Conceptual framework of e-readiness factors adapted from Glenda H. E. Gay (2016) for online student/instructor e-readiness before, during and after course delivery.

Conceptual framework of e-readiness factors adapted from Glenda H. E. Gay (2016) for online student/instructor e-readiness before, during and after course delivery.</p

Means (M) and Cronbach’s alpha(α) of the instructor e-readiness scale (N = 1752).

Means (M) and Cronbach’s alpha(α) of the instructor e-readiness scale (N = 1752).</p

Six most valuable online EFL learning elements from the instructors’ view (15 items in total).

Six most valuable online EFL learning elements from the instructors’ view (15 items in total).</p

Conceptual framework adapted from Holsapple and Lee-Post for online instructor e-readiness before, during and after course delivery (Glenda H. E. Gay, 2016).

Conceptual framework adapted from Holsapple and Lee-Post for online instructor e-readiness before, during and after course delivery (Glenda H. E. Gay, 2016).</p

S1 File -

Since the emergence and subsequent spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, students and instructors have faced unprecedented challenges and have been forced to shift traditional face-to-face classes online. This study, based on the E-learning Success Model (ELSM), seeks to examine the e-readiness level of students/instructors, judge the impediments that students/instructors encountered in different phases—pre-course delivery, course delivery, and course completion phase of the online EFL class, search for valuable online learning elements, and recommend recommendations for promoting e-learning success in online EFL classes. The study sample consists of 5914 students and 1752 instructors. The results demonstrate that: (a) both the students’ and instructors’ e-readiness level were slightly lower than the ready level; (b) three valuable online learning elements were teacher presence, teacher-student interaction, and practicing problem-solving ability; (c) eight categories of impediments during different phases of the online EFL class were technical challenges, learning process, learning environments, self-control, health concern, learning materials, assignment, and learning effect and assessments; (d) seven types of recommendations for promoting e-learning success were: (1) students: infrastructure and technology, learning process, content, curriculum design, teacher skills, service, and assessment; and (2) instructors: infrastructure and technology, human resources, teaching quality, content and services, curriculum design, teacher skills, and assessment. Based on these findings, this study recommends that further studies with an action research approach should be conducted to examine whether the recommendations are effective. Institutions should take the initiative to overcome barriers to engage and stimulate students. The outcomes of this research have theoretical and practical implications for researchers and higher education institutions (HEIs). During unprecedented times such as pandemics, administrators and instructors will have insights into implementing emergency remote teaching.</div

Valuable online EFL learning elements from the instructors’/students’ view.

Valuable online EFL learning elements from the instructors’/students’ view.</p

Student e-readiness differences with analysis of variance.

Student e-readiness differences with analysis of variance.</p

Categories of recommendations reported by students.

Categories of recommendations reported by students.</p

Six most valuable online EFL learning elements from the students’ view (15 items in total).

Six most valuable online EFL learning elements from the students’ view (15 items in total).</p

Categories of challenges reported by instructors.

Since the emergence and subsequent spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, students and instructors have faced unprecedented challenges and have been forced to shift traditional face-to-face classes online. This study, based on the E-learning Success Model (ELSM), seeks to examine the e-readiness level of students/instructors, judge the impediments that students/instructors encountered in different phases—pre-course delivery, course delivery, and course completion phase of the online EFL class, search for valuable online learning elements, and recommend recommendations for promoting e-learning success in online EFL classes. The study sample consists of 5914 students and 1752 instructors. The results demonstrate that: (a) both the students’ and instructors’ e-readiness level were slightly lower than the ready level; (b) three valuable online learning elements were teacher presence, teacher-student interaction, and practicing problem-solving ability; (c) eight categories of impediments during different phases of the online EFL class were technical challenges, learning process, learning environments, self-control, health concern, learning materials, assignment, and learning effect and assessments; (d) seven types of recommendations for promoting e-learning success were: (1) students: infrastructure and technology, learning process, content, curriculum design, teacher skills, service, and assessment; and (2) instructors: infrastructure and technology, human resources, teaching quality, content and services, curriculum design, teacher skills, and assessment. Based on these findings, this study recommends that further studies with an action research approach should be conducted to examine whether the recommendations are effective. Institutions should take the initiative to overcome barriers to engage and stimulate students. The outcomes of this research have theoretical and practical implications for researchers and higher education institutions (HEIs). During unprecedented times such as pandemics, administrators and instructors will have insights into implementing emergency remote teaching.</div