Accepted Manuscript

Teacher Readiness for Online Learning: Scale Development and Teacher Perception

Min-Ling Hung

PII: S0360-1315(15)30084-1
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012
Reference: CAE 2950

To appear in: Computers & Education

Received Date: 20 April 2015

Revised Date: 23 November 2015
Accepted Date: 24 November 2015

Please cite this article as: Hung M.-L., Teacher Readiness for Online Learning: Scale Development and
Teacher Perception, Computers & Education (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Title:
Teacher Readiness for Online Learning: Scale Development and Teacher Perception

Authors:
Min-Ling Hung
Teacher Education Center, Ming Chuan University, 5 De Ming Rd., Gui Shan
District, Taoyuan County 333, Taiwan

PT
Corresponding Author:
Min-Ling Hung

RI
mlhong@mail.mcu.edu.tw
Phone: 886-3-350-7001

SC
Fax: 886-3-3593887

Abstract:

U
The purpose of this research is to examine elementary and middle school teachers’
AN
readiness as online learners on the basis of the Teacher Readiness for Online
Learning Measure (TROLM). This paper draws on three years (spring 2012–spring
2014) of data from an online course on Internet literacy and ethics for practicing
M

teachers. Two sets of samples (128 and 248 teachers) facilitated this study’s
exploration and confirmation of the TROLM model’s constructs. Results of
D

exploratory and confirmatory factory analysis support an 18-item scale comprising

four factors: communication self-efficacy, institutional support, self-directed learning,
TE

and learning-transfer self-efficacy. This study found that male teachers exhibited
statistically significantly greater readiness in the dimension of learning-transfer
self-efficacy than did female teachers. Teachers with a master’s degree assigned a
EP

heavier weight to the dimensions of communication self-efficacy and

learning-transfer self-efficacy than did teachers with a bachelor’s degree. This study
C

made two additional findings: the fewer teaching years a teacher had, the higher the
teacher’s communication self-efficacy tended to be; and the more teaching years a
AC

teacher had, the higher the teacher’s self-directed learning tended to be. Suggestions
for further research are provided.

Keywords: Distance education and telelearning; Interactive learning environments;

Teaching/learning strategies; Evaluation methodologies
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Teacher Readiness for Online Learning: Scale Development and

Teacher Perception
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine elementary and middle school teachers’ readiness as
online learners on the basis of the Teacher Readiness for Online Learning Measure (TROLM).

PT
This paper draws on three years (spring 2012–spring 2014) of data from an online course on
Internet literacy and ethics for practicing teachers. Two sets of samples (128 and 248 teachers)

RI
facilitated this study’s exploration and confirmation of the TROLM model’s constructs. Results
of exploratory and confirmatory factory analysis support an 18-item scale comprising four

SC
factors: communication self-efficacy, institutional support, self-directed learning, and learning-
transfer self-efficacy. This study found that male teachers exhibited statistically significantly
greater readiness in the dimension of learning-transfer self-efficacy than did female teachers.

U
Teachers with a master’s degree assigned a heavier weight to the dimensions of communication
self-efficacy and learning-transfer self-efficacy than did teachers with a bachelor’s degree. This
AN
study made two additional findings: the fewer teaching years a teacher had, the higher the
teacher’s communication self-efficacy tended to be; and the more teaching years a teacher had,
the higher the teacher’s self-directed learning tended to be. Suggestions for further research are
M

provided.
D

1. Introduction
In an era of educational reform in Taiwan, elementary and middle school teachers’ professional
TE

knowledge, ability, and development are of fundamental importance to national education. As

the Internet is broadly used in education, more and more higher education institutions provide
in-service teachers a variety of education courses, degree programs, and certificates that are
EP

delivered entirely online. Many teachers can benefit from online learning owing to the
combination of their busy schedules and the online format’s convenience (Ching & Hursh,
2014; Dede, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, & McCloskey, 2009).
C
AC

Most research on online learning for teachers has focused on their use of e-learning in
instruction. For example, Arbaugh (2010) examined faculty characteristics and behaviors in
online MBA courses in a Mid-Western U.S. university. Schoonenboom (2014) examined why
Dutch instructors in higher education intend to use tools for learning-management systems.
Regarding the elementary and secondary school levels, Hrtoňová, Kohout, Rohlíková, and
Zounek (2015) explored factors affecting teachers’ acceptance of an e-learning course in the
Czech Republic. However, only limited effort was expended on exploring teachers-as-learners
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

in online-learning environments (Darab & Montazer, 2011; Keramati, Afshari-Mofrad, &

Kamrani, 2011). In fact, adult learners as well as teachers-as-learners are different from
traditional college students. Many adult learners have more responsibilities (e.g., families and
jobs) that can interfere with the learning (Cercone, 2008). In addition, many older adults were,
as children and as young adults, taught in a traditional and passive classroom. Adult learners

PT
need to adapt to the newness of online-learning environments. Like young students, adult
learners need motivation to sustain their learning process. Thus, we have chosen to examine
whether or not—and if so, to what extent—school teachers are ready for online learning

RI
Recently, researchers in Taiwan explored college students’ readiness for online learning

SC
(Authors, 2010). They examined students’ various characteristics such as preferences,
perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. The researchers noted that most college students—despite
being full-time students or holding part-time jobs—differed significantly from teachers in

U
respect to age, life experience, and work experience. Thus, we cannot directly use Authors'
AN
study to examine teachers’ readiness. And thus, educational researchers should highlight and
examine teachers’ characteristics in terms of online learning.
M

To better understand how to achieve effective online learning for elementary and middle school
teachers, it is necessary to identify the dimensions of online learning readiness that these
teachers should possess. For example, researchers have observed that favorable and durable
D

organizational conditions support teacher learning (Kao, Wu, & Tsai, 2011). Moreover, the
TE

perceptions that teachers have of professional development shape their learning-related beliefs
and attitudes (Rienties, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker, 2013).
EP

In addition to ongoing organizational support for teachers’ continuing learning and appropriate
attitude development, some researchers have proposed that learners must be quite self-directed
in online learning environments, where physical distance separates the course instructor from
C

the learners (Kim, Olfman, Ryan, & Eryilmaz, 2014). Teachers-as-learners should realize the
AC

significant change that takes place when their roles and responsibilities shift from those of a
teacher to those of a learner. Teachers-as-learners should be more responsible than teachers-as-
teachers for practicing self-discipline (Allen & Seaman, 2005; Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008),
for using cognitive strategies (Akyol & Garrison, 2010), for using time management and
organizational skills (Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004) and for participating in social
interaction (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). As such, it is important to understand the factors that
drive teachers-as-learners’ levels of readiness to participate in online learning. In undertaking
this task, the present study examines the concepts and the underlying dimensions of teachers’
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

readiness for online learning, and then constructs and validates the Teacher Readiness for Online
Learning Measure (TROLM). A previous study proposed that research on Internet behavior is
still in an early stage and that, to proceed to more substantial stages, researchers in the field
should have access to validated instruments capable of illuminating the benefits and drawbacks
of e-learning (Teo, 2010). The present study’s developed instrument can help calculate the

PT
degree to which elementary and middle school teachers—as learners—are willing to embrace e-
learning as part of their repertoire of in-service learning opportunities.

RI
A growing body of studies has been conducted to examine gender differences in online learning.
A recent review by Authors (2010) found that male and female college students had similar

SC
readiness levels in online-learning environments. Similarly, Yukselturk and Bulut (2009) found
evidence that Turkish female and male students’ motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning
variables, and achievements did not significantly vary according to whether the course was

U
online or conventional. However, studies of online learners have reported that more females
AN
than males are enrolled in courses delivered at a distance (Kramarae, 2003; Rickert & Sacharow,
2000). González-Gómez, Guardiola, Martín-Rodríguez, and Montero-Alonso (2012) used a
sample of 1,185 students in Spain and found that female students were more satisfied than male
M

students with the online-learning subjects. Female students assigned substantial importance to
course planning and to teacher availability in online-learning environments. A possible reason
for these findings may be that these female students were trying to deal with or balance multiple
D

roles such as those of mother, wife, and employee. In other words, one can reasonably suppose
TE

that, owing to dissimilar responsibilities in life, males and females might differ from each other
while enrolled in an online course.
EP

In addition to gender, Park and Choi (2009) found evidence that, in general, adult learners’
educational level has little influence on their decision to drop out of online courses. However,
Artino and Stephens (2009) found no statistical differences between undergraduate and graduate
C

students in online-learning self-efficacy beliefs. The aforementioned researchers also found that
AC

undergraduates exhibited significantly greater levels of task value beliefs, and were more likely
to continue to take online courses in the future than graduate students, who themselves exhibited
significantly higher levels of critical thinking than the undergraduates. Thus, it is essential to
examine whether or not teachers-as-learners’ educational level (bachelor’s degree, master’s
degree) makes any difference in their readiness for online learning. Moreover, Teo (2014)
conducted a study with 673 primary and secondary school teachers and found that teachers with
shorter years of teaching service would perceive the use of technology to be easy or relatively
free from effort. Liu, Jones, and Sadera (2010) found that the more years of service a teacher
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

had, the more familiar the teacher would typically be with educational practices relating to
technology-based teaching and learning. Even though previous studies have tried to identify
individual characteristics affecting online learning, not many studies have empirically explored
teachers-as-learners’ characteristics (Park, 2007; Teo, 2014). Since the individual
characteristics- gender, education level, and length of teaching service are the most often cited

PT
factors in previous studies (Park, 2007), special attention will be paid to the relationship
between these three on the one hand, and teachers’ readiness for online learning on the other.

RI
Thus, by understanding teachers-as-learners’ readiness to engage in online learning, not only
can instructional designers provide better online courses, but also educational institutions can

SC
better help teachers enhance their online-learning experiences. This study will explore the
following four research questions:
1. Can a TROLM model be constructed and validated through EFA and CFA?

U
2. Does the gender of teachers make any difference in their readiness for online learning?
AN
3. Does the education level of teachers make any difference in their readiness for online
learning?
4. Does the length of teaching service of teachers make any difference in their readiness for
M

online learning?

2. Literature review
D

2.1. Factors affecting teachers-as-students’ readiness for online learning

To be successful, teachers-as-learners may possess certain dispositions toward learning. The
TE

concept of readiness for online learning was proposed by Warner, Christie, and Choy (1998) in
their research project on Australian vocational education and training sectors. Many researchers
EP

tried to evaluate readiness factors that affect online-learning success. However, Šumak et al.
(2011) found that research on online learning has focused predominantly on students at higher
education institutions. For example, Bernard, Brauer, Abrami, and Surkes (2004) developed a
C

new survey with 38 items in order to predict student online-learning performance. Conducted
with 167 students, the study’s factor analysis had four dimensions: beliefs about distance
AC

education, confidence in prerequisite skills, self-direction and initiative, and desire for
interaction. With a sample of 1,051 college students, Authors (2010) developed and validated
the Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS) with five dimensions: self-directed learning,
motivation for learning, computer/ Internet self-efficacy, learner control, and online
communication self-efficacy. Shen, Cho, Tsai, and Marra (2013) used a sample of graduate and
undergraduate students to investigate the role of self-efficacy in online-learning environments.
They identified five factors: self-efficacy to complete an online course, self-efficacy to interact
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

socially with classmates, self-efficacy to handle tools in a course management system (CMS),
self-efficacy to interact with instructors in an online course, and self-efficacy to interact with
classmates for academic purposes.

In fact, researchers have made only a limited effort to explore online learning among teachers at

PT
elementary and middle schools. For example, Keramati et al. (2011) used a sample of 96 high
school teachers in Iran and evaluated the role of readiness in the relationship between e-learning
factors and e-learning outcomes. The researchers identified three readiness factors: technical,

RI
organizational, and social factors. A review of this study, however, reveals that the study’s
research sample from Iranian high schools was significantly limited. Additionally, the measures

SC
of readiness do not comprehensively cover diverse dimensions that are critical to teachers’
online learning and that include personal attributes, such as self-directed learning,
communication, and learning-transfer self-efficacy.

U
AN
School teachers as adult learners are different from college students. Cercone (2008) mentioned
that adult learners may have some characteristics and limitations and these should be considered
in the design of the online environment. For online-course development, Cercone considered
M

adults’ frequent needs when recommending that the courses, for example, apply easily legible
fonts and dynamic colors to online materials. In addition, Park and Choi (2009) found evidence
that adult learners’ age, gender, and educational level generally have little influence on their
D

acceptance of online learning. They also found evidence that support (whether from families or
TE

organizations) and job responsibilities might be two key factors affecting adult learners’
decision to drop out of online courses. Similarly, Park, Rhoads, Hou, and Lee (2014) suggested
that in work settings, researchers should investigate the role of institutional factors in addition to
EP

individual factors. In addition, a significant number of studies have focused on the importance
of whether teacher training can successfully facilitate the transfer of teachers’ knowledge and
skills to actual classroom settings (e.g., Agyei & Voogt, 2014; Beemta & Diepstratenb, 2016;
C

Yang, 2012). These studies have addressed transfer barriers, transfer enablers, knowledge
AC

dissemination, and an effective communication medium for knowledge transfer. Although these
are important research topics, researchers have paid little attention to knowledge applications
that take place when teachers apply their online learning to their classroom practice. Therefore,
if teachers obtain knowledge and skills, but fail to employ them in their teaching jobs, it is
unlikely that the newly obtained information will strengthen students’ learning.

According to Park et al. (2014), researchers examining online adult learners should consider not
only individual factors but also socio-cultural factors, such as schooling and family. Thus, a
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

comparison of the present study with previous related studies reveals that teachers-as-learners’
online-learning readiness is indeed an important issue. To appropriately categorize teachers’
readiness for continuing in-service education and to construct the TROLM, we drew on self-
directed learning ideas (McVay, 2000, 2001), institutional-support ideas (Park et al., 2014),
communication self-efficacy ideas (Authors, 2010), and learning-transfer self-efficacy ideas

PT
(Kirkpatrick, 1998; Yang, 2012). The following sections of this paper review these four
dimensions, which may be involved in the concept of teacher readiness.

RI
2.2. Self-directed learning (SDL)
It is important to note some of the highly relevant characteristics of self-directed learners. In the

SC
research of Knowles (1975) and Loyens et al. (2008), SDL is a process in which learners take
the initiative and responsibility for establishing personal learning goals, understanding personal
needs, identifying resources for learning, selecting and implementing learning strategies, and

U
monitoring personal performance. In a knowledge-based society, SDL is an important process
that enables people pursuing lifelong learning to do so successfully (Merriam, 2001; Teo, Tan,
AN
Lee, Chai, Koh, Chen, & Cheah, 2010). Previous studies have shown that significant self-
discipline is necessary for students’ successful completion of online courses (Tanner, Noser, &
Totaro, 2009; Ma, 2013). Online learning is closely related to SDL from the personal-attribute
M

perspective. For example, Roper (2007) argued that students with poor time management stand
a reasonable chance of performing inadequately in online-learning contexts. Similarly, Shea and
D

Bidjerano (2010) reported that students who have the ability to learn independently are
considerably more likely to perform successfully in online-education contexts than are students
TE

who lack this ability.

