**4. Results and discussion**

A total of 963 completed responses were analysed, comprising 539 from the blended course and 424 from the online course. The demographic data for both cohorts revealed that the median age range of respondents was 29 years or younger, the majority were female and in their second year of the programme. In keeping with the course registration patterns, students in the blended cohort registered for five courses, while those in the online cohort registered for three courses. Although over 90% of the students in the blended course lived in the country of the campus, about 56% of the students in the online course also lived the country where a main campus was located. The demographic results of the students are presented in **Table 1**.

The internal consistency of the survey items was tested using Cronbach's alpha, a reliability coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set are positively correlated to one another. The alpha coefficient for each scale was greater than 0.70 confirming that the survey instrument was reliable. Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine the strength of the association between the students' level of e-readiness and demographic variables. There was no significant association between level of e-readiness and demographic variables for either cohort, such as gender for the blended cohort (χ(1) = 2.519, *p* = 0.112) or the online cohort (χ(1) = 0.017, *p* = 0.897); age range for the blended cohort (χ(1) = 3.614, *p* = 0.306) or the online cohort (χ(1) = 1.522, *p* = 0.677); and territory of residence for the blended cohort (χ(1) = 2.117, *p* = 0.146) or the online cohort (χ(1) = 0.817, *p* = 0.366). These results support other published research of no significant differences among demographics such as age, gender, or territory of residence [8].

**4.1. Characteristics for student e-readiness**

**Table 1.** Demographic features of students in blended and online courses.

The highest means of the three e-readiness factors suggest that whether in a blended or online course, an e-ready student routinely communicates with persons using electronic technologies, and is a self-motivated and independent learner. Other research also reported that highly motivated and self-confident students could produce better e-learning outcomes [21, 22].

Fixing the 'Ready' in E-Learning Readiness http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74287 73

The highest scores of other items also identified e-ready students in each cohort. An e-ready student in the blended course should also have access to the Internet for substantial periods of time, perhaps 45 minutes or so, at least 3 times a week. This seems reasonable as these students would also need to spend time watching lecture videos, downloading course materials or


**Table 1.** Demographic features of students in blended and online courses.

#### **4.1. Characteristics for student e-readiness**

• Demographic data of the respondents was also captured, including gender, age range, the number of courses registered for the semester, and whether the student resided on a campus

Incomplete responses were removed before analysing the data using SPSS version 22.0. The means of each factor were calculated. The attributes of an e-ready online student were then highlighted using the items with the highest mean in the technical competence, lifestyle aptitude, and learning preference scales, while items with the lowest mean were identified as possible challenges. A mean of at least four of a maximum of five points was used as an indication of an acceptable level of e-readiness [22]. Therefore, a student was categorized as e-ready if four or more points in *each* of the three e-readiness scales were achieved, while the level of e-readiness for a cohort was calculated using the aggregate score of all three e-readiness scales. Linear regression was used to check the effect of students' level of e-readiness on ELS quality, information quality, and service quality during course orientation. Multiple regression was performed to test the effect on ELS use and their satisfaction during course delivery, as well as their perceived benefits at course completion. An independent samples T-test was used to determine whether there were any significant differences among the demographic features of

A total of 963 completed responses were analysed, comprising 539 from the blended course and 424 from the online course. The demographic data for both cohorts revealed that the median age range of respondents was 29 years or younger, the majority were female and in their second year of the programme. In keeping with the course registration patterns, students in the blended cohort registered for five courses, while those in the online cohort registered for three courses. Although over 90% of the students in the blended course lived in the country of the campus, about 56% of the students in the online course also lived the country where a main campus was located. The demographic results of the students are presented in **Table 1**. The internal consistency of the survey items was tested using Cronbach's alpha, a reliability coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set are positively correlated to one another. The alpha coefficient for each scale was greater than 0.70 confirming that the survey instrument was reliable. Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine the strength of the association between the students' level of e-readiness and demographic variables. There was no significant association between level of e-readiness and demographic variables for either cohort, such as gender for the blended cohort (χ(1) = 2.519, *p* = 0.112) or the online cohort (χ(1) = 0.017, *p* = 0.897); age range for the blended cohort (χ(1) = 3.614, *p* = 0.306) or the online cohort (χ(1) = 1.522, *p* = 0.677); and territory of residence for the blended cohort (χ(1) = 2.117, *p* = 0.146) or the online cohort (χ(1) = 0.817, *p* = 0.366). These results support other published research of no significant

differences among demographics such as age, gender, or territory of residence [8].

territory.

72 Trends in E-learning

**3.3. Procedure**

the students.

**4. Results and discussion**

The highest means of the three e-readiness factors suggest that whether in a blended or online course, an e-ready student routinely communicates with persons using electronic technologies, and is a self-motivated and independent learner. Other research also reported that highly motivated and self-confident students could produce better e-learning outcomes [21, 22].

The highest scores of other items also identified e-ready students in each cohort. An e-ready student in the blended course should also have access to the Internet for substantial periods of time, perhaps 45 minutes or so, at least 3 times a week. This seems reasonable as these students would also need to spend time watching lecture videos, downloading course materials or submitting assignments that supplement their face-to-face classes. Both cohorts also showed much higher means in the technical readiness scale than the lifestyle aptitude, and learning preference scales. This is valid since students at the university have access to a dedicated network connection, printers and various software applications, either personally or in the computer laboratories on campus.

In comparison, an e-ready student in the online course should also be eager to try new technology tools, and be able to receive emails sent to the online campus email address. This would be expected since online students are exposed to new technology tools in the ELS due to the various methods in which instructors may present their course and tutorial materials. Using the online campus' email is the primary method of contacting instructors and administrative staff. These attributes align with other research that identifies online students as having a tendency towards adapting to new technologies [14, 18].

Previous research reported that although most students have been exposed to and possess basic technological skills (computer and Internet literacy), significant challenges remain in adapting their lifestyle and learning to interacting with an ELS [21]. This was shown by the lowest means in the items which identified students who were classified as not e-ready. Students in both cohorts were unable to access support services, and preferred immediate verbal feedback compared to written feedback. If students have technical issues with the ELS that are not resolved quickly, they may be hindered from progressing in the course. Furthermore, students in the blended course preferred to attend face-to-face classes on campus. It could be that they were more comfortable with and expected a traditional course structure, or had difficulty adapting to a new modality of learning. Students in the online course had challenges with finding persons and/or resources nearby to assist with any hardware or software problems. This could cause further frustration if these students have difficulty in accessing support services along with a lack of technical assistance from persons nearby. Apart from delays in keeping up with the course work or failure to submit assignments on time, these challenges could also impact their final grades. A summary of the highest and lowest means and standard deviations of items are presented in **Table 2**.

Further analysis was conducted on the 415 (77.0%) students in the blended cohort and 278 (65.5%) in the online cohort who were not deemed to be e-ready. There were 104 (25.1%) students in the blended cohort and 62 (22.3%) in the online cohort who were deficient in all three scales. This group of students could be at a distinct disadvantage for studying via an ELS since they seem to be more suited to a traditional classroom environment. Introducing online components in traditional courses may therefore hinder students who require faceto-face interaction in a traditional classroom environment. Also, while not all students in an online course are able to adapt to working in an ELS, some mandatory orientation or support during their studies could still improve their chances for successful completion of the course.

