* Corresponding author IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020, 172-188 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i1.17773 This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) Available online at IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education) Website: http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee ONLINE LEARNING READINESS OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN DENPASAR Kadek Erlita Dwiyanti*, I Putu Yogi Pratama, Ni Putu Ines Marylena Candra Manik Received: 15th Oct 2020; Revised: 15th Dec 2020; Accepted: 25th Dec 2020 ABSTRACT The Covid-19 pandemic has caused learning to be carried out online. Not all students, however, are ready for online learning. This study aims to examine the level of readiness of eighth-grade students at a junior high school through an explanatory sequential mixed method design consisting of quantitative and qualitative phases. Student readiness for online learning in this study was reviewed from five dimensions: self-directed learning, motivation for learning, computer/internet self-efficacy, learner control, and online communication self-efficacy. The Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS) survey proposed by Hung (2010) with a five-point-Likert scale was used to collect quantitative data. The data were analyzed quantitatively, and the level of readiness was measured utilizing the e-learning readiness assessment model suggested by Aydin and Tasci (2005). Follow-up interviews were then held to support the quantitative data. The results showed that the majority of students entered the level of "ready but needs a few improvements". However, there was one item in the dimension of self-directed learning that was included in the level of "not ready needs some work". The implication of this study is the need to encourage students to actively communicate in online learning, especially for shy students. Key Words: EFL; online learning; Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS) ABSTRAK Pandemi Covid-19 menyebabkan pembelajaran dilakukan secara online. Namun, tidak semua siswa siap dengan pembelajaran online. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji tingkat kesiapan siswa kelas VIII sebuah sekolah menengah pertama melalui penelitian explanatory sequential mixed method yang terdiri dari tahap kuantitatif dan kualitatif. Kesiapan siswa untuk pembelajaran online ditinjau dari lima dimensi: pembelajaran mandiri, motivasi belajar, efikasi diri komputer / internet, kontrol peserta didik, dan efikasi diri komunikasi online. Survei Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS) yang digagas oleh Hung (2010) dilengkapi dengan skala Likert lima poin digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data kuantitatif. Data kemudian dianalisis dengan menggunakan analisis deskriptif kuantitatif dan tingkatannya diukur dengan model penilaian kesiapan E-learning yang dikemukakan oleh Aydin dan Tasci (2005). Wawancara kemudian dilakukan untuk mengumpulkan data guna mendukung data kuantitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa secara keseluruhan siswa memasuki level “siap, tetapi perlu sedikit perbaikan”. Namun, ada satu item dalam dimensi pembelajaran mandiri yang termasuk dalam tingkat "belum siap, perlu peningkatan". Implikasi dari penelitian ini adalah perlunya mendorong siswa untuk aktif berkomunikasi dalam pembelajaran online, khususnya bagi siswa yang pemalu. Kata Kunci: EFL; pembelajaran online; Skala Kesiapan Pembelajaran Online (OLRS) How to Cite: Dwiyanti K.E., Pratama., Ines Marylena. (2020). Online Learning Readiness of Junior High School Students In Denpasar. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7(2), 172-188. doi:10.17773/ijee.v7i2.17773 IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 173-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license INTRODUCTION Covid-19 pandemic has affected all sectors of life, especially after social distancing policies limited the people's physical interaction. It results in the emergence of the petition of work from home to minimize the spread of the Covid-19 virus. All sectors that can work from home are expected to do so, including the education sector (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2020). The teaching learning process should be done online, where the students must learn from home, and teachers teach from home. In online learning, the course is done through web-based learning and text- books. Besides, the teachers still teach the students via online conferencing systems or email (Cheawjindakarn, Suwannatthachote, & Theeraroungchaisri, 2012). Online learning is learning supported by the internet where the internet provides the learning material including YouTube videos, PowerPoint, e-book, audio, etc. (Jeffrey et al., 2014), as well as the access for the interaction of teachers and students (Bakia, Shear, Toyama, & Lasseter, 2012). However, a sudden change from face-to-face learning to online learning does not give students time to adjust to online learning, so not all students are ready for online learning. The fact is that online learning is different from face-to-face learning in which face-to- face learning allows human psychological contacts in the learning process (Lalima & Dangwal, 2017) and from direct social interaction which is happening in the classroom (Shand & Farrelly, 2017) that helps students to build their knowledge in learning (Hurst, Wallace, & Nixon, 2013). Although online learning has the advantage of providing flexible learning in terms of time and place as long as they are connected to the internet (Lu & Vela, 2015; Luo, Pan, Choi, & Strobel, 2017; Stone, 2018; Vanslambrouck, Zhu, Lombaerts, & Philipsen, 2018), online learning cannot provide a sense of this direct psychological and social interaction. Curriculum 2013 emphasizes student-centered learning, where students become the center of learning activity and the teacher only acts as a facilitator. Online learning requires students‟ independence in learning and structured learning materials to easily understand the lesson (Damayanti, Fauzi, & Inayati, 2018). Therefore, the students' readiness to take an online learning class is crucial for the success of online learning. Besides, it is agreed that students‟ readiness to participate in online learning affects their academic success differently (Gay, 2018). Students‟ satisfaction and motivation http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 174-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license on online learning are affected by their readiness toward e-learning, self- efficacy, internet self-efficacy, online communication self-efficacy, self- directed learning, learner control, and motivation towards e-learning (Hung, Chou, Chen, & Own, 2010; Yılmaz, 2017). Self-directed learning is a learning in which the students actively set their learning, including planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning process (Lee, Tsai, Chai, & Koh, 2014). Besides, self-directed learning is a learning where the students or the learners have their own pace in understanding the lesson (Periya & Sebihi, 2017). Students who possess great self-directed learning can plan their tasks, set their learning goals, check their understanding and time (Jansen, Leeuwen, Janssen, Kester, & Kalz, 2017). Moreover, in terms of time- management, the students can adapt their time management in face-to-face learning to online learning (Zimmerman & Kulikowich, 2016). Chee, Divaharan, Tan, and Mun (2011) proposed eleven indicators of self- directed learners, including: (1) identifying, determining, and stating his/her learning goals; (2) identifying learning tasks to reach the learning goals; (3) planning the learning processes; setting the standard for learning goals achievement; (4) managing and monitoring his/her learning; (5) formulating relevant question; (6) investigating the probability in making decisions; (7) managing the time by himself/herself; (8) doing self-reflection by considering the feedback from teachers and peers to reach the goal; (9) applying the knowledge to the context; and (10) utilizing the skills learned to explore the knowledge beyond the curriculum contents. In brief, self-directed learning is needed in online learning because it requires students‟ independence in learning. In the same way, motivation also has an important role in learning. Motivation encourages and maintains learning behavior. Hence, understanding learners‟ motivation is notable (Huang & Hew, 2016). Motivation determines the activeness of students in the learning process. Logically, students who have high motivation to learn will certainly tend to participate in the learning process. In contrast, students who have low motivation have less participation (Widjaja & Chen, 2017). Motivation is divided into two types, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Lin, Zhang, & Zheng, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The basic difference between the two types of motivation is that the source of the motivation itself. Intrinsic motivation comes from inside http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 175-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license the individual. It is based on the inherent interest. Meanwhile, extrinsic motivation comes from outside factors/outcomes achieved by doing a particular thing (Reiss, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) is the variable that influences intrinsic motivation, while external regulation, introjection, identification, and integration are the types of extrinsic motivation (Reiss, 2012). On the other hand, online learning allows students to control their learning. Learner control gives students their own authority to control the learning instruction, including sequence, pace, flow, amount, and review of the learning instruction (Simsek, 2012). Learner control provides the students the freedom to set their learning, such as their duration to learn or accomplish a particular task. Moreover, learning control is limited to controlling the learning surrounding and increasing the communication happened in the learning process (Taipjutorus, Hansen, & Brown, 2012). Online learning needs good learner control. When using the computer or mobile for learning online, there will be some distractions as students can open other programs such as social media, electronic games, listening to MP3, or access not-relevant web and sources (Taylor, 2002). In brief, online learning requires student independence because students must have good control so they can control their own learning. Furthermore, online learning requires the student‟s ability to use the internet and computer effectively. Therefore, the internet and computer self-efficacy, including students' beliefs about their capabilities in managing and performing online courses, is important (Hsu & Chiu, 2004; Teo & Koh, 2010). Students with high computer/internet self-efficacy will likely make an effort to solve the task by utilizing the internet application (Kim & Glassman, 2013; Teo & Koh, 2010). On the contrary, low computer/internet self-efficacy students tend to have low performance related to computer and internet activity (Teh, Chong, Yong, & Yew, 2010; Teo & Koh, 2010). Fortunately, students nowadays have been accustomed to technology and the internet to help them in online learning (Hung, Chou, Chen, & Own, 2010). Communication is also necessary for the learning process, both in face-to- face and online learning. Nevertheless, face-to-face communication is different from online communication. Online communication is mostly in written form (except in teleconference). Meanwhile, communication in face-to- face learning is more vivid since it http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 176-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license employs non-verbal expressions such as facial expressions and body language. Consequently, to be ready to undergo online learning, students should possess online communication capability and a good perception of their online communication. The student‟s perception about their capability to communicate and express themselves in an online environment is called online communication self- efficacy (Yılmaz, 2017). Some studies have been done to explore students' readiness in online learning in higher education settings. Hung, Chou, Chen, and Own (2010) found that the students' readiness was considered high in terms of computer/Internet self-efficacy, motivation for learning, and online communication self-efficacy and was low in terms of learner control and self- directed learning. On the other hand, Gigdem and Ozturk (2016) found that students‟ motivation for online learning was higher than their computer/Internet self-efficacy and self-directed learning. It was also found that computer/internet self-efficacy, self-directed learning, and learning motivation were significantly positive relationships with learning achievement. However, only self- directed learning was found to be the predictor of their achievements, while the other dimensions did not predict the students‟ achievements. Furthermore, Kırmızı (2015) revealed that out of the five online readiness dimensions, motivation was the most influential dimension on students‟ satisfaction while self-directed learning was the most crucial predictor of students‟ success towards the student satisfaction and success. Another research also indicated significant positive correlations between students‟ online learning readiness in technical competencies and both types of autonomous motivation (identified and intrinsic motivation). Additionally, the students who had low online learning readiness were likely unmotivated in learning (Bovermann, Weidlich, & Bastiaens, 2018). Additionally, another research revealed that online learning motivation readiness as the most conclusive factor of students‟ emotional intelligence, followed by self-directed learning, learner control, online communication self-efficacy, and computer/internet self-efficacy (Buzdar, Ali, & Tariq, 2016). Previous studies were about students' readiness online that were only done in the higher education context. Simultaneously, the impact of Covid-19 has caused online learning to be implemented at all levels, including http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 177-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license the middle school level. Furthermore, a preliminary interview was done with an English teacher in SMP Pelangi Dharma Nusantara Denpasar which revealed that at the beginning of online learning, eighth-grade students at SMP Pelangi Dharma Nusantara were not ready to learn via online learning. However, students had to quickly adapt to sudden changes from face-to- face learning to online learning. In their implementation, some obstacles often came from students. Students were less motivated to participate in online learning, and students could not complete the assignments. Accordingly, this study examined the students‟ readiness, which was seen from the five dimensions, namely self- directed learning, motivation for online learning, learner control, self-efficacy of the computer and internet use, and self- efficacy of online communication and the level of online readiness. Furthermore, different from the previous studies, which examined the students‟ readiness for online learning in the higher education setting; this study will explore the students‟ readiness in a secondary education institution. Therefore, the research questions are formulated as follows: 1. How is the students‟ readiness for online learning? 2. What is the level of students‟ readiness for online learning?. METHOD Research design The study was designed as an explanatory sequential mixed method design. The research was done in two phases: the quantitative phase to collect quantitative data and the qualitative phase to collect the qualitative data to support and elaborate the quantitative data (Creswell, 2012). The online learning readiness survey was conducted for the quantitative phase and interviews were done in the qualitative phase. Population and sample The study population was 60 eighth grade students in SMP Pelangi Dharma Nusantara Denpasar in the academic year 2020/2021. There were 2 intact classes with 60 students altogether in the population. Finally, 35 students out of 60 students filled the survey. Besides, there were 4 students from the two classes as the participants for the interview. Data collection and analysis The quantitative phase employed an online survey in Google Form to gather the 5 dimensions of online learning readiness as the variables: self- directed learning, motivation for online http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 178-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license learning, learner control, self-efficacy of the computer, and internet use and self- efficacy of online communication. The Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS) survey was adopted from Hung, Chou, Chen, & Own (2010). There were eighteen statements in the survey. Three statements were for measuring the students‟ readiness in terms of Computer/Internet self- efficacy. The statements were about their confidence in performing the basic functions of Microsoft Office programs (MS Word, MS Excel, and MS PowerPoint), knowledge and skills in managing software for online learning, and confidence in using the internet for gathering information. Five statements were used to measure the students‟ self- directed learning. The statements included their independence in planning their study, seeking help when facing the learning problems, managing time, setting learning goals, and setting learning performance expectations. Moreover, there were three statements to measure students‟ online learning control, including their control of their learning progress, their focus on learning, and their control to repeat the learning materials. On the other hand, four statements were designed to measure motivation, including their motivation for accepting new ideas, motivation to learn, motivation to learn from their mistakes, and motivation to share ideas with others. Additionally, three questions aimed to measure students‟ online communication self-efficacy. The statements included the students‟ confidence in using online communication tools, expressing themselves through text, and posting questions in online discussions. Moreover, the five-point Likert- type scale was employed for the scoring. The scales consist of “Strongly Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Neutral”, “Agree”, and “Strongly Agree” (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). Moreover, the instruments were tried-out before they are used to do the content validation. The question items were validated to ensure readability, reliability, validity, item difficulty, and item discrimination. Moreover, to support the quantitative data, interviews were done to have elaborative answers for the OLRS survey. The survey data were analyzed in a descriptive quantitative analysis by using SPSS 25 to see the students' online learning readiness. The result of the analysis was then connected to the E-learning assessment model suggested by Aydın and Tasci (2005) to measure the online learning readiness level. The http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 179-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license assessment model can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1. E-learning Assessment Model (Aydin & Tasci, 2005, p. 250) Moreover, three qualitative analysis procedures proposed by (Miles & Huberman, 1994), namely data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification, were used to analyze the data qualitatively. The data from interviews were converted into transcription, select, simplified, and selected for the associated answers in data reduction. In the data display, the data were displayed in the finding and discussion section. In conclusion drawing and verification, the data was verified by connecting them with theories and previous research. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The findings of OLRS (online learning readiness scale) survey showed that the grand mean score was 3.71. It was higher than the expected level of readiness suggested by Aydın and Tasci (2005) in which the students are considered ready for online learning if the mean score is or higher than 3.4. Furthermore, the findings were described in detail according to the five dimensions of online readiness namely, computer/internet self-efficacy, self- directed learning, learner control, motivation for online learning, self- efficacy of the computer and internet use, and online communication self- efficacy. Findings on computer/internet self- efficacy The findings in terms of computer/internet self-efficacy were displayed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Findings on Computer/internet Self- efficacy Item N Mean CIS1 I feel confident in performing the basic functions of Microsoft Office programs (MS Word, MS Excel, and MS PowerPoint). 35 3.57 CIS2 I feel confident in my knowledge and skills of how to manage software for online learning. 35 3.43 CIS3 I feel confident in using the Internet (Google, Yahoo) to find or gather information for online learning. 35 3.97 Total 3.66 Table 1 showed that the mean scores of the three survey items were higher than the expected level of readiness (M=3.40). The grand mean http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 180-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license score for the dimension of computer/internet self-efficacy was 3.66. It indicated that students had enough computer and internet self- efficacy to undergo online learning. The students were ready to perform the basic functions Microsoft Office programs (MS Word, MS Excel, and MS PowerPoint) if the students were required to accomplish assignments by typing them on Microsoft Office programs. Student 3 added: “I am confident to use Microsoft Office programs (MS Word, MS Excel, and MS PowerPoint) because I have learned them in elementary school.” Besides, the students were also confident to use online learning programs. In this case, Google Classroom and WhatsApp Group were used as the online learning platforms. However, at the beginning of the use of google classroom, Student 3 and Student 4 said that they were a bit confused to join the class since it required the class passcode. In terms of the use of the internet, the students felt confident. All students said that surfing on the internet was not a new thing for them. They were already accustomed to that. Overall, the students were ready in terms of the use of computers and the internet. The students might get accustomed to technology and the internet since they grow up in a technology era that would help them to deal with online learning (Hung, Chou, Chen, & Own, 2010). Accordingly, this high-level of computer and internet self-efficacy would help them to utilize technology and improve their learning performance (Teh, Chong, Yong, & Yew, 2010; Teo & Koh, 2010). Findings on self-directed learning Self-directed learning defined student independence in their learning. The findings on self-directed learning were showed in Table 2. Table 2 Findings on Self-directed Learning Item N Mean SDL1 I carry out my own study plan. 35 3.29 SDL2 I seek assistance when facing learning problems. 35 4.11 SDL3 I manage time well. 35 3.63 SDL4 I set up my learning goals 35 3.77 SDL5 I have higher expectations for my learning performance. 35 4.09 Total 3.78 From Table 2, it can be concluded that only one item that did not pass the expected level of readiness. The overall mean score was 3.78. Generally, the students were not ready to plan their own learning. It was in the same line with the statement from Student 3 who said: http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 181-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license “I do not plan my study. I just follow what the teacher asked us to do.” However, the students were quite active in seeking help when they had problems with their learning as the mean score passed the expected mean score (M=3.40). The interview results revealed that when facing a problem, the students seek help from the teacher, the internet, and friends. Student 1 stated: “When I have something I do not understand, I will ask the teacher through WhatsApp group. However, if the teacher does not give a fast response reply, I will search for the answer on the internet. If the internet cannot help too, I will ask my friends.” In managing the time, the mean score of the survey passed the expected mean score. It showed that students generally did not have any problem with it. The interview showed that Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 did not have any problems in managing school time through online learning and time to do house chores. The students did not have problems managing their time in online learning. This was because the students transfer their time management skills from traditional learning to online learning, so it is not difficult for students to manage their time (Zimmerman & Kulikowich, 2016). Furthermore, in general, the students set their own learning goals as the survey's mean score was higher than the expected mean score of online learning readiness. However, the result of the interview indicated that they did not set their learning goal. Student 1, Student 3, and Student 4 said that they do not set their learning goal by themselves. They only followed the teacher. Meanwhile, Student 2 stated that sometimes she set her learning goals for the topic that she liked. The result of the survey and the interview revealed that the students had high expectations for their learning. Student 4 stated: “I have high expectations toward my learning and get disappointed if I cannot reach my expectation.” Regarding the grand score of the self-directed learning dimension, it can be said that the students were ready for online learning. However, if it was seen separately, their readiness in planning their own study still needed improvement. Furthermore, to be considered as high self-directed learning, students should be able to plan their study and set their learning goals, monitor their understanding and time (Jansen, Leeuwen, Janssen, Kester, & Kalz, 2017), and have high expectation toward their learning outcomes (Kırmızı, 2015). http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 182-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Findings on learner control Online learning requires self- learning control from the students since the teachers cannot control the students directly. The result of the dimension of learner control was presented in Table 3. Table 3 Findings on Learner Control Item N Mean LC1 I can direct my own learning progress. 35 3.46 LC2 I am not distracted by other online activities when learning online (instant messages, Internet surfing). 35 3.51 LC3 I repeated the online instructional materials on the basis of my needs. 35 3.60 Total 3.52 Table 3 displayed that students were ready to face online learning in the dimension of learner control. Moreover, the grand score for this dimension was 3.52. Thus, it could be said that students generally could direct their own learning. Student 3 said: “I can direct my own learning progress. I always want to make progress because I am always curious about something that I do not know and try to find out about it. I think it makes me improve my learning.” During the online class, the students were able to focus on the class and were not distracted by other online activities. Student 1 stated: “During the online class, I focus on the class. I only open WhatsApp class group. I ignore other messages that come to my WhatsApp except it is from my parents and really urgent” In conclusion, the students had good learner control to ignore the distractions in online learning such as social media, electronic games, MP3 music, and other not relevant sites and materials, by contrast, they remained focus on the learning (Taylor, 2002). Besides, sometimes, the learning materials were hard to be understood and need to be comprehended repeatedly. Related to this, based on the survey, the students had enough control to repeat the learning materials. The interview result indicated that the students repeated the material when they did not understand it yet. They repeated the materials until they understand. Findings on motivation for online learning Motivation is also important as the basis to develop online learning readiness. Table 4 displayed the dimension of motivation for online learning. http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 183-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Table 4 Findings on Motivation for Online Learning Item N Mean MFoL1 I am open to new ideas. 35 3.66 MFoL2 I have motivation to learn. 35 3.86 MFoL3 I improve from my mistakes. 35 4.11 MFoL4 I like to share my ideas with others. 35 3.63 Total 3.81 Table 4 showed that the all the mean scores of the survey of motivation for online learning passed the expected mean score of online learning readiness (M=3.40) with the overall mean score was 3.81. The results of the survey displayed that the students were open to new ideas. The interview also resulted in the same. Student 1 said: “If other students have different ideas with me, I will accept it if the ideas accepted by most students.” Students also motivated to learn through online learning. Student 2 stated: “I have a high motivation to learn in online learning because I love English. Therefore, I am always motivated to study and try to master the materials.” On the other hand, students also learned from their mistakes. The mean score of this item was the two highest scores. It meant that students mostly learned from their mistakes. All student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 agreed that they should learn from their mistakes to make improvements. Student 1 stated: “I always learn from my mistakes, so I will not repeat the same mistakes” Students also had a willingness to share their ideas with other students as the mean score for the item was 3.63, higher than the expected mean score. From the interview, Student 4 stated: “I like to share my ideas, especially when it is a group work.” In contrast, Student 4 said: “I do not like to share my ideas with others because I am a shy person.” Nevertheless, if it was seen from the total mean score of motivation for online learning, it could be concluded that the students possessed high motivation for online learning. Additionally, the mean score was the highest mean score compared with the other four dimensions. The high motivation for online learning would encourage students to actively participate in online learning (Widjaja & Chen, 2017). Findings on online communication self-efficacy Communication is needed in teaching-learning process both in face- to-face learning and online learning. Since online learning utilizes written http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 184-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license communication more than oral communication by using an online learning platform, the students have to possess good written online communication. The results of the survey for this dimension were presented in Table 5. Table 5 Findings on Online Communication Self-efficacy Item N Mean OCS1 I feel confident in using online tools (email, discussion) to communicate with others effectively. 35 3.74 OCS2 I feel confident in expressing myself (emotions and humor) through text. 35 3.74 OCS3 I feel confident in posting questions in online discussions. 35 3.69 Total 3.72 Table 5 showed that the grand mean for the online communication self-efficacy dimension was 3.72. The mean score of the first item OCS1 indicated that students already pass the standard of readiness in using online tools (email, discussion) to communicate with others. All Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 agreed that they were good in utilizing the online tools to have effective communication Additionally, students felt confident to use text to express themselves. The mean score was 3.74 and it passed the expected mean score. Moreover, the result from the interview revealed that all Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 were confident to speak through text. They even felt more confident to communicate via text than face-to-face. Related to asking questions in online discussions, the result of the survey showed that the students generally students were ready for asking questions in online discussions. On the contrary, the result of the interview with Student 3 showed that he did not confident to ask questions in online discussion. Student 3 said: “I never asked in an online discussion. I avoid being the center of attention because I am a shy person. If I have questions, I will search them on the internet or ask my friends if I cannot find the answers on the internet.” Even though the students were ready in terms of online communication in general, some students might avoid being involved in communication due to their personality. Overall, if it was sorted, the dimension that had the highest mean score is the motivation dimension for online learning (M = 3.81), followed by the dimension of self-directed learning (M = 3.78), online communication self- efficacy (M = 3.72), computer/internet http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 185-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license self-efficacy (3.66), and learner control (3.52). A recent study found that the dimension of motivation got the highest mean score. This finding was consistent with Gigdem and Ozturk (2016) study and Buzdar, Ali, and Tariq (2016). However, Hung, Chou, Chen, and Own (2010) found that computer/internet self-efficacy obtained the highest mean score. Regarding the level of readiness, all the five dimensions were ranged between 3.4 and 4.2 which was considered in the level of “ready but needs a few improvements”. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION This recent study investigated the level of students‟ online learning readiness according the five dimensions including computer/internet self- efficacy, self-directed learning, learner control, motivation for online learning, self-efficacy of the computer and internet use, and online communication self-efficacy. The result showed that generally, the students were ready for online learning, in which the grand mean score (M=3.71) passed the expected mean score of online learning readiness and was in the level of “ready but needs a few improvements”. Specifically, the mean score of each dimension also passed the expected mean score of readiness and in the level of “ready but needs a few improvements”. However, one item of self-directed learning dimension related to the plan your own studies was still in the level of “not ready needs some work”. Additionally, the dimension of online communication self-efficacy was in the level of “ready but needs a few improvements”. This study implied that the improvement was needed to encourage the students to communicate in online learning, especially for shy students. REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Cengage Learning. Aydın, C. H., & Tasci, D. (2005). Measuring readiness for e-learning: Reflections from an emerging country. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 244-257. Bakia, M., Shear, L., Toyama, Y., & Lasseter, A. (2012). Understanding the implications of online learning for educational productivity. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Bovermann, K., Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2018). Online learning readiness and attitudes towards gaming in gamified online learning – a mixed methods case study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 1-17. doi:10.1186/s41239-018-0107-0 Buzdar, M. A., Ali, A., & Tariq, R. H. (2016). Emotional intelligence as a determinant of readiness for online learning. The International Review of http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 186-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1), 148-158. doi:10.19173/IRRODL.V17I1.2149 Chee, T. S., Divaharan, S., Tan, L., & Mun, C. H. (2011). Self-directed learning with ICT: Theory, practice and assessment (1st ed.). Ministry of Education, Singapore. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson. Damayanti, D., Fauzi, A., & Inayati, A. M. (2018). Learning materials: The "nucleus" of language teaching. Journal of English Education, 3(1), 1-8. doi:10.31327/jee.v3i1.417 Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. doi:10.1177/0047239520934018 Gay, G. H. (2018). Fixing the „ready‟ in e- learning readiness. In Trends in e- learning (pp. 65-83). Intech Open. doi:10.5772/intechopen.74287 Gigdem, H., & Ozturk, M. (2016). Critical components of online learning readiness and their relationships with learner achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 98- 109. doi:10.17718/tojde.09105 Hsu, M. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision Support Systems, 38(3), 369-381. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.001 Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2016). Measuring learners‟ motivation level in massive open online courses. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(10), 759-764. doi:10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.788 Hung, M.-L. (2015). Teacher readiness for online learning: Scale development and teacher perception. Computers & Education, 94, 120-133. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012 Hung, M.-L., Chou, C., Chen, C.-H., & Own, Z.-Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004 Hurst, B., Wallace, R., & Nixon, S. B. (2013). The impact of social interaction on student learning. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 52(4), 375-398. Jansen, R. S., Leeuwen, A. v., Janssen, J., Kester, L., & Kalz, M. (2017). Validation of the self-regulated online learning questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 6-27. doi:10.1007/s12528-016-9125-x Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: How teachers balance the blend of online and classroom components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 121-140. doi:10.28945/1968 Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (March 24, 2020). Mendikbud terbitkan SE tentang pelaksanaan pendidikan dalam masa darurat Covid-19. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Republik Indonesia. https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/mai n/blog/2020/03/mendikbud- terbitkan-se-tentang-pelaksanaan- pendidikan-dalam-masa-darurat- covid19 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2020/03/mendikbud-terbitkan-se-tentang-pelaksanaan-pendidikan-dalam-masa-darurat-covid19 https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2020/03/mendikbud-terbitkan-se-tentang-pelaksanaan-pendidikan-dalam-masa-darurat-covid19 https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2020/03/mendikbud-terbitkan-se-tentang-pelaksanaan-pendidikan-dalam-masa-darurat-covid19 https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2020/03/mendikbud-terbitkan-se-tentang-pelaksanaan-pendidikan-dalam-masa-darurat-covid19 https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2020/03/mendikbud-terbitkan-se-tentang-pelaksanaan-pendidikan-dalam-masa-darurat-covid19 IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 187-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Kim, Y., & Glassman, M. (2013). Beyond search and communication: Development and validation of the Internet self-efficacy scale (ISS). Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1421–1429. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.018 Kırmızı, Ö. (2015). The influence of learner readiness on student satisfaction and academic achievement in an online program at higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 133-142. Lalima., & Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended learning: An innovative approach. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 129-136. doi:10.13189/ujer.2017.050116 Lee, K., Tsai, P. S., Chai, C. S., & Koh, J. H. (2014). Students‟ perceptions of self- directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 425–437. doi:10.1111/jcal.12055 Lin, C.-H., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2017). The roles of learning strategies and motivation in online language learning: A Structural Equation Modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 113, 75-85. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.014 Lu, M.-T. P., & Vela, J. C. (2015). Online learning perceptions and effectiveness of research methods courses in a Hispanic-serving higher education institute. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(1), 34–55. doi:10.1177/1538192714543561 Luo, Y., Pan, R., Choi, J. H., & Strobel, J. (2017). Effects of chronotypes on students‟ choice, participation, and performance in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(8), 1069-1087. doi:10.1177/0735633117697729 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. Ouma, G. O., Awuor, F. M., & Kyambo, B. (2013). E-learning readiness in public secondary schools in Kenya. European Journal of Open, Distance and e‐ Learning, 16(2), 97-110. Periya, S. N., & Sebihi, A. (2017). Self- directed learning in modern education: A trend review and perspectives of Gulf Medical University Model, United Arab Emirates. EPRA International Journal of Economic and Business Review, 5(5), 5-9. Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 152-156. doi:10.1177/0098628312437704 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Shand, K., & Farrelly, S. G. (2017). Using blended teaching to teach blended learning: Lessons learned from pre- service teachers in an instructional methods course. Journal of Online Learning Research, 3(1), 5-30. Simsek, A. (2012). Learner Control. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1748-1750). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6 Stone, N. J. (2018). Environmental design, personality, and online learning. http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 188-188 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17773 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1171-1175. doi:10.1177/1541931218621269 Taipjutorus, W., Hansen, S., & Brown, M. (2012). Investigating a relationship between learner control and self- efficacy in an online learning environment. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 16(1), 56-69. Taylor, R. W. (2002). Pros and cons of online learning – a faculty perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(1), 24-37. doi:10.1108/03090590210415876 Teh, P.-L., Chong, C.-W., Yong, C.-C., & Yew, S.-Y. (2010). Internet self- efficacy, computer self-efficacy and cultural factors on knowledge sharing behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 4(18), 4086- 4095. Teo, T., & Koh, J. H. (2010). Assessing the dimensionality of computer self- efficacy among pre-service teachers in Singapore: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 6(3), 7-18. Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Lombaerts, K., & Philipsen, B. (2018). Students' motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33- 40. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.002 Widjaja, A. E., & Chen, c. V. (2017). Online learners' motivation in online learning: The effect of online participation, social presence, and collaboration. In C. Muniarti & R. Sanjaya (Eds.), Learning technologies in education: Issues and trends (pp. 72-93). Soegijapranata Catholic University. Yılmaz, R. (2017). Exploring the role of e- learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 251-260. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.085 Zimmerman, W., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2016). Online learning self-efficacy in students with and without online learning experience. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(3), 180-191. doi:10.1080/08923647.2016.1193801. http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee