Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Perceptions about and attitude toward the usage of e-learning in

corporate training
Hande Kimiloglu a, Meltem Ozturan b, *, Birgul Kutlu c
a
Bogaziçi University, Department of Management Information Systems, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Bogaziçi University, Department of Management Information Systems, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Bogaziçi University, Department of Management Information Systems, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As companies are driven to reshape their established practices with the impact of advancements in
Received 9 March 2016 information and communication technologies, corporate training emerges as a distinct area requiring
Received in revised form technological transformation. This exploratory study aims to examine the attitudes of a sample of 106 of
25 February 2017
the top 500 corporations in Turkey regarding the usage of e-learning for corporate training. Findings
Accepted 27 February 2017
Available online 28 February 2017
show that most of these firms currently have a hesitant attitude toward this development. Through
factor analysis, the main advantages for using e-learning in corporate training have been classified as
employee commitment and motivation, convenience and accessibility, customization and outsourcing,
Keywords:
E-learning
and cost effectiveness while the disadvantages have been grouped as personal and organizational.
Corporate training Consequently, attitudinal differences toward e-learning between companies have been explored ac-
Attitude cording to two scale-related variables (employee size and company revenue) and two variables about
Organization organizational readiness (the existence of a Learning & Education Department and the current use of e-
learning).
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction educational objectives at a wider scope with fewer resources.

The effects of developments in information and communication
technologies are rapidly permeating into nearly all activities and
processes in companies. Considering that corporate training is one
of the main business functions in most organizations, studying the
diffusion of technology into this realm is worthwhile. Actually, the
penetration of technology into the world of education is not
prevalent only in an organizational context. Distance learning
programs are flourishing immensely in various areas such as high
school and university education, adult education and lifelong
learning programs. In this environment, companies are expected to
give serious thought and consideration regarding a technological
reformation in the way they design and deliver training programs
for their employees.
The advancement of technology utilization in corporations for
employee training is a twofold issue. On one side, it can be expected
to improve efficiency greatly as a result of achieving the desired
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hande.kimiloglu@boun.edu.tr (H. Kimiloglu),
ozturan@boun.edu.tr (M. Ozturan), birgul.kutlu@boun.edu.tr (B. Kutlu).
Technological tools and opportunities can enhance the effective-
ness of training and increase the sustainability of its outcomes. On
the other hand, as with any restructuring attempt in a company,
transforming established training programs and practices require a
lot of investment and organizational stamina against possible
employee and management resistance.
Regardless of the challenges and difficulties companies might
experience in this shift, industrial facts and figures show that the
rise in this market is inevitable. According to Global Industry
Analysts Inc. (2016), the global e-learning market is expected to
reach $241 billion by 2022. This rise is attributed to the increasing
use of HTML5 based browsers, cloud computing, smart mobile
devices and strong penetration of broadband Internet. Further-
more, research firm TechNavio (2014) estimates that the global e-
learning market will post a CAGR of 15.06% for the period
2015e2019. Another wide-scale study conducted by Ambient
Insight (2014) for 106 countries has revealed that the worldwide
market for self-paced e-learning has reached $42.7 billion in 2013;
the five-year compound annual growth rate is 4.4%, and revenues
are expected to reach $53 billion by 2018. According to another
meltem. industrial report focusing more specifically on corporate e-learning,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.062
0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
340 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349
conducted by Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2014), the entire
e-learning market is forecast to grow by over 20% annually up
through 2017. Specifically, for corporate e-learning, which is stated
to be one of the most impressive growth segments in the education
industry, the expected growth rate is 13% up through 2017.
Although global figures show a solid growth in the e-learning
industry, evidently, current penetration and diffusion rates are not
necessarily the same for all regions and countries of the world.
Bucciarelli, Muratore, and Odoardi (2010) have grouped European
Union (EU) Member State and candidate countries according to the
percentage use of e-learning in corporations. Turkey appears to be
on the average with 29% of organizations using e-learning appli-
cations according to this study. Aydin and Tasci (2005) have found
that although companies have a high level of e-learning readiness
in Turkey, they need to improve the people factor strongly
compared to technology, innovation, and self-development for
successfully implementing e-learning. From a sectoral perspective,
the banking sector is one of the significant users of e-learning in a
corporate setting while similar projects are on the rise in the
retailing sector in Turkey (Yamamoto & Aydin, 2010). Overall,
Turkey must be considered as a country with great potential for the
distance learning market since it is has the largest percentage
(16.6%) of young population in Europe (TUIK, 2014), an Internet
penetration rate of 59.6% (Internet World Stats, 2016) and an
employment rate of approximately 50% in the 15e64 age range
which is approximately 53 million of the total population as of 2015
(TUIK, 2015).
In light of the fact that the global corporate e-learning market is
booming and the conjecture that Turkey has a serious potential in
this area, this research aims to explore perceptions about and
attitude toward the usage of e-learning in corporate training in
Turkey. More specifically, the research questions of this study are:
RQ1. What is the general attitude toward the use of e-learning for
corporate training in organizations?
RQ2. What are the advantages and disadvantages perceived by
companies regarding utilizing e-learning for corporate training?
RQ3. What are the differences in the advantages and disadvan-
tages perceived by companies according to employee size, company
revenue, existence of a Learning&Education Department, and the
current use of e-learning?
This study aims to contribute to the current literature in the field
of corporate e-learning in a number of ways. One of the main
contributions is to draw a more organizational perspective to e-
learning adoption rather than an individual one. Most studies in the
literature test attitudes toward e-learning by using various tech-
nology adoption models and asking respondents to state their
personal opinions and attitudes regarding various aspects of e-
learning. In this study, alternatively, key people from organizations
have been contacted to represent their company's outlook toward
this new learning system instead of their personal experience or
approach.
Another important contribution is the exploratory nature of this
research. Currently, there are many valuable studies in the current
literature testing numerous technology adoption and motivation
theories in the e-learning context. Integrative and extended models
are used and important findings have been reached. However,
because of the theory-testing nature of such work, existing scales
have been adapted to the e-learning environment and although
general behavioral approaches have been captured, context specific
issues have remained secondary or untapped. This study has made
an evaluation of a comprehensive set of contextual advantages and
disadvantages of corporate e-learning and has focused on more
tangible aspects of adoption rather than the behavioral dimensions
which have been studied already in many attempts. This approach
has resulted in an assessment of the importance of various opera-
tional issues different from the personal and behavioral sides of the
topic.
Finally, this study has examined the drivers and drawbacks of e-
learning for companies that are at the very early stages of adoption.
Instead of posing a limitation, this actually provided a projective
nature to the study regarding the opportunities and challenges
surrounding the e-learning market. Although studying the satis-
faction, success or performance of companies or employees who
have already welcome this technology is valuable, understanding
the views of non-adopters or early adopters as they see this
development from a distance is also one of the important alter-
native perspectives and contributions of this study.
2. Theoretical background
The current state of the literature about corporate e-learning is
characterized by different approaches. There are studies that have
utilized a specific technology adoption model or an integration of
multiple models to evaluate the success and diffusion of e-learning
systems in organizational environments.
One such framework is the IS success model of DeLone and
McLean (1992) where the system quality and information quality
of an information system precedes system use and user satisfaction
which, in turn, determine its impact on individuals and ultimately
on organizations. Wang, Wang & Shee (2007) have developed and
validated a multiple-item scale to assess e-learning system success
(ELSS) based mainly on the IS success model with an addition of
service quality as an antecedent and a more comprehensive
approach to measure system use, user satisfaction and the net
benefits of system use. Chen (2010) has examined the relation be-
tween e-learning system use and overall job outcomes also by
utilizing the IS success model and has found that the model can
explain individual benefits of e-learning usage in terms of specific
job outcomes, i.e. task completion, job satisfaction, and job per-
formance. In another attempt, IS success model has been integrated
with social cognitive theory and motivation theory to explain critical
success factors for e-learning in developing countries as judged by
ICT experts and faculty (Bhuasiri, Xaymoungkhoun, Zo, Rho, &
Ciganek, 2012). While three dimensions of success, namely, infra-
structure and system quality, course and information quality, and
institution and service quality have been included in the study from
the IS success model perspective, four additional dimensions which
are e-learning environment, learner characteristics, instructor
characteristics and extrinsic motivation have also been added from
social cognitive and motivation theories.
As in most studies regarding the acceptance and adoption of a
specific technology, one of the most popular models that has been
used in the corporate e-learning literature is the Technology
Acceptance Model e TAM (Davis, 1989). Research attempts to utilize
TAM for this context took an integrative or expansive approach. Lee,
Hsieh & Chen (2013) have tested an extended TAM model where
organizational support, computer self-efficacy, prior experience in
using computer technology and task equivocality have been iden-
tified as the antecedents of perceived ease of use (PEOU) and
perceived usefulness (PU). Findings show that all four antecedents
have full or partial effects on the two main independent variables of
TAM. Similarly, Hsia, Chang and Tseng (2014) have added locus of
control as an antecedent to these two variables and found that both
effects are significant. Mohammadi's (2015) study, although it is not
conducted in an organizational context, provides another success-
ful example of an integrative attempt where the above-mentioned
IS success model approach and TAM are combined. In his work, the
 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349
author has conglomerated educational quality, service quality,
technical system quality and content and information quality from
different sources in the literature being inspired by the IS success
model. He has used these four quality antecedents alongside PEOU
and PU to predict user satisfaction, usage intention and actual usage
of e-learning systems. Variations of the TAM model take many
other different forms. In Cheng, Minhong, Moorman, Olaniran, and
Chen (2012) work, authors have divided perceived usefulness into
two dimensions as individual and social learning and have hy-
pothesized that both dimensions will have positive effects on
intention to use e-learning at work. Moreover, the antecedents of
PEOU have been added from an expectancy theory perspective as
managerial support, job support and organizational support for e-
learning.
Another technology adoption model that has been used in this
research avenue is Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Tech-
nology e UTAUT (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). Yoo, Han
& Huang (2012) have situated the variables of UTAUT into extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation categories. Effort expectancy, attitude to-
wards e-learning, and anxiety have been categorized as intrinsic
motivation variables while performance expectancy, social influ-
ence and facilitating conditions have been used as extrinsic moti-
vation variables. Intrinsic motivators has been found to have a
stronger effect on behavioral intention to adopt e-learning in the
workplace than extrinsic motivators. Motivational theories have
also been utilized in integrative approaches. Intrinsic value, self-
efficacy, and test anxiety were used in Joo, Lim, and Kim's (2012)
study as learners' motivational factors while PEOU and PU were
