E-Learning Readiness Among Faculty Members of Iranian Universities: a Survey of 23 Universities

TE-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members … Farazkish M et al. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences Original Article

E-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members of Iranian Universities: A Survey of 23 Universities

Mahdieh Farazkish1*, PhD; Gholam Ali Montazer2, PhD

1Faculty of Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran 2Department of IT, Engineering School of Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT Background: The aim of this study was to assess the level of *Corresponding author: e-learning readiness among the faculty members in Iranian Mahdieh Farazkish, PhD; Faculty of Management, universities. Tarbiat Modares University, Methods: This is a survey research and the statistical population Tehran, Iran included all faculty members of 23 selected Iranian universities Email: [email protected] in March-September 2018. The population of the study included about 750 professors selected through simple random sampling. The instrument of study was a questionnaire titled “Evaluation of Instructors’ Readiness for E-learning in Iranian Universities”. Please cite this paper as: Farazkish M, Montazer Its content and face validity were veriﬁed by professionals, and GA. E-Learning Readiness its reliability was measured through Cronbach’s Coeffcient alpha among Faculty Members which was (0.72-0.86). To analyze the data, descriptive and mean, of Iranian Universities: A SD statistics (independent T-test) were used. Survey of 23 Universities. Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Results: The average e-readiness score of professors from the Med Sci. 2019;10(4):54- 23 selected universities amounted to approximately 4.3 out of 10, 64. doi: 10.30476/ which is indicative of a relatively “weak” e-readiness status. Also, ijvlms.2019.84302.1003. Received: 07-10-2019 the score of over 60% of the criteria was “less than average”. Revised: 10-12-2019 Conclusion: Given the decreasing numbers of e-learning students Accepted: 16-12-2019 in Iran, the results of this study show that one of the important reasons for the failure in the development of universities’ e-learning systems can be the lack of e-learning readiness among instructors. Keywords: E-learning, E-learning readiness assessment, Faculty members, Higher education, Iranian Universities

54 Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 Farazkish M et al. E-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members …

Introduction E-readiness is the extent to which More than four million students are instructors are prepared to apply their currently studying in Iran, with less than e-learning experience to an ELS (9, 10). one percent of them attending “Electronic E-readiness measures have been widely Learning Systems” (ELSs), indicating that researched, from Australia (11), Egypt (12), this educational system is not favored by Nigeria (13), Iran (6), Myanmar (14), South Iranian students. In the current era, even Africa (15), Turkey (16), Kenya (17) to the prominent universities and pioneers such United Kingdom (18), and USA (4, 19). One as Shiraz University, Tarbiat Modares of the most important e-learning readiness University, Amir Kabir University, and dimensions identifed in all of these studies Science and Technology University, which is the dimension of instructors’ readiness. have been pursuing e-learning courses for Indeed, the implementation of a successful more than a decade, appear to be facing serious ELS requires instructors to be: trained in terms challenges. Despite the large investment of technical skills for using online courses in technical infrastructure and e-learning and programs, computer literate in hardware systems, their revenues from e-learning are and software, and mentally accepting of the rapidly declining (1). move to a digital environment (4, 20, 21). A review of similar international Similarly, other studies have examined the experiences also shows that despite the high factors affecting instructors’ readiness in potentials of e-learning in “Higher Education e-learning systems, which is summarized in Institutions” (HEIs), investments in this Table 1. area are still deemed to carry high risks. For It seems that one of the frst steps in example, in Nelson’s study about the reasons the implementation of e-learning systems for e-learning systems success or failure, 36 should be an assessment of the readiness common misconceptions have been identifed of instructors. Since faculty members are in four main categories: “human resource”, responsible for instruction in universities, this “process”, “product” and “technology” (2). paper has expanded on the measures applied Another study identifed 43 success factors for in the assessment of ELSs by identifying e-learning projects, more than half of which those unique characteristics that describe are related to human resources readiness (3). e-ready online instructors with an effective Therefore, although creating the right network performance in an ELS. Accordingly, the infrastructure with the right hardware and main question of the research is: what are software components is a prerequisite for the abilities and skills of faculty members for e-learning success, human resource readiness the successful implementation of e-learning is a suffcient condition (4). systems? The term “e-learning readiness” Therefore, the purpose of this study is to (e-readiness), which is defned as users’ analyze the factors affecting the readiness competence to ‘‘use’’ an ELS and its of faculty members in Iranian universities technological tools, has resulted from the and measure their e-learning readiness in need to assess the technological, social and order to determine the factors of failure of organizational readiness levels among users Iranian HEIs’ e-learning systems in the light for implementing ELS (5). At the very least, of faculty members’ readiness or lack thereof. an e-ready online instructor should be capable of effciently and effectively applying the Methods technology they require for ELS (5-8). Few From a philosophical perspective, this studies have been conducted on assessing research falls into the positivist paradigm the readiness of online instructors (including and uses the logic of deductive reasoning. lecturers, teachers or professors) in ELSs In terms of objective, the research is applied across a university system (8). and the survey research strategy is used to

Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 55 TE-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members … Farazkish M et al.

Table 1: Instructors’ e-learning readiness factors No. Researchers Technical Network Technological Cultural Instructors’ readiness readiness tool readiness readiness e-learning readiness factors 1 McConnel (22) ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 Rosenberg (23) ✓ 3 Engholm & McLean (24) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4 Bradbent (25) ✓ ✓ 5 Anderson (26) ✓ ✓ 6 Haney (27) ✓ 7 Worknowledge (28) ✓ ✓ ✓ 8 Borotis & Poulimenakou (29) ✓ ✓ 9 Cloete (30) ✓ 10 Kaur & Zoraini Wati (12) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 11 Chapnick (31) ✓ ✓ ✓ 12 Aydin & Tasci (14) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 Psycharis (32) ✓ 14 Machado (33) ✓ ✓ 15 Lopes (34) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 16 Akaslan & Law (35) ✓ ✓ 17 Saekow & Samson (36) ✓ ✓ collect frst-hand data using questionnaire collect factors and measures from previous tools from September to March 2018. The studies and the second approach was statistical population in this research is all employed to select factors and measures in faculty members of 23 selected Iranian accordance with the indigenous requirements. universities, including 10200 professors at It is worth noting that more than 50 experts, the time of conducting the research. For including a number of managers and planners sample selection, simple random sampling at the Ministry of Science, Research and method is used which considering Cochran’s Technology (MSRT) and universities (26 statistical formula in the following relation, people), professors familiar with e-learning the minimum number of samples under study (15 people), and technical experts (12 people), is 370 people. were selected by “Snowball Method” and The statistical sample consists of 746 contributed to determining the relative faculty members of the selected universities, importance of selected factors and measures. of which: 50 (7%) are professors, 142 (19%) are The acquired responses were then associate professors, 417 (56%) are assistant formulated in accordance with Likert’s fve- professors and 132 (18%) are lecturers. In option spectrum (i.e. scale 1 for the fully other words, the rank of Associate Professor opposed and 5 for the fully agreed), which is represented the most in the research sample. is considered as one of the most commonly Also, the sample included professors from used scales for assessing closed answers the faculties of fundamental sciences (17%), (37). A diversifed assessment of the research engineering (43%), human sciences (22%), tool (i.e. the questionnaire) is presented in agricultural sciences (14%) and arts (4%) (See Table 2, covering different aspects, from Appendix 1). its reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha test) to its In order to extract the e-learning readiness construct validity (Explorative Factorial factors and measures of professors, this study Analysis). The table shows the values of the was conducted using two complementary Cronbach’s Alpha index, the KMO measure approaches: a documentary study and expert of sampling adequacy ranges, as well as the opinion. The frst approach was applied to variance percentages for the model. Based on

