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS was used to analyze the relationships among interaction, analytical skills, problem-solving ability, reflective evaluation, student engagement, and critical thinking. The results indicate that interaction, reflective evaluation, and student engagement have significant positive effects on students’ critical thinking, while analytical skills and problem-solving ability do not show direct effects. Reflective evaluation was found to have the strongest influence on critical thinking. Mediation analysis reveals that student engagement fully mediates the effects of analytical skills and problem-solving ability, partially mediates the effect of reflective evaluation, and does not mediate the interaction. These findings highlight the importance of interactive, reflective, and engaging learning environments in enhancing critical thinking in ODL. The study provides theoretical and practical implications for improving online education in Myanmar and similar developing contexts.
References
Hamid, M., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. (2017). Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Criterion Versus HTMT Criterion. IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/doi :10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163
2. Akpen, C., Asaolu, S., & Atobatele, S. (2024). Impact of Online Learning on Student's Performance and Engagement: A Systematic Review. Discov Educ, 3, 205. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00253-0
3. Arbuckle, J. (2016). IBM SPSS AMOS 24 User’s Guide. IBM Corp.
4. Bates, T. (2014). Open and Distance Learning in Myanmar. https://www.tonybates.ca.
5. Bhuttah , T., Xusheng, Q., & Abid, M. (2024). Enhancing Student Critical Thinking and Learning Outcomes Through Innovative Pedagogical Approaches in Higher Education: The Mediating Role of Inclusive Leadership. Sci Rep, 14, 24362.
6. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency Remote Teaching in Higher Education: Mapping the First Global Online Semester. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 18(1), 50(1), 50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x
7. Bower, M. (2019). Technology-Mediated Learning Theory. British Journal Education Technology, 50, 1035-1048.
8. Cecilia, K., & Katherine, K. (2021). Reflection Literacy: A Multilevel Perspective on the Challenges of Using Reflections in Higher Education Through a Comprehensive Literature Review. Educational Research Review, 32.
9. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22.
10. Dixson, M. (2015). Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/19. 10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
11. Facione, P. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment.
12. Gaskin, J., & Lim, J. (2016). Model Fit Measures, AMOS Plugin.
13. Goldie, J. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge Learning Theory for the Digital Age? Medical teacher, 38, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661
14. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2013). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
15. Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
16. Hu, J., & Xiao, W. (2025). What are the Influencing Factors of Online Learning Engagement? A Systematic Literature Review. Frontiers in psychology, 16, 1542652. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1542652
17. Jonassen, D. (2011). Learning to SolveProblems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-solving Learning Environments. Routledge.
18. Kember, D., Leung, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., . . . Wong, M. (2000). Development of a Questionnaire to Measure the Level of Reflective Thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 381-395. https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/713611442
19. Kline, R. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4rd ed.). Guilford Press.
20. Kök, F., & Duman, B. (2023). The Effect of Problem-based Learning on Problem-solving Skills in English Language Teaching. Journal of Pedagogical Research. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202318642
21. Kok, X.-F., Pua, C., Puah, S., & Devilly, O. (2025). The Mediating Role of Student Engagement in the Relationship between Teacher and Digital Support and Learner Satisfaction in Blended Learning Environments at Higher Education. British Educational Research Journal, 51, 1313–1341. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4123
22. Li, J., & Xue, E. (2023). Dynamic Interaction between Student Learning Behaviour and Learning Environment: Meta-Analysis of Student Engagement and Its Influencing Factors. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 13(1), 59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/bs1301
23. Lynn , H., Mathew , R., & Nadin , B. (2025). Social Opportunities, Learning Practices, and Performance in Metaverse and Virtual World: A Comparative Scoping Review in Higher Education. Computers & Education,, 239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105391
24. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. (2018). Engagement Matters: Student Perceptions on the Importance of Engagement Strategies in the Online Learning Environment. Online Learning, 22, 205-222.
25. Miao, J., & Ma, L. (2022). Students' Online Interaction, Self-regulation, and Learning Engagement in Higher Education: The Importance of Social Presence to Online Learning. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 815220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815220
26. Ooi, K. (2013). TQM Practices, Knowledge Sharing and Innovation Performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(6), 1013–1035. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2012-0096
27. Rasheed, R., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. (2020). Challenges in the Online Component of Blended Learning. Computers & Education, 144, 103701.
28. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of Composite Reliability for Congeneric Measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
29. Redmond, P., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An Online Engagement Framework. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 183–204.
30. Richardson, J., Caskurlu, S., & Lv, J. (2017). Social Presence in Relation to Students’ Satisfaction and Learning in the Online Environment: A Meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 72(3), 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
31. Rusmin, L., Misrahayu, Y., Pongpalilu, F., Radiansyah, R., & Dwiyanto, D. (2024). Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in the 21st Century. Journal of Social Science, 1, 144-162. https://doi.org/10.59613/svhy3576
32. Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. Bloomsbury.
33. Tiruneh, D., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of Critical Thinking Instruction in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Intervention Studies. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n1p1
34. UNESCO. (2020). Myanmar Education Response to COVID-19. UNESCO.
35. Wang, M., Mohd , M., & Rosli, R. (2025). A Systematic Literature Review on Analytical Thinking Development in Mathematics Education: Trends Across Time and Countries. Frontiers in psychology, 16, 1523836. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.152
36. World Bank. (2021). Myanmar: Education Sector Overview. World Bank.
37. Zhu, C. (2012). Student Satisfaction, Performance, and Knowledge Construction. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 127–136.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 PWINT MYAT PHYU (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
