Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

A snapshot of the readiness for e-learning among in-service teachers

prior to the pandemic-related transition to e-learning in Turkey
€
Murat Çınar a, *, Murat Ekici b, Omer Demir c
a
Borsa Istanbul Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School, Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education, Adana, Turkey
b
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Uşak University, Uşak, Turkey
c
Department of Computer Technologies, Ço €lemerik Vocational School of Higher Education, Hakkari University, Hakkari, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s

COVID-19 entails e-learning, highlighting teachers' proficiency in e-learning.

Teachers have a mid-level of readiness, yet a high need for training in e-learning.

Males, computing-related majors, and private schools are readier for e-learning.

Teachers with high internet and e-learning experience are readier for e-learning.

Teaching level and experience affect e-learning readiness, but not consistently.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Owing to the coronavirus outbreak, face-to-face educational activities have been curtailed and there has
Received 5 October 2020 been a rapid switch to e-learning environments. It is a matter of critical importance; therefore, how
Received in revised form ready teachers are for this transition. This study presents a snapshot of the readiness of Turkey's in-
30 March 2021
service teachers for teaching online. Some 555 teachers, from pre-school to high school, participated
Accepted 2 August 2021
Available online 17 August 2021
in the study. The results indicated a medium-level of e-learning readiness and a pressing need for the
appropriate training. Teachers' readiness differed significantly according to gender, major, school-type,
professional experience, teaching level, e-learning experience and Internet usage.
Keywords:
E-learning
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E-learning readiness
Teacher competencies
K-12 teachers
COVID-19

