COVID-19 Epidemic as E-Learning Boost? Chronological Development and Effects at an Austrian University against the Background of the Concept of “E-Learning Readiness”

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis influenced universities worldwide in early 2020. In Austria, all universities were closed in March 2020 as a preventive measure, and meetings with over 100 people were banned and a curfew was imposed. This development also had a massive impact on teaching, which in Austria takes place largely face-to-face. In this paper we would like to describe the situation of an Austrian university regarding e-learning before and during the first three weeks of the changeover of the teaching system, using the example of Graz University of Technology (TU Graz). The authors provide insights into the internal procedures, processes and decisions of their university and present figures on the changed usage behaviour of their students and teachers. As a theoretical reference, the article uses the e-learning readiness assessment according to Alshaher (2013), which provides a framework for describing the status of the situation regarding e-learning before the crisis. The paper concludes with a description of enablers, barriers and bottlenecks from the perspective of the members of the Educational Technology department.

Full text

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94; doi:10.3 390/fi1206 0094 www.mdpi.com/journal/futureinternet
Article
COVID-19 Epidemic as E-Learning Boost?
Chronological Development and Effects at an
Austrian University against the Background of the
Concept of “E-Learning Readiness”
Martin Ebner *, Sandra Schön, Clarissa Braun, Markus Ebner, Ypatios Grigoriadis, Maria Haas,
Philipp Leitner and Behnam Taraghi
Educational Technology, Graz University of Technology, 8010 Graz, Austria; sandra.schoen@tugraz.at (S.S.);
clarissa.braun@tugraz.at (C.B.); markus.ebner@tugraz.at (M.E.); ypatios.grigoriadis@tugraz.at (Y.G.);
maria.haas@tugraz.at (M.H.); philipp.leitner@tugraz.at (P.L.); b.taraghi@tugraz.at (B.T.)
* Correspondence: martin.ebner@tugraz.at
Received: 27 April 2020; Accepted: 25 May 2020; Published: 26 May 2020
Abstract: The COVID-19 crisis influenced universities worldwide in early 2020. In Austria, all
universities were closed in March 2020 as a preventive measure, and meetings with over 100 people
were banned and a curfew was imposed. This development also had a massive impact on teaching,
whic h i n Au st ri a t akes pla ce la rge ly f ac e-to-face. In this paper we would like to describe the situation
of an Austrian university regarding e-learning before and during the first three weeks of the
changeover of the teaching system, using the example of Graz University of Technology (TU Graz).
The authors provide insights into the internal procedures, processes and decisions of their
university and present figures on the changed usage behaviour of their students and teachers. As a
theoretical reference, the article uses the e-learning readiness assessment according to Alshaher
(2013), which provides a framework for describing the status of the situation regarding e-learning
before the crisis. The paper concludes with a description of enablers, barriers and bottlenecks from
the perspective of the members of the Educational Technology department.
Keywords: e-learning; strategy; e-lectures; online learning; COVID-19
1. Introduction
In a survey by Times HigherEducationof200rectorsfromthetop1000universities,19percent
think that digital technology will have eradicated physical lectures by 2030, compared with 65
percentwhodisagree[1].Thesamestudyfrom2018alsoshowsthatEuropeanrectorsatt op
universities agree to a wider extent than their US-American colleagues that digital technology will
have eradicated physical lectures (and to a lesser extent than Asian colleagues). These results are from
a time before the COVID-19 crisis in spring 2020, when, for the first time, presence teaching was
restricted in many universities worldwide.
Before COVID-19, apart from a few distance learning universities, most European universities
were presence, non-distance universities, teaching more or less physical lectures. Nevertheless, for
30 years different formats and forms of technology-supported learning have been used and
implemented in European universities [2]: Learning management systems are often standard; lecture
recordings as a supplement to lectures are an option, especially for mass courses; some teachers are
shifting the transfer of knowledge to videos and use the course for open questions and exercises.
Nonetheless, pure online courses are still rarely found. How to communicate, achieve and improve
the advantages of e-learning-supported teaching and online teaching is the task and interest of many
e-learning centres, university didactic institutions and also research unitsand in research

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 2 of 20
publications [3]. There are several considerations and models of how to achieve a high level of use
andadaptationofonlineteachingatpresenceuniversitiesandhowtoassessuniversitiese-learning
readiness. There are also studies that deal with the resistance against and disadvantages of e-learning
in higher education [4].
The COVID-19 epidemic had the side effect that online teaching received an involuntary boost
and was implemented on a broad scale at Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) within a few
days. Within this article we describe how this provisional and temporary, but almost complete,
conversion of the teaching system to online (remote) teaching, specifically e-learning, has succeeded.
We will describe challenges and bottlenecks. From a scientific point of view, we would like to link
this to the question of the e-learning readiness model; whether it should be adapted or if this
experience confirms them. We also write this article because only after a few days we realized that
the way TU Graz reacted was not the only way to deal with the situation; in the neighbouring country
of Germany, a large group of professors teaching at universities clarified that they could not teach
onlinebutdemandedanon-semester[5].
Thus, in this article and our case report we focus strongly on (pure) online teaching and e-
learning as technology-supported distance learning and not on technology-assisted or enriched face-
to-face arrangements [6], and will describe the situation prior to the crisis, the development within in
the crisis, and the effects concerning online teaching. Universities around the world are facing similar
problems and we thus wa nt to sh ar e our exp eri enc es and l es so ns learned. Therefore, we describe the
status quo before the COVID-19 crisis and the developments within the first three weeks, and reflect
on enablers, barriers and bottlenecks in this contribution.
2. Research Question, Approach and Sources
In this paper we trace the developments of technology-supported learning in the first phase of
the so-called COVID-19 crisis at an Austrian university and explore the following research question:
How has this epidemic affected e-learning at a traditional face-to-face university wit hin the first three
weeks and is this changing our knowledge about concepts of e-learning readiness in higher
education? Therefore, we document the development and describe the situation in Austria, at
Austrian universities, including Graz University of Technology, wit hin th e firs t pha se of th e crisis, a
six-week long period, from the end of February 2020 until the first week of April 2020. As a theoretical
framework and structure of the status of online learning at university, we use the model for e-learning
readiness assessment of Alshaher (2013) [7]. As sources, in addition to research literature, we use
Austrian news media and internal data from TU Graz, which was available from the previous
semester (if available) and the described phase of six weeks. The current European Data Protection
Regulation does not allow us to store data on a long-term basis and our previous strategy did not
allow us to save activities of certain user groups on a daily basis. Thus, we cannot, for example,
provide data for the same comparison period during the previous year on a daily basis, because we
usually only have cumulative data for periods of a year ago, typically on a monthly basis; even this
is not the case for all used systems. We use internal strategy papers and information where possible
and usable for the context of this contribution. By comparing the aggregated data of the last semester
wit h the figu res of t he f irs t s ix-wee k pha se of th e cris is , we woul d li ke t o i nves ti gat e whe th er , and to
what extent , the changes increase in using e-learning opportunities are also statistically significant.
3. Existing Theory and Knowledge on Implementing E-Learning in Higher Education and an E-
Learning Readiness Framework
What is crucial for implementation of e-learninginatraditionaluniversitywithbrickand
mortarteaching[8]?Therearedifferentapproaches,theoriesandmodelsavailablewhichtryto
explain why and how some universities or parts thereof have higher implementation rates than
others. Focus group interviews are, for example, the base of a study where institutional
infrastructure,staffattitudesandskills,andperceivedstudentexpectationsareseenasimportant
factors [9]. A literature review of 31 selected studies [10] developed a conceptual framework on the
critical success factor affecting implementation of e-learning in higher education. This framework

