The closure of educational institutions across Thailand, as well as the maintenance of social distancing as a preventive and precautionary step against COVID-19, has thrown a wrench in the traditional method of teaching, which has given way to online learning. As a result, most online learning is managed through a learning management system, the most popular of which is Google Classroom. The purpose of this study was to find out how students felt about using levels as a virtual learning tool. One hundred and eleven second-year Thai EFL students from 7 majors who are taking English for Work participated in this study. They were mostly female (79.28%) and between 19 and 23 years old. They had attended online learning on Google Classroom. To obtain participants’ feedback, a Google Form questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were used. Means and Standard deviation were used as descriptive statistics. According to the results of the study, students indicated positive attitudes towards using Google Classroom in the aspect of ease of use (Mean = 4.41), usefulness (Mean = 4.12), and intention to use (Mean = 4.02). The results showed Google Classroom was well perceived by students. They perceived Google Classroom to be useful in submitting assignments and reminding class announcements. The results help teachers to consider arranging activities such as live online tutoring and discussion using Google Classroom to enhance students’ learning engagement or using blended learning (integrating online learning mode with face-to-face classroom).

The present study aims to explore critical thinking from EFL Thai students’ perspectives in collaborative writing activity. The subjects were 32 second-year English major students composing paragraph writing in the Writing II course. They were divided into three groups based on their English proficiency: advanced, intermediate, and novice, and data was collected using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The critical thinking skills questionnaire was utilized to collect quantitative data, and the results were analyzed using Mean and Standard deviation. For qualitative data, an interview was used to collect critical thinking skills practice of six students randomly selected. The quantitative results revealed that the highest critical thinking skills practice was found in analyzing (Mean=3.47, SD=1.15), followed by evaluating (Mean=3.44, SD=1.27), and creating (Mean=3.34, SD=.03), respectively. For qualitative results, it was found that the students in the high level of English proficiency group reported they practiced critical thinking by analyzing, evaluating, and creating. They produced a new sentence and a paragraph, selected the best ideas, and categorized the supporting details based on information and ideas from peers. Regarding intermediate and novice level groups, they reported identically that they frequently practiced analyzing and evaluating. Analyzing and assessing were two critical thinking abilities that were commonly utilized. They have to do with comparing and choosing content, as well as elements of arguments and supporting statements. As a result, collaborative writing appeared to promote pupils to use critical thinking skills when writing.

Collaborative writing is acknowledged as one of the most beneficial writing exercises for improving writing skills. This study aimed to look at the errors of online collaborative writing using Google Docs and face-to-face collaborative writing, as well as to find out how satisfied students were with both modes. Purposive sampling was used to pick 32 Thai second-year English major students (19 females, 13 males) from Writing II. A record form of the error kinds derived from Norrish (1983) a questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview were used as instruments. Frequency and percentage were the statistics used. The data revealed that 346 errors were discovered in online mode, while 389 errors were discovered in face-to-face mode, which was at a higher level. The most common types in the online mode were sentence fragments, while the most common kinds in the face-to-face mode were determiners. Grammars were presented to students in both modes, followed by lexis and mechanics. Furthermore, the findings indicated that the students reported being highly satisfied with online mode using Google Docs (X ̅ = 3.50), followed by face-to-face setting (X ̅ = 3.45). Students also had an overall positive feedback on Google Docs and found it useful in terms of writing anywhere and anytime. Based on the results of this study, students in online co-produced texts better than in face-to-face mode. Time independence and features of Google Docs might be the crucial factors which facilitated the students’ writing in online mode.

This study focused on comparing the effects on 32 students’ argumentative writing qualities when they worked alone or collaborated in pairs and groups and explored the students’ opinions towards critical thinking across different writing activities. The 32 students were divided into groups of four (n=8), pairs (n=16) and individuals (n=32). Their papers were rated in terms of content, language use, and organization by three raters. The research employed argumentative writing rubrics, semi-structured interview, and observation. From the total of 15 points, the novice learners gained the highest scores when writing in groups (X ̅ = 11.22), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.19) and individuals (X ̅ = 8.98). The intermediate learners also gained the highest scores in group work (X ̅ = 11.50), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.32), and individual work (X ̅ = 9.04), respectively. Similar to the advanced level, they had the highest scores when working in groups (X ̅ = 11.95), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.45), and individuals (X ̅ = 9.45). The findings indicated that group work led to the highest scores in all proficiency levels and in groups, the students’ critical thinking improved regarding analyzing, evaluating and creating information when they brainstormed, shared and discussed all information. In pairs, the students also demonstrated that their critical thinking developed but only in analyzing from sharing information with a partner. In individuals, all proficiency levels reported that critical thinking was not developed as no interaction with peers.