EP

Studies on SDL have reported a relationship between the use of technologies in learning and
successful learning. Studies on SDL have reported a relationship between the use of
technologies in learning and successful learning. For example, Kim et al. (2014) employed
C

MediaWiki with SDL features to examine college students’ competency in managing their
learning processes in online-learning environments. The researchers found that students’ SDL
AC

abilities can improve when a course adopts a personalized and collaborative learning system that
enables the students to be more proactive in planning, organizing, and monitoring their course
activities. Similarly, Vonderwell and Turner (2005) stated that an effective online SDL
environment can provide learners a considerable degree of control over their own instruction: in
brief, these learners tend to take responsibility for and initiative in their learning. Clarifying how
adult learners embrace levels of control in online-learning contexts can assist instructors with
online-course implementation. Similarly, in discussing SDL, Authors (2010) found that male
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and female college students exhibited equal attitudes and behaviors on self-directed learning.
Thus, in order to construct the present study’s SDL items in our proposed Teacher Readiness for
Online Learning Measure (TROLM), we created a pool of items comprising novel items and
items adapted from the scales of Authors (2010) and McVay (2000, 2001). In this way, we
selected a total of five items, an example of which is “I manage time well” (i.e., in an online-

PT
learning context).

2.3. Institutional support (IS)

RI
Institutional support is an important dimension for teachers’ online learning. According to
researchers, this dimension corresponds to factors that help or hinder people’s behavior in

SC
certain environments. In analyzing corporate educational environments, Joo, Joung, and Sim
(2011) identified three important types of institutional support: superiors’ support, colleagues’
support, and positive organizational atmosphere. Superiors’ support refers to the prioritization

U
that supervisors assign to the training of subordinates in an organizational setting like work or
school (Lee, 1996). Colleagues’ support refers to the help that peers give an organizational
AN
member who is trying to master organizational skills and knowledge (Holton, 1998). And
organizational atmosphere refers to an establishment’s overall emotional, behavioral, and
ideological setting, particularly insofar as these characteristics affect organizational members’
M

practices (Robins, 2003).

D

Barefoot (2004) found that institutional support is an important factor in learning persistence. In
addition, not only institutional support but also positive support from an educational
TE

organization can bring about positive learning outcomes, such as learning persistence (Chung,
2000; Joo, Joung, & Sim, 2011). However, teachers-as-learners who regard workplace resources
EP

as inadequate are less likely than other teachers-as-learners to work and study at the same time
(Park et al., 2014). Park et al. (2014) argued that this trend is evident, even when the teachers-
as-learners have a favorable attitude toward their learning. In the context of the present study, a
C

teacher-as-learner’s perception of institutional support may depend on how much support the
teacher-as-learner receives from superiors and colleagues when learning online. We created a
AC

pool of items for institutional support by both writing novel items and adapting concepts from
Park et al. (2014). One example of these items is “I think that my supervisor has a positive
attitude toward my in-service training.”

2.4. Communication self-efficacy (CSE)

Text-based online asynchronous discussion provides learners with temporal and spatial
flexibility, and enhances higher cognitive levels of knowledge construction (Lee, 2012; Moore
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

& Mara, 2005; Schellens & Valcke, 2005). The use of asynchronous discussion is thought to be
critical for exchanges of ideas and information, as well as for the development of critical
reflection and collaboration (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2004; Roper, 2007).
Asynchronous communication helps create enough time to search for information, think, reflect,
and go deeper into a given subject (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006). Moreover,

PT
Schellens, Van Keer, Valcke, and DeWever (2007) identified a positive association between the
levels of participation in online asynchronous discussion and positive learning outcomes. Thus,
understanding how students communicate with instructors and peers in Web-based courses has

RI
become increasingly important. Since online asynchronous discussion is a critical dimension of
learning, it would be particularly important to have related assessments concerning individuals’

SC
ability to communicate via online asynchronous discussion, that is, assessments concerning
communication self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is one’s assessment of one’s own ability to complete
a task successfully (Schiefele, 1991; Zimmerman, 2000).

U
AN
Caspi, Chajut, and Saporta (2008) observed that women seemed to prefer written
communication more than men did. In a study by Kay (2009), male students’ perception that
interactive classroom communications systems improved the overall learning process was
M

stronger than female students’ corresponding perception, regardless of computer-comfort level

or computer-use type. However, Chu (2010) found that male and female students had similar
levels in communication self-efficacy. From the above-mentioned studies, we can reasonably
D

assert that communication self-efficacy in online learning is an essential dimension for

TE

overcoming the limitations of online communication. We can also, from these studies, find
reasons to clarify whether demographic differences (gender, education level, and length of
teaching service) are significant characteristics of the students’ communication self-efficacy. In
EP

the current study, we created a pool of items for online communication self-efficacy by both
writing new items and adapting concepts from authors (2010). One example of these items is “I
feel confident in expressing myself (emotions and humor) through text.”
C

2.5. Learning-transfer self-efficacy (LTSE)

AC

‘Transfer of learning’ is defined as the degree to which individuals effectively apply the skills
and knowledge gained from a training program to a job situation (Wexley & Latham, 1991).
‘Learning at work’ is defined as observed changes in workplace behavior attributable to new
knowledge and skills (Ivergard & Hunt, 2004) and takes place in the context of use and
application (Päivi & Päivi, 2005). In previous research, Holton and his colleagues (1998, 2000)
developed a comprehensive model depicting the training-related transfers that occur across
organizations. This model illustrates individual performance as a function of a person’s
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

motivation to learn, environmental elements, ability elements, and secondary influences such as
self-efficacy and learner readiness, training design, and the work environment. Kirkpatrick
(1998) noted that evaluations generally occur several months after target learners have
completed their training to determine whether the skills learned are being used on the job.
Kirkpatrick noted another important point: the use of a retrospective survey can help trainees

PT
and their supervisors understand whether or not—and if so, to what extent—the effectiveness of
a given training design influences employees’ performance on the job. A review of these
studies, however, reveals that such research has been conducted entirely in business

RI
environments. In other words, little attention has been directed toward learning-related transfers
that occur for elementary and middle school teachers who are taking continuing-education

SC
courses.

Past studies have identified learning transfers in online-learning environments. For example,

U
Ally (2004) argued that online strategies can facilitate the transfer of learning. Simulation of
AN
real-life cases should be part of online-learning lessons. In addition, Huang, Huang, Wang, and
Huang (2009) used the learning sequence recommendation system (LSRS) to help learners
achieve effective Web-based learning transfers based on recommendations derived from group-
M

learning paths. From the above-mentioned studies, learning-transfer self-efficacy is an important

dimension for having belief in one’s ability to apply existing knowledge to new situations and
settings. In the current study, we created a pool of items for learning-transfer self-efficacy by
D

both writing novel items and adapting concepts from a questionnaire by Kirkpatrick (1998). One
TE

example of these items is “I am confident that I can apply online courses’ content to my
teaching job.” Because the existing literature apparently makes no reference to an instrument
that measures teacher readiness for online learning, we developed and validated such an
EP

instrument—the TROLM, which is presented in the following section.