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 3 of 20
names eight factors: resources, institutions, ethics, evaluation, social interaction, management,
pedagogical and technological factors. In addition to higher education, additional research is
available for e-learning success in different branches, e.g. business and enterprises [11].
A slightly different approach is the development of e-learning readiness assessments.
Investigations do not identify important success factors, but draw attention to potential weaknesses.
According to a review on existing approaches of e-learning readiness [12] technology is the most
important factor, as it is mentioned in all models. Technological aspects that are seen as crucial are
(in order of frequency in the models): Internet access, hardware, availability of computers, software,
IT support, technical skills, security, communication network and infrastructure (p. 123).
One of the analysed e-learningreadinessapproachesisanadaptationofthesevenS model
originally introduced by the consulting company McKinsey by Alshaher (2013) on the topic of e -
learning readiness [7]. For this, the seven S modelall categories start with the letter Swa s
enriched with analysis of interviews and questionnaires within higher education institutions in Iraq
(seeTable1below).AsAlshahersmodelisoneofthemore recent models [12], we will u se it a s a
structure for a description of the situation at our university before the virus crisis influenced our e-
learning activities at TU Graz.
Table 1. Model for e-learning readiness assessment by Alshaher (2013) [7], building upon the seven S
model by McKinsey (categories on the left) and Hanafizadeh and Ravasan (2011) [13].
Category
Aspect
Strategy
Vision and mission
Goals / objectives
Strategic plans
Structure
Centralization
Size
CIO Position
Systems
Technology
Content
Platform Support
Documentation
Style/Culture
Organizational Culture
Leadership
Top management support
Communication
Staff
Sufficient Manpower
Project Team
Trust
Training & education
Skills
Management Skills
ITstaffs skills
Students skills
Shared Value
Shared Beliefs
Using the structure of a model for e-learning readiness assessment we are able to thus des crib e
all relevant aspects for the university before the crisis.
4. Status Quo of E-Learning at the End of Februa ry 202 0 in Austria and at Graz University of
Technology
Before we describe the situation at Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) in February 2020,
we give a n i ns igh t int o the s it ua tio n in Aus tr ia.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 4 of 20
4.1. E-Learning in Austrian Higher Education
As for most European universities, Austrian universities arein addition to single dedicated
distance learning universit iestraditional presence universities with a focus predominantly on fac e-
to-face teaching. Nevertheless, support of learning management systems, and online communication
and services, are widespread and accessible for potentially all students and lecturers in Austria,
where mobile internet services are widely used and available in good quality in most locations. Thus,
by 2015, for example, all universities of applied science used learning management systems [14]. A
total of 49 of 72 Austrian universities (including universities of applied science and universities of
teacher education) took part in a survey [15] and described their experience in e-learning over the
years: 41 universities showed that they have been using e-learning for over five years, with public
universities reporting significantly longer experience in comparison (p. 39, see Figure 1).
Figur e 1. Experiences with e-learning in years per type of university in Austria. S ource: Own diagram,
using data by Bratengeyer et al., 2016 [15], taken from p. 40, Figure 6.
Thus, the broad majority of Austrian universities have had experience with e-learning for over
ten years. However, currently the official implementation of pure online or blended studies is not
wid es pre ad. In a n Au st ri a-wide sur vey c onc erning e-learning in higher education in 2016, the authors
discoveredthatonly5ofthe22Austrianpublicuniversitieshadalreadyofficiallydeclaredblended
learningstudieswithintheirintellectualcapitalstatements[15]. It is of note that there are 15 private
universities in Austria [16], but only a small portion (4%) ofAustrias students are enrolled at one of
these [17]. More recent studies are not available, but we assume that the situation did not dramatically
change before the end of 2019: all Austrian universities and ministries support strategies and
activities to support the integration of technologies into learning in teaching, but had not shifted to
pure online education.
It might be helpful to also refer to an OECD study to describe the general level of digitalisation
in education in Austria [18,19]. One of the newest comparative datasets was made available in the
Austrian national education report 2018, building upon data by the OECD. According to the data,
digital literacy in Austria is more prevalent than the average of the 28 EU countries. For example, 66
percent of 16- to 34-year olds in Austrian have digital skills above the basic knowledge, compared to
52 percent in the 28 EU countries, and, for example, only 61 percent in Germany [18,19].
4.2. E-Learning at TU Graz Following the Model for E-Learning Readiness Assessment by Alshaher (2013)
In Austria, TU Graz has about 16,600 students and 2400 lecturers and researchers. The university
was foun ded in 1 81 1 a nd h as 96 ins ti tut es which a re cla ss if ied in on e of t he seven faculties, namely
architecture, civil engineering, computer science and biomedical engineering, electrical and
information engineering, mathematics, physics and geodesy, mechanical engineering and economic
science, and technical chemistry, chemical and process engineering and biotechnology [20]. TU Graz
isas are other Austrian universitiesincluded in the top 1000 ranking of Times Higher Education
(place 400500) [21].

