Gulsah Basol, Harun Cigdem, Tugba Kocadag Unver


The purpose of the study was to investigate the relative importance of previous web-based course familiarity, computer ownership, computer use (years), amount of time spent on a computer (hours/day), social media use (Facebook), e-mail checking frequency, and smartphone use on online readiness of students. These are often provided as selective demographic characteristics in online learning readiness literature, yet their relative importance on online readiness has not been studied. The study was conducted on 633 male military vocational college students, involved in an online teaching environment. Online Learning Readiness Scale and a detailed information sheet were used for data collection purposes. The data were analyzed through a hierarchical linear regression analysis in four steps. According to results, nearly 17% of the variation in students’ online learning readiness levels was explained by the predictor variables. First, as pre-entry characteristics, previous web-based course familiarity, computer ownership, texting and Internet use by a mobile phone explained 8%. In the second order, variables referring further engagement behaviors with technology, computer use in years and the amount of time spent on a computer (hours/day) explained an extra 4.5%. Third, the variables, corresponding to regular/habitual use, Facebook use and e-mail checking frequency, explained another 4.5%. The results indicated that previous web-based course familiarity, the computer use (years) and e-mail checking frequency were the significant variables, predicting students' readiness to online learning.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



online learning readiness, military vocational college, technology access, social networks.

Full Text:



Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: On¬line education in the United States. Retrieved from

Babson Survey Research Group (BSRG) (2014). 2014 Survey of online learning grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from

Basol, G., & Cevik, V. (2006). A comparison of Gaziosmanpaşa University faculty of education instructors' and students' attitudes towards computers and their Internet use habits. [Full Text]. VII. National Science and Math Education Conference Congress Book, Cilt I, 127-131. Gazi University, Ankara.

Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012).Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59, 524–534.

Bonk, C. J. (2004). The Perfect E-Storm: emerging technology, enormous learner demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets. Part 1: Storms #1 & #2. Retrieved from

Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010).Debunking the “digital native”: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369.

Corrin, L., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2010). Digital natives: Everyday life versus academic study. In Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (Eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg 3-4th May 2010. Lancaster: Lancaster University, 643 – 650. Retrieved from

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 15.1–15.22). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from

Fraenkel, R. M., & Wallen, N. E. (2006).How to design and evaluate research in education. (6th Edition).New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.

Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset: changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35, 14–24.

Gu, X., Zhu, Y. & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the “digital natives”: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 392–402.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009).Multivariate data analysis–A global perspective. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Hargittai, E. (2010a). College students’ digital literacy: a reality check. Paper presented at the Literacy in the Digital University. Retrieved from

Hargittai, E. (2010b). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the ‘Net Generation’. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113.

Harrell, I. L. (2008). Increasing the success of online student. Inquiry, 13(1), 36-44.

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.

Hogo, M.A. (2010). Evaluation of E-Learning systems based on fuzzy clustering models and statistical tools. Expert Systems with Applications, In Press.

Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). e-Learning: Concepts and practice. London: Sage.

Howe, N., & Strauss, B. (2000).Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Vintage Books.

Hung, M., Chou, C., Chen, C., & Own, Z. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions, Computers & Education, 55, 1080–1090.

Jones, C., & Cross, S. (2009). Is there a Net generation coming to university? In Damis, H., and Creanor, L. (Eds), In dreams begins responsibility-choice evidence and change: The 16th Association for Learning Technology Conference, Manchester 2009. pp 10-20. Retrieved from

Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356.

Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 4(3), 722–732.

Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2010).A five-year study of on-campus Internet use by undergraduate biomedical students. Computers & Education, 55(1), 564-571.

Kember, D. (1995). Open learning courses for adults. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Educational Technology.

Kennedy, D. M., & Fox, B. (2013). ‘Digital natives’: An Asian perspective for using learning technologies. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9 (1), 64–79.

Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 332–343.

Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.

Kirkwood, A. T., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257–274.

Lee, B.C., Yoon, J.O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of E-Learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320-1329.

Leacock, C.J., Warrican, S.J., & Veira, A.K. (2013). Knowledge and practices relating to netbook use: The voices of primary school children in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 3260-3266). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Machado, C. (2007). Developing an e-readiness model for higher education institutions: results of a focus group study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1).

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2011) 429 – 440.

McMullin, B. (2005). Putting the learning back into learning technology. In G. O’Neill, S. Moore & B. McMullin, (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE. Retrieved from

Nagler, W., & Ebner, M. (2009). Is your university ready for the Ne(x)t-Generation? In Proceedings of 21st world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (EDMEDIA) (pp. 4344–4351), June 22–26, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 65(2013), 1065–1078.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE Online book. Retrieved from

Online Learning Consortium (2014). 2014 Survey of Online Learning Grade Level: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from

Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008).Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

PewReseach Center (2014). Mobile technology fact sheet. sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/

Phipps, A. R., & Merisotis, J. P. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy, for the American Federation of Teachers & National Education Association. Retrieved from

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–2.

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Journal of Online Education, 5(3).

Prensky, M. (2010).Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. London: Sage Publishers.

Robinson, D. L. (2008). Relationship of student self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, and student satisfaction to persistence in online higher education programs (Order No. 3328226). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304562846).

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010).Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation, Retrieved from

Sánchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D., & Meyer, E. (2011). Does the new digital generation of learners exist? A qualitative study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 543–556.

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(4), 364–379.

Selwyn, N. (2008). An investigation of differences in undergraduates' academic use of the Internet. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9 (1), 11–22.

Smith, D. (2015). Does gender matter? University Library Access and Career Preparedness. Online Learning, 19(4).

Stevens, J. P. (1996).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences(3rd ed.).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007).Using multivariate statistics. Needham heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the Net generation. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 6–11.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computers & Education, 55(1), 406–414.

Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65 (2013), 12–33.

Wang, Q., Zhu, Z., Chen, L., & Yan, H. (2009). E-Learning in China. Campus-Wide Information systems, 26, 47- 61.

Yong, S. T., & Gates, P. (2014). Born digital: Are they really digital natives? International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 4(2), 102-105.

Yonnie, S. Y. (2001). Conducting learner analysis to adjust online instruction for your faceless learner. 17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Gulsah Basol, Harun Cigdem, Tugba Kocadag Unver

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).