3. Method
C

3.1. Item development

We developed the present study’s items after consulting the literature and specifically studies
AC

that used the Online Learning Readiness Scale (e.g., Authors, 2010). From these, a total of 26
items were created and measured via a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree,
3=neutral, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree). Following this, a focus-group discussion was held
with 13 elementary and middle school teachers who had online learning experience and 2 online
instructors who had used the Internet for teaching. The main goal of this focus-group discussion
was to allow members to examine 26 items, and to group the items and suggest labels for each
group. From their recommendations, we adapted or removed several items identified as
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ambiguous, complex, and double-barreled, resulting in a reduction of the total number of items
from 26 to 18 at this stage. Also at this stage, we were sure that the items would be understood
by the potential respondents. On the basis of the teachers’ and instructors’ suggestions, we
distributed the items into four factors: self-directed learning (four items), institutional support
(five items), communication self-efficacy (four items), and learning-transfer self-efficacy (five

PT
items).

3.2.Demographic analysis

RI
Recent research finds that gender, length of service in teaching, and education level are among
the most important predictors of online-learning readiness (González-Gómez et al., 2012; Teo,

SC
2014). Therefore, our explanation of different levels of online readiness must take into account
these human factors. We divided the sample teachers into two groups according to education
level: (1) bachelor’s degree, and (2) master’s degree. And we divided the sample teachers into

U
three groups according to length of service in teaching: (1) 1–10 years, (2) 11–20 years, and (3)
21 years or more.
AN
3.3.Participants and procedures
M

In developing the Teacher Readiness for Online Learning Measure (TROLM), this study has
used two sample sets. Sample 1 consisted of 180 elementary and middle school teachers who,
D

during the spring 2012 semester and the fall 2012 semester, took an online course that addressed
the topic of K-12 online schooling. The online course’s name was “Internet Literacy and
TE

Ethics.” After finishing the course, 128 online learners (71.1%) completed the survey. The mean
length of service in teaching was 3.91 years (SD=4.41) and there were 94 (73.4%) females in
the sample. Because the enrolled elementary and middle school teachers hailed from different
EP

geographic locations in Taiwan, we used email to invite these online learners to participate in
our study. All participants were invited to volunteer and they were briefed on the purpose of this
study and informed that they could withdraw from the study at anytime during or after the data
C

collection.
AC

We collected Sample 2 during the spring 2013 semester, the fall 2013 semester, and the spring
2014 semester. After finishing the course, 282 online learners who took the aforementioned
online course “Internet Literacy and Ethics” (on K-12 online schooling) received an invitation
by email to participate in our survey. Before starting the survey, all participants consented to
taking part in the study. The survey’s front matter clearly declares three important points: the
purpose of the study, participants’ right not to participate in the study, and their option to
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

withdraw from the study during or after their completion of the survey. Participants received no
gift in exchange for their participation. On average, each participant took 20 minutes to
complete the survey.

A total of 248 online learners (87.0%) completed the survey. The participants were from

PT
different geographic locations in Taiwan. Among the participants, 171 (69%) were female and
77 (31%) were male. Participants’ experience with teaching ranged from 1 to 30 years (M=4.2
year). Of the participants, 119 (48.0%) had 1–10 years, 105 (42.0%) had 11–20 years, and 24

RI
(10.0%) had 21 years or more of teaching experience. Of those who responded, 129 (52%) had
graduated from university or college and 119 (48%) had graduated from graduate school.

SC
3.4. Data analysis

U
In order to test the psychometric qualities of teacher readiness for online learning, we adopted a
two-phase approach. Although we selected and grouped the items on the basis of the literature
AN
reviewed above, those items’ designated meanings risked overlapping across the TROLM
dimensions. Thus, Sample 1 helped us both outline the development of the instrument and
M

explore the factor structure of the TROLM through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Prior to
conducting the EFA, we conducted normal distribution analyses to assess the validity and
reliability of the TROLM. Sample 2 helped us both evaluate the stability of the factors identified
D

from sample 1 and verify the identified factor structure through confirmatory factor analysis
TE

(CFA). We conducted CFA with the LISREL 8.8 program in line with the structural equality
model in order to determine whether or not variable groups had contributed to the factors in the
4-dimension TROLM.
EP

4. Results
4.1. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
C

Before exploratory factor analysis was applied, descriptive statistics of 18 items were examined
to insure their appropriateness as measurement items by using sample 1. The means and
AC

standard deviations of all items were computed, and these ranged from 3.81 to 4.26, and 0.57 to
0.85, respectively, with the latter indicating a fairly narrow spread of scores around the mean
(Teo, 2014). The skew and kurtosis indices were from -1.45 to -0.02 and -.83 to 1.22
respectively. As these values were within the recommended guidelines of |3.0| and |8.0| for
skewness and kurtosis, respectively, univariate normality in the data was assumed (Kline, 2010).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Having selected an exploratory factor analysis featuring principal components and varimax
rotation, we applied the analysis to the 18 items in order to explore the underlying structure of
the Teacher Readiness for Online Learning Measure (TROLM). The KMO coefficient was .82
and the χ2 from Bartlett’s test was 1200.79 (p<.001). These results suggest that the data were
suitable for the principal component factor analysis, which revealed that the TROLM had a

PT
four-factor structure accounting for 67.80% of the total variance. A high amount of variance that
was accounted for could be interpreted as an indicator of how well a relevant construct can be
measured (Büyüköztürk, 2007). The first factor consisted of 4 items. Factor loadings of the

RI
items included in this factor ranged between .89 and .93. Accounting for 35.70% of the total
variance in the scale, this factor was termed the “communication self-efficacy” (CSE) factor.

SC
The second factor consisted of 5 items. The loadings of the items included in this factor ranged
between .61 and .85. Accounting for 14.64% of the total variance in the scale, this factor was
termed the “institutional support” (IS) factor. The third factor consisted of 4 items. Factor

U
loadings of the items included in this factor ranged between .58 and .83. Accounting for 10.44%
AN
of the total variance in the scale, this factor was termed the “self-directed learning” (SDL)
factor. The fourth factor consisted of 5 items. The loadings of the items included in this factor
ranged between .58 and .72. Accounting for 7.03% of the total variance in the scale, this factor
M

was termed the “learning-transfer self-efficacy” (LTSE) factor.

Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was used to check the consistency of the
D

items of the scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient regarding the 18 items constituting the TROLM
TE

was calculated as .88. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for communication self-efficacy,

institutional support, self-directed learning, and learning-transfer self-efficacy were calculated
as .95, .82, .80 and .78 respectively. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values higher than .70 are
EP

considered as good, and when the value is close to 1.00, it is considered excellent (George &
Mallery, 2003). It seems that alpha scores were excellent for communication self-efficacy while
at good levels for the entire survey, self-directed learning, institutional support, and learning-
C

transfer self-efficacy. Table 1 presents the values of each item’s mean, standard deviation,
AC

subscale reliability, and factor loading. The 18 items are shown in the appendix.

__________________

insert table 1 here

__________________
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The pilot test resulted in four interpretable factors that explained 67.80% of the variance. On the
basis of the literature-recommended threshold (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006),
we removed no item and indeed retained all 18 items for further analysis. The results of this
study indicate that the scores of the four factors possess sufficient reliability for proceeding to
the next stage in the development of the TROLM.

