Teacher practices regarding teaching presence in Vietnamese tertiary online distance education programmes

The study addresses how Vietnamese teachers enact their practices (teaching presence) in online tertiary distance education programmes. In the wake of COVID-19, online and distance education expanded, but issues persist around student engagement, interaction quality, and self-directed learning demands. Teaching presence—encompassing design/organization, facilitation, and direct instruction within the Community of Inquiry framework—has been linked to student satisfaction, perceived learning, and engagement. Despite extensive work on teaching presence in online and blended mainstream courses, less is known about teachers’ perceived and enacted teaching presence in formal tertiary online distance education in Vietnam. The research question guiding this study is: How do Vietnamese teachers enact their practices in online tertiary distance education programmes?

The literature emphasizes teaching presence as central to online learning effectiveness, influencing satisfaction, perceived learning, and sense of community (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007; Anderson et al. 2001). Within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, teaching, cognitive, and social presence are intertwined, and distributed teaching presence underscores synchronous and asynchronous resource provision (Coll et al. 2009; Swan et al. 2020). Studies show strong correlations between teaching presence and student outcomes (Caskurlu et al. 2020; Law et al. 2019; Szeto 2015) and highlight challenges including insufficient interaction, design support, and heightened self-regulation demands (Xu and Xu 2019; Bovermann and Bastiaens 2020; Xiao 2018). Research on teachers’ perceptions finds teaching presence essential and influential for engagement, including in EFL and game-based contexts (Wang et al. 2021a; Mahmud et al. 2020; Ulla and Nguyen 2022). However, gaps remain regarding how categories of teaching presence are enacted in online distance programmes (as distinct from mainstream online/blended courses), how teachers organise practice across design, facilitation, and instruction, and how this relates to student engagement in Vietnamese higher education.

Design: A bounded single-institution qualitative case study examined how teachers organised teaching presence in an online distance course at a Vietnamese higher education institution. Reflexivity was practiced given researchers’ insider status. Participants: Five teachers (pseudonyms A–E) from varied disciplines at the Centre for E-Learning. Qualifications/experience included PhDs in Education (B, C), PhD in Economics (E), PhD in Business and Communications (D), and MBA/PhD candidate (A). Teaching experience ranged ~10–18 years; ~5 years in online distance education. Data collection: Convenience sampling; ethics per BERA (2018). Five semi-structured individual interviews via Zoom in Vietnamese (some English), 45–60 minutes each; audio-recorded. Interview protocols derived from CoI and literature. Transcripts were produced and cross-checked; member debriefing conducted. Data analysis: Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2022) using NVivo 12. Codes developed inductively and deductively around three CoI teaching presence dimensions: design/organisation, facilitation, and direct instruction (Garrison et al. 2000). Iterative coding, theme aggregation (e.g., agentic direct instruction including feedback and assessment), refinement, and member checking. Trustworthiness followed Lincoln & Guba (2007): credibility (member checking, prolonged engagement), dependability, confirmability, transferability via methodological transparency and reflexivity.

• Agentic design and organization: Teachers adhered to institutionally predesigned and approved course outlines and schedules without modification. Courses ran over 10 weeks with weekly topics, self-directed LMS-based learning materials, weekly tasks, and three required video conferences. Students received pre-programme training in learning strategies and technology. Teachers organised orientations detailing requirements, scaffolding, and assessments. A wide range of digital tools supported learning: synchronous (Zoom, Google Meet) and asynchronous/collaborative tools (Padlet, Google Docs) plus engagement/quiz tools (Mentimeter, Quizizz).
• Agentic facilitating discourse: Teachers orchestrated multiple interaction channels: LMS discussion forums (mandatory weekly reflections and peer responses), scheduled Zoom conferences for Q&A and content revision, and rapid-response social network groups (e.g., Zalo) to address issues. Teachers actively encouraged engagement, monitored and managed forum discussions, followed up on concerns, and kept reflective notes to adjust practice.
• Agentic direct instruction: Content delivery concentrated in the three video conferences, with selective coverage of topic clusters and exam preparation. A flipped approach used prerecorded lectures, scripts, and slides before Zoom sessions. Teachers provided frequent, multi-channel feedback (LMS boards, email, texts, Zalo), with some accessing the course site at least daily. Assessment was multifaceted: end-of-unit/chapter tasks, weekly quizzes tied to lectures, end-of-course examinations, plus evaluation of forum participation and video conference engagement. Overall emphasis was on learning support, engagement, and experience to build core knowledge and skills in a largely asynchronous environment.
• Cross-cutting emphasis: Facilitating discourse emerged as particularly central compared to direct instruction, reflecting limited synchronous opportunities and the dominance of LMS-based asynchronous learning.

Findings address the research question by showing that, within constrained, institutionally designed courses, teachers enact agency primarily through how they facilitate discourse and provide direct instruction and feedback. While they accept predetermined design/organization, they flexibly adapt interaction channels, feedback practices, and assessment to maximize student engagement and experience. This pattern nuances prior work that often elevates direct instruction, revealing in formal distance programmes a stronger centrality of facilitation due to limited synchronous contact and predominant asynchronous learning. The study reinforces the CoI assertion that teaching presence connects social and cognitive processes, suggesting that integrating all three presences—and aligning them with students’ psychological needs—can deepen engagement and outcomes. Pedagogically, the results imply the need for professional development that equips teachers to strategically balance design, facilitation, and instruction in distance contexts, leverage diverse technologies, and sustain high-quality interaction and feedback cycles.

The study contributes early, context-specific evidence on how teachers in Vietnamese tertiary online distance education enact teaching presence. Despite fixed institutional course designs, teachers demonstrated agency in facilitating discourse, delivering content, and assessing learning, with a pronounced emphasis on engagement-supportive facilitation. These practices underscore teaching presence as pivotal to improving students’ learning experiences in online distance formats and potentially informing mainstream and blended settings. Future directions include deepening integration of social, cognitive, and teaching presence in practice and professional development to further enhance motivation, engagement, and achievement.

• Limited sample and disciplinary breadth: Five teachers from one institution may not represent all disciplines; applicability may be lower for science/technology courses than for social sciences/humanities.
• Data sources: No classroom observations or teacher reflective journals were collected; reliance on interviews limits triangulation. Future research should include observations, reflective artifacts, and diverse methodologies to examine agentic adaptations and challenges more comprehensively.