1. Introduction enhancement of administrative efficiency, and a reduction in sus-

The concept of e-learning, which accelerated its influence in our
lives with the developments in the World-Wide-Web (www) dur-
ing the mid-1990s, means the acquisition of knowledge and
learning through electronic media, without time and location re-
strictions (Garrison, 2011). E-learning has been widely used in
educational settings because of the advantages it provides, such as
ubiquity, flexibility and cost efficiency. More specifically, the key
benefits of e-learning include extended access to education, the
presentation of high-quality and multimodal learning content, the
* Corresponding author. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education,
Turkey.
E-mail address: murat_cinar@rocketmail.com (M. Çınar).
tainability costs (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). On the other hand, the
impediments to e-learning include a sense of isolation, the need for
student independence e namely, the necessity for self-
management skills and student motivation e effort and time-
demands, strict adherence to technology, challenges in student
monitoring and assessment, and the requirement of student/
teacher readiness (Pulham & Graham, 2018; Zhang & Lin, 2020). All
in all, since the pros of e-learning outweigh the cons, it has been
used extensively in educational environments. Although e-learning
practices in K-12 were less prevalent compared to higher education,
it has burgeoned recently as an alternative to face-to-face educa-
tion across the world (Rakes & Dunn, 2015). Within K-12 settings, e-
learning is mostly used to support face-to-face education (Beasley
& Beck, 2017). However, the number of schools that provide fully
online education e namely, cyber schools e is also substantial.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103478
0742-051X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O.
As is well known, due to the risk of COVID-19 infection,
educational institutions in most countries temporarily halted in-
class instruction and started to conduct remote teaching, in the
spring term of 2020. However, while many countries decided to
suspend education until the end of the academic year, some
countries e such as Germany, France and Greece e decided to
resume school activities gradually, as of May 2020. The transition to
e-learning has become inevitable as a way of avoiding the learning
loss arising from the physical lockdown of schools. Nevertheless,
COVID-19 is predicted to cause learning gaps among students by
directly or indirectly affecting their learning, including the devel-
opment of their cognitive and non-cognitive skills (Di Pietro et al.,
2020). To ensure the continuity of education, interrupted due to the
lack of student participation or temporary closure of schools
throughout the pandemic period, UNICEF (United Nations Inter-
national Children's Emergency Fund) placed particular emphasis on
planning with regard to e-learning strategies, assignments and
home study practices, the presentation of learning content on
broadband channels such as radio, podcast and television, tracking
students' progress on a daily/weekly basis, and the development of
accelerated education strategies (Bender, 2020). According to offi-
cial figures, COVID-19 has had the greatest global impact of any
emergency situation in history (United Nations, 2020). Approxi-
mately 1.6 billion students from 190 countries have been forced to
suspend their in-class education and move to alternative learning
modalities. The temporary closure of schools has led to efforts by
nearly all countries around the world to ensure continuity of
learning. As a result, many governments have shown great interest
in the use of information and communication technology (ICT), and
have encouraged their teachers to convey instruction in online
environments. Governments have resorted to various alternatives
for the delivery of education, including traditional distance edu-
cation tools such as radio, television and printed materials, in
addition to the Internet, though they have been hampered in some
cases by limited connection network infrastructure. Despite varia-
tions according to school level and geographical region, the most
common distance education strategies have been online (especially
in Asia, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and Oceania) and TV
broadcasting (more common in Africa) (United Nations, 2020). It
should be noted here that the term e-learning (rather than online
learning) was preferred throughout the study, due to the fact that
TV/radio broadcasting, which is not online but electronic, has also
been used extensively in K-12 settings during the pandemic period.
Based on the fact that the Internet has been the technology most
frequently employed in the pandemic period, “One laptop per
child” projects have accomplished an important mission in real-
izing a digital transformation worldwide (Dog an et al., 2016).
While in the past e-learners have mostly been academically
talented and motivated independent learners who prefer to
continue their education in a technology-mediated way in line with
their conscious preferences (Barbour & Reeves, 2009), the current
pandemic period has pushed all face-to-face learners towards e-
learning as a matter of necessity. More than ever, this has high-
lighted the importance of the teacher's role in e-learning. While
most K-12 students and teachers have experienced a new learning
model and the use of new technology skills, they have also had to
struggle with a strong sense of isolation in their home as a
requirement of social distancing (Kaden, 2020). Therefore, inter-
personal interaction in education has become more precious than
ever in the pandemic period. An effective online teaching experi-
ence and improved student outcomes are also closely related to
appropriate instructional design and planning. It is necessary to
design learning actively and collaboratively in the information so-
ciety. It is not a reasonable approach simply to make online
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478
technologies a carrier of traditional pedagogies. It is still ques-
tionable how high a quality of experience e-learning can provide. E-
learning has always been criticized for its lack of interaction
(Moore, 1989; Park & Kim, 2020). However, the lack of interper-
sonal interaction, especially between teachers and students, might
stem from individuals not being ready to use online tools to create
interactive opportunities (Keskin et al., 2020).
Considering the opportunities offered by e-learning, integrating
it with face-to-face education to ensure the best educational
practices seems inevitable (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012). How-
ever, teachers' lack of interest in e-learning and their reluctance to
pursue online teaching opportunities are often criticized and
considered to be major obstacles (Rakes & Dunn, 2015). E-learning
cannot be seen as a simple shift in the delivery of instruction.
Teachers need functional information about how to deal with the
differences in delivery. As e-learning has become widespread in K-
12 settings, research on this has started to become data-driven,
rather than theoretical (Amsen et al., 2019). However, there is still
a dearth of studies on the preparedness of K-12 teachers for online
instruction.
1.1. E-learning readiness and the TPACK framework
Although the characteristics required of teachers in distance and
face-to-face educational settings are similar, the instructional
strategies, roles and responsibilities in these settings can differ to
some extent, depending on delivery mode (Hawkins et al., 2012).
This difference is embodied in the concept of e-learning readiness.
First of all, what is meant by e-learning readiness must be clearly
defined. The concept of readiness has been studied extensively
from different perspectives in the literature, ever since the law of
readiness appeared in the theory of connectionism proposed by
Thorndike (1913). According to Thorndike, learning is facilitated by
the learner's readiness. In the current study, the concept of readi-
ness is addressed in terms of e-learning. Lopes (2007) defines it as
an organization's or individual's ability to make use of the advan-
tages of e-learning. Likewise, Kaur & Abas, 2004 define it as an
individual's ability to benefit from multimedia technologies and e-
learning resources in order to increase the quality of learning. In
short, it can be defined as an ability to take advantage of e-learning.
In line with these definitions, it was revealed that there is a rela-
tionship between e-learning readiness and learning outcomes
(Keramati et al., 2011; Kruger-Ross & Waters, 2013). In order to
improve our understanding of the concept of the e-learning read-
iness of teachers, and its importance of it for teacher training, the
place of the concept in the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge) model can be utilized. First, however, the
model needs an explanation. By adding the teacher's technological
knowledge to Shulman's (1986) PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowl-
edge) framework, Mishra and Koehler (2006) proposed another
framework in order to classify the knowledge of teachers. They
divided teacher knowledge into three types - technological, peda-
gogical and content knowledge. According to this framework,
teachers are supposed to be good at these three knowledge do-
mains and their intersections. In terms of technological knowledge,
they are supposed to know about the technological tools/in-
novations that can facilitate learning. Teachers should also have
knowledge regarding how to teach effectively and efficiently based
on their pedagogical training. Lastly, the subject-specific knowl-
edge of teachers is designated by the phrase ‘content knowledge’. In
TPACK, all teachers represent, or should represent, an intersection
of these three knowledge domains. Considering the TPACK frame-
work and the concept of e-learning readiness together, within the
scope of e-learning, it would appear that the technological
knowledge domain of teachers is related to their e-learning
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O.
readiness, owing to the fact that competence in the use of tech-
nology is the most common component of the models in relation to
the e-learning readiness of teachers (Demir & Yurdugül, 2015b). In
short, the concept of e-learning readiness basically represents the
“T” of the TPACK model, especially when it comes to the distance
delivery mode. Thus, it should be central to teacher training ac-
tivities and an integral part of teachers' knowledge domain.
1.2. Justification and purpose
Enhancing the e-learning readiness of teachers might help
mitigate the chronic problems of e-learning, such as the lack of
interaction and transactional distance (Moore, 1989). The integra-
tion of e-learning technologies into education is a plausible way of
doing this, one which can also increase the professional develop-
ment capacities of teachers (Krasnova & Shurygin, 2020), being
what is meant by “ongoing professional development”. According
to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE,
2020), development of this kind is one of the fourteen essential
conditions “to effectively leverage technology for learning”.
Therefore, as a result of professional development activities,
teachers are supposed to be “skilled personnel” according to the
ISTE's essential conditions, which signifies being ready for e-
learning. In this sense, a great accumulation of academic knowl-
edge is needed to promote this preparedness. However, the
research into teachers' readiness for e-learning is very limited
(Demir & Yurdugül, 2015b). Besides, academic studies on teachers'
e-learning readiness are mostly about pre-service teachers (e.g.,
Çakır & Horzum, 2015; Fırat & Bozkurt, 2020; Sırakaya & Yurdugül,
2016; Talsik, 2015; Yag €
cı, Sırakaya, & Ozüdo ru, 2015; Yurdugül &
g roughly 0.05% of the entire active teacher population (private
Demir, 2017). This situation stems from the fact that undergradu-
ate students are an easily-accessible population. However, the
characteristics of pre-service teachers are a lot different from those
of in-service teachers. Therefore, the ability to generalize the
findings from these studies to in-service teachers is limited. As for
studies about educators, these are primarily concerned with aca-
demic staff (e.g., Demir & Yurdugül, 2015a; Horvitz et al., 2015;
Moftakhari, 2013; Robinia & Anderson, 2010; Soydal et al., 2011),
not with K-12 teachers. Therefore, more academic studies collect-
ing data from K-12 teachers on e-learning readiness should be
carried out, to show the way of increasing their e-learning readi-
ness levels. The reason behind this need is that teachers are pivotal
components of the education system. If teachers' e-learning read-
iness levels are insufficient, the success rate of e-learning initiatives
will be very low (Moftakhari, 2013). Moreover, if teachers are not
ready for e-learning, it does not matter how ready their students
are for it. In this regard, a frequent criticism in the literature is that
the very first thing that organizations planning to start an e-
learning initiative should consider is budget, when it should be the
levels of e-learning readiness on the part of the stakeholders
(Soydal et al., 2011). In conclusion, for e-learning initiatives to
succeed, it is of critical importance for teachers to be thoroughly
ready for the e-learning process. Therefore, the purpose of this
study is to determine teachers' e-learning readiness levels in terms
of various variables, such as e-learning experience and professional
experience. The novelty of this study is that it measures teachers' e-
learning readiness levels shortly before the start of the mandatory
transition to e-learning at the K-12 level in Turkey, presenting the
weaknesses in need of improvement. To this end, the following
research questions were framed.
1) What are the e-learning readiness levels of K-12 teachers in
Turkey?
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478
2) Are any of the differences in teachers' e-learning readiness
levels statistically significant in terms of:
a) gender,
b) major,
c) school type,
d) teaching level,
e) professional experience,
f) the number of courses taken through e-learning,
g) the number of courses taught through e-learning, and
h) daily usage of the Internet in Turkey?
2. Method
2.1. Research design
This study employs a survey research design. Survey research
aims to provide a quantitative or numerical description of a pop-
ulation by studying a sample of that population (Creswell, 2014). In
this design, information is collected through the responses to
questions (Check & Schutt, 2011). By using multiple-choice or
closed questions, researchers can make generalizations about the
target population of focus and observe the patterns of response
(Cohen et al., 2018).
2.2. Participants and population
Since schools in Turkey were closed due to COVID-19, it was not
feasible to gather data through a random sampling method.
Therefore, the convenience sampling method was preferred. The
participants in the study were 555 volunteer in-service teachers
working in various regions of Turkey. This number constitutes
schools included) in Turkey. 44.7% of the teachers were male
(n ¼ 248), while 55.3% of them were female (n ¼ 307). 14.4% of the
participants were working at private schools (n ¼ 80), whereas
85.6% of them were working at public schools (n ¼ 475). The dis-
tribution of the participants according to teaching level and pro-
fessional experience is given in Table 1.
About half of the participants (49.7%, n ¼ 276) had not taken any
online courses, and more than three-quarters of the participants
(85.7%, n ¼ 474) had not taught any courses through e-learning.
Most of the participants spend more than 3 h online per day, while
5.9% of the participants (n ¼ 33) spend less than 1 h online, 38.6% of
them 1e3 h (n ¼ 214), 31.4% of them 4e5 h (n ¼ 174), 15.7% of them
6e7 h (n ¼ 87), and 8.5% of them spent 8 h and above (n ¼ 47)
online per day.
2.3. Context of the study
E-learning is quite prevalent in K-12 settings in Turkey because
of the existence of the EBA (Education Informatics Network) plat-
form. Thus, Turkish teachers were partially aware of the notion of e-
learning. Mostly with the help of the EBA platform, e-learning is
often implemented together with face-to-face learning. This is
called a mixed or hybrid method. E-learning is sometimes
embedded in a popular concept called flipped learning, which is
basically dividing the course content online and face-to-face parts,
and delivering direct instruction through video-based lectures.
However, it is almost never characterized as solely “distance”. The
main reason behind this situation is that face-to-face K-12 educa-
tion is mandatory throughout the country, thereby making the
solely e-learning option impossible, and leaving mixed learning as
the only feasible option. As a consequence, COVID-19 has been a
game-changer. Due to the pandemic, the MEB (Ministry of National
Education) in Turkey announced the start of a mandatory
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O.
Table 1
Distribution of participants in relation to professional experience and teaching level.
Teaching level Professional experience in years
Less than 5 years 5e10 years
Pre-school 11 7 4
Primary school 17 16
Middle school 37 54
High school 24 26
Other a 2 5
Total (n) 91 108
Pct. (%) 16.40 19.46
a
The category of ‘other’ comprises 21 teachers who did not clearly specify their teaching level.
transformation of face-to-face courses into e-learning ones at pre-
school to K-12 levels. This might have caught teachers unprepared,
as well as other stakeholders who are used to mixed learning, not
solely e-learning.
Following the first COVID-19 cases being detected in the second
week of March in Turkey, face-to-face education at the K-12 level
was suspended on March 16, 2020. One week after the
announcement, K-12 students started to be educated asynchro-
nously via TV channels and the EBA platform. After that, as of the
4th week of the e-learning process (April 13, 2020), synchronous e-
lessons started to be taught to 8th and 12th-grade students, who
are at the teaching levels to take central national exams, as well as
preparatory class students in high schools. As from the 6th week,
synchronous lessons were made available at 3rd grade level and
above. To support their learning, a free mobile Internet package
(ranging between 6 and 8 GB) was provided to students and
teachers for use in accessing the EBA platform via the website and
€
mobile application. In addition, the OSYM (Student Selection and
Placement Center) and MEB announced that the topics taught with
the e-learning method would not be tested in the central place-
ment exams, thus strongly implying that e-courses were not as
effective as face-to-face courses. The fact is that e-learning imple-
mentation during the pandemic in Turkey has been on a massive
scale. A centralized distribution approach has been adopted, with
little or no interaction at all. To illustrate this point, especially
through the TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Corporation), which
is a state TV channel, pre-prepared lectures have been broadcast
twice a day for each teaching level. These lectures are a bit shorter
than face-to-face lessons. In these pre-prepared lectures, experts in
the related fields mostly use direct instruction method, often uti-
lizing a whiteboard to organize and visualize the content. This mass
content delivery approach via TRT broadcast was adopted due to
the fact that not every K-12 student had access to the Internet and a
personal computer in Turkey. The centralized e-content production
and delivery policy of the MEB somehow made the K-12 teachers
inactive during the pandemic period e-learning. As a result, they
missed a unique opportunity to experience and get ready for e-
learning.
During the pandemic-period in Turkey, the EBA platform has
played a critical role at the K-12 level. As a matter of fact, it has been
a critical part of the five dimensions of the FATIH (Movement for
Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology) project,
which has been heavily criticized for a number of reasons (Cengiz,
2020). FATIH is a government-funded, large-scale project aimed at
integrating ICTs into the education system nationwide. It has five
main dimensions: 1) establishing hardware and software infra-
structure, 2) providing and managing educational e-content (EBA),
3) encouraging the effective use of ICT in teaching/learning pro-
grams, 4) providing in-service training of teachers and 5) ensuring
the conscious, safe, manageable and measurable use of ICT (Ekici
et al., 2016). Nowadays, public interest in the FATIH project seems
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478
Total (n) Pct. (%)
11e20 years More than 20 years
1 23 4.14
54 27 114 20.54
72 14 177 31.89
103 67 220 39.64
10 4 21 3.78
243 113 555
43.78 20.36 100
to have dramatically declined, yet just the opposite is true of the
EBA platform. It is one of the systems that was resorted to in the
rush that followed the mandatory transition to a solely e-learning
method. The quality of the content in it is still questionable (Yıldız
& Gündüz, 2019), but it has lots of interactive and game-based
learning materials across a wide variety of teaching levels, cour-
ses and topics, along with other services associated with learning
management systems (LMSs), such as testing, communication, etc.
Nevertheless, due to the sheer number of active users (18 million),
permission for students to access the EBA platform has been ar-
ranged in such a way that they are only allowed to connect to it
according to their teaching level at certain hours of the day (except
for Sundays), to reduce the burden of data traffic on the web servers
of the platform. Nonetheless, teachers, parents and preparatory
students in high schools may access it at any time.
Since EBA constitutes the flagship of the MEB's preparation for
e-learning, more information is needed on how it works. To sum
up, the EBA platform, totally free of charge, is a kind of national-
level LMS and e-content repository. EBA was initially considered
as a digital content pool to be dynamically expanded by teachers.
The fact that the extent to which teachers were ready to produce
digital content at that time was unclear may help explain why EBA
is not being used by teachers as intended. At first, the gap in the
course contents was mostly resolved with centralized solutions, but
EBA has been evolving continuously over the past eight years. Since
the pandemic began, a live session feature has been added. The
content for many new courses has also been provided, although still
not enough. The platform also offers a virtual classroom for
teachers and students to perform educational activities in distance
or blended learning settings, and there are tools for developing an
educational social network.
2.4. Data collection tools
Two data collection tools were administered in this study. The
first was a personal information form including items such as
gender, school type, familiarity with e-learning, etc. The second
was the e-learning readiness scale developed by Demir (2015)
drawing on Moftakhari (2013). It is a 7-point Likert type scale
with alternatives ranging between 1 (That is not suitable for me at
all) and 7 (That is totally suitable for me). It is composed of 35 items
listed under four factors. These factors are ICT usage self-efficacy (5
items), self-confidence in e-learning (10 items), attitude towards e-
learning (16 items), and education need towards e-learning (4
items). It should be noted here that the factor of education need
towards e-learning is a reverse one: the higher the score obtained
from the factor, the lower the e-learning readiness of the respon-
dent. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients regarding the factors of
the original scale were calculated as 0.89, 0.92, 0.94 and 0.83,
respectively, while the overall Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient
of the original scale was found to be 0.92. In the present study, the
4
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O. Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478

Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients of the factors were calculated

as 0.93, 0.95, 0.93 and 0.82, respectively, while the Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficient of the overall scale was found to be 0.94.

2.5. Data collection process

Approval for the study was obtained from the ethical committee
of Uşak University in Turkey. The data were collected via an online
form comprising of a personal information form and an e-learning
readiness scale. The authors asked their colleagues to fill out the
form and disseminate it to their own colleagues. In addition, a link
to the form was shared on the academic pages/groups of social
networking sites, such as Facebook and email groups. This form was
checked by two subject-matter experts in the field of instructional
technology to ensure face validity. The instrument was adminis-
tered to teachers as from the first week of the mandatory transition
to e-learning. The data collection process was planned to take less
Fig. 1. The status of teachers' factor-wise e-learning readiness levels.
than a week (6 days) to avoid the impact of the e-learning expe-
rience of teachers on their readiness levels. During this period, e-
learning activities were almost entirely subject to a centralized (M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.31) are comparatively low. In relation to the
approach. overall e-learning readiness level of teachers, it is slightly below the
mid-level of the scale (M ¼ 3.97, SD ¼ 1.07). Here, it should be noted
2.6. Data analysis that there is a negative relationship between the education need
towards e-learning and overall e-learning readiness.
First, the text items in the scale were transformed into numer-
ical values. Some items in the personal information form were
3.2. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to gender (RQ
merged if the number in the corresponding category was too small
2a)
for statistical analysis. Following this, reverse items in the e-
learning readiness scale were re-coded. After that, factor scores
An independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the
were calculated by averaging the related items. In order to describe
effect of gender on e-learning readiness, and it was found that there
the data, mean, standard deviation, frequencies, and percentiles
was a statistically significant difference in comparisons between
were preferred. The e-learning readiness level was a dependent
male and female teachers (t(543.730) ¼ 4.491, p < 0.001, d ¼ 0.380)
variable, whereas all the information collected in the personal in-
(see Table 2). Males had higher scores (M ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 1.00) than
formation form were independent variables. The data were normal
females (M ¼ 3.79, SD ¼ 1.09).
in accordance with the central limit theorem (Kwak & Kim, 2017),
so parametric tests were performed. To answer the research
questions, independent samples t-tests and analyses of variance 3.3. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to major (RQ
2b)
were conducted. To check the homogeneity of the variance, Lev-
ene's test was used. The data fulfilled the assumption of the ho-
An independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the
mogeneity of the variance except for some independent samples t-
tests. In analyses of variance, if the results were statistically sig- effect of the major on e-learning readiness. The results showed that
there was a statistically significant difference in comparisons be-
nificant, the Tukey HSD test was performed post-hoc to check the
direction of the difference. The Tukey HSD test was preferred, since tween teachers with computing and non-computing majors
(t(169.225) ¼ 10.462, p < 0.001, d ¼ 1.023) (see Table 2). Teachers
it fully controls the Type I error rate (Salkind, 2010). In these tests,
the threshold level of significance was accepted as 0.05. Cohen's with computing majors had higher e-learning readiness scores
(M ¼ 4.80, SD ¼ 0.84) than those with non-computing majors
d and eta-squared effect sizes were also reported for weighting the
practical meaning of statistically significant results. Cohen's d was (M ¼ 3.78, SD ¼ 1.02).
calculated based on mean, standard deviation and sample size
values. The effect size magnitudes of 0.20, 0.50 and 0.80 were 3.4. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to school type
interpreted as small, intermediate and large, respectively (Cohen, (RQ 2c)
1988).
An independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the
3. Findings effect of the workplace on e-learning readiness. There was a sta-
tistically significant difference (t(553) ¼ 2.347, p < 0.05, d ¼ 0.284)
The findings are presented in the same order as the research in comparisons between the e-learning readiness scores of teachers
questions. from public (M ¼ 3.92, SD ¼ 1.04) and private schools (M ¼ 4.22,
SD ¼ 1.16) (see Table 2).
3.1. E-learning readiness levels of teachers at the K-12 level (RQ1)
3.5. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to teaching
The findings in relation to the first research question are given in levels (RQ 2d)
Fig. 1.
As seen in Fig. 1, teachers’ ICT usage self-efficacy (M ¼ 5.59, An analysis of variance showed that the effect of teaching level
SD ¼ 1.32) and education need towards e-learning (M ¼ 5.69, was statistically significant (F(3, 530) ¼ 5.473, p < 0.01, h2 ¼ 0.03).
SD ¼ 1.28) are comparatively high, whereas their self-confidence in Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the
e-learning (M ¼ 3.85, SD ¼ 1.66) and attitude towards e-learning mean scores of pre-school (M ¼ 3.57, SD ¼ 0.91) and primary school
5
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O. Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478

Table 2
Independent samples t-test results of e-learning readiness scores of teachers in relation to gender, major, school type, e-course taking experience and distance teaching
experience.

Research question Variable Group n M SD df t p Cohen's d

2a Gender Female 307 3.79 1.09 543.730 4.491 .000*** .380

Male 248 4.19 1.00
2b Major Computing 100 4.80 0.84 169.225 10.462 .000*** 1.023
Non-computing 455 3.78 1.02
2c School type Public 475 3.92 1.04 553 2.347 .019* .284
Private 80 4.22 1.16
2f E-course taking experience Never taken 276 3.58 0.95 553 8.989 .000*** .763
Taken 279 4.34 1.04
2g Distance teaching experience Never taught 474 3.82 1.02 553 8.311 .000*** .999
Taught 81 4.82 0.92

*p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

teachers (M ¼ 3.72, SD ¼ 1.01) were significantly lower than those
of middle school teachers (M ¼ 4.18, SD ¼ 1.10). Although the level
of high school teachers' readiness for e-learning (M ¼ 3.94,
SD ¼ 1.06) is higher than that of both pre-school and primary school
teachers, this mean difference is not statistically significant. The
post-hoc comparisons are given in Table 3.
3.6. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to professional
experience (RQ 2e)
An analysis of variance showed that the effect of a teacher's
experience in years was statistically significant (F(3, 551) ¼ 4.473,
p < 0.01, h2 ¼ 0.02). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean score of the group with more than 20
years' experience (M ¼ 3.66, SD ¼ 1.00) was statistically signifi-
cantly lower than that of the others, except for teachers with
teaching experience lower than five years (M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.14). The
post-hoc comparisons are given in Table 3.
3.7. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to e-course
taking experience (RQ 2f)
The effect of taking e-learning courses on e-learning readiness is
statistically significant (t(553) ¼ 8.989, p < 0.001, d ¼ 0.763) (see
Table 2). The mean score of the never-taken e-learning course
group (M ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ 0.95) was significantly lower than that of the
experienced group (M ¼ 4.34, SD ¼ 1.04).
3.8. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to distance
teaching experience (RQ 2g)
The effect of distance teaching experience on e-learning readi-
ness is statistically significant (t(553) ¼ 8.311, p < 0.001, d ¼ 0.999).
The mean score of the never-taught online group (M ¼ 3.82,
SD ¼ 1.02) was significantly lower than that of the experienced
group (M ¼ 4.82, SD ¼ 0.92). The comparison results are given in
Table 2.
3.9. Teachers’ e-learning readiness levels according to daily internet
usage duration (RQ 2h)
An analysis of variance showed that the effect of the amount of
time spent online was statistically significant (F(4, 550) ¼ 23.679,
p < 0.001, h2 ¼ 0.15). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD
test indicated that the e-learning readiness mean scores of teachers
spending less than 1 h (M ¼ 3.37, SD ¼ 1.11) and between 1 and 3 h
(M ¼ 3.61, SD ¼ 0.97) online per day were lower than those of the
other groups. The mean scores of teachers spending 4e5 h
(M ¼ 4.08, SD ¼ 0.94) and 6e7 h (M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 1.05) per day were
also significantly lower than those of teachers spending 8 h and
above (M ¼ 4.88, SD ¼ 1.02). The post-hoc comparisons are given in
Table 3. In light of these results, it can be concluded that as the
average daily time spent on the Internet increases, teachers become
readier for e-learning.
4. Discussion
Research on e-learning initiatives for K-12 has a background of
20e30 years, helped by the spread of the Internet worldwide. Much

Table 3
Variance analysis and post-hoc comparison results by teaching level, professional experience and time spent daily online.

Research question Variable Group n M SD F p h2 Post-hoc

a
2d Teaching level Pre-school (1) 23 3.57 0.91 5.473 .001** 0.03 1,2 < 3
Primary school (2) 114 3.72 1.01
Middle school (3) 177 4.18 1.10
High school (4) 220 3.94 1.06
2e Professional experience <5 years (1) 91 3.95 1.14 4.473 .004** 0.02 4 < 2,3
5e10 years (2) 108 4.03 1.05
11e20 years (3) 243 4.09 1.05
>20 years (4) 113 3.66 1.00
2h Daily Internet usage duration <1 h (1) 33 3.37 1.11 23.679 .000*** 0.15 1,2 < 3,4,5
1e3 h (2) 214 3.61 0.97 3,4 < 5
4e5 h (3) 174 4.08 0.94
6e7 h (4) 87 4.35 1.05
8 h (5) 47 4.88 1.02

**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

a
21 participants were discarded from the dataset only for this analysis, since it was not clear what teaching level they were at.

6
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O.
of the early research at the K-12 level focused mainly on the bar-
riers to a transition to e-learning such as digital inequalities, as well
as the benefits and drawbacks of such a new delivery mode. Ever-
increasing communication and opportunities for collaboration
following the development of ICT have contributed significantly to
the reduction of prejudices against e-learning among teachers.
However, aside from such prejudices, there is a lack of prepared-
ness among them. Identifying the qualifications teachers need in e-
learning environments is crucial for providing the basis for the
interventions required. The need for teachers to be qualified with
regard to technology is also stressed by the ISTE's (2020) “facili-
tator” standard for educators, in this case for facilitating e-learning.
Nowadays, these teacher qualifications with respect to e-learning
or being a “facilitator” are of paramount importance, since (in most
countries) educational institutions from pre-schools to universities
have been forced to suspend their face-to-face learning activities
and turn to e-learning, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To ease this
transition, the current study aims to take a snapshot of K-12
teachers' e-learning readiness levels in Turkey. This will also pro-
vide insights into evaluating the efficiency of e-learning activities
during the pandemic period.
In the study, it was determined that the overall e-learning
readiness of teachers was slightly below the medium-level, in
terms of the item average scores of the scale. When the scores are
analyzed at the factor level, it is noteworthy that the levels of
teachers' ICT self-efficacy and education need towards e-learning
(when not reversed) are higher than those of other factors.
Regarding the highness of the ICT self-efficacy factor, mandatory
“Computer” and “Instructional Technologies and Material Design”
courses in university faculties of education in Turkey might have
contributed to this result. The FATIH project could be another factor
giving rise to this result. On the other hand, although teachers have
confidence in their competence in terms of their technology use,
they do not rely on their e-learning abilities, to such an extent that
they exhibit a neutral attitude towards them. This might be because
most teachers have little or no familiarity with e-learning. In sup-
port of this, it was reported that the EBA web portal, which started
to offer instructional content in 2012 within the scope of the FATIH
project, is not used enough by teachers (Alabay, 2015; Ekici et al.,
2016; Tutar, 2015; Türker & Güven, 2016; Tüysüz & Çümen,
2016). In relation to the factor of education need towards e-
learning, the positive aspect is that teachers are aware of the fact
that they need education regarding e-learning.
The research findings revealed gender differences among
teachers in terms of e-learning readiness at K-12 education in-
stitutions. Males were found to have a higher level of e-learning
readiness than females, with a small effect size (Cohen's d < 0.5).
This finding is consistent with the results in the literature. Hung
(2016) examined the readiness levels of Taiwanese primary and
middle school teachers as e-learners under four dimensions, in the
form of communication self-efficacy, perceived institutional sup-
port, self-directed learning and learning transfer self-efficacy. That
study reported gender differences in the learning-transfer confi-
dence factor in favor of male teachers, but no difference was re-
ported in the other three factors. As there are a limited number of
studies on in-service teachers' e-learning readiness, the studies on
pre-service teachers' readiness regarding e-learning were exam-
ined. It is noteworthy that there are inconsistencies regarding the
results. In studies conducted with pre-service teachers, it was re-
ported that there was no difference in terms of gender (Yag cı et al.,
2015), a changing direction of significance in factors of e-learning
readiness (Sırakaya & Yurdugül, 2016) and a difference in favor of
females (Çakır & Horzum, 2015; Fırat & Bozkurt, 2020; Talsik,
2015). To sum up, it can be concluded that gender differences in
7
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478
terms of teachers' readiness for e-learning have become more
apparent within the in-service period, yet the data of the current
study do not offer any clues regarding the underlying reasons for
this change.
In the current study, a significant difference was observed be-
tween the e-learning readiness level of teachers according to their
majors. Teachers from computing-related fields had a higher level
of e-learning readiness compared to those from other majors. The
effect size statistics indicated a large effect (Cohen's d > 0.8) in
terms of teachers' majors on their readiness for e-learning. When
technology use and self-efficacy levels are considered, it is no sur-
prise that computing majors have a higher readiness level. Many
studies have reported a relationship between ICT competence/self-
efficacy and the readiness level for e-learning (Horvitz et al., 2015;
Lee & Tsai, 2010; Yurdugül & Demir, 2017). Teachers' ICT compe-
tencies are critical for successful e-learning practices. Their effec-
tive use of ICT tools in professional life, and their openness to using
online communication channels, probably form the basis for dis-
tance/blended learning activities (Mukoviz, Kolos, & Kolomiiets,
2018). Professional development is a prerequisite, not only for the
transition to these environments, but also for adopting online roles
and effectively using the e-learning technologies in order to
improve educational outcomes (Adnan, 2018). However, limited in-
service training possibilities are some of the most frequently-
mentioned drawbacks in the professional development of teach-
ers (Ruggiero & Mong, 2015). Peer support is a critical factor in
overcoming these obstacles. In this sense, teachers in the fields of
computing (information technology teachers, instructional tech-
nologists, etc.) might act as change agents (Rogers, 1995) to increase
professional development opportunities and to facilitate the pro-
cess of transition to e-learning.
School type was also an independent variable of the current
study. Despite having a small effect size (Cohen's d < 0.5), the
school type did cause a significant difference in teachers' overall e-
learning readiness levels in favor of private schools. In general,
technology integration initiatives at public schools are launched on
a national or regional scale, regardless of school principals' or
teachers' choices (Amiel et al., 2016). Private schools, on the other
hand, have a more autonomous institutional structure. Financial
power is another advantage they possess. With these two advan-
tages, they can take rapid decisions tailored to their needs. For
example, they can train their teachers in e-learning. These advan-
tages might be affecting the e-learning readiness levels of teachers
employed at private schools.
Teaching level is another variable analyzed in this study. The e-
learning readiness of teachers differed significantly according to
the teaching level. When the post-hoc results were analyzed, it was
found that middle school teachers had the highest e-learning
readiness mean level out of all the teaching levels. Nevertheless,
while their e-learning readiness levels were statistically signifi-
cantly higher than those of primary and pre-school teachers, this
was not the case compared with high school teachers. In the
literature, So (2005) found that secondary school teachers were
more prepared to use e-learning technologies than primary school
teachers. In addition, Moser et al. (2021) reported that PreK-12
language teachers were less comfortable with online education
technologies than those at the post-secondary level. In short, the
findings regarding the effect of teaching level on teachers’ e-
learning readiness are far from clear and do not form a significant
pattern, so further studies are needed on this matter.
Experience of teaching is an important variable in education. In
this study, teachers with 20 and more years' professional experi-
ence have a lower readiness for e-learning than others except for
those with 5 and less years’ professional experience. The teachers
with middle level in-service experience (5e10 years), exhibited the
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O.
highest levels of readiness for e-learning. The literature includes
studies reporting the negative relationship between teachers'
openness to the integration of new technologies into their teaching,
and their in-service years (Lee & Tsai, 2010; Mirķe et al., 2019). In
conclusion, teachers with middle level in-service experience are
readier compared to those with high in-service experience for e-
learning, since they have an ideal combination of relatively “fresh”
knowledge in relation to teacher training, and relatively long
experience of teaching. But why are senior teachers less ready for e-
learning? The fact is that e-learning did not exist or was not com-
mon when they graduated, so it was not in the curriculum when
they were trained, making it harder for them to get used to it.
However, it should be noted here that teachers with low profes-
sional experience did not show any difference compared to other
experience levels. This requires researchers to be cautious to
generalize the findings with respect to professional experience.
Further scholarly attention on this issue might take away this
caution.
E-learning experience was found to significantly improve e-
learning readiness. Accordingly, in this study, both those who had
taken and given courses via e-learning were significantly readier
for e-learning. Cohen's d statistics indicate from intermediate to
large effect sizes of both e-learning experiences on the e-learning
readiness level. In the same way, previous studies have also re-
ported a positive reflection of e-learning experience on e-learning
self-efficacy, especially online classroom management (Horvitz
et al., 2015; Marek et al., 2021; Robinia & Anderson, 2010). From
this point of view, this pandemic period, which has enforced a
transition to e-learning, created (and will continue to create)
important opportunities in terms of increasing teachers' familiarity
with both mixed and fully e-learning practices.
It was revealed in the current study that high levels of time
spent online each day result in high e-learning readiness levels.
Fırat and Bozkurt's (2020) study, conducted with pre-service
teachers, also supports this finding. This may result from
increasing familiarity with online tools. E-learning constitutes a
more dynamic structure compared to its face-to-face equivalent,
and adaptation to a rapidly evolving e-learning atmosphere is
closely related to familiarity with online environments (Coppola,
2005). Also, it is highly likely that teachers who spend more time
online have a higher level of awareness of online communication
channels and interaction opportunities.
The integration of technology into education is a multifaceted
phenomenon. The partnership between educators and other
stakeholders e including students, parents, school administrators,
higher education institutions, community, businesses, etc. e is
needed to understand the role of technology in education better,
and to enable technology to be infused more efficiently. In brief, the
community should be involved in system-wide technology inte-
gration plans for long-term sustainability and success (ISTE, 2020).
The fact is that, regardless of educational innovation, teachers'
skills, attitudes and intentions to use technology in education are
highly influenced by their organization's culture (Petko et al., 2018;
Spiteri & Chang-Rundgren, 2020). That is to say, teachers are more
willing to put their skills to work when their efforts are appreciated
and supported by other colleagues, and by their principals (Tondeur
et al., 2016). Consequently, it is crucial to support teachers' e-
readiness with school culture to ensure a structural change at
schools. Teacher trainee programs currently focus mainly on
classroom instruction and the preparation of candidates for face-
to-face settings. Instead, teachers should be equipped with com-
petencies related to engaging with students in different modalities,
and providing them with education, even under emergency con-
ditions such as COVID 19 (Leacock & Warrican, 2020).
8
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478
5. Conclusion
The success of e-learning is closely dependent on the readiness
of teachers (Keramati et al., 2011), since any educational innovation
in which teachers do not play a central role is unlikely to succeed
(Trotsko et al., 2019). In this sense, the findings obtained from the
current study are expected to provide guidance for educational
initiatives on the matter of promoting teachers' preparedness for e-
learning, in order to implement e-learning more effectively for
support purposes, or for complete transition conditions, especially
in extraordinary circumstances such as pandemics, natural di-
sasters, etc. In today's hyperlinked world, in which web technolo-
gies such as social networking sites and online communities have
become increasingly important, compulsory transition to e-
learning due to COVID-19 can provide unique opportunities, such as
ubiquitous learning for students, thus proving the advantages of
the e-learning method. However, the extent to which teachers are
prepared for e-learning is one of the most pressing issues. In
essence, the instrument used in this study gauges teachers' confi-
dence with regard to their ICT competence, as well as their self-
efficacy, attitudes and educational needs with regard to e-
learning. The results point to endeavors in fostering teachers'
competencies when it comes to the technologies specific to e-
learning, rather than their general ICT skills. The results of this
study also place particular emphasis on how e-learning technolo-
gies can be integrated into formal educational settings.
Another conclusion of this study is that, in spite of the fact that
teachers' e-learning readiness levels differ in terms of various
variables, teachers’ e-learning readiness levels appear to be neutral
(M ¼ 3.97) in Turkey. This does not mean that they are not ready for
e-learning, but that there is some room for improvement. As was
ascertained in the current study, the more e-learning experience
teachers have, the readier they are for e-learning. In line with this
result, opportunities for authentic experience with regard to e-
learning might be beneficial in fostering their e-learning related
information and abilities. At this point, based on the results of this
study, it can be asserted that e-learning should not simply be used
as a plan B in emergencies such as the pandemic, but should
become an integral part of the education process. In fact, the MEB
has been trying to do this for nearly a decade through the EBA
platform. However, these endeavors by the MEB to incorporate e-
learning into the K-12 level seem to have been insufficient. In
conclusion, this compulsory transition to e-learning can provide
unique opportunities, in that it might serve as a springboard to
better preparedness among teachers.
6. Implications and limitations
The results of the current study can guide in-service training
activities related to teachers' professional development, which
stands out as a major factor that directly affects the success of e-
learning activities from pre-school to the K-12 level. In this context,
it is noticeable that teachers' educational need for e-learning is
notably high. Thus, professional development interventions might
be suggested for teachers. As teachers of computing majors are
readier for e-learning than those with non-computing majors, IT
teachers especially can be used to help teachers with non-
computing majors increase their e-learning readiness levels
through in-service training seminars. These in-service seminars
might be given online in order to let teachers gain some experience
of e-learning. These online seminars, sometimes called webinars,
might teach the fundamentals of online tools e such as email, social
networking sites, wikis, forums, LMSs and web-conferencing sys-
tems e and of digital content production, such as producing videos,
screen capturing, creating online exams and so on. Webinars on e-
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O.
learning could be useful for teachers at all teaching levels. The same
goes for highly experienced teachers, since they are less ready for e-
learning. At this point, as also highlighted by the ISTE's (2020)
“collaborator” standard for educators, teachers can form a com-
munity of inquiry and/or practice (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007) in
which they can disseminate new knowledge, share their experi-
ences, and learn from each other, through e-learning platforms and
social networks. The EBA platform in particular allows teachers to
create national-level communities to enhance their professional
development through online discussions, polling tools and other
activities. In conclusion, online collaboration and webinars for e-
learning might render Turkish teachers readier for the next e-
learning experience.
It is clear that teachers in Turkey are fairly passive in terms of e-
learning process, owing to a centralized content distribution policy
(via TRT, EBA, etc.). For this reason, it is evident that teachers cannot
gain adequate e-learning experience. However, within the scope of
the current study, it was revealed that e-learning experience affects
the readiness for e-learning. In this context, teachers should be
given more effective roles in producing and distributing e-content.
In this way, teachers can develop e-learning related skills by gain-
ing e-learning experience, substantially promoting the “T” knowl-
edge component of the TPACK framework.
It should be considered that there are too few studies on
teachers' e-learning readiness. The link between e-learning readi-
ness and learning outcomes needs to be more fully explored. With
regard to this, Keramati et al. (2011) reported that teachers’ readi-
ness for e-learning mediates the relationship between e-learning
factors and learning outcomes. Kruger-Ross and Waters (2013) also
strengthened that link. Nonetheless, more up-to-date studies are
needed on this matter. For example, in further studies, the effect of
the e-learning readiness levels of teachers on the way they interact
with students during e-learning courses might be studied, in order
to see their e-learning readiness levels in action. Besides, in this
study, the researchers had also planned to study the e-learning
readiness levels of K-12 students, to show two sides of the coin, yet
this was not feasible due to a number of factors such as ethical
concerns stemming from them being minors, their inaccessibility
owing to the closure of schools, etc. Therefore, K-12 students offer
an interesting topic for a future e-learning readiness study, simply
because most of them have heard about and experienced the
concept of e-learning for the first time. Lastly, in relation to the
TPACK framework, further studies on e-learning could concentrate
on the pedagogical knowledge of teachers concerning e-learning.
As far as the limitations of the study are concerned, selection
bias might have affected the results of this study, due to the fact
that the data were collected entirely online on a voluntary basis.
The second limitation of the study might result from the novelty
effect. In fact, mandatory e-learning courses at the K-12 level all
across Turkey had not started by the time the data for the study was
collected. Nevertheless, the media had started publishing some
information regarding the tentative e-learning implementation
process. This flow of information relating to the novel process of e-
learning might have increased teacher's e-learning readiness levels
to some extent. The third limitation of the study is the size of the
study group, which only constitutes about 0.05% of the entire active
teacher population in Turkey.
References
Adnan, M. (2018). Professional development in the transition to online teaching:
The voice of entrant online instructors. ReCALL, 30(1), 88e111. https://doi.org/
10.1017/s0958344017000106
Alabay, A. (2015). A research into secondary education teachers’ and students’ views on
EBA (Education information network) usage (Unpublished master’s dissertation).
_
Turkey: Istanbul Aydın University.
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478
Amiel, T., Kubota, L. C., & Wives, W. W. (2016). A systemic model for differentiating
school technology integration. Research in Learning Technology, 24, 31856.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.31856
Arnesen, K. T., Hveem, J., Short, C. R., West, R. E., & Barbour, M. K. (2019). K-12 online
learning journal articles: Trends from two decades of scholarship. Distance
Education, 40(1), 32e53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553566
Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the
literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402e416. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2008.09.009
Beasley, J. G., & Beck, D. E. (2017). Defining differentiation in cyber schools: What
online teachers say. TechTrends, 61(6), 550e559. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11528-017-0189-x
Bender, L. (2020). Key messages and actions for COVID-19 prevention and control in
schools (UNI220408). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/
coronaviruse/key-messages-and-actions-for-covid-19-prevention-and-control-
in-schools-march-2020.pdf.
€ & Horzum, M. B. (2015). The examination of the readiness levels of teacher
Çakır, O.,
candidates for online learning in terms of various variables. Journal of Theory
and Practice in Education, 11(1), 1e15.
Cengiz, E. (2020). A thematic content analysis of the qualitative studies on FATIH
Project in Turkey. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(1), 251e276.
https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.565421
Check, J., & Schutt, R. K. (2011). Research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA: Sage Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hill-
sdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. In
Abingdon-on-Thames (8th ed.). England, UK: Routledge Press.
Coppola, N. W. (2005). Changing roles for online teachers of technical communi-
cation. In K. C. Cook, & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online education: Global questions,
local answers (pp. 89e99). London, UK: Routledge Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Press.
Demir, O.€ (2015). The investigation of e-learning readiness of students and faculty
members: Hacettepe university faculty of education example (Unpublished mas-
ter’s thesis). Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University.
€ & Yurdugül, H. (2015a). Investigation of effect of e-Learning readiness
Demir, O.,
levels of academic staff on those of universities (Paper id ¼ 258), 195-203. In In
Proceedings of 2015 International Business & Education Conference. New York City,
NY, USA.
€ & Yurdugül, H. (2015b). The exploration of models regarding e-learning
Demir, O.,
readiness: Reference model suggestions. International Journal of Progressive
Education, 11(1), 173e194.
Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpin ski, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of
COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent
international datasets. Luxembourg: European Union (EUR 30275 EN). Retrieved
from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121071/
jrc121071.pdf.
Dogan, D., Çınar, M., & Seferog lu, S. (2016). "One Laptop per Child" projects and
FATIH project: A comparative examination. SDU International Journal of Educa-
tional Studies, 3(1), 1e26. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sduijes/
issue/20865/223878.
_ & Tüzün, H. (2016). Eg
Ekici, M, Arslan, I., itim bilişim agı (EBA) web portalı kul-
inin go
lanılabilirlig €z izleme yo €ntemiyle deg _
erlendirilmesi. In A. Işman,
H. F. Odabaşı, & B. Akkoyunlu (Eds.), Eg itim Teknolojileri Okumaları (pp.
273e297). Ankara, Turkey: TOJET.
Fırat, M., & Bozkurt, A. (2020). Variables affecting online learning readiness in an
open and distance learning university. Educational Media International, 57(2),
112e127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1786772
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and
practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry
framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Ed-
ucation, 10(3), 157e172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Hawkins, A., Graham, C. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2012). “Everybody is their own Island”:
Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 123e144. https://doi.org/10.19173/
irrodl.v13i2.967
Horvitz, B. S., Beach, A. L., Anderson, M. L., & Xia, J. (2015). Examination of faculty
self-efficacy related to online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4),
305e316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9316-1
Hung, M. L. (2016). Teacher readiness for online learning: Scale development and
teacher perceptions. Computers & Education, 94, 120e133. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2020). Essential condi-
tions. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/essential-conditions.
Kaden, U. (2020). COVID-19 school closure-related changes to the professional life
of a K-12 teacher. Education Sciences, 10(6), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci10060165
Kaur, K., & Abas, Z. W. (2004). An assessment of e-Learning readiness at the open
university Malaysia. In The international conference on computers in education.
Melbourne, Australia: ICCE2004.
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experi-
ences in K-12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs.
Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185e200. https://doi.org/10.1177/
 € Demir
M. Çınar, M. Ekici and O.
0022487111433651
Keramati, A., Afshari-Mofrad, M., & Kamrani, A. (2011). The role of readiness factors
in E-learning outcomes: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 57(3),
1919e1929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.005
Keskin, S., Şahin, M., Uluç, S., & Yurdugül, H. (2020). Online learners' interactions and
social anxiety: The social anxiety scale for e-learning environments (SASE). Inter-
active Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1769681
Krasnova, L. A., & Shurygin, V. Y. (2020). Blended learning of physics in the context
of the professional development of teachers. International Journal of Technology
Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 38e52. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2020.103814
Kruger-Ross, M., & Waters, R. D. (2013). Predicting online learning success: Applying
the situational theory of publics to the virtual classroom. Computers & Educa-
tion, 61, 176e184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.015
Kwak, S. G., & Kim, J. H. (2017). Central limit theorem: The cornerstone of modern
statistics. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 70(2), 144e156. https://doi.org/
10.4097/kjae.2017.70.2.144
Leacock, C. J., & Warrican, S. J. (2020). Helping teachers to respond to COVID-19 in
the eastern caribbean: Issues of readiness, equity and care. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 46(4), 576e585. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1803733
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers' perceived self efficacy and
technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use
of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1e21. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
Lopes, C. T. (2007). Evaluating e-learning readiness in a health sciences higher
education institution. In IADIS international conference of E-learning. Porto,
Portugal.
Marek, M. W., Chew, C. S., & Wu, W. C. V. (2021). Teacher experiences in converting
classes to distance learning in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Distance Education Technologies, 19(1), 40e60. https://doi.org/10.4018/
IJDET.20210101.oa3
Mirķe, E., Cakula, S., & Tzivian, L. (2019). Measuring teachers-as-learners’ digital
skills and readiness to study online for successful e-Learning experience.
Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 21(2), 5e16. https://doi.org/
10.2478/jtes-2019-0013
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017e1054.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moftakhari, M. M. (2013). Evaluating e-learning readiness of faculty of letters of
Hacettepe university (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Turkey: Hacettepe
University.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Edu-
cation, 3(2), 1e6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Moser, K. M., Wei, T., & Brenner, D. (2021). Remote teaching during COVID-19:
Implications from a national survey of language educators. System, 97, 102431.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102431
Mukoviz, O. P., Kolos, K. R., & Kolomiiets, N. A. (2018). Distance learning of future
primary school teachers as a prerequisite of their professional development
throughout life. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 66(4), 42e53.
https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v66i4.2265
Park, C., & Kim, D. G. (2020). Exploring the roles of social presence and gender
difference in online learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,
18(2), 291e312. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12207
Petko, D., Prasse, D., & Cantieni, A. (2018). The interplay of school readiness and
teacher readiness for educational technology integration: A structural equation
model. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 1e18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07380569.2018.1428007
Pulham, E., & Graham, C. R. (2018). Comparing K-12 online and blended teaching
competencies: A literature review. Distance Education, 39(3), 411e432. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476840
Rakes, G. C., & Dunn, K. E. (2015). Teaching online: Discovering teacher concerns.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(4), 229e241. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15391523.2015.1063346
Robinia, K. A., & Anderson, M. L. (2010). Online teaching efficacy of nurse faculty.
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103478
Journal of Professional Nursing, 26(3), 168e175. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.profnurs.2010.02.006
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). NY, NY, USA: The Free Press.
Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. J. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience:
Practice and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Ed-
ucation: Research, 14, 161e178. https://doi.org/10.28945/2227
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE
Publications.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4e14. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X015002004
So, K. K. T. (2005). The e-learning readiness of teachers in Hong Kong. In 5th IEEE
international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT’05) (pp.
806e808). Kaohsiung, Taiwan: IEEE.
Soydal, I., Alır, G., & Ünal, Y. (2011). Are Turkish universities ready for e-learning: A
case of hacettepe university faculty of letters. Information Services & Use, 31,
281e291. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2012-0659
Spiteri, M., & Chang-Rundgren, S. N. (2020). Literature review on the factors
affecting primary teachers' use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and
Learning, 25(1), 115e128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x
Sırakaya, D. A., & Yurdugül, H. (2016). Investigation of online learning readiness
level of teacher candidates: The sample of Ahi Evran University. Journal of
Kırşehir Education Faculty, 17(1), 185e200.
Talsik, E. (2015). The investigation of readiness for e-Learning of pre-service music
teachers in Turkey. The Anthropologist, 21(1e2), 263e270. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09720073.2015.11891815
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology. In The original nature of man. New
York, USA: Columbia University Press.
Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Prestridge, S., Albion, P., & Edirisinghe, S. (2016).
Responding to challenges in teacher professional development for ICT inte-
gration in education (ERIC number: EJ1107111). Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy & Society, 19(3), 110e120.
Trotsko, A. V., Rybalko, L. S., Kirilenko, O. G., & Trush, H. O. (2019). Teachers' pro-
fessional self-improvement in the conditions of distance learning imple-
mentation in higher education institutions. Information Technologies and
Learning Tools, 72(4), 258e272. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v72i4.3088
Türker, A., & Güven, C. (2016). High school teachers' utilization levels and opinions
on the education information technologies network (EBA) project. Journal of
Research in Education and Teaching, 5(1), 244e254.
Tutar, M. (2015). The evaluation of teachers’ perceptions towards education informa-
tion network (EIN) (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Turkey: Karadeniz
Technical University.
Tüysüz, C., & Çümen, V. (2016). Opinions of secondary school students about EBA
course website. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 9(3), 278e296.
United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond.
Retrieved from https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/sg_policy_
brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf.
Yag €
cı, M., Sırakaya, D. A., & Ozüdo ru, G. (2015). The investigation of attitude and
g
readiness of information and communication technologies pre-service teachers
toward web based learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
1099e1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.800
Yıldız, T., & Gündüz, Ş. (2019). Opinions of secondary school teachers about the EBA
course E-contents: A qualitative study. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative In-
quiry, 10(2), 243e266.
Yurdugül, H., & Demir, O. € (2017). An investigation of pre-service teachers’ readiness
for e-learning at undergraduate level teacher training programs: The case of
Hacettepe University. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(4), 896e915.
https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016022763
Zhang, Y. N., & Lin, C. H. (2020). Student interaction and the role of the teacher in a
state virtual high school: What predicts online learning satisfaction? Technol-
ogy, Pedagogy and Education, 29(1), 57e71. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1475939x.2019.1694061