(LP) Is self-motivated, and independent learner 4.04 (0.86) 4.20 (0.80) (LA) Routinely communicates with others using electronic technology 4.26 (0.84) 4.12 (0.82)

(LP) Is eager to try new technology or software applications — 4.20 (0.82)

(TC) Does not know how to access the online help desk 3.74 (1.03) 4.06 (0.80)

**Table 2.** Characteristics of an e-ready student using highest lowest mean (M) and standard deviation (SD).

**Factor Reliability Blended M (SD) Online M (SD)** TC 0.96 0.89 4.25 (0.56) 4.33 (0.49) LA 0.71 0.72 3.75 (0.68) 3.85 (0.63) LP 0.72 0.74 3.69 (0.60) 3.86 (0.61) **Overall means 0.90 0.89 3.88 (0.50) 4.01 (0.46)**

All items were measured via a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly-disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,

(TC) Has access to the Internet for substantial periods of time, perhaps

(TC) Receives emails sent to my Open Campus email address even

(LP) Is not comfortable giving written feedback; prefers giving

(LA) Does not need flexibility; prefers to come to campus to attend a

(LA) Does not have persons or resources nearby to help with technical

TC, technical competence; LA, lifestyle aptitude; LP, learning preparedness.

TC, technical competence; LA, lifestyle aptitude; LP, learning preparedness.

**Table 3.** Cronbach's alpha, means (M) and standard deviation (SD) of e-readiness factors.

**An E-Ready learner…**

45 minutes or so, at least 3 times a week.

though it may not be my primary account

**A learner who is not E-Ready…**

immediate verbal feedback

problems soft/hardware

5 = strongly-agree.

traditional class

**Blended M (SD) Online M (SD)**

Fixing the 'Ready' in E-Learning Readiness http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74287 75

4.25 (0.88) —

— 4.30 (0.69)

3.17 (1.05) 3.34 (1.12)

— 3.55 (0.61)

3.36 (1.22) —

#### **4.2. Level of student e-readiness**

**Table 3** presents the results and ratings of students' e-readiness for the three factors. The overall score for the cohort in the blended course was 3.88 (77.5%), and 4.01 (80.2%) in the online course. However, when each student's level of e-readiness was calculated, only 124 (33.0%) in the blended cohort and 146 (34.4%) in the online cohort were deemed to be e-ready. Students in the blended cohort were seemingly not prepared for engaging in an ELS, while those in the online cohort were minimally ready. This is in stark contrast with research on online instructors where the cohort was 91% prepared and 73% individually e-ready [32]. These instructors completed mandatory training for the ELS, and were not allowed to facilitate in the ELS if they were not deemed to be e-ready. For students, no mandatory training exists, and they were not counselled on expectations prior to registering for blended or online courses. Nevertheless, while training of students for the ELS is highly recommended, there are mixed outcomes resulting from students' general lack of interest in completing ELS training [23].


submitting assignments that supplement their face-to-face classes. Both cohorts also showed much higher means in the technical readiness scale than the lifestyle aptitude, and learning preference scales. This is valid since students at the university have access to a dedicated network connection, printers and various software applications, either personally or in the com-

In comparison, an e-ready student in the online course should also be eager to try new technology tools, and be able to receive emails sent to the online campus email address. This would be expected since online students are exposed to new technology tools in the ELS due to the various methods in which instructors may present their course and tutorial materials. Using the online campus' email is the primary method of contacting instructors and administrative staff. These attributes align with other research that identifies online students as hav-

Previous research reported that although most students have been exposed to and possess basic technological skills (computer and Internet literacy), significant challenges remain in adapting their lifestyle and learning to interacting with an ELS [21]. This was shown by the lowest means in the items which identified students who were classified as not e-ready. Students in both cohorts were unable to access support services, and preferred immediate verbal feedback compared to written feedback. If students have technical issues with the ELS that are not resolved quickly, they may be hindered from progressing in the course. Furthermore, students in the blended course preferred to attend face-to-face classes on campus. It could be that they were more comfortable with and expected a traditional course structure, or had difficulty adapting to a new modality of learning. Students in the online course had challenges with finding persons and/or resources nearby to assist with any hardware or software problems. This could cause further frustration if these students have difficulty in accessing support services along with a lack of technical assistance from persons nearby. Apart from delays in keeping up with the course work or failure to submit assignments on time, these challenges could also impact their final grades. A summary of the highest and lowest means

**Table 3** presents the results and ratings of students' e-readiness for the three factors. The overall score for the cohort in the blended course was 3.88 (77.5%), and 4.01 (80.2%) in the online course. However, when each student's level of e-readiness was calculated, only 124 (33.0%) in the blended cohort and 146 (34.4%) in the online cohort were deemed to be e-ready. Students in the blended cohort were seemingly not prepared for engaging in an ELS, while those in the online cohort were minimally ready. This is in stark contrast with research on online instructors where the cohort was 91% prepared and 73% individually e-ready [32]. These instructors completed mandatory training for the ELS, and were not allowed to facilitate in the ELS if they were not deemed to be e-ready. For students, no mandatory training exists, and they were not counselled on expectations prior to registering for blended or online courses. Nevertheless, while training of students for the ELS is highly recommended, there are mixed outcomes

resulting from students' general lack of interest in completing ELS training [23].

ing a tendency towards adapting to new technologies [14, 18].

and standard deviations of items are presented in **Table 2**.

**4.2. Level of student e-readiness**

puter laboratories on campus.

74 Trends in E-learning

**Table 2.** Characteristics of an e-ready student using highest lowest mean (M) and standard deviation (SD).

Further analysis was conducted on the 415 (77.0%) students in the blended cohort and 278 (65.5%) in the online cohort who were not deemed to be e-ready. There were 104 (25.1%) students in the blended cohort and 62 (22.3%) in the online cohort who were deficient in all three scales. This group of students could be at a distinct disadvantage for studying via an ELS since they seem to be more suited to a traditional classroom environment. Introducing online components in traditional courses may therefore hinder students who require faceto-face interaction in a traditional classroom environment. Also, while not all students in an online course are able to adapt to working in an ELS, some mandatory orientation or support during their studies could still improve their chances for successful completion of the course.


TC, technical competence; LA, lifestyle aptitude; LP, learning preparedness.

All items were measured via a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly-disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly-agree.

**Table 3.** Cronbach's alpha, means (M) and standard deviation (SD) of e-readiness factors.

#### **4.3. E-readiness during the course**

**Table 4** presents the means and standard deviations in each cohort for the factors at course orientation, course delivery and course completion.

students' active participation in the first few weeks of an online course more likely results in

Fixing the 'Ready' in E-Learning Readiness http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74287 77

Further evaluation of students' level of e-readiness at course orientation confirmed that for students in the blended course, the level of e-readiness was indeed a predictor of ELS quality (β = 0.37, *p* < 0.001), information quality (β = 0.31, *p* < 0.001), and service quality (β = 0.22, *p* < 0.001). E-readiness accounted for 13.9% of the variance in ELS quality, 9.8% of the variance in information quality, and 4.6% of the variance in service quality. For students in the online cohort, the level of e-readiness was also a predictor of ELS quality (β = 0.41, *p* < 0.001), information quality (β = 0.43, *p* < 0.001), and service quality (β = 0.37, *p* < 0.001). E-readiness accounted for 17.1% of the variance in ELS quality, 18.2% of the variance in information quality, and 13.5% of the variance in service quality. Higher levels of e-readiness seem to be necessary for students in the online course, so that they could quickly and efficiently access the ELS to start gathering information, complete orientation activities, and start interacting with their peers.