PT
4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
We carried out a confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether the fit of the model data

RI
(between the item-factor structures) was obtainable from the exploratory factor analysis by
using sample 2. Because different indices provide estimates of how well data fit a priori

SC
hypothesized model and reflect different aspects of model fit, we assessed goodness-of-fit by
using the chi-square test, RMSEA, SRMR, NFI, and CFI (Browne & Cudeck, 1993;
MacCallum, Browne, & Sugarwara, 1996). For the validity analysis, we used the LISREL 8.54

U
(Jöreskog & Sorbom, 1996). /
AN
Obtained through the confirmatory factor analysis, the model’s fit index values were found to be
as follows: χ2 = 351.60, df = 131; χ2/df =2.68; CFI = .96; NFI = .94; RMSEA = .082; and SRMR
M

= .068. These fit index values suggest that the model yielded a good fit. Fig. 1 and Table 2 show
the CFA results of the 18-item, four-factor scale. All standard estimates were statistically
significant at the p < .001 level and had exceeded the recommended value of .50 (Hair, Black,
D

Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The standard estimates ranged from .72 to .95 for communication
TE

self-efficacy, from .59 to .86 for institutional support, from .54 to .85 for self-directed learning,
and from .59 to .88 for learning-transfer self-efficacy, which provided support for convergent
validity (Maruyama, 1998). Evidence for discriminant validity was also strong because the
EP

inter-factor correlations (r = .40 to .57) were moderately small enough to suggest that the four
factors were sufficiently distinct. In addition, all R2 values were greater than the recommended
values of .50, which provided support for the assertion that the TROLM possesses a significant
C

indicator-factor relationship (Cohen, 1988). The Cronbach’s α for each factor met the
AC

recommended level for instrument development (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The results of
confirmatory factor analyses indicate that the TROLM possesses good factorial validity. We
considered the scale to be an adequate assessment tool for further demographic comparison.

__________________

insert fig.1 here

__________________
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

__________________

insert table 2 here

PT
__________________

RI
4.3.Gender differences in online learning readiness
We used 248 participants and conducted an independent samples t-test to explore the differences

SC
between male and female teachers regarding the four measured factors of online learning
readiness. The results of this analysis revealed statistically significant gender differences in
mean scores of learning-transfer self-efficacy (t = 2.47, p = .014). As shown in Table 3, male

U
teachers assigned a heavier weight to learning-transfer self-efficacy than did female teachers.
However, no significant gender differences were found in terms of the other three readiness
AN
dimensions: communication self-efficacy, institutional support, and self-directed learning.

__________________
M

insert table 3 here

D

__________________
TE

4.4.Education level in online learning readiness

We used 248 participants and conducted an independent samples t-test to explore the differences
EP

between teachers with bachelor’s degrees and those with master’s degrees regarding the four
measured factors in the TROLM. The results of this analysis revealed statistically significant
education-level differences in mean scores of communication self-efficacy (t = -2.68, p = .008)
C

and learning-transfer self-efficacy (t = -2.60, p = .010). As shown in Table 4, teachers with

master’s degrees assigned a heavier weight to the dimensions of communication self-efficacy
AC

and learning-transfer self-efficacy than did teachers with bachelor’s degrees. However, no
significant education-level differences were found in terms of the other two readiness
dimensions: institutional support and self-directed learning.

__________________

insert table 4 here

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

__________________

4.5.Length of teaching service in online learning readiness

We used 248 participants and analyzed the relationships between teachers’ length of teaching
service and the TROLM dimensions. This study divided the sample teachers into three groups

PT
according to length of teaching service: (1) 1–10 years, (2) 11–20 years, and (3) 21 years or
more. Table 5 reports the results of the one-way ANOVA analysis that we conducted to

RI
determine whether length of teaching service has statistically significant differences on the
mean scores of the four dimensions on the TROLM. The findings show that teachers’ length of
teaching service varied in the TROLM (p < .05) in the dimensions of communication self-

SC
efficacy (F = 2.317) and self-directed learning (F = 2.523).

U
A post hoc test further showed that teachers with 1 to 10 teaching years rated communication
self-efficacy (LSD’s post hoc analysis, p =.038) significantly higher than did teachers with 21 or
AN
more teaching years. Teachers with 21 or more teaching years rated self-directed learning
(LSD’s post hoc analysis, p = .031) significantly higher than did teachers with 1 to 10 teaching
years and teachers with 11 to 20 teaching years. Teachers possessing different lengths of
M

teaching service did not express any significant differences regarding readiness in the
institutional support and learning-transfer self-efficacy dimensions.
D
TE

__________________
EP

insert table 5 here

__________________
C

5. Discussion
5.1. Dimensions of teachers’ readiness for online learning
AC

The present study examined the online-learner readiness of elementary and middle school
teachers by using the Teacher Readiness for Online Learning Measure (TROLM), built on the
basis of previous research and instruments. We measured the TROLM’s 18 items by using a 5-
point scale, ranging from 5 for “strongly agree,” and 1 for “strongly disagree.” We developed
and validated the TROLM by conducting two studies, each with its own sample of participants.
The research participants were 376 elementary and middle school teachers from different
geographic locations in Taiwan. The results from the exploratory factor analysis show that the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TROLM explores four dimensions of teacher readiness: self-directed learning, institutional

support, communication self-efficacy, and learning-transfer self-efficacy. We performed a
confirmatory factor analysis to test the fit of the hypothesized model of the TROLM. Results
indicate that the TROLM is a valid and reliable instrument that administrators and researchers
can use to gauge elementary and middle school teachers’ readiness for online learning.

PT
The TROLM provided by the present study seems more comprehensive than readiness factors
provided by Keramati et al. (2011). The current study has more dimensions that cover the scopes
of teachers-as-learners’ attitudes and behaviors in online-learning environments. In the

RI
dimension of communication self-efficacy, the sampled teachers in general seem to have been
confident in communicating with peers, posting questions, responding, and expressing

SC
themselves in online discussions. Asynchronous online discussion was one of the tools that
online instructors most frequently used when trying to support learners’ communication and
interaction in online learning environments (Authors, 2015). Furthermore, past research has

U
suggested that increases in participation in online discussions are associated with positive
AN
learning attitudes and improved learning (Kim, 2013; Zheng & Warschauer, 2015). Thus, it is
reasonable to conclude that learners who have better online communication self-efficacy feel
relatively comfortable and satisfied in expressing their views with this discussion format
M

(Authors, 2010).

In the dimension of institutional support, we found that the sampled teachers’ in-service training
D

seemed to receive support from their supervisors or colleagues at school. These teachers
TE

demonstrated that their supervisors had a positive attitude toward the teachers’ application of
online-learning content to the job. This finding is congruent with Park and Choi’s (2009) finding
that organizational support is one of the key factors affecting adult learners’ decision to
EP

complete online courses or drop out. Schools that support teacher learning and foster a culture
of collegiality and continuous improvement respective to the needs of the school and the
students are better able to improve teacher instruction and student achievement than schools that
C

do not have these characteristics (Collinson, 2010). Thus, institutional support would appear to
AC

be a major factor that influences teachers’ motivation to participate in online learning.

In the dimension of self-directed learning, the sampled teachers who took online courses
demonstrated that they directed their own learning progress, carried out their own study plan,
managed time well, and were not distracted by other online activities when learning online. This
overall finding is consistent with the finding of Authors (2010) that successful online learners
make their own decisions to meet their own needs at their own pace. Because SDL has great
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

influence on online learning, teachers-as-learners should have the self-discipline to devote

sufficient time to courses—a skill that will strengthen the teachers-as-learners’ online learning

In the dimension of learning-transfer self-efficacy, the sampled teachers demonstrated that they
enjoyed challenges and liked to share ideas with others. The teachers also expressed their

PT
confidence in applying learning from an online course to teaching jobs. This overall finding is
consistent with the finding of Park and Wentling (2007) that learning-transfer self-efficacy may
play an important role in teachers-as-learners’ online learning. Park and Wentling suggested that

RI
learners who come to an e-learning class with positive attitudes are relatively likely to feel
satisfaction with the e-learning course, and accordingly, these learners are relatively likely to

SC
transfer what they have learned to their job performance. Furthermore, empirical studies found
that an organizational learning culture significantly influences the employees’ job satisfaction
and their motivation to transfer learning (Egan, Yong, & Bartlett, 2004).

5.2. Gender differences in teachers’ readiness

U
AN
Does the gender of teachers make any difference in their readiness for online learning, as the
second research question asks? The results of this study show that male teachers exhibited
M

statistically significantly greater readiness in the dimension of learning-transfer self-efficacy

than did female teachers. The item analysis shows that male teachers were particularly better
than female teachers at sharing ideas with others, enjoying challenges, applying learning from
D

an online course to teaching, and having high expectations for online-learning performance. A
TE

possible explanation for male teachers’ outperformance of female teachers regarding learning-
transfer self-efficacy in this study may be that its participants had taken an online course on
Internet literacy and ethics. This course addressed how people face and solve various problems
EP

on the Internet. It is possible that, in this study, male teachers’ self-assessment of Internet
competence was significantly more positive than female teachers’ corresponding self-
assessment—and these self-assessments would motivate the male teachers more than the female
C

teachers to learn about Internet and computer issues and to apply these issues to teaching.
AC

Earlier research has indicated that men consider themselves better at computer and technical
subjects than females (Sáinz & López-Sáez, 2010; Werner, Hanks, & McDowell, 2004). Our
above findings also echo previous research in which the self-reported Internet experience of
male adults was greater than that of female adults (Ybarra & Suman, 2006).

In addition, the findings in this study show that all teachers demonstrated an equal degree of
readiness in terms of communication self-efficacy, institutional support, and self-directed
learning. With regard to the relationship between gender and communication self-efficacy, these
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

findings are consistent with prior literature’s findings that male and female students had similar
levels in all readiness dimensions (Chu, 2010). Yet our finding of non-significant gender
differences in the gender groups’ communication self-efficacy seems not to support Tsai and
Tsai’s (2010) observation that females were more competent than males at online
communication. The current study’s findings also differ from those in Caspi, Chajuta, and

PT
Saportaa (2008), where women seemed to have a greater preference than men for written
communication. Furthermore, the current study has found that male and female teachers
exhibited equal levels regarding attitudes and behaviors involved in self-directed learning. This

RI
finding is consistent with the finding of Lin and Hsieh’s study (2001): no gender differences
arise for self-directed learners who make their own decisions in order to meet their own needs at

SC
their own pace in online learning environments.

5.3. Education-level differences in teachers’ readiness

U
Education levels seem to be associated with differences in teachers’ readiness for online courses.
AN
For the current study, we conducted a series of post hoc tests to examine the relationship
between education level and TROLM dimensions, the end goal being to answer the third
research question. Our first finding is that differences in education level were associated with no
M

statistically significant variations in the dimensions of institutional support and self-directed

learning. Regarding institutional support, perhaps schools supportively encourage most teachers
in Taiwan to upgrade their competences and acquire higher academic qualifications, no matter
D

what the teachers’ initial educational levels are. For self-directed learning, the sampled teachers
TE

who took online courses demonstrated that they could direct their own learning progress, carry
out their own study plan, and manage time well—again, regardless of initial educational level.
This overall finding is consistent with the finding from Allen and Seaman (2005) that teachers-
EP

as-learners should be responsible for practicing self-discipline. A particularly interesting finding

in our current study is that teachers with a master’s degree assigned a greater weight to the
dimensions of communication self-efficacy and learning-transfer self-efficacy than did teachers
C

with a bachelor’s degree. It may be possible that teachers with a master’s degree have a more
AC

positive disposition toward learning in general, have more training and experience with courses
that use online tools, and make more intensive use of digital tools than is the case with teachers
possessing only a bachelor’s degree. Thus, master’s students gain experience that they can then
extend to new contexts (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). With such experience, teachers
possessing a master’s degree should be better at communicating with others in online learning
environments and at transferring knowledge to a job than are teachers possessing a bachelor’s
degree.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5.4. Length-of-teaching-service differences in teachers’ readiness

Research question 4 concerns the relationship between lengths of teaching service and TROLM
dimensions. We conducted a series of post hoc tests and found that teachers possessing
relatively few teaching years (1 to 10 years) exhibited higher communication self-efficacy than
did teachers possessing relatively many teaching years (21 or more years). This finding may

PT
echo previous research findings suggesting that young adults have particular learning
preferences or styles (Teo, 2013). Young adults appear more active and confident than elder
adults when it comes to communication technologies (e.g., Internet) for accessing information

RI
and for interacting with others. Thus, young teachers are perhaps more accustomed than elder
teachers to communicating with online teachers and peers through computer-mediated

SC
communication in e-learning contexts. Moreover, the mean score of communication self-
efficacy for teachers with 21 or more teaching years was relatively low (3.94 on a 5 point scale),
indicating that the elder teachers in this study sample may have lacked sufficient Internet

U
communication skills. Additionally, teachers with relatively many teaching years (21 or more
AN
years) exhibited higher self-directed learning than did teachers with relatively few teaching
years (1 to 10). A possible reason for this difference is that elder teachers—more so than young
teachers—have a strong desire to learn in online learning environments and, thus, set high
M

standards for themselves. For example, online activities such as instant messaging and Internet
surfing are perhaps less likely to distract elder teachers than young teachers. Thus, online
teachers or administrators need to encourage teachers-as-learners, especially those with many
D

teaching years, to participate extensively in discussions, to bravely express personal thoughts,

TE

and to seek assistance when facing problems online.

Teachers, in fact, may use the TROLM to strengthen their self-understanding prior to taking any
EP

online courses. Online-course administrators, of course, may use the TROLM to collect
information on teachers who would like to take an online course. Gaining a better understanding
of teachers’ readiness in this regard can clarify the sometimes complex roles played by teachers’
C

institutional support, learning-related attitudes, and learning-related behaviors. Such information

AC

would enable teachers-as-learners to better understand their personal characteristics, abilities,

and resources when engaging in a high-quality online learning process. As online learning has
become an integral part of teachers’ professional training, it is important to consider teachers’
intentions and perceptions insofar as they relate to online learning environments. The TROLM
enables researchers to measure and understand the extent to which teachers-as-learners would
react to online learning. Researchers can also use the TROLM to collect data on the various
factors pertinent to teachers-as-learners’ readiness for online learning. Finally, this study’s
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

findings may help distinguish teachers who are prepared learners from teachers who are
unprepared learners.

6. Limitations and future research

The results of this study must be viewed in light of some limitations on the generalizability of

PT
the results. Despite achieving statistical support for its construct validity, the factor structure of
the TROLM is in need of further evaluation. First, although the participants hailed from
different geographic locations in Taiwan, they were all enrolled in a single course: “Internet

RI
Literacy and Ethics.” This focus on one course may limit the generalizability of the findings and
the utility of the TROLM to other online courses. Thus, future research in this field would do

SC
well to broaden the kinds of courses under review. Second, in order to ensure that the developed
instrument is usable and valid for different subgroups, future studies could employ more
variables to study possible variations in applications of the TROLM scale. These variables may

U
include locations (urban or rural areas), school types (public and private schools), school levels
(elementary and middle school), types of education (general, technical, and vocational) and
AN
culture. The studies could be performed to facilitate comparative research across countries.
Another limitation of this work is that we did not provide qualitative research data especially
M

pertinent to educators interested in teachers’ online learning. However, it is important to

understand why teachers—as well as learners—behave the way they do in online learning
environments. These qualitative data will help the researchers to understand teachers’ attitudes,
D

characteristics, and online behaviors. In general, then, future research on teachers’ beliefs,
TE

perspectives, and experiences should consider using rigorous qualitative methods sufficiently
tailored to the topic under examination. Moving forward, we did not provide additional
psychometric information applicable to the TROLM. For example, future research may address
EP

the TROLM’s test–retest reliability and correlations between the TROLM and similar scales, all
in pursuit of more concurrent evidence of validity.
C

References
AC

Authors (2010)
Authors (2015)
Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2014). Examining factors affecting beginning teachers' transfer of
learning of ICT-enhanced learning activities in their teaching practice. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 30(1).
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2010). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended
community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250.

Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States.
Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson &
F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 3–31). Athabasca, AB:

PT
Athabasca University.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? an examination of instructor activity in
online MBA courses. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1234-1244.

RI
Barefoot, B. (2004). Higher education’s revolving door: Confronting the problem of student drop
out in U.S. colleges and universities. Open Learning, 19(1), 9–18.

SC
Beemta, A. & Diepstratenb, I. (2016). Teacher perspectives on ICT: A learning ecology approach.
Computers & Education, 92-93, 161–170.
Bernard, R. M., Brauer, A., Abrami, & Surkes, M. (2004). The development of a questionnaire

U
for predicting online learning achievement. Distance Education, 25(1), 31–47.
AN
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How do people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen,
M

& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Büyüköztürk, S. (2007). Data analysis for social science. Ankara (Turkey): Pegem Academic
D

Press.
TE

Caspi, A., Chajuta, E., & Saportaa, K. (2008). Participation in class and in online discussions:
gender differences. Computers & Education, 50(3), 718–724.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning
EP

design. AACE Journal, 16(2), 137–159.

Ching, C. C., & Hursh, A. W. (2014). Peer modeling and innovation adoption among teachers in
online professional development. Computers & Education, 73, 72–82.
C

Chu, R. J. (2010). How family support and Internet self-efficacy influence e-learning outcomes
AC

among higher aged adults: Analysis of gender and age differences. Computers & Education,
55(1), 255–264.
Chung, H. J. (2000). The study on learning persistence and non-persistence factors of distance
learners. The Korean Journal for Human Resource Development, 2(1), 173–188.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collinson, V. (2010). To learn or not to learn: a potential organizational learning gap among
school systems? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(2), 190–219.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Darab, B., & Montazer, Gh.A. (2011). An eclectic model for assessing e-learning readiness in
the Iranian universities. Computers & Education, 56(3), 900–910.
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research
agenda for online professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to

PT
analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers &
Education, 46(1), 6–28.
Egan, T. M., Yong, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture

RI
and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279-301.

SC
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online
communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 8(2), 61–74.

U
González-Gómez, F., Guardiola, J., Martín-Rodríguez, O., & Montero-Alonso, M. A. (2012).
AN
Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283–290.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.
11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
M

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
D

(7th ed.). NY: Prentice Hall.

TE

Holton, E. F. (1998). Development and validation of a generalized learning transfer climate

questionnaire. In Proceedings of the 1998 academy of human resource development annual
conference. Chicago: Academy of Human Resource Development.
EP

Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000). Development and validation of a
generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
11(4), 333–360.
C

Hrtoňová, N., Kohout, J., Rohlíková, L., & Zounek, J. (2015). Factors influencing acceptance of
AC

e-learning by teachers in the Czech Republic. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 873–879.
Huang, Y. M., Huang, T. C., Wang, K. T., & Hwang, W. Y. (2009). A Markov-based
recommendation model for exploring the transfer of learning on the Web. Educational
Technology & Society, 12(2), 144–162.
Ivergard, T., & Hunt, B. (2004). Processes of learning and eLearning. International Journal of
the Computer, the Internet, and Management, 12(2), 32–44.
Joo, Y. J., Joung, S., & Sim, W. J. (2011). Structural relationships among internal locus of
control, institutional support, flow, and learner persistence in cyber universities. Computers in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Human Behavior, 27, 714–722.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Kao, C. P., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ motivation toward Web-
based professional development, and the relationship with Internet self-efficacy and belief

PT
about Web-based learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 406–415.
Kay, R. H. (2009). Examining gender differences in attitudes toward interactive classroom
communications systems (ICCS). Computers & Education, 52(4), 730–740.

RI
Keramati, A., Afshari-Mofrad, M., & Kamrani, A. (2011). The role of readiness factors in E-
learning outcomes: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1919–1929.

SC
Kim, J. (2013). Influence of group size on students' participation in online discussion forums.
Computers & Education, 62(1), 123–129.
Kim, R., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., & Eryilmaz, E (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to

U
improve self-directed learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education,
AN
70, 150–160.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
M

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
D

York, NY: Guilford Press.

TE

Kramarae, C. (2003). Gender equity online, when there is no door to knock on. In D. Moore &
W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 261-272), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
EP

Lee, D. H. (1996). A model testing study on the learning and transfer of training in organizations.
The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 59–88.
Lee, J. (2012). Patterns of interaction and participation in a large online course: Strategies for
C

fostering sustainable discussion. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 260–272.

AC

Lin, B., & Hsieh, C. T. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research review.
Computers & Education, 37(4), 377–386.
Liu, L., Jones, P. E., & Sadera, W. A. (2010). An investigation on experienced teachers’
knowledge and perceptions of instructional theories and practices. Computers in the Schools,
27(1), 20–34.
Loyens,S. M. M., Magda, J. & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem based
learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist Review,
20, 411–427.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ma, M. (2013, April 2). Coursera experiences glitches, growing pains. Retrieved November 11,
2014, from http://www.thedp.com/article/2013/03/coursera-experiences-glitches-growing-
pains.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugarwara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological

PT
Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. London: Sage Publications.
Mattice, N. J., & Dixon, P. S. (1999). Student preparedness for distance education (Research

RI
Report). Santa Clarita, CA: College of the Canyons.
McVay, M. (2000). Developing a Web-based distance student orientation to enhance student

SC
success in an online bachelor’s degree completion program. Unpublished practicum report
presented to the Ed. D. Program. Florida: Nova Southeastern University.
McVay, M. (2001). How to be a successful distance learning student: Learning on the Internet.

U
New York: Prentice Hall.
AN
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 89, 3–14.
Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation
M

protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191–212.

Muilenburg, L.Y. & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning:
A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48.
D

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
TE

Päivi, T. & Päivi, H. (2005). E-learning at work: Theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical
challenges. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5–6), 318–36.
Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or
EP

persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 207–217.

Park, J.-H. (2007). Factors related to learner dropout in online learning. In Nafukho, F. M.,
Chermack, T. H., & Graham, C. M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2007 Academy of Human
C

Resource Development Annual Conference (pp. 25-1–25-8). Indianapolis, IN: AHRD.

AC

Park, J.-H., & Wentling, T. (2007). Factors associated with transfer of training in workplace e-
learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(5), 311–329.
Park, N., Rhoads, M., Hou, J., & Lee, K. M. (2014). Understanding the acceptance of
teleconferencing systems among employees: An extension of the technology acceptance
model. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 118–127.
Priest, L. (2000). The story of one learner: a student’s perspective on online teaching. In K. W.
White & B. H. Weight (Eds), The online teaching guide: a handbook of attitudes, strategies,
and techniques for the virtual classroom (pp. 37–44). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Rickert, A., & Sacharow, A. (2000). It's a woman's World Wide Web, Reston, VA: Media Matrix
and Jupiter Communications.
Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional
development on higher education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation
and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122–131.

PT
Robins, P. (2003). Organizational behavior. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roper, A. R. (2007). How students develop online learning skills. Educause Quarterly, 30(1),
62–64.

RI
Sáinz, M., & López-Sáez, M. (2004). Gender differences in computer attitudes and the choice of
technology-related occupations in a sample of secondary students in Spain. Computers &

SC
Education, 54, 578–587.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups:
What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–

U
976.
AN
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2007). Learning in asynchronous
discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task
characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 55–71.
M

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 299–323.

Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain
why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools
D

more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247–256.

TE

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-
regulation, and the development of communities of inquiry in online and blended learning
environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731.
EP

Shen, D., Cho, M.H., Tsai, C.L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning experiences:
Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19,
10–17.
C

Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology
AC

acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27, 2067–2077.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student
perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1),
59–70.
Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., & Totaro, M. W. (2009). Business faculty and undergraduate students’
perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 20(1), 29–40.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Teo, T. (2010). Development and validation of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM). The
Internet and Higher Education, 13, 148–152.
Teo, T. (2013). An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale
(DNAS). Computers & Education, 67, 51–57.
Teo, T. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ acceptance of technology: Tests of measurement invariance

PT
and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 75, 127–135.
Teo, T., Tan, S. C., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Chen, W. L., & Cheah, H. M. (2010).
The Self-directed Learning with Technology Scale (SDLTS) for young students: An initial

RI
development and validation. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1764–1771.
Tsai, M. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Junior high school students’ Internet usage and self-efficacy: a

SC
re-examination of the gender gap. Computers & Education, 54, 1182–1192.
Vonderwell, S., & Turner, S. (2005). Active learning and preservice teachers’ experience in an
online course: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 65–84.

U
Warner, D., Christie, G., & Choy, S. (1998). Readiness of VET clients for flexible delivery
AN
including on-line learning. Brisbane: Australian National Training Authority.
Werner, L. L., Hanks, B., & McDowell, C. (2004). Pair-programming helps female computer
science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(1).
M

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1060071.1060075.
Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (1991), Developing and Training Human Resources in
Organizations (2nd ed.). Harper-Collins, New York, NY.
D

Yang, Y.-T. C. (2012). Cultivating critical thinkers: Exploring transfer of learning from pre-
TE

service teacher training to classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1116–
1130.
Ybarra, M., & Suman, M. (2006). Reasons, assessments and actions taken: Sex and age
EP

differences in use of Internet health information. Health Education Research, 23(3), 512–521.
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender Differences in Self-Regulated Online Learning
Environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 12–22.
C

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational

AC

Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Results of the means, standard deviations, and factor loadings

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4
CSE1 4.19 .66 .93
CSE2 4.23 .63 .93
CSE3 4.21 .71 .90
CSE4 4.18 .66 .89
IS1 4.23 .71 .85

PT
IS2 4.14 .67 .83
IS3 4.17 .85 .67
IS4 4.13 .74 .65
IS5 3.81 .78 .61

RI
SDL1 4.02 .61 .83
SDL2 3.94 .68 .82
SDL3 3.90 .73 .77

SC
SDL4 4.06 .70 .58
LTSE1 4.07 .68 .72
LTSE2 4.26 .57 .70
LTSE3 4.21 .57 .67

U
LTSE4 3.83 .73 .65
LTSE5 4.06 .67 .58
Total Eigenvalue 6.42 2.64 1.88 1.27
AN
Total Variance Explained 35.70 14.64 10.44 7.03
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Fig. 1. Factor structure of the Teacher Readiness for Online Learning Measure (TROLM).
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Standardized
estimate t value R2 α
Communication self-efficacy .95
CSE1 .72 –a .77
CSE2 .82 12.86 .90

PT
CSE3 .95 14.81 .99
CSE4 .89 13.98 .96
Institutional support .83
IS1 .86 13.97 .94

RI
IS2 .80 10.85 .87
IS3 .65 11.20 .67
IS4 .67 9.58 .70

SC
IS5 .59 –a .58
Self-directed learning .82
SDL1 .72 –a .77
SDL2 .85 12.04 .93

U
SDL3 .81 11.68 .89
SDL4 .54 7.93 .50
AN
Learning- transfer self-efficacy .84
LTSE1 .59 –a .58
LTSE2 .64 8.24 .66
LTSE3 .64 8.25 .66
M

LTSE4 .86 10.30 .94

LTSE5 .88 10.13 .96
a
This parameter was fixed to 1.00 for specification purposes.
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3
Male Female
(n=77) (n=171)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t
Communication self-efficacy 4.25 0.62 4.13 0.61 1.36
Institutional support 4.23 0.52 4.09 0.58 1.82
Self-directed learning 4.06 0.56 3.97 0.58 1.17
4.21 0.50 4.03 0.53

PT
Learning-transfer self-efficacy 2.44*
* p = 0.014 (<.05) statistically significant at a 95% confidence level (2-tailed).

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4
Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree
(n=123) (n=125)
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t
Communication self-efficacy 4.07 0.62 4.28 0.59 -2.68**
Institutional support 4.07 0.54 4.21 0.58 -1.88
Self-directed learning 3.97 0.52 4.03 0.64 -0.84
4.00 0.49 4.18 0.55

PT
Learning-transfer self-efficacy -2.60*
* p = .010 (<.05) statistically significant at a 95% confidence level (2-tailed).
**p = .008 (<.01) statistically significant at a 95% confidence level (2-tailed).

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5 Descriptive statistics and an F test of the length of teaching service relative to TROLM
dimensions
Length of teaching service
(3) 21 years or
(1) 1–10 years (2) 11–20 years Post hoc
more F
analysis
Mean (SD)
Communication self-efficacy 4.23(0.57) 4.14(0.68) 3.94(0.61) 2.317* (1)>(3)

PT
Institutional support 4.09(0.58) 4.16(0.58) 4.20(0.47) 0.693
Self-directed learning 3.93(0.56) 4.02(0.59) 4.21(0.59) 2.523* (3)>(1)
Learning-transfer self-efficacy 4.03(0.50) 4.10(0.53) 4.15(0.61) 0.814
* p <.05 statistically significant at a 95% confidence level (2-tailed).

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix
TROLM dimensions and items
Dimensions/ Items
Communication self-efficacy (CSE)
CSE1: I feel confident in responding to questions in online discussions.
CSE2: I feel confident in posting questions in online discussions.
CSE3: I feel confident in using online tools (email, discussion) to effectively communicate with others.

PT
CSE4: I feel confident in expressing myself (emotions and humor) through text.
Institutional support (IS)
IS1: I think that my supervisor has a positive attitude toward my in-service training.
IS2: I think that my colleagues have a positive attitude toward my in-service training.

RI
IS3: My school’s employee training is acceptable.
IS4: My colleagues can help each other at school.
IS5: My supervisor has a positive attitude toward my application of online-learning content to my job.
Self-directed learning (SDL)

SC
SDL1: I can direct my own learning progress.
SDL2: I carry out my own study plan.
SDL3: I manage time well.
SDL4: I am not distracted by other online activities when learning online (instant messages, Internet surfing).

U
Learning transfer self-efficacy (LTSE)
LTSE1: I like to share my ideas with others.
AN
LTSE2: I am confident about applying learning from an online course to my teaching job.
LTSE3: I am confident that I have progressed since my online course.
LTSE4: I have higher expectations for my online-learning performance since taking the online course.
LTSE5: I enjoy challenges.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology,
Taiwan, grant number: 103-2511-S-130 -001.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
> This study explores four main factors.
> This study examines elementary and middle school teachers’ readiness as online
learners.
> Male teachers exhibited greater readiness in learning-transfer self-efficacy.
>The fewer teaching years a teacher had, the higher the teacher’s communication
self-efficacy tended to be.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC