Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 543

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Profiling teachers' readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who's ready?

Open access
Scherer, Ronny, Howard, Sarah K., Tondeur, Jo, Siddiq, Fazilat·2021·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a shift to online teaching and learning (OTL) in colleges and universities across the globe, requiring teachers to adapt their teaching in a very short time—independent of whether they were prepared. Drawing from an international sample of N = 739 higher education teachers in 58 countries, the present study sheds light on teachers' readiness for OTL at the time of the pandemic by (a) identifying teacher profiles based on a set of key dimensions of readiness; (b) explaining profile membership by individual teacher characteristics, contextual aspects of the shift to OTL, and country-level indicators representing educational innovation and cultural orientation. We conducted latent profile analysis and identified three teacher profiles with consistently high or low readiness or an inconsistent readiness profile—hence, teachers in higher education are not a homogeneous group. Importantly, key individual and contextual variables, such as teachers’ gender and prior OTL experience, the context of the OTL shift, the innovation potential in education, and cultural orientation, explained profile membership. We discuss these findings with respect to the nature of the profiles, how they can be understood with respect to key determinants, and their implications for OTL in higher education.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. Aparicio, 2016, Cultural impacts on e-learning systems' success, The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 58, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Archambault, 2009, Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 71
  3. Asparouhov, 2014, Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus, Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 329, 10.1080/10705511.2014.915181 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Aydın, 2005, Turkish mentors' perception of roles, competencies and resources for online teaching, The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6, 58
  5. Bolliger, 2019, Faculty members' perceptions of online program community and their efforts to sustain it, British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 3283, 10.1111/bjet.12734 · DOI
  6. Bonneville-Roussy, 2019, The role of cultural values in teacher and student self-efficacy: Evidence from 16 nations, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101798, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101798 · DOI
  7. Briggs, 2005, Changing roles and competencies of academics, Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, 256, 10.1177/1469787405057753 · DOI
  8. Brinkley-Etzkorn, 2018, Learning to teach online: Measuring the influence of faculty development training on teaching effectiveness through a TPACK lens, The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 28, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.004 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Burbules, 2000, Universities in transition: The promise and the challenge of new technologies, Teachers College Record, 102, 271, 10.1111/0161-4681.00056 · DOI
  10. Burnett, 2009, Universities' responses to globalisation: The influence of organisational culture, Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 117, 10.1177/1028315309350717 · DOI
  11. Castéra, 2020, Self-reported TPACK of teacher educators across six countries in Asia and Europe, Education and Information Technologies, 25, 3003, 10.1007/s10639-020-10106-6 · DOI
  12. Cheng, 2020, Understanding teacher technology integration from expectancy-value perspectives, Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103062, 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103062 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Dhawan, 2020, Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49, 5, 10.1177/0047239520934018 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Downing, 2013, Teacher educators' readiness, preparation, and perceptions of preparing preservice teachers in a fully online environment: An exploratory study, The Teacher Educator, 48, 96, 10.1080/08878730.2012.760023 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Ergen, 2019, A meta-analysis of research on technological pedagogical content knowledge by gender, Contemporary Educational Technology, 10, 358, 10.30935/cet.634182 · DOI
  16. Foot, 2014, Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24, 329, 10.1080/10911359.2013.831011 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Granić, 2019, Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review, British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 2572, 10.1111/bjet.12864 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Gurley, 2018, Educators' preparation to teach, perceived teaching presence, and perceived teaching presence behaviors in blended and online learning environments, Online Learning Journal, 22, 197
  19. Handoyo, 2018, The role of national culture in national innovative capacity, The Asian Journal of Technology Management, 11, 137
  20. Henry, 2010, Multilevel latent class Analysis: An application of adolescent smoking typologies with individual and contextual predictors, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 193, 10.1080/10705511003659342 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Howard, 2017, Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where theory meets the method, Organizational Research Methods, 21, 846, 10.1177/1094428117744021 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Huang, 2019, Cultural values and technology adoption: A model comparison with university teachers from China and Spain, Computers & Education, 133, 69, 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.012 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hung, 2016, Teacher readiness for online learning: Scale development and teacher perceptions, Computers & Education, 94, 120, 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Jang, 2016, Cultural correlates of national innovative capacity: A cross-national analysis of national culture and innovation rates, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2, 23
  25. Jung, 2008, An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 302, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. Kebritchi, 2017, Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46, 4, 10.1177/0047239516661713 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kreber, 2006, The scholarship of teaching and learning and the online classroom, Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32, 109, 10.21225/D5P30B · DOI
  28. Kukulska-Hulme, 2012, How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in technology for teaching and learning?, Internet and Higher Education, 15, 247, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lachner, 2019, A test-based approach of modeling and measuring technological pedagogical knowledge, Computers & Education, 142, 103645, 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103645 · DOI
  30. Law, 2019, Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence, Computers & Education, 136, 1, 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.021 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lidolf, 2020, Educational technology professional development in higher education: A systematic literature review of empirical research [review], Frontiers in Education, 5
  32. Lubke, 2005, Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models, Psychological Methods, 10, 21, 10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.21 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Marsh, 2009, Classical latent profile Analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 191, 10.1080/10705510902751010 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Martin, 2019, Examining faculty perception of their readiness to teach online, Online Learning Journal, 23, 97
  35. Masyn, 2013, Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling, Vol. 2, 551
  36. Maydeu-Olivares, 2017, Maximum likelihood estimation of structural equation models for continuous data: Standard errors and goodness of fit, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24, 383, 10.1080/10705511.2016.1269606 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Morin, 2015, Disentangling shape from level effects in person-centered analyses: An illustration based on university teachers' multidimensional profiles of effectiveness, Structural Equation Modeling, 22, 39, 10.1080/10705511.2014.919825 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Morin, 2015, Multiple-group Analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions, Organizational Research Methods, 19, 231, 10.1177/1094428115621148 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Muñoz Carril, 2013, Pedagogical roles and competencies of university teachers practicing in the e-learning environment, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14, 462, 10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1477 · DOI
  40. 2019, How teachers and schools innovate: New measures in TALIS 2018, Teaching in Focus, 26
  41. Özgür, 2020, Relationships between teachers' technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), school support and demographic variables: A structural equation modeling, Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106468, 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106468 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Pareto, 2018, Tpack in situ: A design-based approach supporting professional development in practice, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57, 1186, 10.1177/0735633118783180 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Praetorius, 2018, Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions, ZDM, 50, 407, 10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4 · DOI · Paper page
  44. de Rooij, 2020, Cross-validation: A method every psychologist should know, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3, 248, 10.1177/2515245919898466 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Sailer, 2020, Contextual facilitators for learning activities involving technology in higher education: The Cb-model, Computers in Human Behavior
  46. Salleh, 2015, Examining the effect of external factors and context-dependent beliefs of teachers in the use of ICT in teaching: Using an elaborated theory of planned behavior, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43, 289, 10.1177/0047239515570578 · DOI
  47. Satorra, 2010, Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic, Psychometrika, 75, 243, 10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y · DOI · Paper page
  48. Scherer, 2016, The quest for comparability: Studying the invariance of the teachers' sense of self-efficacy (TSES) measure across countries, PloS One, 11, 10.1371/journal.pone.0150829 · DOI
  49. Scherer, 2017, Students' profiles of ICT use: Identification, determinants, and relations to achievement in a computer and information literacy test, Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 486, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.034 · DOI
  50. Scherer, 2017, On the quest for validity: Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, Computers & Education, 112, 1, 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.012 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Scherer, 2018, The importance of attitudes toward technology for pre-service teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge: Comparing structural equation modeling approaches, Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 67, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Schmid, 2021, Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans, Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106586, 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Schmidt, 2009, Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 123, 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Seufert, 2020, Technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends, Computers in Human Behavior, 106552
  55. Shea, 2007, Bridges and barriers to teaching online college courses: A study of experienced faculty in thirty-six colleges, Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 11, 73
  56. Singh, 2019, How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018), American Journal of Distance Education, 33, 289, 10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Tondeur, 2019, Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education, British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 1189, 10.1111/bjet.12748 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Tondeur, 2017, A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers' ICT profiles: Mind the gap!, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 10.14742/ajet.3504 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Tondeur, 2016, Gender differences in the ICT profile of university students: A quantitative analysis. DiGeSt, Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 3, 57, 10.11116/jdivegendstud.3.1.0057 · DOI
  60. Tschannen-Moran, 1998, Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure, Review of Educational Research, 68, 202, 10.3102/00346543068002202 · doi:10.3102/00346543068002202 · Paper page
  61. Vieluf, 2013, Teacher self-efficacy in cross-national perspective, Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 92, 10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Voogt, 2013, Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 109, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x · DOI · Paper page
  63. Wilson, 2004, Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20, 33, 10.14742/ajet.1366 · DOI
  64. Zavala-Rojas, 2018, Measurement invariance in multilingual survey research: The role of the language of the questionnaire, Social Indicators Research, 140, 485, 10.1007/s11205-017-1787-x · DOI
  65. Zhao, 2020, Do cultural differences affect users' e-learning adoption? A meta-analysis, British Journal of Educational Technology

Cited by

See all 543

Metadata

Authors
Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
118
Pages
106675
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675
OpenAlex
W3115708970
Cited by
543
References
10
FWCI
132.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
Funders
Research Council of Norway (254744 “Adapt 21”)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Profiling teachers' readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who's ready? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675
The paper
Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers' readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who's ready? Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.