Teaching beyond Platforms: Business Perspectives on Filipino Online English Teachers’ Transition to Freelancing

Digital transformation has reshaped global work and education, expanding online English teaching opportunities for Filipino educators. This study explores how teachers transition from platform-based employment to independent freelancing, emphasizing autonomy, identity reconstruction, entrepreneurial adaptation, and business sustainability. Using a qualitative descriptive design and reflexive thematic analysis, ten Filipino online English teachers shared their experiences navigating this transition. The findings revealed that the transition to freelancing was primarily driven by their desire for autonomy, fairness, and flexibility. Participants valued the freedom to design their schedules, teaching methods, and pricing strategies while developing direct relationships with students. However, freelancing also demanded emotional and cognitive resilience, as teachers faced challenges such as unstable internet connections, inconsistent client flow, and administrative workload. Three major themes emerged: reclaiming autonomy, navigating the emotional and cognitive demands of entrepreneurship, and building sustainable freelance careers through strategic differentiation and community support. The study proposes a Freelancing Adaptation Cycle that illustrates how Filipino online teachers evolve from algorithmic dependence to empowered teacherpreneurship, balancing professional independence, business awareness, and continuous learning.

freelancing, teacherpreneurship, digital labor, platform economy, professional autonomy

1. Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Balod, E. G. H. (2025). Digital platform, work precarity, and job quality among selected freelance digital assistants. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v15-i5/25320 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Binnie, C., & Wedlock, J. (2022). Self-directed learning: Exploring the continuous professional development of native English-speaking teachers in South Korea. Asia TEFL Journal, 19(3), 871–890. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.3.8.871 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 20(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cargill, M., & Burgess, S. (Eds.). (2017). Publishing research in English as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials. University of Adelaide Press. https://doi.org/10.20851/english-pathways [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ciolfi, L., & Lockley, E. (2018). From work to life and back again: Reconfiguring work–life boundaries in digital labour. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 27(3–6), 803–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9315-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Consalvo, A. (2023). Kinds of interviews in qualitative research. University of Texas at Tyler. https://www.uttyler.edu [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dedema, M., & Rosenbaum, H. (2024). Sociotechnical issues in the platform-mediated gig economy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24868 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hall, S., & Liebenberg, L. (2024). Qualitative description as an introductory method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241242264 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kirchherr, J., & Charles, K. (2018). Enhancing the sample diversity of snowball samples: Recommendations from a research project on anti-dam movements in Southeast Asia. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0201710. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201710 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kolade, O., & Owoseni, A. (2022). Employment 5.0: The work of the future and the future of work. Technology in Society, 71, 102086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102086 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lasekan, O. A., Malik, R., & Méndez, C. M. (2020). A conceptual research model for investigating the impact of online teacherpreneurship education on students’ teacherpreneurial competencies and intentions in preservice teacher education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(12), 163–189. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Liu, D., Chaemchoy, S., & Siribanpitak, P. (2024). Unlocking teacherpreneur potential in higher education: Validating a competency measurement scale. Education Sciences, 14(9), 1005. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Marcial, D., Maypa, A. L. Z., Villariza, C. R., & Apao, G. (2024). Profiles of Filipino teachers and their online teaching competencies. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 99(1), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v99i1.5535 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mirza, M. S., & Rashid, S. (2024). Effect of online cooperative learning on student engagement in ESL contexts. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 44–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Muslimin, A. I., Mukminatien, N., & Ivone, F. M. (2024). Cyber fatigue in the classroom: Unravelling the complex web of technostress among EFL teachers. Education and Linguistics Knowledge Journal (Edulink), 6(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.32503/edulink.v6i1.5192 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Pablo, J. M. (2022). Assessing the English grammar proficiency of online Filipino English teachers. International Journal on Open and Distance e-Learning, 8(2), 23–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Panaligan, J. H., & Curran, N. M. (2022). “We are cheaper, so they hire us”: Linguistic hierarchies and labor inequality in global English teaching. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 26(2), 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12543 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pontillas, M. S. (2021). Opportunities and challenges of a Filipino educator in a home-based online EFL industry. Journal of Education, Management and Development Studies, 1(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.52631/jemds.v1i1.21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pulignano, V., Domecka, M., Muszyński, K., Vermeerbergen, L., & Riemann, M. (2021). Creative labour in COVID-19: Precarity and adaptation in the platform economy. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3832553 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). Consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Rerung, M. K. T. (2021). Influence of social media in learning English. Journal FAME, 4(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.30813/fame.v4i1.2798 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sabidalas, M. A., & Esparar, J. (2022). Unfolding the saga of online ESL teachers: Narratives of resilience and adaptation. Psychology & Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(9), 701–709. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7341739 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. World Bank. (2022). Philippines learning poverty brief. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/publication/philippines-learning-poverty-brief [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Wright, N. (2024). Male teachers’ perceptions in ELT: Exploring gendered dynamics in global teaching markets. TESOL Quarterly, 58(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3311 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Empowering SME Performance Through Social Media: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Malaysian Manufacturing SMEs
• Effective School Bullying Prevention Strategies: A Thematic Review
• Impact of Workplace Conflict on the Operational Performance of Deposit Money Banks in Enugu State.
• Towards Digital Financial Solutions: A Conceptual Model of SME Strategies and Strategic Development
• Effect of Work-Life Balance and Affective Commitment on Employee Performance in the Hotel Industry in Plateau State