used as environmental factors affecting learning flow and
achievement.
In the literature, more specific and parsimonious studies can be
found to study the effectiveness of corporate e-learning programs
as well. Cheng, Minhong, Yang, Kinshuk, and Jun (2011) have used a
competency-based learning approach and studies perceived indi-
vidual learning support and perceived peer collaborative learning
support as the two main antecedents of intention to use e-learning
systems and both have been found to have a strong predictive
power on usage intention. As an example of another more specific
and niche approach, Rodriguez and Armellini (2013) have
concentrated only on the comparative importance of learner-
content, learner-learner, and learner-teacher interactions in the
effectiveness of corporate e-learning. Findings show that learner-
content interaction is most important followed by learner-learner
and learner-teacher interactions.
Although many studies have used a theory-testing approach in
the literature, this research has taken a more exploratory
perspective. Considering the novelty of the corporate e-learning
market in Turkey, assessing perceptions about a comprehensive set
of advantages and disadvantages was seen important in order to
depict the current state of company attitudes toward this devel-
opment. Therefore, the literature has been scanned also from the
perspective of a wide number of studies examining the pros and
cons of organizational e-learning systems. Findings about how
these issues are grouped together and the emerging categories of
variables show close resemblance with previous studies and
parallelism with related theories.
The most commonly mentioned advantages in the literature are
the flexibility of e-learning programs and efficiency, especially in
terms of cost minimization and time saving. However, higher-order
issues such as the permanence of learning material, personalization
of the learning process or enhancement of employee and customer
satisfaction also appear as important positive aspects of e-learning
compared to traditional methods. As for the disadvantages, while
technical problems and technology resistance prevail, questions
about the lack of sociability, quality considerations and
341
organizational issues such as lack of managerial support are also
numerously encountered drawbacks. Tables 1 and 2 list the
commonly cited issues in the literature.
3. Methodology of the study
Due to the exploratory nature of this study, a rather lengthy
questionnaire was used as the method of data collection. It was
constructed mainly according to the existing issues arising from the
current literature and research examples conducted in different
contexts. Opinions of e-learning experts and a pilot study con-
ducted on five corporations helped the creation of the final form of
the tool. A total of 19 questions in the questionnaire were related to
this particular study. The initial three questions were about the
profile of the respondent (age, gender, and department worked in).
Respondents who filled out the survey on behalf of their companies
were employed in managerial positions mostly in the Human Re-
sources and Learning & Education Departments as well as some
others that were still all relevant to the subject area of the research
(nHR ¼ 67 (63.8%); nLED ¼ 18 (17.1%); nOTH ¼ 20 (19%)). The
respondent group was fairly equivalent in terms of gender distri-
bution with males slightly exceeding females (nM ¼ 59 (55.7%);
nF ¼ 47 (44.3%)). It was a young respondent group, approximately
half of which is in the 30e40 age range with the rest fairly closely
distributed in the below 30 and above 40 groups (n<30 ¼ 25 (23.8%);
n30-40 ¼ 51 (48.6%); n>40 ¼ 29 (27.7%)).
This part was followed by questions related to the general
profile of the corporations (province, number of employees, sector,
revenue, type, and location) as well as the current state of e-
learning in the sample. Companies were asked questions about the
existence of a Learning & Education Department in the company,
the number of employees in this department, the current level of
and budget allocated to e-learning. Responses to these questions
can be found in the company profile results.
The next section included questions about the perceptions of
the companies related to the importance of advantages and dis-
advantages of e-learning compared to traditional learning for their
company. The questions related to the advantages (19 items) and
the disadvantages (12 items) were rated on a 5-point interval scale
from “very unimportant” to “very important”.
The data were gathered through an online survey, formed
through Google Documents application and the survey link was
sent to the top 500 corporations determined by a reputable Turkish
monthly business and economy magazine, for notification. Initial
contact with the top 500 corporations was made through e-mail.
The body of the message included an explanation about the pur-
pose of the study and a statement of confidentiality of the infor-
mation provided by the respondents. This first round resulted in 45
responses in three weeks. An intense follow-up process through a
second round of e-mails and telephone calls generated an addi-
tional 61 returns adding up to an overall response of 106. Since the
target population was the top 500 corporations in Turkey, consid-
ering the extensive nature of the questionnaire, a response rate
slightly higher than 20% is accepted as adequate.
Respondents contacted in each company were asked to answer
the questions with an organizational identity, representing the
company's current approach toward e-learning rather than per-
sonal opinions. For this reason, care was taken to make sure that the
survey was answered by a relevant manager from the Lear-
ning&Education or Human Resources Department in the company.
Although this created an important challenge and slowed the data
collection process, it was important to get the corporate perspec-
tive including positive views and resistance areas instead of the
individual opinions of these respondents.
342 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349
Table 1
Advantages of e-learning.
Advantages
Flexibility to learn anytime, anywhere
Self-directed and personalized learning
Consistency of training and delivery
Permanent availability of cumulative archive of course content and timely updates
Saving of time and minimization of time away from work
Cost effective delivery and travel cost minimization
Increase in productivity, improved value chain activities, ROI
Increased employee and customer satisfaction
Globalization
Improvement of workforce
Table 2
Disadvantages of e-learning.
Disadvantages
Technical problems (bandwidth limitations, Internet problems,
incompatible technology, etc.)
Lack of sociability, lack of interactivity and feedback
Lack of computer and Internet skills, fear of technology
Educational problems (academic quality, assessment, methodology)
High development and maintenance costs
Organizational problems (lack of support, lack of trained staff, cultural Galusha (1998), Gudanescu (2010), Benninck (2004), Nisar (2002), Fry (2001), Berge and Giles
resistance)
4. Findings of the study
The profile of the companies represented by the respondents in
the sample is shown in Table 3. As shown in this table, most of the
companies that have been included in the sample are located in
Istanbul, while there are also a considerable number of companies
from other cities in Turkey. In terms of employee population, 43.4%
have 500 or less employees while another substantial 39.4% have
500e2000 employees. There are only 17 companies with an
employee size of 2000 or higher. This is a good distribution for this
study in the sense that it includes organizations with different
employee populations that might have varying needs and ap-
proaches toward e-learning. The same idea is valid for company
revenue and it is important that there is not a very dominant
concentration in any one of the revenue groups. These companies
are nearly totally from the private sector with an exception of only
four subjects from the public sector. They are mostly multiple
location entities and the sectors they come from are distributed
diversely which is also crucial to achieve the heterogeneity needed
in this study.
While 60% of these companies have a Learning & Education
Department, the rest of them do not have one. The level of e-
learning applications in these companies is currently not very high.
In 44%, there are currently no e-learning applications, 45% use it at a
preliminary level and only a minority of 11% have common use of e-
learning applications. Consequently, those companies who have
spared a part of their training budget to e-learning have allocated
less than 25% to e-learning in total except for a very few exceptions.
This shows how preliminary e-learning investments are in these
companies.
Reference
Gudanescu (2010), Hamid (2002), Tarr (1998), Benninck (2004), Fry (2001),
Nisar (2002), Setaro (2000), Faherty (2003), Burgess and Russell (2003),
Chen (2008), Newton and Doonga (2007), Batalla-Busquets and Pacheco-
Bernal (2013)
Hamid (2002), Gudanescu (2010), Tarr (1998), Benninck (2004), Nisar
(2002), Setaro (2000), Burgess and Russell (2003), Chen (2008), Newton and
Doonga (2007), Batalla-Busquets and Pacheco-Bernal (2013)
Benninck (2004), Nisar (2002), Setaro (2000), Burgess and Russell (2003)
Hamid (2002), Gudanescu (2010), Tarr (1998), Faherty (2003), Chen (2008),
Batalla-Busquets and Pacheco-Bernal (2013)
Nisar (2002), Setaro (2000), Burgess and Russell (2003)
Tarr (1998), Fry (2001), Benninck (2004), Setaro (2000), Burgess and Russell
(2003), Chen (2008), Newton and Doonga (2007), Faherty (2003)
Burgess and Russell (2003), Chen (2008)
Faherty (2003), Gwebu and Wang (2007), Benninck (2004), Kramer (2007)
Setaro (2000), Faherty (2003), Chen (2008)
Benninck (2004), Setaro (2000), Chen (2008), Fry (2001)
Reference
Galusha (1998), Gudanescu (2010), Fry (2001), Benninck (2004)
Galusha (1998), Fry (2001), Gudanescu (2010), Nisar (2002)
Gudanescu (2010), Fry (2001), Benninck (2004), Nisar (2002)
Galusha (1998), Benninck (2004)
Galusha (1998), Gudanescu (2010), Benninck (2004), Nisar (2002), Berge and Giles (2008),
Schweizer (2004), Chen (2008)
(2008), Faherty (2003), Chen (2008)
4.1. Attitudes toward E-Learning for corporate training
An important issue investigated in this study is the overall
attitude of companies toward using e-learning for corporate
training. Managers have been asked to state their preference to-
ward learning approaches, their general disposition toward e-
learning, and their expected usage of e-learning in the near future.
As seen in Table 4, with respect to preference toward learning ap-
proaches, most of the contacted organizations prefer blended
learning, which is a combination of traditional and e-learning for
corporate training. While a very minor group of four companies
have made a particular preference toward e-learning, another mi-
nor group has shown an intention to stick to traditional learning as
the most preferable approach for employee training.
As for the general attitude of the organization toward e-learning,
most of them are doubtful about its advantages and there are
conflicting views in organizations regarding this issue. Meanwhile,
there is a small group of organizations that have a totally negative
approach stating that they find it inefficient while another group of
companies believe that e-learning is effective and efficient.
Findings about the expected usage of e-learning in the next three
years have shown that, although there is a minority of firms that
aim to stick to traditional learning mostly for the near future, a
larger part of the contacted companies is ready to adopt e-learning
to some extent in the short run. Overall, these results show that,
with the exception of a small group of companies holding a strong
position against adopting e-learning, most organizations have a
current tendency or intended future outlook that is mainly positive
toward e-learning.
These findings show that these corporations are currently at the
early stages of adopting this innovation. There are many existing
theories about categorizing adoption stages such as Rogers (1983)
 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349 343

Table 3 implementation and eventually institutionalization of change.

Profile of organizations. Corporate e-learning seems to be at these initial phases of aware-
Characteristic Frequency % ness and persuasion among companies in Turkey, therefore, a lot of
Province (n ¼ 104)
orientation and adaptation is needed before e-learning is fully in-
Istanbul 60 57.7 tegrated into the learning and education culture in these
Other cities 44 42.3 companies.
Number of employees (n ¼ 99)
100 and below 9 9.1
4.2. Advantages of E-Learning
100 - 500 34 34.3
500e2000 39 39.4
2000 and above 17 17.2 One of the major objectives of this research is to investigate the
Sector (n ¼ 105) importance attached to the main perceived advantages and dis-
Food & Beverage 22 21
advantages of e-learning for corporate training programs. For this
Metals 8 7.6
Automotive 6 5.7
purpose, contacted professionals in companies have been asked to
IT 6 5.7 state the importance they attribute on behalf of their companies to
Energy 6 5.7 19 advantages and 12 disadvantages of e-learning. Consequently,
Others 57 54.3 factor analyses have been conducted on the list of advantages and
Revenue (n ¼ 98)
disadvantages examined. Tables 5 and 6 show the relevant findings.
125,000,000 $ and below 25 25.5
125,000,000 $ e 250,000,000 $ 24 24.5 The 19 items measured with a five-point interval importance
250,000,000 $ e 375,000,000 $ 20 20.4 scale assessing the perceived advantages of e-learning have been
375,000,000 $ and above 29 29.6 grouped into four factors as a result of the factor analysis. The KMO
Type (n ¼ 105) test of sampling adequacy is 0.818 which is higher than the
Public Sector 4 3.8
Private Sector 101 101
acceptable threshold of 0.500 and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is
Location (n ¼ 104) significant at the 0.001 level which shows the suitability of the data
Single Location 11 10.6 for factor analysis. The total variance explained by these four factors
Multiple Location 93 89.4 is 71.2%. As seen in Table 5, this analysis has produced four factors
Learning & Education Department (n ¼ 105)
signifying the major areas of advantages in e-learning.
Yes, there is a Learning & Education Department 63 60
5 and less employees 44 69.8 Factor 1 has been named Employee Commitment and Motivation
Above 5 employees 17 27.0 since it includes advantages that are mostly related with em-
Missing 2 3.2 ployees' acceptance of and involvement with e-learning. Factor 2
No, there is not a Learning & Education Department 42 40 named as Convenience and Accessibility hosts issues that are more
Company's level of e-learning applications (n ¼ 100)
No e-learning applications 44 44.0
relevant to the practical advantages of e-learning because of its
Research and pilot applications of e-learning 45 45.0 wide availability and time and place-free nature. Factor 3 which is
Common use of e-learning applications 11 11.0 named Customization and Outsourcing includes advantages related
Current rate of e-learning budget to all of the training budget (n ¼ 50)a to the flexibility of the content of e-learning and the opportunity to
0% 23 46
receive superior training through being able to outsource this
1%e25% 24 48
26%e50% 1 2 function based on the use of e-learning technologies. Finally, Factor
51%e75% 2 4 4, Cost Effectiveness, covers two issues directly pinpointing the low
76%e100% 0 0 cost advantage of e-learning.
a
This question has been answered only by companies that have assigned a Descriptive findings depict that all of the advantages of e-
specific budget for e-learning. learning have been found important by the contacted professionals
in the companies. Thus, although e-learning is currently used at a
preliminary level in most organizations, managers' attitude toward
approach where there are five phases of diffusion as: knowledge, this learning approach is mainly positive and the expected usage of
persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Another e-learning can be anticipated to be higher in the near future.
approach is the stage theory of organizational change of Beyer and With a comparative perspective, it can be seen that being able to
Trice (1978) where seven distinct stages are identified in an orga- train employees in their own convenient time, the opportunity to
nizational change process starting from sensing unsatisfied de- access a large number of employees, and being able to conduct e-
mands in a company (awareness) leading up to adoption, learning without the need to travel are perceived to be the most
crucial advantages showing that the practical benefits of e-learning
are dominant. However, the fact that conducting e-learning will
Table 4
Attitudes toward the use of e-learning in the organization.
attach a learning organization profile to the company has also been
found important, signifies that such intangible and more strategic
Attitude Frequency Percent
aspects of adopting e-learning are also essential for companies.
Preference of learning approach (n ¼ 105) These findings are strongly parallel to previous studies in which
Traditional learning 13 13.1 various antecedents have been identified and their impact on the
E-learning 4 4.0
Blended learning 88 88.9
adoption of e-learning have been evaluated. The high importance
General attitude of the organization toward e-learning (n ¼ 98) attached to the Employee Commitment and Motivation factor
Inefficient and negative 11 11.2 confirm the importance of intrinsic motivators encountered in
Doubtful and conflicting 66 67.3 previous studies which have adopted motivational theories. Simi-
Effective and efficient 21 21.5
larly, Convenience and Accessibility and Customization and
Expected percentage of e-learning to all of the trainings in the next 3 years
(n ¼ 93) Outsourcing factors relate tightly to perceived usefulness which has
1e25 34 34.0 been found as a very prominent antecedent of e-learning adoption
26e50 34 34.0 in many studies. Additionally, in this study, Cost Effectiveness was
51e75 23 23.0 also found to be a very important factor. This draws attention to the
76e100 2 2.0
fact that operational issues are equally important in addition to
344 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349

Table 5
Advantages of E-learning.

Factors Items Loading Meana (over Standard

values 5) deviation

Factor 1 4.20 0.74

Employee Commitment and Permanence of the knowledge acquired through e-learning 0.897 4.21 0.91
Motivation Increased employee interest and responsibility 0.860 4.24 0.90
Variance Explained: 43.72% Employee morale and motivation 0.850 3.95 1.06
Eigenvalue: 8.31 Measurability of the benefits of training 0.779 4.39 0.75
Cronbach's Alpha: 0.923 Interactivity and cooperation among employees 0.742 4.00 1.05
Less stressful learning environment 0.648 4.16 0.91
Gaining the identity of learning organization 0.559 4.47 0.67
Factor 2 4.41 0.54
Convenience and Accessibility Training employees in their own convenient environment 0.809 4.40 0.75
Variance Explained: 14.75% Permanence of training material 0.805 4.34 0.72
Eigenvalue: 2.80 Training employees at their preferred tempo 0.789 4.34 0.71
Cronbach's Alpha: 0.838 Training employees in their own convenient time 0.721 4.58 0.63
Opportunity to enrich training material through audiovisual elements 0.593 4.31 0.73
Training a large number of employees at the same time 0.500 4.52 0.74
Factor 3 4.34 0.66
Customization and Outsourcing Standardization for repeated training programs 0.763 4.40 0.74
Variance Explained: 7.36% Opportunity to receive training from qualified professionals 0.756 4.33 0.88
Eigenvalue: 1.40 Customization of the training for different groups 0.670 4.33 0.68
Cronbach's Alpha: 0.844 Opportunity to receive high-quality training in the absence of competent experts in 0.597 4.34 0.85
the company
Factor 4 4.46 0.63
Cost Effectiveness Lower training costs 0.875 4.41 0.71
Variance Explained: 5.39% No need to travel for training 0.779 4.52 0.73
Eigenvalue: 1.03
Cronbach's Alpha: 0.697
a
(5: Very important ……… 1: Very unimportant).

Table 6
Disadvantages of E-learning.

Factors Items Loading values Meana (over 5) Standard deviation

Factor 1 4.03 0.78

Personal Disadvantages Lack of motivation and concentration 0.893 4.11 0.99
Variance Explained: 43.99% Lack of face-to-face communication 0.846 4.21 0.96
Eigenvalue: 5.28 Difficulty of conducting e-learning in a disciplined and efficient manner 0.837 4.16 0.94
Cronbach's Alpha: 0.857 Negative attitude of employees 0.615 3.76 1.08
High cost of e-learning technologies 0.568 3.80 1.05
Lack of awareness and acceptance of e-learning in the company 0.501 4.07 1.12
Factor 2 3.52 0.85
Organizational Disadvantages Lack of the necessary technology infrastructure 0.769 3.08 1.30
Variance Explained: 14.11% Lack of a competent team to conduct and manage e-learning 0.762 3.62 1.18
Eigenvalue: 1.69 Difficulty to keep e-learning material proprietary 0.737 3.36 1.17
Cronbach's Alpha: 0.817 Difficulty to find the right e-learning package for the company 0.664 3.96 0.95
Lack of skilled employees to follow e-learning 0.629 3.23 1.22
Lack of top management support 0.544 3.77 1.10
a
(5: Very important …….. 1: Very unimportant).

behavioral aspects of the topic. This stems from the fact that this
research was conducted with an organizational perspective.
Studies concentrating on individual opinions do not stress
company-related factors that are equally important in the adoption
of a new system. Thus, this finding confirms the need for a wider
perspective in studying corporate e-learning adoption from both
employee and organizational perspectives in future studies.
4.3. Disadvantages of E-Learning
The 12 items measured with a five-point interval importance
scale assessing the perceived disadvantages of e-learning have
been grouped into two factors as a result of the factor analysis. The
KMO test of sampling adequacy is 0.827 which is higher than the
acceptable threshold of 0.500 and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is
significant at the 0.001 level which shows the suitability of the data
for factor analysis. The total variance explained by these two factors
is 58.1%. As seen in Table 6, this analysis has produced two factors
signifying the major areas of disadvantages in e-learning. Factor 1
has been named Personal Disadvantages as it includes difficulties
that employees are expected to experience during the conduction
of e-learning such as challenges related to concentration and
communication. It also includes personal barriers that employees
might have against this learning approach such as their lack of
acquaintance with and their overall negative prejudice against it.
On the other hand, Factor 2, Organizational Disadvantages, com-
prises difficulties that may be experienced from the company
perspective such as not having the necessary infrastructure, qual-
ified team, supportive management and competent employees to
benefit from e-learning. It also includes practical issues such as the
difficulty of finding the right e-learning program so that a wise
investment is made and furthermore, protecting the illegal prop-
agation of the e-learning material. Thus, companies are faced with
challenges both at the personal and behavioral side of the issue and
the technical and practical applicability of e-learning in the
company.
 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349
Descriptive findings display that the importance levels attached
to the disadvantages of e-learning are evidently lower compared to
the advantages. This confirms the positive outlook companies have
toward adopting e-learning. The obstacles that have been perceived
as relatively more important are mostly the personal issues
regarding the lack of face-to-face communication, difficulty to
conduct e-learning in a disciplined manner and motivation and
concentration difficulties. This finding is parallel with previous
studies that have shown the importance of the social aspects of e-
learning. Participants in such programs want to maintain sociability
and interaction and fear of losing the social value of the learning
process is an important drawback.
On the other hand, issues like the lack of technological infra-
structure and skilled employees for e-learning or the difficulty of
keeping e-learning material proprietary have not been perceived as
important disadvantages. These results are also very promising
since they show that companies do not refrain from e-learning
because they do not have the necessary resources or strategic
commitment for this investment, but mainly because of the chal-
lenges related to conducting this approach in an efficient and
effective manner.
Findings of this study about the advantages and disadvantages
of e-learning are important from one other perspective. Although
companies are currently at early stages of e-learning adoption, the
perceived advantages mostly outweigh the expected disadvan-
tages. This is parallel to Herzberg's two-factor theory where there
are two groups of factors instigating motivation in organizational
environments: motivational factors and hygiene factors. Motiva-
tional factors are in line with the four advantage factors and hy-
giene factors are in line with the two disadvantage factors explored
in this study. While it is essential to reduce dissatisfying hygiene
factors to increase motivation, it is crucial to flourish the satisfying
motivational factors in the long run. This study also confirms this
perspective by showing that once personal and organizational
barriers are overcome, this new technology can penetrate into the
learning processes and culture in a company much more deeply
and fluently.
4.4. Difference analyses according to company profile
After grouping the importance of various advantages and dis-
advantages of e-learning under six different factors, differences
between companies regarding these six factors according to
employee size, company revenue, existence of a Learning & Edu-
cation Department, and the current use of e-learning have been
explored. For this purpose, one-way ANOVA and independent-
samples t-test analyses have been conducted using these four
company-related characteristics as grouping variables and the four
advantage factors and two disadvantage factors as the dependent
variables. Relevant findings are presented in Tables 7 and 8.
Consequently, when a significant difference is found between
companies in terms of any one of the six factors, further difference
analyses have been conducted to see which items under the rele-
vant factors are the main cause of the resulting differences. These
findings are presented in Table 9.
4.5. Difference analyses according to employee size
Companies have been grouped into three according to their
employee size as those with an employee population of “below
500”, “500e2000”, and “above 2000”. One-way ANOVA analyses
have been conducted for these three groups using the six advantage
and disadvantage factors as dependent variables. As seen in Table 8,
companies with different employee sizes display a significant dif-
ference with respect to the perceived importance attached to the
345
organizational disadvantages of conducting e-learning for corporate
training. Companies that have an employee population of
500e2000 people have attributed relatively greater importance to
the organizational difficulties that might be encountered in
implementing e-learning programs compared to the other two
groups. It is reasonable to expect that companies with a small body
of employees (less than 500) may not expect to experience major
organizational challenges such as infrastructure difficulties or lack
of management support since the investment made to perform e-
learning in smaller scale organizations will also be limited. On the
other hand, large scale companies with an employee population
exceeding 2000 can be expected to have the necessary financial
power and managerial support to make the extensive investment
needed for e-learning. Thus, organizations with a medium
employee body have shown the highest concern in terms of the
company-wide challenges that may be experienced.
Deeper analyses of differences regarding employee size confirm
the above findings. Three groups of companies with different
employee populations have been further subjected to ANOVA an-
alyses for each of the six specific disadvantages under the Organi-
zational Disadvantages factor. Findings show that companies with a
medium employee population (500e2000) have attached rela-
tively greater importance to the lack of the necessary technology
infrastructure while this has not been perceived as an important
issue for small scale and large scale companies. Similarly, these
businesses have attached comparatively greater importance to the
threat of lack of management support compared to the other two
groups. Relevant findings can be seen in Table 9. These results
support the general finding that organizational difficulties are most
challenging for organizations with a medium-size employee
population.
4.6. Difference analyses according to company revenue
Companies have been grouped into three as those with an
annual revenue “below $125,000,000”, “$125,000,000-
$375,000,000”, and “above $375,000,000”. One-way ANOVA ana-
lyses have been conducted for these three groups using the six
advantage and disadvantage factors as dependent variables. As
seen in Table 8, companies with different annual revenues display a
significant difference with respect to the perceived importance
attached to the personal disadvantages of conducting e-learning for
corporate training. Companies with an annual revenue below
$125,000,000, which is the lowest revenue group, have attached
the lowest level of importance to the possible personal challenges
that may be experienced during e-learning. This may be attributed
to the fact that these are comparatively smaller scale companies
and issues such as lack of employee commitment or concentration
do not have a lot of priority compared to the advantages that may
be experienced through e-learning. Confirming this, the item-by-
item difference analyses that have been done for these three rev-
enue groups show that companies with a lower annual revenue
attach a significantly lower level of importance to the lack of
motivation and concentration, lack of face-to-face communication
and the difficulty of conducting e-learning in a disciplined and efficient
manner compared to larger scale businesses as seen in Table 9. In
short, the convenient environment established for their employees
are expected to outpace the personal disadvantages for smaller-
scale companies.
4.7. Difference analyses according to the existence of a Learning &
Education Department
Independent-samples t-test analyses have been conducted in
order to find out whether there are any differences between
346 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349

Table 7
Difference analyses According to perceived advantage factors.

Perceived Advantage Factors

Employee Commitment & Motivation Convenience & Accessibility Customization & Outsourcing Cost Effectiveness

Number of Employees (n ¼ 99)

Below 500 (n ¼ 43) F ¼ 0.284 (p ¼ .754) F ¼ 0.687 (p ¼ .506) F ¼ 2.184 (p ¼ .119) F ¼ 0.355 (p ¼ .702)
500e2000 (n ¼ 39)
Above 2000 (n ¼ 17)
Revenue (1000 $) (n ¼ 98)
Below 125,000 $ (n ¼ 25) F ¼ 1.290 (p ¼ .281) F ¼ 0.022 (p ¼ .978) F ¼ 1.301 (p ¼ .277) F ¼ 0.463 (p ¼ .631)
125,000e375,000 $ (n ¼ 44)
Above 375,000 $ (n ¼ 29)
Learning & Education Dept.
Yes (n ¼ 63) t ¼ 0.548 (p ¼ .585) t ¼ 1.010 (p ¼ .315) t ¼ 0.198 (p ¼ .844) t ¼ 0.740 (p ¼ .461)
No (n ¼ 42)
Use of E-Learning
No (n ¼ 44) t ¼ -2.158 (p ¼ 0.034) t ¼ 0.387 (p ¼ .699) t ¼ 1.182 (p ¼ .240) t ¼ 1.489 (p ¼ .140)
Yes (n ¼ 56) m ¼ 4.0197
m ¼ 4.3452
Differences significant at the 95 % level are bolded and the p values are identified in parantheses.

Table 8
Difference analyses According to perceived disadvantage factors.

Perceived Disadvantage Factors

Personal Disadvantages Organizational Disadvantages

Number of Employees (n ¼ 99)

Below 500 (n ¼ 43) F ¼ 2.261 (p ¼ .110) F ¼ 4.006 (p ¼ .022)
500e2000 (n ¼ 39) m ¼ 3.2838
Above 2000 (n ¼ 17) m ¼ 3.8190
m ¼ 3.4412
Revenue (1000 $) (n ¼ 98)
Below 125,000 $ (n ¼ 25) F ¼ 8.098 (p ¼ .001) F ¼ 0.768 (p ¼ .467)
125,000e375,000 $ (n ¼ 44) m ¼ 3.5303
Above 375,000 $ (n ¼ 29) m ¼ 4.1927
m ¼ 4.2631
Learning & Education Department
Yes (n ¼ 63) t ¼ 2.923 (p ¼ .005) t ¼ 1.404 (p ¼ .164)
No (n ¼ 42) m ¼ 4.2164
m ¼ 3.6944
Use of E-Learning
No (n ¼ 44) t ¼ 0.684 (p ¼ .496) t ¼ 0.427 (p ¼ .670)
Yes (n ¼ 56)

Differences significant at the 95 % level are bolded and the p values are identified in parantheses.

companies that do and do not have a Learning & Education
Department in terms of the six advantage and disadvantage factors.
As seen in Table 8, these two groups of companies differ signifi-
cantly only with respect to the personal disadvantages of e-learning.
Companies that have a Learning & Education Department have
attached greater importance to this factor compared to those
companies without such as department. This can be related to the
fact that the contacted professionals in companies that have this
department have a higher level of awareness of the kind of chal-
lenges and obstacles that can be experienced in adapting to a novel
learning approach like this.
Deeper analysis of this difference confirms the above findings.
Two groups of companies that do and do not have a Learning &
Education Department have been further subjected to
independent-samples t-tests for each of the six personal disad-
vantages of e-learning. Findings given in Table 9 show that com-
panies that do have such a department show a higher level of
concern about the lack of motivation and concentration, lack of face-
to-face communication, negative attitude of employees, and lack of
awareness and acceptance of e- learning in the company that might
all hinder the effectiveness of e-learning. Their awareness of
various social and behavioral barriers against a fruitful learning
environment is obviously higher.
4.8. Difference analyses according to the use of E-Learning in the
company
It has been conjectured that differences will exist between the
perceptions of companies regarding e-learning depending on
whether they have had any experience with this approach or not.
For this purpose, companies have been grouped into two as the
experienced and unexperienced ones. Organizations that have
implemented some pilot applications and those who commonly
use e-learning have been grouped as the experienced firms rep-
resenting some level of exposure to e-learning. Those who have not
implemented any e-learning applications have been taken as the
unexperienced group. Independent-samples t-test analyses have
been conducted in order to find out whether there are any differ-
ences between these two groups of companies in terms of the six
advantage and disadvantage factors. As seen in Table 7, these two
groups of companies differ significantly with respect to the
advantage of employee commitment and motivation. Companies that
have experience in e-learning attach a relatively stronger impor-
tance to this advantage compared to the unexperienced ones.
These two groups of companies have been further subjected to
independent-samples t-tests for each of the seven items under the
Employee Commitment and Motivation Factor. Findings show that
 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349 347

Table 9
Difference analyses According to items of perceived advantages and disadvantages.

Number of Employees Revenue (1000 $) Learning & Education Use of E-Learning

(n ¼ 99) (n ¼ 98) Dept. (n ¼ 100)
(n ¼ 105)

Below 500 (n ¼ 43) Below 125,000 $ (n ¼ 25) Yes (n ¼ 63) Yes (n ¼ 56)
500e2000 (n ¼ 39) 125,000e375,000 $ No (n ¼ 42) No (n ¼ 44)
Above 2000 (n ¼ 17) (n ¼ 44)
Above 375,000 $ (n ¼ 29)

Perceived advantages
Employee Commitment & Motivation
Permanence of the knowledge acquired through e-learning t ¼ 2.215 (p ¼ .029)
m ¼ 4.39; m ¼ 3.98
Less stressful learning environment t ¼ 2.004
(p ¼ 0.048)
m ¼ 4.33; m ¼ 3.95
Perceived disadvantages
Personal Disadvantages
Lack of motivation and concentration F ¼ 15.464 (p ¼ .000) t ¼ 3.095 (p ¼ .003)
m ¼ 3.24; m ¼ 4.37; m ¼ 4.36; m ¼ 3.66
m ¼ 4.48
Lack of face-to-face communication F ¼ 12.912 (p ¼ .000) t ¼ 2.564 (p ¼ .013)
m ¼ 3.45; m ¼ 4.41; m ¼ 4.42; m ¼ 3.86
m ¼ 4.62
Difficulty of conducting e-learning in a disciplined an efficient F ¼ 4.583 (p ¼ .013)
manner m ¼ 3.68; m ¼ 4.34;
m ¼ 4.33
Negative attitude of employees t ¼ 2.406 (p ¼ .019)
m ¼ 3.98; m ¼ 3.42
High cost of e-learning technologies F ¼ 5.445 (p ¼ .006)
m ¼ 3.32; m ¼ 4.15;
m ¼ 3.75
Lack of awareness and acceptance of e-learning in the company t ¼ 2.377 (p ¼ .019)
m ¼ 4.27; m ¼ 3.72
Organizational Disadvantages
Lack of the necessary technology infrastructure F ¼ 4.126 (p ¼ .019)
m ¼ 2.67; m ¼ 3.52;
m ¼ 3.12
Lack of top management support F ¼ 3.765 (p ¼ .027)
m ¼ 3.47; m ¼ 4.15;
m ¼ 3.59

experienced companies show an especially more positive attitude
toward the permanence of the knowledge acquired through e-
learning and the less stressful training environment created by it
compared to the unexperienced ones. Relevant findings can be seen
in Table 9. These results show that since this approach to training is
very novel and alternative to conventional methods, companies
that have not yet been exposed to it might perceive the resistance
toward it more strongly. Conversely, once companies begin to
implement e-learning, the importance of the advantages begin to
outweigh the challenges. This pattern can be evaluated as the
natural diffusion pattern for any innovative technology related to
any business function in companies. It shows that the learning
curve in e-learning is expected to host more of the benefits
compared to the barriers for the companies adopting it.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The purpose of this exploratory study has been to find out the
current and expected future outlook of e-learning in a sample of top
500 companies in Turkey to shed a light on the state of this industry
and the major issues surrounding its adoption for corporate
training. One of the main themes that emerge from the findings is
that most companies are willing to embrace e-learning for corpo-
rate training but they want to embed it more as a complementary
technology to accompany and enrich their traditional training
practices. The imminent tendency to prefer blended learning as the
most ideal training approach is a strong indicator of this.
This finding provides an interesting insight in terms of organi-
zational change. According to Lewin's (1951) early theory of change
management, change can happen effectively only when existing
structures that can create barriers against change are dissolve and
reshaped. This is called the unfreeze-change-refreeze pattern.
However, Weick and Quinn (1999) propose that change does not
necessarily have to be “episodic” where organizational are inertial
and change is discontinuous and intentional. Instead, change can
also be “constant”, evolving and cumulative and in such cases, or-
ganizations are more self-organizing. The strong tendency toward
blended learning shows that transition to e-learning must happen
in this incremental pattern.
Another main trend that is evident according to these findings is
that regardless of their scale, most companies have a positive
outlook toward e-learning and are currently on the verge of
infusing it into their established practices. The perceived advan-
tages are very prominent: a very convenient, highly cost-effective
and customizable training opportunity with strong potential to
capture substantial employee readiness and commitment. Besides,
attaining a learning organization profile as leading businesses is
also a main drive. However, the disadvantages pull companies back
from rushing into this approach. Especially, human-related issues
prevail in the factors that hinder companies from adopting e-
learning. Additionally, companies are aware that for an e-learning
package to be effective, it must suit the company needs very well, a
competent team must be able to implement it and management
support is essential.
348 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349
These findings are important from two aspects: organizational
and personal. While previous studies in the literature have focused
heavily on behavioral adoption issues, this study shows that from
an organizational perspective, there are many important elements
to be considered for e-learning adoption. Cost-effectiveness, func-
tionality, customizability and maintainability are the most promi-
nent ones. Companies producing e-learning solutions must focus
more on totally customizable, flexible packages that organizations
can adopt according to their needs and requirements.
On the other hand, personal factors are also very important.
Special attention must be paid to the importance of sociability and
interactivity in the e-learning environment. Companies do not
want to turn the learning experience into an automated, totally
systemized but non-human process. Therefore, it is also crucial that
the e-learning market hosts solutions with two-way and many-way
interactivity and real-time presence simulating the real learning
environment as much as possible. Such products will combine the
convenience and cost efficiency of this medium with virtual
engagement. Advanced technological approaches such as
augmented reality or intelligent human-computer interfaces can be
expected to prevail in this domain in the near future. Additionally,
social networking technologies must be embedded in these sys-
tems to assimilate employees to a more natural and engaging
learning environment.
Findings of this study show that, interestingly, once companies
step into adopting e-learning even at a preliminary level, most of
the previously mentioned obstacles begin to diminish. This
research has shown that companies that have some level of expe-
rience in e-learning perceive the advantages much more strongly
compared to those who have never used it at all. Similar to the
diffusion of most technologies in the market, once the resistance
threshold is passed, acceptance of and attitude toward the new
technology rapidly improves. This is the expected picture for the
Turkish corporate training market which seems to be in a stasis
with the pros and cons outweighing each other but awareness
about and willingness toward adopting this technology. Companies
should see the bigger picture and avoid approaching e-learning as a
cost-cutting technology but focus on its long-run diffusion and
sustainability in the company. Thus, it can become an integral part
of company technology and learning practices and continuous
performance assessment tools and incentives can accompany this
instead of occasional one. This promising state provides great op-
portunities for e-learning solution providers in the Turkish market.
The main limitation in this study is the small sample size
regarding the currently low level of adoption of e-learning in the
corporate training market in Turkey. As the industry evolves and
companies gain more experience in the field, future research can be
conducted on the long-term impact of adopting e-learning in
companies. A more diverse and larger sample can be used to cap-
ture the potential from different company profiles, i.e. the potential
in SMEs. A wider variety of innovation characteristics must be
researched for this field. For example, untapped variables from
innovation diffusion theories (i.e. trialability and observability di-
mensions of Rogers (1983)) or the reputation and brand image
enhancement value of using e-learning are some intrinsic motiva-
tors from an organizational perspective that yet remain to be
researched. Qualitative studies are also suggested to delve deeper
into perceptual issues, especially resistance barriers to find out
ways to overcome them. Employee expectations in addition to
managerial objectives should also be captured to ensure how
higher employee motivation can be achieved in this area. Case
studies where a large scale reformation or an extensive e-learning
project is implemented could enlighten the transformation chal-
lenges with a real-life outlook.
Acknowledgements
This study was realized at the Information Systems Research
and Application Center of Bogazici University. The authors would
like to thank enocta® for their funding and support and the re-
viewers for their valuable and constructive comments on the
manuscript.
References
Ambient Insight. (2014). The 2013-2018 worldwide self-paced e-learning market.
http://www.ambientinsight.com/Reports/eLearning.aspx (Accessed 1 July
2015).
Aydin, C., & Tasci, D. (2005). Measuring readiness for e-learning: Reflections from an
emerging country. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 244e257.
Batalla-Busquets, J., & Pacheco-Bernal, C. (2013). On-the-job e-learning: Workers’
attitudes and perceptions. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 14(1), 40e64.
Benninck, R. (2004). Implementing e-learning from the corporate perspective. http://
wikieducator.org/images/8/83/Bennink.pdf (accessed 1 July 2015).
Berge, Z., & Giles, L. (2008). Implementing and sustaining e-learning in the work-
place. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies,
3(3), 44e53.
Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Implementing change: Alcoholism policies in work
organizations. New York: Free Press.
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J., & Ciganek, A. (2012). Critical
success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis
between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843e855.
Bucciarelli, E., Muratore, F., & Odoardi, I. (2010). Consolidation processes of human
capital in modern economic growth dynamics: An estimate based on the role of
European corporate e-learning activities, WCLTA 2010. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 9, 622e627.
Burgess, J., & Russell, J. (2003). The effectiveness of distance learning initiatives in
organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 289e303.
Chen, E. (2008). Successful e-learning in corporations. Communications of the IIMA,
8(2), 45e54.
Chen, H. (2010). Linking employees' e-learning system use to their overall job
outcomes: An empirical study based on the IS success model. Computers &
Education, 55(4), 1628e1639.
Cheng, B., Minhong, W., Moorman, J., Olaniran, B. A., & Chen, N. (2012). The effects
of organizational learning environment factors on e-learning acceptance.
Computers and Education, 58(3), 885e899.
Cheng, B., Minhong, W., Yang, S. J. H., Kinshuk, & Jun, P. (2011). Acceptance of
competency-based workplace e-learning systems: Effects of individual and
peer learning support. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1317e1333.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319e340.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for
the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60e95.
Faherty, R. (2003). Corporate E-learning. http://www.comp.dit.ie/rfitzpatrick/MSc_
Publications/2003_Rodger_Faherty.pdf (Accessed 1 July 2015).
Fry, K. (2001). E-learning markets and providers: Some issues and prospects. Edu-
cation & Training, 43(4/5), 233e239.
Galusha, J. (1998). Barriers to learning in distance education. http://www.
infrastruction.com/barriers.htm (Accessed 1 July 2015).
Global Industry Analysts Inc. (2016). MCP-4107: E-learning e a global strategic
business report. http://www.strategyr.com/eLEARNING_Online_Education_
Market_Report.asp (Accessed 25 February 2017).
Gudanescu, N. (2010). Using modern technology for improving learning process at
different educational levels. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Science, 2(2),
5641e5645.
Gwebu, K., & Wang, J. (2007). The role of organizational, environmental and human
factors in e-learning diffusion. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and
Teaching Technologies, 2(2), 59e78.
Hamid, A. (2002). E-learning: Is it the “e” or the learning that matters? The Internet
and Higher Education, 4(3/4), 311e316.
Hsia, J., Chang, C., & Tseng, A. (2014). Effect of individuals' locus of control and
computer self-efficacy on their e-learning acceptance in high-tech companies.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(1), 51e64.
Internet World Stats. (2016). Internet penetration in Europe. http://www.
internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm#europe (Accessed 25 February 2017).
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, S. M. (2012). A model for predicting learning flow and
achievement in corporate e-learning. Educational Technology and Society, 15(1),
313e325.
Kramer, H. (2007). Measuring the effect of e-learning on job performance. Doctoral
dissertation. Nova Southeastern University.
Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y., & Chen, Y. (2013). An investigation of employees' use of e-learning
systems: Applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour and Information
Technology, 32(2), 173e189.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users' perspectives on e-learning: An inte-
gration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45,
 H. Kimiloglu et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017) 339e349
359e374.
Newton, R., & Doonga, N. (2007). Corporate e-learning: Justification for imple-
mentation and evaluation of benefits. A study examining the views of training
managers and training providers. Education for Information, 25(2), 111e130.
Nisar, T. (2002). Organisational determinants of e-learning. Industrial and Com-
mercial Training, 34(6/7), 256e262.
Rodriguez, B. C. P., & Armellini, A. (2013). Interaction and effectiveness of corporate
e-learning programmes. Human Resource Development International, 16(4),
480e489.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. (2014). Corporate learning goes digital. http://
www.rolandberger.com/media/pdf/Roland_Berger_TAB_Corporate_Learning_
E_20140602.pdf (Accessed 1 July 2015).
Schweizer, H. (2004). E-learning in business. Journal of Management Education,
28(6), 674e692.
Setaro, J. (2000). How e-learning can increase ROI for training. www.swslim.org.uk/
downloads/SL1718.pdf (Accessed 1 July 2015).
Tarr, M. (1998). Distance learning - bringing out the best in training. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 30(3), 104e106.
TechNavio. (2014). TechNavio says global will post a CAGR of 15.06 percent from 2015-
2019. http://www.technavio.com/pressrelease/technavio-says-global-e-
349
learning-market-will-post-a-cagr-of-1506-percent-from-2015-2019 (Accessed
1 July 2015).
TUIK. (2014). World population day. www.tuik.gov.tr/HbPrint.do?id¼15975
(Accessed 25 February 2017).
TUIK. (2015). Turkish population statistics. www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?
istab_id¼945 (Accessed 25 February 2017).
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425e478.
Wang, Y., Wang, H., & Shee, D. Y. (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in an
organizational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23(4), 1792e1808.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361e386.
Yamamoto, G., & Aydin, C. (2010). E-learning in Turkey: Past, present and future. In
U. Demiray, L. Vainio, M. Sahin, G. Kurubacak, P. Lounaskorpi, S. Rao, et al. (Eds.),
E-learning Practices: Cases and Challenges Facing e-learning and National Devel-
opment: Institutional Studies and Practices (pp. 875e901).
Yoo, S. J., Han, S., & Huang, W. (2012). The roles of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic
motivators in promoting e-learning in the workplace: A case from South Korea.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 942e950.