56 Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 Farazkish M et al. E-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members …

Table 2: Findings of the explorative factorial analysis No. Readiness Factors Cronbach’s a KMO Total variance (%) 1 Technical readiness 0.77 0.83 40.63 2 Network readiness 0.81 0.8 51.02 3 Technological tool readiness 0.86 0.71 48.32 4 Cultural readiness 0.72 0.71 45.59

Table 3: Assessing the priority of the factors based on the T-test Rank Readiness Average Standard T-value> 3 dimension deviation T Level of significance Mean difference 1 Cultural readiness 3.65 0.61 11.9 0.0001 0.77 2 Technological tool 3.84 0.68 11.87 0.0001 0.86 readiness 3 Technical readiness 4.13 0.43 28.85 0.0001 1.31 4 Network readiness 4 0.66 14.3 0.0001 1 the fndings (KMO=0.762 and P<0.05 for the in 23 Iranian universities were studied. It is Bartlett’s test), the suffciency and relevance worth noting that the “Interval of Standard of the proposed factors are confrmed as Deviation from the Mean” (ISDM) method desirable. The model’s predictability is will be used in the next section to analyze demonstrated in accordance with the variance the scores obtained from each measure value as shown for each one of its constructs. (considering the qualitative nature of the Cronbach’s Alpha values for all of the questionnaire questions) (38). In this way, constructs scaled above 0.7 which indicated the data are divided into four levels: “weak”, the desirability of the data collection tool “medium”, “good” and “excellent” according applied for the explorative research. to the following formula: The next section will be focused on A = Weak: A ≤ Mean- Sd determining the priority order of the factors B = Medium: Mean - Sd

Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 57 TE-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members … Farazkish M et al.

Technology, Khajeh Nasir Toosi University Results of Technology and Tehran University of Art), As mentioned earlier, selected measures 15 comprehensive provincial universities of technical readiness, network readiness, (Shiraz University, University of Isfahan, technological tool readiness and cultural University of Sistan and Baluchestan, readiness factors were used to evaluate the Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, e-readiness of professors. A summary of University of Zanjan, Semnan University, the results of the questionnaire responses Urmia University, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani are given in Appendix 4. The results can be University, University of Kurdistan, Razi analysed in two levels presented in the next Uinivesity, University of Kashan, University sections. of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Hakim Sabzevari University, Yazd University and University Analysing Professors’ E-Learning Readiness of Birjand), and three comprehensive capital at Each University universities (University of Tehran, Tarbiat In Figure 1, the average e-readiness Modares University and Shahid Rajaee score of faculty members at each selected Teacher Training University) were represented institution is shown in the form of a radar in this study. These selected cases have an chart. As shown in Figure 1, the distribution of appropriate geographic, demographic and e-readiness scores of universities’ professors discipline coverage and provide a relatively are almost homogeneous, at the “Medium” accurate picture of Iran’s higher education level; nevertheless, only the scores of four in the feld of e-learning. A summary of universities including “University of Tehran”, background information on these selected “Sharif University of Technology”, “Khajeh universities is presented in Appendix 3. Nasir Toosi University of Technology” and

Figure 1: Professors’ e-readiness Radar Chart at selected universities

58 Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 Farazkish M et al. E-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members …

“Yazd University” are rated at the “Good” technological tools and cultural readiness). level (higher than 6 out of 10). Besides, the The results show that score of only one professors’ e-readiness score of “Tehran main factor (“Technological Tools”) is at a University of Art” is at the “Weak” level. The “Good” level (about 7.5 out of 10). The lowest details of the university professors’ readiness score (less than 4 out of 10) was obtained in scores can be seen in Appendix 4. “Technical Skills”, along with the “Medium” scores (between 4 and 6) in “Cultural Analysing Professors’ E-Learning Readiness Readiness” and “Network Readiness”. Levels in All Universities According to the classifcation presented The professors’ total e-readiness score was in Figure 3, the analysis of the results is obtained by calculating the average weight presented separately for each factor. of each measure and the average score of the respondents for each measure. In Figure 2, the Professors’ E-Readiness Assessment in e-readiness of faculty members for selected Terms of Technical Skills universities is shown in the form of a radar Examining the technical readiness chart. measures and the frequency of respondents’ The average e-readiness score of professors responses demonstrated that the scores of from the 23 selected universities amounted more than 75% of the measures (9 out of 12) are to approximately 4.3 out of 10, which is “medium” or “weak”. The results show that indicative of a relatively “weak” e-readiness scores of only three measures (“Ability to use status. As shown in Figure 2, the distribution search engines”, “Ability to install software” of scores for e-readiness measures is and “Familiarity with International Computer completely heterogeneous, ranging from Driving License [ICDL] skills”) are higher “weak” to “excellent”; nevertheless, the share than “medium” level, where the highest score of “weak” and “medium” scores are more (about 7 out of 10) can be attributed to the than 60% (16 out of 25 measures). “Ability to use search engines”. In Figure 3, the radar chart portrays the The lowest score (approx. 1.3 out of 10) instructors’ e-readiness in terms of the four was obtained on the measure “Familiarity tested factors (technical skills, network skills, with the advanced course development tools”,

Figure 2: Average scores of e-readiness measures at selected universities

Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 59 TE-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members … Farazkish M et al.

of the measure “Ability to use the network to communicate with others” also confrms this conclusion.

Professors’ E-Readiness Assessment in Terms of Technological Tools Based on the results of this survey, the scores of the measures “Owns a personal computer/ smartphone” and “Ability to use e-libraries and online profles” are approximately 7.9 and 6.8 out of 10 respectively, which positions the professors’ e-readiness in terms of technological tools at Figure 3: Professors’ e-readiness Radar Chart in the highest levels relative to the other factors. terms of four main factors studied In this factor, therefore, the professors of along with the “relatively weak” and “weak” selected universities reached a “good” level. scores on the measures of “Familiarity with the primary tools of content creation”, Professors’ E-Readiness Assessment in “Familiarity with Learning Management Terms of Cultural Readiness System (LMS)” and “Familiarity with The results of the “Cultural Readiness” Learning Content Management System factor demonstrated that only about 35% of (LCMS)”. This indicates the “weak” faculty members agree with “the superiority readiness of the surveyed professors in the of e-learning to face-to-face training”. In area of e-learning content design. addition, the professors of the selected The professors’ average technical universities have displayed the highest readiness score was approximately 3.5 out readiness on the measure “ability to use the of 10. It can therefore be concluded that the internet for academic research purposes” faculty members of selected universities are (with a score of 7.2) and the lowest readiness not prepared enough in terms of having the to the measure “ability to use the internet basic skills and prerequisites for implementing for commercial purposes” (4.6 out of 10). In electronic learning programs. general, professors’ average cultural readiness score is 4.4 out of 10, corresponding to the Professors’ E-Readiness Assessment in “less than medium” level. Terms of Network Skills The average score of the six network Discussion measures is approximately 4.8 out of 10, Given the declining number of e-learning which indicates a “medium” level of readiness students in Iran, the results of this study show in this factor among professors. Meanwhile, that one of the important reasons for the failure the three measures “Ability to use e-mail”, of developing universities’ e-learning systems “Access to the internet and social networks can be the lack of instructors’ e-learning in the university” and “Access to high-speed readiness. Although a comprehensive analysis internet at the university” are rated “excellent” of the status of only a limited number of and “good.” Iranian universities cannot warrant a general Two related measures, including “Owns a conclusion, by combining the fndings personal website” and “Ability to update their of this study with other similar previous personal website”, have the lowest scores in studies (39-40), it can be concluded that the this factor, which confrms the lack of ability failure of academic e-learning in developing among professors to utilize the network countries such as Iran is due to the lack of profciently. The “lower than medium” score attention to the soft aspects of technology