Students were asked about their use of and satisfaction with the ELS. The highest means for the items indicated that students in both courses frequently used the ELS (M = 4.21, SD = 0.86 for blended; M = 3.96, SD = 0.87 for online), and were pleased with the experience of using the ELS (M = 3.91, SD = 0.71 for blended; M = 3.99, SD = 0.72 for online). Once there are no major setbacks during course orientation, students' satisfaction with the ELS increases since they were able to easily access course materials, interact and become comfortable with the ELS during this second phase. Details on the effect of students' level of e-readiness with other

• **ELS use:** The model accounted for 16.0% of the variance on ELS use for the blended cohort (F(4, 534) = 25.75, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.16), where the level of e-readiness (17.6%), the quality of the ELS (18.2%), and the information posted in the ELS (15.6%) influenced ELS use. However, for students in the online cohort the model accounted for 12.0% of the variance, where only e-readiness (11.4%) and the ELS' quality (18.2%) influenced ELS use (F(4, 419) = 14.66, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.12). For students in both cohorts, it appeared that the quality of the ELS was more important when interacting in the ELS than their level of e-readiness. One can appreciate that frequently accessing the ELS during this active phase is the primary focus for students who expect the ELS to be available and ease of use in order to complete their course assignments. While students in the online course depend on using the ELS for the all components of their courses, those in the blended cohort may use the ELS at intervals since they still have a face-to-face component. Nevertheless, students would not want to be disappointed with quality concerns when uploading assignments to meet deadlines. • For students in the online course, information quality (*p* = 0.106) along with service quality in both courses (*p* = 0.981 for blended; *p* = 781 for online) had no influence on ELS use. One could also envision that by now students would have become familiar with the rhythm of the course, along with provision of up-to-date course-related materials. This could reduce the number of times a student accesses the ELS as it minimizes the need for them to repeat-

items during course delivery are explained in the following sections.

edly check the ELS for these course updates.

course completion.

**4.5. E-readiness during course delivery**


BL, blended course; OL, online course.

All items were measured via a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly-disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly-agree.

**Table 4.** Cronbach's alpha, means and standard deviation (SD) for ELS quality (EQ), information quality (IQ), service quality (SQ), ELS use (EU), student satisfaction (SS), and net benefits (NB).

#### **4.4. E-readiness at course orientation**

During course orientation, students in blended course found that the ELS was easy to use (M = 4.11, SD = 0.69), provided information relevant to their learning (M = 4.12, SD = 0.59), and the support specialists were helpful (M = 3.40, SD = 0.79). The students in the online cohort found that the ELS was always available (M = 4.11, SD = 0.76), provided information relevant to their learning (M = 4.11, SD = 0.58), and the support specialists provided adequate assistance and explanations for their issues (M = 3.75, SD = 0.81).

The concerns from the blended cohort revealed that the ELS lacked attractive features (M = 3.16, SD = 0.85), while it was not responsive enough (M = 3.66, M = 0.82) for the students in the online course. However, students in both courses complained that the ELS contained insufficient information (M = 3.64, SD = 0.77 for blended, and M = 3.71, SD = 0.82 for online), and that the support specialists were unavailable when they had a technical problem (M = 3.26, SD = 0.85 for blended, and M = 3.66, SD = 0.81 for online).

The most important focus at the start of a course should be reducing early frustrations with the ELS. Introducing more shifts or additional support staff during the first few weeks of the semester could alleviate these problems. Students need timely assistance during this phase to quickly have passwords reset and other log in issues settled in order to help them focus on interacting with peers and becoming acquainted with the ELS. According to Chyung [29], students' active participation in the first few weeks of an online course more likely results in course completion.

Further evaluation of students' level of e-readiness at course orientation confirmed that for students in the blended course, the level of e-readiness was indeed a predictor of ELS quality (β = 0.37, *p* < 0.001), information quality (β = 0.31, *p* < 0.001), and service quality (β = 0.22, *p* < 0.001). E-readiness accounted for 13.9% of the variance in ELS quality, 9.8% of the variance in information quality, and 4.6% of the variance in service quality. For students in the online cohort, the level of e-readiness was also a predictor of ELS quality (β = 0.41, *p* < 0.001), information quality (β = 0.43, *p* < 0.001), and service quality (β = 0.37, *p* < 0.001). E-readiness accounted for 17.1% of the variance in ELS quality, 18.2% of the variance in information quality, and 13.5% of the variance in service quality. Higher levels of e-readiness seem to be necessary for students in the online course, so that they could quickly and efficiently access the ELS to start gathering information, complete orientation activities, and start interacting with their peers.

#### **4.5. E-readiness during course delivery**

**4.3. E-readiness during the course**

Course orientation

76 Trends in E-learning

Course delivery

Course outcome

5 = strongly-agree.

**4.4. E-readiness at course orientation**

BL, blended course; OL, online course.

orientation, course delivery and course completion.

**Factor Reliability Mean (SD)**

ELS quality (EQ) 0.76 0.85 3.72 (0.52) 3.93 (0.56) Information quality (IQ) 0.82 0.89 3.79 (0.50) 3.86 (0.56) Service quality (SQ) 0.76 0.76 3.35 (0.69) 3.70 (0.65)

ELS use (EU) 0.75 0.75 4.11 (0.76) 3.86 (0.81) Student satisfaction (SS) 0.86 0.89 3.89 (0.67) 3.98 (0.64)

Net benefits (NB) 0.62 0.75 3.58 (0.45) 3.65 (0.42)

**Table 4** presents the means and standard deviations in each cohort for the factors at course

**BL OC BL OC**

During course orientation, students in blended course found that the ELS was easy to use (M = 4.11, SD = 0.69), provided information relevant to their learning (M = 4.12, SD = 0.59), and the support specialists were helpful (M = 3.40, SD = 0.79). The students in the online cohort found that the ELS was always available (M = 4.11, SD = 0.76), provided information relevant to their learning (M = 4.11, SD = 0.58), and the support specialists provided adequate

All items were measured via a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly-disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,

**Table 4.** Cronbach's alpha, means and standard deviation (SD) for ELS quality (EQ), information quality (IQ), service

The concerns from the blended cohort revealed that the ELS lacked attractive features (M = 3.16, SD = 0.85), while it was not responsive enough (M = 3.66, M = 0.82) for the students in the online course. However, students in both courses complained that the ELS contained insufficient information (M = 3.64, SD = 0.77 for blended, and M = 3.71, SD = 0.82 for online), and that the support specialists were unavailable when they had a technical problem

The most important focus at the start of a course should be reducing early frustrations with the ELS. Introducing more shifts or additional support staff during the first few weeks of the semester could alleviate these problems. Students need timely assistance during this phase to quickly have passwords reset and other log in issues settled in order to help them focus on interacting with peers and becoming acquainted with the ELS. According to Chyung [29],

assistance and explanations for their issues (M = 3.75, SD = 0.81).

quality (SQ), ELS use (EU), student satisfaction (SS), and net benefits (NB).

(M = 3.26, SD = 0.85 for blended, and M = 3.66, SD = 0.81 for online).

Students were asked about their use of and satisfaction with the ELS. The highest means for the items indicated that students in both courses frequently used the ELS (M = 4.21, SD = 0.86 for blended; M = 3.96, SD = 0.87 for online), and were pleased with the experience of using the ELS (M = 3.91, SD = 0.71 for blended; M = 3.99, SD = 0.72 for online). Once there are no major setbacks during course orientation, students' satisfaction with the ELS increases since they were able to easily access course materials, interact and become comfortable with the ELS during this second phase. Details on the effect of students' level of e-readiness with other items during course delivery are explained in the following sections.


• **Student satisfaction:** The model accounted for 47.8% of the variance on student satisfaction for the blended cohort (*F*(4, 534) = 122.171, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.478), and 50.1% of the variance for the online cohort(*F*(4, 419) = 105.278, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.501). This may imply that the more prepared students are for the ELS, then the more satisfied they are with the experience and confidence in interacting with the ELS.

using the ELS. This could imply that high levels of e-readiness are most beneficial to these

Fixing the 'Ready' in E-Learning Readiness http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74287 79

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether there was a significant difference between students in either course who were e-ready from those who were not, based on their net benefits at course completion. The test revealed a statistically significant difference for students in the online course (t = −6.95, df = 270.57, *p* < 0.000). Those who had higher levels of e-readiness (M = 3.89, SD = 0.53) seemed to have benefited more by the end of the

The overall influence of students' e-readiness showed a positive impact on ELS quality, information quality, and service quality for both cohorts during course orientation. This influence was greater for the students in the online course which steadily diminished during course delivery to the end of the course. In contrast, the influence steadily increased with the blended cohort where student satisfaction was strongest during course delivery through to the course completion. The positive benefits of having high levels of e-readiness saved the students' time in the blended cohort and contributed to online cohorts' academic success. The negative outcome was lack of contact with others for the blended cohort and feelings of isolation for the online cohort. It may appear that the students in the blended course benefit from having higher levels of e-readiness to help them through their course. **Figure 2** shows the impact on each factor at each stage, with the strongest influence of the

**Figure 2.** Summary results of influence of students' readiness at course orientation, during course delivery, and at course completion. Only the results of the strongest impact of the two cohorts (blended; online) at each stage are shown. None

students who depend on the ELS.

two cohorts shown in bold.

indicates no influence for the factor.

course than those who were not e-ready (M = 3.52, SD = 0.48).

Information quality (30.5% for blended; 33.4% for online) was the largest contributor to student satisfaction in both cohorts followed by ELS quality (30.9% for blended; 21.5% for online), and service quality (17.6% for blended; 15.9% for online). Studies support the strong link between information quality with user satisfaction [33] since the very nature of online learning mandates that instructional materials be clear, easily understood and accessible by students [11]. The low percentages for support services may suggest that satisfied students rarely require the help desk services if their technology issues are minimized.

The level of e-readiness contributed 20.6% to students' satisfaction with the ELS only for the online cohort. This implies that high levels of e-readiness enhance their competence in knowing how to quickly navigate and interact constantly in the ELS.

#### **4.6. E-readiness at course completion**

At the end of the course, students in both courses assessed the benefits obtained from their experiences with the ELS. The students in the blended cohort indicated that they saved time by using the ELS (M = 4.10, SD = 0.70). This provides them with the opportunity to upload course assignments and review course materials using the ELS without having to travel to a physical campus to deliver a printed assignment. Those in the online course expressed that the ELS contributed to their academic success (M = 4.23, SD = 0.66), which suggests that the ELS provides a meaningful avenue for them to further their academic studies while staying fully employed or remaining in their home country.

The challenge for the students in the blended course was feelings of isolation (M = 3.71, SD = 0.70) while those in the online course reported a lack of contact with others (M = 3.48, SD = 0.99). These results also support findings that students who take online courses especially for the first time tend to feel lonely and socially isolated, mainly because they are not familiar with the social interaction of ELS environment [4].

At the end of the blended and online courses, the model accounted for 40.8 and 35.1% of the variance in net benefits (*F*(3, 535) = 122.986, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.408, and *F*(3, 420) = 75.688, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.351) respectively. Student satisfaction was the largest contributor in both courses (47.2% for the blended course and 39.9% for the online course). As the courses come to an end, there is less use of the ELS but overall satisfaction with the experience, which is consistent with research that found user satisfaction to be the most significant contributor of ELS success [14].

For students in the blended cohort, using the ELS contributed 19.3% of the variance for the net benefits of taking the course, followed by 14.6% for their level of e-readiness. Having the convenience of submitting course assignments via the ELS could be more beneficial for students. Conversely, for the online cohort, their level of e-readiness contributed 19.5%, with 13.3% for using the ELS. This could imply that high levels of e-readiness are most beneficial to these students who depend on the ELS.

• **Student satisfaction:** The model accounted for 47.8% of the variance on student satisfaction for the blended cohort (*F*(4, 534) = 122.171, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.478), and 50.1% of the variance for the online cohort(*F*(4, 419) = 105.278, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.501). This may imply that the more prepared students are for the ELS, then the more satisfied they are with the experi-

Information quality (30.5% for blended; 33.4% for online) was the largest contributor to student satisfaction in both cohorts followed by ELS quality (30.9% for blended; 21.5% for online), and service quality (17.6% for blended; 15.9% for online). Studies support the strong link between information quality with user satisfaction [33] since the very nature of online learning mandates that instructional materials be clear, easily understood and accessible by students [11]. The low percentages for support services may suggest that satisfied students

The level of e-readiness contributed 20.6% to students' satisfaction with the ELS only for the online cohort. This implies that high levels of e-readiness enhance their competence in know-

At the end of the course, students in both courses assessed the benefits obtained from their experiences with the ELS. The students in the blended cohort indicated that they saved time by using the ELS (M = 4.10, SD = 0.70). This provides them with the opportunity to upload course assignments and review course materials using the ELS without having to travel to a physical campus to deliver a printed assignment. Those in the online course expressed that the ELS contributed to their academic success (M = 4.23, SD = 0.66), which suggests that the ELS provides a meaningful avenue for them to further their academic studies while staying

The challenge for the students in the blended course was feelings of isolation (M = 3.71, SD = 0.70) while those in the online course reported a lack of contact with others (M = 3.48, SD = 0.99). These results also support findings that students who take online courses especially for the first time tend to feel lonely and socially isolated, mainly because they are not

At the end of the blended and online courses, the model accounted for 40.8 and 35.1% of the variance in net benefits (*F*(3, 535) = 122.986, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.408, and *F*(3, 420) = 75.688, *p* < 0.001, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.351) respectively. Student satisfaction was the largest contributor in both courses (47.2% for the blended course and 39.9% for the online course). As the courses come to an end, there is less use of the ELS but overall satisfaction with the experience, which is consistent with research that found user satisfaction to be the most significant contributor of

For students in the blended cohort, using the ELS contributed 19.3% of the variance for the net benefits of taking the course, followed by 14.6% for their level of e-readiness. Having the convenience of submitting course assignments via the ELS could be more beneficial for students. Conversely, for the online cohort, their level of e-readiness contributed 19.5%, with 13.3% for

rarely require the help desk services if their technology issues are minimized.

ing how to quickly navigate and interact constantly in the ELS.

fully employed or remaining in their home country.

familiar with the social interaction of ELS environment [4].

**4.6. E-readiness at course completion**

ELS success [14].

ence and confidence in interacting with the ELS.

78 Trends in E-learning

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether there was a significant difference between students in either course who were e-ready from those who were not, based on their net benefits at course completion. The test revealed a statistically significant difference for students in the online course (t = −6.95, df = 270.57, *p* < 0.000). Those who had higher levels of e-readiness (M = 3.89, SD = 0.53) seemed to have benefited more by the end of the course than those who were not e-ready (M = 3.52, SD = 0.48).

The overall influence of students' e-readiness showed a positive impact on ELS quality, information quality, and service quality for both cohorts during course orientation. This influence was greater for the students in the online course which steadily diminished during course delivery to the end of the course. In contrast, the influence steadily increased with the blended cohort where student satisfaction was strongest during course delivery through to the course completion. The positive benefits of having high levels of e-readiness saved the students' time in the blended cohort and contributed to online cohorts' academic success. The negative outcome was lack of contact with others for the blended cohort and feelings of isolation for the online cohort. It may appear that the students in the blended course benefit from having higher levels of e-readiness to help them through their course. **Figure 2** shows the impact on each factor at each stage, with the strongest influence of the two cohorts shown in bold.

**Figure 2.** Summary results of influence of students' readiness at course orientation, during course delivery, and at course completion. Only the results of the strongest impact of the two cohorts (blended; online) at each stage are shown. None indicates no influence for the factor.