60 Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 Farazkish M et al. E-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members … development, especially e-readiness among prove benefcial; human resources. Prioritizing ELS in each of • Promoting the benefts of ELSs these universities requires that the academic and sustainable policy development for offcials and planners pay special attention to the engagement of professors in e-learning professors’ readiness. This is supported by through intrinsic and extrinsic incentives all three levels of analysis in this study: the could also be helpful in terms of promoting macro-level (based on the average scores of the adoption of digital platforms; all measures), the meso-level (consistent with • Strengthening the cultural, each factor score), and the micro-level (with scientifc and educational aspects through each measure taken alone). seminars, workshops and training courses; In spite of almost identical readiness level • Providing appropriate training in large dimensions (all measures considered), courses for professors on the requirements there were signifcant differences between the of an e-learning environment. The content of four major factors (technical skills, network the training courses may include familiarity skills, technological tools and cultural with the application of electronic content factor). While Professors were at a “good” production, online tests, evaluation of level in terms of their use and knowledge e-learning, etc. of “technological tools”, the “technical and network skills” and openness to “cultural Acknowledgments change” among professors were below the The authors are thankful to the professors “medium” level. These results are consistent of 23 Universities who participated in this with the results of studies by Kaur and study. Zoraini Wati (12), Ojo and Ayanda (13), Hung et al. (7), Aydın and Tasci (14), Kashorda Ethical Considerations and Waema (15), Lou and Goulding (16), No ethical issues were found. Participants Kamalian and Fazel (41) and Aslani et al. (42), have attended in this study willingly and data which indicate that, in terms of component was presented anonymously. Participants weights, faculty members’ priorities in were assured that their information will implementing e-learning are (in descending remain confdential. order of importance) technological tools, network, culture and fnally technical skills Funding/Support readiness. This article was partly funded by Iran’s Accordingly, addressing these challenges National Elite Foundation and also by should be placed on the agenda of offcials the Center for International Studies and and administrators of these universities. Collaboration (within the research project The following suggestions are presented “Evaluating the e-readiness of universities to provide the foundation for the in Iran and Turkey”). The authors are grateful implementation of e-learning systems: for the generous support of these institutions. • Enhancing faculty members’ level of readiness by holding specialized training Conflict of Interests courses in various felds such as familiarizing No potential conflict of interest relevant to academic staff with the basic and advanced this article was reported. tools of online course development, fostering the skills of designing and implementing References online educational content, and improving 1 Institute for Research and Planning in computer software and hardware skills; Higher Education. Iran’s higher education • Reinforcing technical support statistics in the academic year 2017-2018. infrastructure, which includes hiring Tehran. 2018. computer and network experts, could also 2 Ketelhut DJ, Nelson BC, Clarke J, Dede C. A

Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 61 TE-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members … Farazkish M et al.

multi-user virtual environment for building ce.2018.99095 and assessing higher order inquiry skills 11 Lee YH, Hsiao C, Purnomo SH. An in science. British Journal of Educational empirical examination of individual and Technology. 2010; 41(1):56-68. https://doi. system characteristics on enhancing org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01036.x e-learning acceptance. Australasian 3 Petter S, DeLone W, McLean ER. Journal of Educational Technology. 2014; Information systems success: The quest 30(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.381 for the independent variables. Journal 12 El Gamal S, Abd El Aziz R. Improving of management information systems. higher education in Egypt through 2013; 29(4):7-62. https://doi.org/10.2753/ e-learning programs: HE students MIS0742-1222290401 and senior academics perspective. 4 Liaw SS, Huang HM, Chen GD. Surveying International Journal of Innovation in instructor and learner attitudes toward Education. 2012; 1(4):335-61. https://doi. e-learning. Computers & Education. 2007; org/10.1504/IJIIE.2012.052738 49(4):1066-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 13 Ojo RA, Ayanda DO. Handling internet compedu.2006.01.001 connectivity challenges in a typical 5 Hashim H, Tasir Z. E-learning readiness: university academic library in Nigeria: A literature review. In2014 International A case study of Kenneth Dike Library. Conference on Teaching and Learning Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document in Computing and Engineering 2014; Delivery & Electronic Reserve. 2012; 267-271. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ 22(5):223-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/107 LaTiCE.2014.58 2303x.2012.740440 6 Darab B, Montazer GA. An eclectic 14 The MM, Usagawa T. Evaluation on model for assessing e-learning readiness e-learning readiness of Yangon and in the Iranian universities. Computers & Mandalay technological universities, Education. 2011; 56(3):900-10. https://doi. Myanmar. In TENCON 2017-2017 org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.002 IEEE Region 10 Conference 2017; 2072- 7 Hung WH, Chang LM, Lin CP, Hsiao CH. 2076. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ E-readiness of website acceptance and TENCON.2017.8228202 implementation in SMEs. Computers in 15 Pillay K, Erasmus L. e-Readiness in South Human Behavior. 2014; 40:44-55. https:// African Higher Education: A Delphi doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.046 study: With a focus on determining key 8 Gay GH. An assessment of online factors and stakeholders. In2017 IEEE instructor e-learning readiness before, AFRICON 2017; 758-763. IEEE. https:// during, and after course delivery. Journal doi.org/10.1109/AFRCON.2017.8095578 of Computing in Higher Education. 2016; 16 Lou EC, Goulding JS. The pervasiveness of 28(2):199-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/ e-readiness in the global built environment s12528-016-9115-z arena. Journal of Systems and Information 9 Pillay H, Irving K, Tones M. Validation Technology. 2010; 12(3):180-95. https:// of the diagnostic tool for assessing doi.org/10.1108/13287261011070812 tertiary students’ readiness for online 17 Maugis V, Choucri N, Madnick SE, Siegel learning. High Education Research & MD, Gillett SE, Haghseta F, Zhu H, Best Development. 2007; 26(2):217-https://doi. ML. Global e-readiness—for what? org/10.1080/07294360701310821 Readiness for e-banking. Information 10 Usagawa T. Change in E-learning technology for development. 2005; Readiness and Challenge for Myanmar 11(4):313-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Higher Education. Creative Education. itdj.20022 2018; 9(09):1277. https://doi.org/10.4236/ 18 Watkins R, Leigh D, Triner D. Assessing

62 Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 Farazkish M et al. E-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members …

readiness for e-learning. Performance Readiness. Available at: http//www. Improvement Quarterly. 2004; 17(4):66-79. worknowledge.com. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004. 29 Rohayani AH. A literature review: tb00321.x readiness factors to measuring e-learning 19 Al-Samarraie H, Selim H, Teo T, Zaqout readiness in higher education. Procedia F. Isolation and distinctiveness in the Computer Science. 2015; 59:230-4. https:// design of e-learning systems influence doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.564 user preferences. Interactive Learning 30 Cloete E. Electronic education system Environments. 2017; 25(4):452-66. https:// model. Computers & Education. 2001; doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1138313 36(2):171-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 20 Sadik A. Digital storytelling: A S0360-1315(00)00058-0 meaningful technology-integrated 31 Hamburg I. eLearning 2.0 and social, approach for engaged student learning. practice-oriented communities to improve Educational technology research and knowledge in companies. In 2010 Fifth development. 2008; 56(4):487-506. https:// International Conference on Internet and doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8 Web Applications and Services 2010; 21 Rahim NM, Yusoff SH, Latif SA. 411-416. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ Assessing students’ readiness towards ICIW.2010.68 e-learning. InAIP Conference Proceedings 32 Adiyarta K, Napitupulu D, Rahim R, 2014; 1605(1): 750-755. AIP. https://doi. Abdullah D, Setiawan MI. Analysis of org/10.1063/1.4887684 e-learning implementation readiness 22 MCCONNELL D. Technologies for CSCL. based on integrated ELR model. In Journal Implementing Computer Supported of Physics: Conference Series 2018; Cooperative Learning. 2000:27-67. 1007(1): 12-41. IOP Publishing. https:// 23 Rosenberg MJ, Foshay R. E-learning: doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1007/1/012041 Strategies for delivering knowledge in the 33 Machado C. Developing an e-readiness digital age. Performance Improvement. model for higher education institutions: 2002; 41(5):50-1. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Results of a focus group study. British pf.4140410512 journal of educational technology. 24 Engholm P, McLean J. What determines 2007; 38(1):72-82. https://doi. an organisation’s readiness for e-learning. org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00595.x online? Available: http://www2. sbbs.se/ 34 Kolo I, Zuva T. Comparison between the hp/erson/academia/Thesis% 20FINAL. e-Learning Readiness of Educators and htm. 2001. Learners in South African Schools. In 2018 25 Broadbent, B. Championing e-learning. International Conference on Intelligent www.e-learninghub.com/articles/ and Innovative Computing Applications championing.html# Pros% 20and% (ICONIC) 2018; 1-6. IEEE. https://doi. 20cons% 20of% 20e-teaming. 2000. org/10.1109/ICONIC.2018.8601266 26 Anderson, T. Is elearning Right for your 35 Akaslan D, Law EL. Measuring teachers’ organization? Learning Circuits Update. readiness for e-learning in higher education Available at: http//www.learningcircuits. institutions associated with the subject of org/2002/jan2002/ Anderson.html. 2002. electricity in Turkey. In2011 IEEE Global 27 Haney BD. Assessing organizational Engineering Education Conference readiness for E-learning: 70 questions (EDUCON) 2011; 481-490. IEEE. https:// to ask. Performance improvement. doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2011.5773180 2002; 41(4):10-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 36 Sa ekow A , Sa m son D. E -le a r n i ng Re a d i ne ss pf.4140410404 of Thailand’s Universities Comparing to 28 Worknowledge. E-learning Assessment the USA’s Cases. International Journal of

Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4 63 TE-Learning Readiness among Faculty Members … Farazkish M et al.

e-Education, e-Business, e-Management universities in Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan and e-Learning. 2011; 1(2):126. https://doi. for the realization of e-learning system. org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2011.V1.20 13th Conference on Quality Assessment 37 Mertler CA, Reinhart RV. Advanced in Academic Systems, Shiraz. 2019. and multivariate statistical methods: 41 Kamalian A, Fazel A. Check prerequisites Practical application and interpretation. and feasibility of the implementation of Routledge; 2016. https://doi. thee-learning system. Journal of Education org/10.4324/9781315266978 Technology.2009; 4(1):13–27. 38 Quamar MK. Global trends in agricultural 42 Babakhani, M., Allah Karami, A., extension: challenges facing Asia and Amirteimori, M., Aslani, E., EIC, the Pacifc region. http://www.fao.org/ P., Ahmadpour Kasgari, Z., Abedini sd/2002/KN0903a_en. htm. 2002. https:// Baltork, M., Mansoori, S. Evaluation of doi.org/10.1109/ijcnn.2003.1223719 the Readiness for E-Learning from the 39 Farazkish M, Montazer Gh. Measuring Viewpoints of the Students and Professors readiness of digital content in selected of Allameh Tabataba’i University. universities of Iran. 12th E-Learning Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Conference, Tehran. 2016. Learning in Medical Sciences, 2016; 7(1). 40 Farazkish M, Montazer Gh. A comparative https://doi.org/10.5812/ijvlms.12072 analysis of pro and students’ readiness of

64 Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci 2019; Vol. 10, No. 4