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 5 of 20
We will now give a status quo description of e-learning at the end of February 2020 at TU Graz,
using the e-learning readiness assessment framework by Alshaher [7]. Whereas [7] refers more or less
to a special e-learning system, we use a broader description of the situation of TU Graz regarding e-
learning.Asdescribedbefore,wetriedtodeliverobjectivedata,butourownreadiness,orshared
valueshave not been evaluated in a study to date, so the objectivity of our description is potentially
limited.
Thefirstcategoryforreadinessassessmentisstrategy.Forthis,weciteofficialstatementsby
the university concerning vision, mission, goals and strategic plans. First, TU Graz describes itself as a
traditionaluniversity(Englishversion),orasanavowedpresenceuniversity(Germanversion,
own trans lation) which will not replace but enhance clas sroomt eac hing with digital media
(English version of [22]). The vision of the department of Educational Technology is to sustainably
enhance classroom teaching with modern media to improve communication by a centralized service.
TUGrazshallrepresentacommunityofteachersandlearnersintomorrowsinformation society.
This vision is expressed by the guiding principle the Power of the People, underpinned by the
slogan We care about eEducation [21]. The strategy of the Educational Technology department is
reviewed every three years and concerns nine fieldsofaction,whicharepartofthedepartments
mission statement [21]:Operation,maintenanceanddevelopmentofdigitalonlineplatformsfor
teaching and learning and applications; design, production and deployment of digital resources for
teaching and learning [amongst others e-books, streaming media]; support and consulting for
planning and realisation of digital supporting measures in teaching; qualification measures and skills
development; open access to education and knowledge [open educational resources]; organisational
setting and incentive systems; Interuniversity co-operations and enhancement of (inter-)national
exchange in the subject area e-learning; strengthening of lifelong learning and research and
innovation. In 2017, the university published internal Guidelines of the Rectorate and the Senate on:
VirtualTeachingatTUGraz[23].Withinthesummary,ithighlightsthenowofficialthreepillar
modeltoanchorvirtualteachingatTUGrazinthelongterm:
 1)Theuseofdigitallearningelementsandformatsisalwayspossibleasadidacticmeansof
enriching classroom teaching.
 2) Virtual teaching as a didactic tool within the framework of lectures or the lecture section of a
university can be freely implemented by the lecturer up to a threshold value of 20% of the
semester hours to be held.
 3) In all other cases, the proportion of virtual teaching must be approved by the Study
Commission Working Group and the Curricula Commission for Bachelor's, Master's and
Diploma Studies or the Curricula Commission for Doctoral Studies and University Courses and
anchoredinthecurriculumaccordingly.(fromthesummary,owntranslation).
Our external counsellor describes his current perception of the e-learning strategy as follows: I
feel that the approach to e-learning at TU Graz is cautious, careful not to frighten or snub anybody,
very pragmatic, not blatant, not expressively visionary, but still constantly evolving and this feels
very good to me. A straighter vision could give more direction, more confidence and motivate even
more to go into this direction.
Concerning the second category, structure [7], the situation of e-learning at TU Graz can be
described as following: First, there is a clear centralisation of responsibility for e-learning, as a
department of Educational Technology was already established in 2006 as a working group, and in
2007 was established as a division of the Central IT Service with 2 people. In 2016, the Rector
established Educational Technology as an organizational department under the direction of the Vice
Rector for Academic Affairs at TU Graz [24]. The department has been permanently growing and
has, as of today, reached about 40 staff members (28 .5 full-time equivalents in January 2020, see
internal organisation plan, described below in more details). Universities have better conditions than
smallerinstitutionsbecausetherearebiggerpoolsofsophisticatedprofessionalsandarelatively
big budget [7]. In the case of TU Graz, many department members are or were students at the
university, and at other universities it is probably more difficult to identify good suitable people.
Concerning structure, the importance of a CIO (chief information officer) within an organisation is

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 6 of 20
highlighted [7], which is the head of the IT services, an established department, and a position
existing for several decades.
Several technical systems are in use at TU Graz: TU Graz is well-equipped concerning
technology, it has, for example, campus-wide Internet access and free WiFi (eduroam), all students
and lecturers have access to private or institutional computers, and an IT service department is
responsible for technology, security, communication network and infrastructure. Furthermore, the
department provides a university-wide learning management system, an e-assessment platform, a
video portal and also the Austrian massive open online course platform iMooX.at. Content-wis e, a
special feature of TU Graz is a strategic emphasis on open access and positioning regarding open
educational resources (OER). The first strategy towards OER was established in 2011 [25].
Educational content and materials are made available within the learning management system
TeachCenter and special services and platform support such as Tube, wh ich offers videos and live
streaming. The Educational Technology department runs these e-learning services and others, such
as several apps (TU Graz My Apps) and an e-book author system (ABC ebooks). Documentation of
these services and technologies is available in detail, not least because of the strict European General
Data Protection Regulation and its implementation at the university.
Concerning style and culture, the situation at TU Graz will be described from the authors'
perspective as well as from impressions of people from outside the organisation. The organisational
culture concerning e-learning can be described as a non-enthusiastic, pragmatic attitude concerning
technology as support for teaching amongst management and lecturers. Most of the lecturers and
researchers are reluctant to use (new) technologies in teaching. For these, the implementation is not
really needed andan extra effort.The official universitys strategyis tosustainably enhance
classroom teaching with modern media to improve communication by a centralized service and to
remain a traditional university with face-to-face lectures (see paragraph above). Thus, there is only a
moderate expectation, but not pressure, to adapt technologies for learning. Similarly, the top
management support for e-learning topics is given, as demonstrated by the establishment and
expansion of the Educational Technology department and the anchoring of the topic in strategic
papers of the university and its general efforts towards digitisation. Concerning leadership and
communication, we asked an external counsellor and trainer who has supported the development of
the department for some years: concerning leadership, he points out that the leader of the department
is a well-known expert in his field, who has learned to make and communicate strategic decisions,
which are comprehensible to others. By developing team leaders in Educational Technology who
take on leadership in an operational sense, there is also an opportunity for strategic considerations
for the head of the department. Concerning communication, our counsellorsharedthefollowing:The
department leader is very well connected in- and outside of the university and has an effective
stakeholder management. The Rectorate knows that the Educational Technology team can deliver
trend-setting results without friction losses and therefore supports the department. Within the
department, communication is characterised by situationally necessary and relevant topics and is
operationally optimised.
Concerning the staff at TU Graz, [7] focuses on the educational technology department,
specifically the e-learning team. The first criterion is sufficient manpower. The Educational
Technology team of TU Graz comprises about 40 persons (about 28.5 full-time positions) and is this
well positioned compared to other Austrian universities; however, the persons are largely financed
by third-party funds, which means that they are in fact only partially available for internal activities.
In the last five years, strategy papers, communication structures and organisational changes have
been made to clearly position, integrate and stabilise the team within the university. In January 2020,
the team of educational technology comprises 41 persons (not equivalent to full-time positions),
organised in five teams responsible for instructional design (eight persons), videos, recording and
streaming (nine persons), IT projects and research (10 persons), technical infrastructure (12 persons),
management and administration (two persons). Most of the staff are funded externally, so they are
only partly responsible and available for internal activities of the university (source: internal
organisation plan). The head of Educational Technology is constantly striving for further

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 7 of 20
development of the team, also regarding inner trust: For several years, regular team training and
development days have been offered with the help of an external moderator. Concerning inter -trust
of the e-learning team and other departments, there has been good cooperation for several years.
Concerning the training and education of users, there is a wide range of materials and offers for
lecturers at the university. The instructional design team offers two get-together activities on a
regular basis,namelyTeachersRegularTableandtheEducationalTechnology Breakfastwhere
lecturers are provided with news related to innovative teaching. Furthermore, lecturers can book
individual counselling to enhance their teaching with new technologies and possible blended
learning scenarios; e-didactic courses; and courses within the university-wide Teaching Academy
(open educational resources trainings, on-boarding courses for learning management, coaching for
technology-enhanced learning, flipped classroom trainings). Recently, in 2019, the team developed
andrealisedaprojectcalledTELucationfolder(TELrefers to technology-enhanced learning) which
comprises current issues concerning e-learning and educational technology tools for higher
education teaching in an analogue folder-format but with a digital equivalent in the TU Graz learning
management system TeachCenter. This project is intended to bridge the gap between the lecturers
that still work in analogue and helping those who are already into digital teaching with further
information.
Concerning skills, [7] takes skills of all stakeholders into account, namely management, IT staff
and students' skil ls. As a university of technology, the conditions here, as well in comparison with
other higher education institutions in Austria, are sufficient. Even beginners bring in base skills [26].
Finally, the last category which describes e-learningreadinessisshared value.Wecannotrefer
to existing texts or study and need to describe the situation from our perspective as a support team
with support requests from lecturers and students. Perhaps because we are a university of
technology, there is a great understanding, a shared bel ief and also a demand for technical
infrastructure and technical support of the lecturers. Questions relating to didactics in higher
education are comparatively less important, even though the department's services are gladly
accepted. To promote internal e-learning champions wi th in o ur u nivers it y, we have had experienced
and innovative lecturers speak at our internal training sessions since 2018 or present them in our
internal magazine. Since 2019, e-learning has additionally been part of the internal award in
excellenceoflecturing.
4.3. E-Learning Activities in Figures in Winter Semester 2019/2020
Differently to other universities, only lecturers who actively request a course will have an active
course within the learning management system TeachCenter or they reuse existing courses (and
content) from previous semesters. This approach ensures that most of the courses in the learning
management system are active. The system currently holds 1906 active courses. The learning
management system in the winter semester 2019/2020 shows about 860,000 to 1.43 million activities
per month. Within our statistics, we count for example, if a user opens a course page, opens an
activity, downloads a file, opens the forum, writes a post in the forum or subscribes to a forum thread.
Students performed about 606,000974,000 activities and 39,00092,000 were from lecturers. About
32,00086,000 were from tutors, who are typically advanced paid students (see Table 2). With about
16,600 students and 2400 lecturers, a lecturer had about 28 log-ins on average per month, and an
average student about 49 log-ins per month, in the winter semester 2019/2020.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 8 of 20
Table 2. Log-ins into the learning management system in winter semester 2019/2020. Source: Graz
University ofTechnology,EducationalTechnology.Note: anonymare activitiesfrom people who
arenot logged inandn avigatewithincourseswith open access; allis notthe sum, as some users
have more than one role (e.g. a student who is also a tutor).
Month
Students
Tutors
Lecturers
Anonym
All
Oct. 19
930,935
31,949
92,131
188,844
1,328,338
Nov. 19
974,236
86,778
88,648
206,528
1,428,688
Dec. 19
606,563
47,509
39,243
125,881
860,172
Jan. 20
711,740
57,680
51,966
201,925
1,077,012
These data are also available for the previous semesters, so that a good overview of the constant
growth of activities in the TeachCenter can be given (see Figure 2): the winter semester starts at the
first of October, the summer semester typically at the first of March with some small variation; the
winter semester is the typical start of study programs. Looking at the last four semesters, we can see
a trend of increase of activities in the learning management system: while it is continuous amongst
lecturers, there are fewer activities amongst students in the summer semester, but 500,000 more
activities between the summer and winter semesters.
Figur e 2. Sum of activities in TeachCenter for different user groups per semester at Graz University
of Technology. Source: Graz University of Technology, Educational Technology. Note: S S is an
abbreviation for summer semester, WS for winter semester.
As described, TUbe is a video portal hosting recorded and streamed videos at the university
offering lecture videos, event videos, and other interesting videos of TU Graz. Lecturers and institutes
also use other video hosting options such as YouTube. Within the winter semester 2019/2020, there
wereab out1 20uploads (pub licat ions  ) and 29,000 clicks on all TUbe publications on average per
month (see Table 3).
Table 3. Publications and clicks at the video portal TUbe in winter semester 2019/2020. Source: Graz
University of Technology, Educational Technology.
Month
TUbe Publications
per Month
TUbe Clicks
per Month
Oct.19
172
34,800
Nov.19
129
35,680
Dec.19
71
22,521
Jan.20
101
22,713

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 9 of 20
The described dates and activities mainly refer to winter semester 2019/2020 and thus to the
period before COVID-19 became a topic that influenced the activities at our university.
5. Developments within the First Phase of COVID-19 Crisis
In this chapter, we first describe the developments from the end of February to mid-March 2020,
and then use the access and usage figures to describe and illustrate the increase in e-learning
activities.
5.1. Chronological Overview of Measures of the First Days of the Shift from Presence to Online Teaching
In the following we summarize important developments in Austria, at TU Graz and in the
Educational Technology team in Figure 3. On the one hand, this makes it possible to show the short-
term nature of the processes. On the other hand, it is also clear that the implementations had an
immediate positive effect, also through appropriate preparatory work.
Figur e 3. Key measures and development in Austria, at TU Graz and the Educational Technology
team during COVID-19 crisis until the end of March 2020.
At the end of February and the first week in March 2020, the public attention around the
coronavirus grew dramatically in Austria. At TU Graz, similarly to all other Austrian universities,
the summer semester started on the 2nd of March as usual. A first communication exchange between
the Educational Technology department and the Rector on 28th of February drew a tt ention to t he fact
that the universities could stop teaching because of corona cases. A second mail exchange on 7th of
March highlighted the case of the University of Washington [27], which announced it would close on
9th of March because of a COVID-19 case.
On Monday, 9th of March, at a meeting of Universities Austria (UNICO, an organisation which
handles the internal coordination of the 22 public Austrian universities), the first two Austrian
universities announced that they would close their buildings and stop teaching. The Educational
Technology team developed an emergency plan and discussed the consequences with e-learning
departments or units in other Austrian universities.
One day later, Tuesday, 10th of March, in a morning call, the Rector agreed to the emergency
plan. All Educational Technology members were asked to install the university-wide u se d vid eo
conferencing system, and the news was shared internally. The team arranged an extra
communication channel for documentation. At midday, TU Graz announced the discontinuation of
classroom teaching (internal and public) and a restriction of physical presence at the university
starting the next day: rooms and facilities would no longer be accessible to students. The emergency
plan had come into effect.
The emergency plan describes which lectures should be transferred to digital format, and how:
UniversityManagementhasdecidedtostreamthelargestcompulsorylecturesonTUbe,thevideo

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 10 of 20
portal of TU Graz. Compulsory lectures between 50 and 200 students can be streamed by lecturers
via the video conferencing software WebEx. Smaller lectures and continuous assessment courses can
befilmedviaWebEx.Withinseconds,thefirstlectureraskedforsupport.This influencedthe
organisation of Educational Technology: For example, after the suspension of all video production
projects (as instructed by the head of the department), the Video and Animation team staff were
repositioned in order to accommodate the enormous number of TUbe services requests, part of which
was the live streaming of courses comprising 200 or more participants (as instructed by the Vice
Rector for Academic Affairs).
On 11th of March, the Austrian chancellor announced school closures and university closures
throughout Austria from 18th of March onwards (some already before) and declared all events as
prohibited when over 100 persons take part. The Educational Technology team installed and shared
an internal Website for all urgent developments, e.g. development and publication of livestr eaming
plans and more information for lecturers on the intranet page. It included usage of the video
conferencing software, streaming and screencasting with it. The Educational Technology team
supported the first livestreaming of a lecture. At 8.00 AM, a first meeting with the Vice Rector for
Academic Affairs was organised. This meeting wa s he ld regularly for the following two weeks.
Similarly, a key group within the Educational Technology team started regular meetings at 12.00 PM
on all working days.
On 12th of March, the rector allowed all staff to work from home, if desired. The Educational
Technology team received the status of a system critical unit and was asked to work in independent
teams to avoid total breakdown, if one team member became ill. Ins tructions for screencasting with
Mic ros oft PowerPoint a nd other alt erna ti ves wer e publis hed.
On Friday, 13th of March, the Austrian chancellor announced quarantine regulations for infected
persons and a curfew for Austria. All staff of TU Graz were released from being physically present
onsite.At3.00PM,alluniversitiespremiseswereclosed.TheEducationalTechnology team updated
the server infrastructure for live streaming.
On Sunday, 15th of March the National Council agreed to the COVID-19 Act, school closures
wer e a nnou nced f or t he f ollowi ng da y. Pub lic TV announ ce d spe ci al s ch ool TV sta rt ing t he following
day.
On Monday, 16th of March the important topic of the daily team meeting was the upload of
videos on TeachCenter (learning management system) after a system crash caused by a large upload.
A third auditorium was prepared for live streaming. Lecturers who tended to use several blackboards
were particularly satisfied with this development, even though it was unnatural for everyone to teach
in empty halls.
On 19th of March, all universities were asked to report to the Austrian ministry on how they were
dealing with the current situation.
After the intense three weeks at the beginning of the semester facing the entire switch from
traditional teaching to remote online teaching, the situation did not settle for the Educational
Technology team. Three members of the team or their relatives were tested positive (all potentially
from different sources, outside the Educational Technology team). Several members became ill and
needed some time to recover, potentially caused by the intense workload, including nights and
weekends , at that time.
Within the next few days, the following communication took place: On 31th of March 2020, the
Vice Rector for Academic Affairs informed all employees about a new, simplified video upload tool
on the TeachCenter,TUbeDrop.On 2nd of April 2020, the Vice Rector sent out information to all
students and lecturers about sustaining online teaching over Easter.
Although at that time it seemed for many that the situation would ease over Easter, the Vice
Rector announced that the university would stay closed till the end of the semester for students and
that only online teaching woul d be allowed until the end of the semester on 9th of April 2020.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 11 of 20
5.2. Development of Activities in Learning Management System in Figures
As described, the learning management system TeachCenter (TC) is the central point for all
lectures and seminars where teachers provide supplementary teaching materials or use the system
for further tasks and communication with students. Thus, it is to be expected that this system wo ul d
register significantly more activities. We registered small increases every semester. For example, nine
new courses were created in March 2019. As described, at TU Graz new courses are not automatically
created every semester, but are reactivated and reused. In March 2020, we received requests for 108
new courses. Thus, these are ten times more additional courses.
Not only did the course number increase. In March 2019, the data transmission volume was 2000
GB, which typically does not include video files, as they should be hosted on TUbe. In March 2020,
the data transmission volume increased to 46,000 GB, equivalent to about 1.5 TB per day. This is a
staggering increase of 2300 percent. These high numbers are probably due to the fact that many
teachers uploaded their videos to the learning management system and these were then downloaded
by hundreds of students. One consequence of this was the development of an upload plug-in for
videostoTUbeontheLMS,TUbeDrop.
Figure 4 shows the average activities per user group from last summer (starting 1st March 2019)
and the winter semester (starting 1st of October) and from March 2020. According to the data, the
activities within the TC of the students from March 2019 to March 2020 increased by ab out 100
percent, and lecturer activities increased 139 percent. The activities of tutors increased around 199
percent, thus, they had tripled in size. Please note that the number of tutors is not as constant as the
number of lecturers and students.
Figur e 4. Sum of activities in TeachCenter for different user groups per month from March 2019 to
March 2020 at the Graz University of Technology. Source: Graz University of Technology, Educational
Technology.
An analysis of the user activities on the TeachCenter within the first phase of the COVID-19
development shows more details. The two highest peaks are potentially related to the announcement
of the closure of universities (16th of March 2020) as well as the reaction to the new possibilities and
features of TeachCenter and TUbe on 31st of March 2020 (see Figure 5).

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 12 of 20
Figur e 5. Sum of activities in TeachCenter for different user groups per day from 8th of March 2020 to
4th of April 2020 at the Graz University of Technology. Source: Graz University of Technology,
Educational Technology.
5.3. Development Concerning Videos and Live Streaming in Figures
Similarly, the TUbe system had an impressive increase: whereas 19,081 views were counted in
Marc h 2 01 9, 1 20 ,282 were counted in March 2020. Figure 6 shows the monthly TUbe views and
publications starting in the winter semester, October 2019, wi th a bo ut 25 ,000 views; whereas in
October 2019 about 172 publications were counted on TUbe, 614 we re reg is tered i n March 2020 (more
than triple).
Figur e 6. Sum of TUbe views and TUbe publications per month from October 2019 to March 2020.
Source: Graz University of Technology, Educational Technology.
Two data sets are available and presented per day concerning the TUbe video service (see Figure
7). The first is the number of daily applications for TUbe: each user needs to apply to obtain the right
to upload videos on TUbe. Additionally, the number of published videos per day are presented.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 13 of 20
Typically, a single user makes only one application, whereas the same user publishes several videos;
thus, the number of applications is lower than that of publications. On the 16th of March 2020, the
number of applications was higher than of publications.
Figure 7. Sum of new applications and publications per day on TUbe from 8 th of March to 4th of April
2020. Source: Graz University of Technology, Educational Technology.
5.4. Development Concerning Video Conferences in Figures
For the previous year, to date, a university-wide license for Cisco Webex has been available at
TU Graz. The system was only used sporadically in teaching and rather served researchers for
meetings and exchanges with colleagues. This changed abruptly at the beginning of March 2020 .
Figure 8 shows the dramatic increase: while there was no usage at all at the beginning of the semester,
for example, on the 8th of March, this literally changed from one day to the next. In the period shown,
there were on average 218 video conferences per day (including weekends) with an average of 2300
users per day.
Figur e 8. Sum of hosts and participants per day at the university-wide video conferencing system
from 8th of March to 4th of April 2020. Source: Graz University of Technology, Educational Technology.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 14 of 20
5.5. Review of Developments of Figures for Significance
E-learning activities at TU Graz have increased continuously in recent years. It can be observed
that the activities in the winter semester are always somewhat more intensive than in the summer
semester, but the trend is increasing. It must be asked to what extent the growth rates shown in mid-
Marc h/ear ly Ap ril exc eed t he expect ed gr owth rates . Since ther e are no s uitab le c la ss ic al s ignificance
test procedures for the available data, we applied an approximation. We took the average monthly
data of the activities of students and lecturers on the learning management system (TeachCenter, TC)
and the number of publications and views on TUbe of the last semester as a basis. Then, we c a lc ul a t ed
the mean value and the standard deviation. Assuming a normal distribution, a monthly value of the
mean plus 3 standard deviations would be a significant deviation. If we assume a normal distribution,
only 0.13% of the data should be located over this range. We show the calculations in Table 4.
Table 4. Monthly activities of students and lecturers in the winter semester 2019 /2020, and an
estimation of a hypothetical extreme increase and real data for March 2020. Source: Graz University
ofTechnology,EducationalTechnology.Note:Thehypotheticalextreme increase was calculated as
a mean value plus 3 standard deviations.
month
Student
activities (TC)
Lecturers
activity (TC)
TUbe
publications
TUbe
views
Oct 19
930,935
92,131
172
34,800
Nov 19
974,236
88,648
129
35,680
Dec 19
606,563
39,243
71
22,521
Jan 20
711,740
51,966
101
22,713
Feb 20
309,589
37,778
8
19,388
Mean value from winter
semester 19/20
706,613
61,953
96
27,020
Standard deviation
269,076
26,567
62
7,625
Hypothetical extreme
increase
1,513,839
141,655
281
49,895
Mar 2 0
1,380,444
163,837
614
120,282
This calculation shows how extreme the increase was in March 2020: whereas the real activities
ofstudentsinMarch2020werefewer,thelecturersactivities,and the number of TUbe publications
and TUbe views, wer e eve n h igher than these estimates. If further data is available for the current
semester, we can use traditional testing methods. We assume that these will confirm significant
deviations in user behaviour.
5.6. Realisation of Online Teaching—an Impression
The given strategy, alternating between face-to-face and e-learning, was to produce videos that
were shared as livestreams and/or recordings for smaller events the students could later view. This
still has little to do with a high-quality e-learning setting.
A student and co-worke r of Educ at iona l Technology was interviewed by a student radio
programme and described the situation as multi-fold: there are teachers who have now put their
slides onto the learning management system andat least in the first two weeksoffer no additional
interactivity. Other lecturers have also held seminars as webinars or have extended their live
streaming with interactive queries [28].
At the moment, there is no detailed knowledge of the implementations building upon a
qualitative and quantitative survey available.
5.7. Subjective Eval uation of the Effectiveness of the Activities in the Educational Technology Department
The abrupt change from presence to online teaching was a great challenge for all involved, from
the students to the Educational Technology staff, other strongly affected departments, and also for

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 15 of 20
all teachers and management personnel. It is prob ably that not everyone is satisfied with the current
situation, which remains a challenge. We have received a significant amount of support and
encouragement from all sides; decisions were made quickly and resources were made available on
our demand. In part icular, we want to share a public post by our Vice Rector for Research in a social
network on 13th of March 2020 who thanked the department and added: "I have already said several
times today that it is fantastic how all this works in such a short time. I am very proud to be at the
TU Graz!" We also know that these first weeks are just the beginning.
6. Reflection on the First Three Weeks: Enablers, Barriers and Bottlenecks
The semester is far from over and the Educational Technology department is still under pressure.
The workload concerning the advice and support of lecturers and students is permanently high. This
is evident from the fact that several other projects of the department are currently suspended; more
staff than planned work on user support and development because of the crisis. The good work of
the team has been confirmed by positive feedback received during these first three weeks. Nobody
actually expected such a situation to arise; nobody expected the changeover to be easy and yet many
things were achieved in a short time frame and also in a very cooperative, considerate and grateful
atmosphere. Now, in the middle of April 2020, we are still within this very special phaseor,
perhaps, at the start of a transition. Furthermore, the following is clearly writ ten f rom our perspective,
but we want to give a short overview of what we see as enablers, barriers and bottlenecks within the
previous wee ks . We hope that other educational technology support-teams in universities can use
this as a recommendation, if still of use.
The following issues we s ee a s enab lers:
 Looking back, we have had good prerequisites. Systems were available and
functional; they were adapted; materials were provided and a support team was
established. The internal communication and work had been already realised online
(slack, a cloud system, and more).
 From our perspective, it was good that the semester had just started: The lecturers
want ed t o do th eir job ; t hey all we re pr epar ed a nd ha d a lr eady s ta rt ed t o gi ve t heir
lectures.
 Fromour perspective, our universitys culture of engineers was able to solve
(technical) problems and to keep things going, with a sense of responsibility and
perseverance was very decisive. In particular, during the first period many lecturers
tried new technologies and established whether those could assist their way of
(online) teaching.
 Clear decisions and flexible communication channels between Rector, Vice Rector for
Academic Affairs, the department of Higher Education and Programme
Development and the IT services were a big driver.
 In connect ion with this, it was very helpful that although we had expected this
there wa s n o di sc us si on rega rding t he prop osed s ol ution s a nd t hat th ey t rus ted o ur
proposal. This saved time and resources.
 Never before has there been such an intensive exchange with other e-learning
managers and colleagues who shared their experience, for example, publishing
performance tests on the Internet or sharing hands-on tips.
 It was also helpful that the activities of the various departments were bundled,
communicated in joint mailings, and were professionally edited and translated.
 Despite, or perhaps because, of different conditions and backgrounds, the personal
exchange with other e-learning support centres at Austrian universities was also
helpful.
 With regard to the team, all were prepared and equipped for work from homeonly
one employee was provided with a laptop at short notice. Since the schools were
closed, employees could apply for extra leave days, which were hardly used in the
department.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 16 of 20
 Different departments within the Vice Rectorate for Academic Affairs formed task
forces and collaborated quickly to support and relieve the Educational Technology
support-team members.
Barriers we or colleagues need to overcome from our perspective:
 In general, the team was too small for this rush and situation.
 The infections within our team and the workload were important barriers. Looking
back, we developed a strong connectedness as a team.
 Hardwareequipmentatsometeachersandstudentshomeoffices,especiallypoor
Internet connections, have caused problems.
 It was difficult to update the systems under time pressure because there was no
sufficient test phase. We had such difficulties updating TUbe.
 Within a short time, people and units had to work together, despite some not
knowing each other beforehand. The different communication practices were
challenging.
 A real challenge wa s the changing conditions; for example, due to the worldwide
increased use of video conferencing systems, their performance was also influenced,
and it was not clear from the outset that we would actually have an entire digital
semester. Many things were initially intended as a provisional solution.
 Dependence on external services, e.g., plagiarism service, which were temporarily
not functional, especially during the crisis, led to complaints and waiting time for
gradings in lectures and seminars.
 A surprising challenge was the work with the press. There were many requests for
interviews and partly incorrect articles, which were not helpful in this situation.
There are some issues we experienced as (potential) bottlenecks:
 Our small support team was exhausted after a few days. The department
immediately received an offer to hire staff, but this had to be turned down because
of the challenge of familiarising someone new with the processes and issues in the
shortest possible time. Looking back, we were lucky that colleagues got infected later
or not at all.
 Before the crisis we solved many requests of individuals by e-mail or telephone.
Now, however, written instructions for action were necessary, which were simply
not (yet) available.
 Hardware could have been a bottleneck, but it was provided to us by the IT Service
department without any problems (and wi th budget on our side).
 We have little redundancy in the team. Strictly speaking, we were very lucky that the
team leaders and people with special knowledge remained operational.
 The video team was too small and work was exhausting, as the number of incoming
videos increased by an unprecedented amount and the process required manual
wor k init ia ll y. T his also applied to first-level support.
 The bandwidt hoft heunivers ity s network line could also be a bottleneck.
In our case, these bottlenecks did not turn into major problems  but that was also partly due to
plain luck. In the future, we anticipate that the positive mood of the first few weeks towards us as
service and support staff could change again if it is seen as a usual service.
To sum up our experiences as a recommendation for other teams responsible for Educational
Technology in universities, we want to emphasize:
1. Be prepared as early as possible: it is essential to have a strategy for handling a mass of
switching lecturers.
2. Trust and clear communication are needed: a large number of discussions about the
used or recommended technologies or the availability of services if there are no clear
(and supported) decisions is unproductive and leads to lost time.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 17 of 20
3. Identify where a re the ne xt bot tlenecks : this is important to prepare handouts or clear
advices. New services may become necessary.
4. Choose effective measures: a good reasoning for us was always to reach as many
students as possible with a measure. Thus, mass lectures, and how to handle them in
such a crisis, were a fir st factor to consider.
5. Care about your team: your team and its possibilities are in general the bottleneck of
this change. Use this potential to get the needed support, focus on what is really needed
for the university as well as for your own team.
7. Discussion on Readiness for E-Learning Assessment and Criteria
We described the situation and activities at our university in an objective way. However, our
ownreadiness,orsharedvalueshave not been evaluated in a study to date, so the objectivity of
our description is limited. Dealing with the e-learning readiness assessment by Alshaber [7] wa s v er y
helpful for us to structure our description of e-learning at TU Graz.
We think that we have coped very well with the new situation in the first weeks. In our view,
there was actually only one point in the criteria mentioned according to Alshaber (2013) that spoke
in favour of implementation to a limited extent, namely, the clear strategic positioning of the
university as a presence university. However, the COVID-19 crisis and the legal requirements for the
closure of the universities have very blatantly established a new framework and mindset: it was clear
to everyone involved, and there was a strong commitment, that teaching must now b e off ered and
carried out online.
At the same time, we have already referred to the situation in neighbouring Germany in the
introduction. In Germany, the semester had not yet started and there were many calls for the semester
to be cancelled, and many universities only started their (online) teaching activities weeks later than
planned. We would therefore like to add another aspect to Alshahers framework [7] based on our
experience: there are obviously also better or worse opportunity structures that allow for a smoother
implementation of such an essential change. It was perhaps because of the special time factor for us
that the semester and the teaching ran for just 10 days and everyone had the feeling that somehow
it had to go on. We are unsure about this, but in exchanges wit h o ther e-learning departments at
Austrian universities we have learned that theyallworkinverysimilarpositive and constructive
contexts and have been able to change the way they teach.
Additionally, our data and experiencesareonlyapartofthee-learningreadinessresult.To
critiqueAlshahersframework[7]anditsappropriateness,weshouldalso have answers for the
following questions:
 How do the general conditions change the quality of teaching, the study-ability of the
subjects and also the learning outcomes of the students?
 To what extent do the experiences of teachers and students change future behaviour with
regard to e-learning?
We will try to play our part in examining these issues and challenges in more detail in the coming
months. The conversion from face-to-face teaching to e-learning has probably not per se contributed
to an increase in teaching quality, but we hope that teachers will gain experience from the measures
now forced by the situation, whi ch will e ns ure bet ter and pos sib ly a ls o n ew technolo gy-supported
teaching offerings in the future. However, we believe that this is an open question, as it is likely to
involve many frustrating and demotivating experiences. Nevertheless, we need this data and
experiencesforacompletecritiqueofAlshahersframework.
8. Next steps: Quality Improvement and E-Assessment
Of course, one must critically question what has actually been and is being implemented here as
e-learning. As a contribution to the discussioninEducausenotes,emergencyremoteteaching,
such as making teaching materials available in a learning management system, is not the same as

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 18 of 20
(good) online learning [29]. Indeed, the quality of teaching is also seen as an essential factor for e-
learningimplementations:Oneofthemostcrucialprerequisitesforsuccessfulimplementationofe-
learning is the need for careful consideration of the underlying pedagogy, or how learning takes place
online.[30] In terms of a strategy from the perspective of e-learning innovations [31,32], the current
strategymightbedescribedasbacktothebasics:exis ting target groups a re t o be s erved and
reached in the best possible way under the new conditions. This does not exclude innovations in
teaching and longer-term changes in behaviour and attitudes towards online teaching, but is
currently being considered, with any decision probably not due for the next few weeks.
In order to support lecturers at our university in developing stimulating methodological-
didactical implementations, our department now offers a regular online consultation hour in addition
to all existing materials (TELucation). Additionally, our student representatives will ask students
about how the individual courses are implemented in a survey end of April.
In addition, the topic of assessment has now moved onto our agenda. This directly affects the
department in the context of the e-assessment. A further problem is that the assessment must be
carried out in large lecture halls in which our live streaming hardware is installed and must be
converted into other rooms. Procedures and processes for assessment in presence are currently being
described in the context of the very limited presence assessment that will be possible in the future.
Therefore, the department is involved in the development of materials for lecturers , as well as an
online course for all students who will take part in such an assessment t o be prepared for the
procedures during the assessment (e.g., disinfection).
Auth or Contributions: Data curation, C.B., Y.G., P.L. and B.T.; Formal analysis, S .S.; Investigation, M.E., C.B.,
M.E., Y.G., M.H., P.L. and B.T.; Methodology, S.S. and P.L.; Project administration, M.E.; Supervision, M.E.;
Visualization, S.S.; Writingoriginal draft, M.E. and S.S.; Writingreview & editing, C.B., Y.G., M.H. and B.T.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We thank our external consultant Peter Lendl for his contribution to this submission.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Matthews, D. How will technology reshape the university by 2030? Results from THEs university leaders
survey. Times Higher Education Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/how-
will-technology-reshape-university-2030 (accessed on 27 September 2018).
2. Ellis, R.A.; Ginns, P.; Piggott, L. Elearning in higher education: Some key aspects and their relationship to
approaches to study. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2009, 28, 303318, doi:10.1080/07294360902839909.
3. Fischer, H.; Heise, L.; Heinz, M.; Moebius, K.; Koehler, T. How to identify e-learning trends in academ ic
teaching: methodological approaches and the analysis of scientific discourses. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ.
2015, 12, 3143.
4. Islam, N.; Beer, M.; Slack, F. E-learning challenges faced by academics in higher education. J. Educ. Train.
Stud. 2015, 3, 102112. Available online: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/10403/ (accessed on 26 May 2020).
5. Tagesspiegel. Nicht-Semester an den Hochschulen gefordert. Article from 2020-03-23. Available online:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/folgen-der-coronavirus-pandemie-fuer-die-unis-nicht-semester-an-
den-hochschulen-gefordert/25672436.html (accessed on 26 May 2020).
6. Guri-Rosenblit, S. Distance education and e-learning: Not the same thing. High. Educ. 2005, 49, 467493,
doi:10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0.
7. Alshaher, A. The Mckinsey 7s model framework for e-learning system readiness assessment. Int. J. Adv.
Eng. Technol. 2013, 6, 1948.
8. University of the Potomac. Online vs. Traditional Learning. 2020. Available online:
https://potomac.edu/learning/online-learning-vs-traditional-learning/ (accessed on 26 May 2020).
9. King, E.; Boyatt, R. Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders' analysis.
Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 12721280

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 19 of 20
10. Basak, S.; Wotto, M.; Bélanger, P. A framework on the critical success factors of e-learning implementation
in higher education: A review of the literature. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. Sci. 2016, 10. Available online:
https://publications.waset.org/10004989/a-framework-on-the-critical-success-factors-of-e-learning-
implementation-in-higher-education-a-review-of-the-literature (accessed on 26 May 2020).
11. Sela, E.; Sivan, Y. Enterprise e-learning success factors: An analysis of practitioners perspective (with a
Downturn Addendum). Interdiscip. J. E-Learn. Learn. Ob jects 2009, 5, 335343. Available online:
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/44839/ (accessed on 2 September 2019).
12. Mosa, A.; Nazri bin Mahrin, M.; Ibrrahim, R. Technological aspects of e-learning readiness in higher
education: A review of the literature. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2016, 9, 2016. Availab le online:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7eaf/f2f445c538145ddd4d2bd7f3b286d9b06733.pdf (accessed on 26 May
2020).
13. Hanafizadeh, P.; Ravasan, A.Z. A McKinsey 7S model-based framework for ERP readiness assessment. Int.
J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2011, 7, 2363.
14. Pflichter, F. Blended Lea rning, Qualität der Lehre, Lehrkompetenz und Integra tion behinderter und chronisch
kranker Studierender an den Universitäten, dargestellt in den Entwicklungspla ̈nen ab 2015, Wissensbilanzen 2014
und in den ersten Entwürfen der Leistungsvereinbarungen 2016–2018; BMWFW: Wien, Austria, 2015.
15. Bratengeyer, E.; Steinbacher, H.-P.; Friesenbichler, M.; Neuböck, K.; Kopp, M.; Gröblinger, O.; Ebner, M.
Die Österreichische Hochschul-E-Lea rning-Landschaft. Studie zur Erfassung des Status Quo der E-Learning-
Landschaft im Tertiären Bildungsbereich Hinsichtlich Strategie, Ressourcen, Organisation und Erfa h rungen; Verein
Forum neue Medien in der Lehre Austria Graz: Graz, Austria, 2016. Available online:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwj14eDy6unoAhW
MDOwKHQPADMkQFjABegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fnma.at%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%
2F1431%2F4895&usg=AOvVaw189J3zD9GMzYbrRm8radh8 (accessed on 26 May 2020).
16. Alle Privatuniversitäten in Österreich. Available online:
https://www.studium.at/hochschulen/privatuniversitaeten (accessed on 15 May 2020).
17. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung: Unidata—Zahlen und Fakten auf
Knopfdruck. In Datawarehouse Hochschulbereich des Bundesministeriums für Bildung, Wissenschaft und
Forschung. Available online: https://unidata.gv.at/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 15 May 2020).
18. Oberwimmer, K.; Vogtenhuber, S.; Lassnigg, L.; Schreiner, S. Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2018.
Das Schulsystem im Spiegel von Daten und Indikatoren, 2018. Availab le online: https://www.bifie.at/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/NBB_2018_Band1_v4_final.pdf (accessed on 2 6 May 2020 ).
19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Bildung auf einen Blick 2017; OECD
Publishing: Paris, France, 2017.
20. TU Graz (Graz University of Technology). History. Availab le online: https://www.tugraz.at/en/tu-
graz/university/history/ (accessed on 26 May 20 20).
21. Times Higher Education. World University Rankings 2019. Available online:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/-
1/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats (accessed on 26 May 2020).
22. TU Graz (Graz University of Technology). Mission Statement. Available online:
https://www.tugraz.at/en/oe/lehr-und-lerntechnologien/ueber-uns/ziele-und-strategie/ (accessed on 26
May 2020).
23. Technische Universität Graz [Graz University of Technology]. Richtlinie des Rektorats und des Senats zu:
VirtuelleLehreanderTechnischenUniversitätGraz. TU Graz: RL 94000 VILE 078-01, 2017. Available
online:
https://www.tugraz.at/fileadmin/public/Studierende_und_Bedienstete/Richtlinien_und_Verordnungen_d
er_TU_Graz/Virtuelle_Lehre_Richtlinie.pdf (accessed on 26 May 20 20).
24. Ebner, M. Lehr-und Lerntechnologien/Educational Technology #tugraz. Weblog posting from 2016-01-01.
Available online: https://elearningblog.tugraz.at/archives/8547 (accessed on 26 May 20 20).
25. Ebner, M.; Stöckler-Penz, C. Open Educational Resources als lifelong-learning Strategie am Beispiel der TU
Graz. In The Lifel ong Learning University; Waxmann: Münster, Germany, 2011; pp. 5360.
26. Nagler, W.; Haas, M.; Schön, M.; Ebner, M. Professor YouTube and their interactive colleagues how
enhanced videos and online courses change the way of learning. In Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate
Learning; Bastiaens, J.T., Ed.; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE):
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 641650.

Futu re In ternet 2020, 12, 94 20 of 20
27. University of Washington. Beginning March 9, Classes and Finals will not be Held in Person (Message to
Students). News from 2020-03-06. Available online:
https://www.washington.edu/coronavirus/2020/03/06/beginning-march-9-classes-and-finals-will-not-be-
held-in-person-message-to-students/ (accessed on 26 May 2020).
28. Aircampus. Hörsaal für Zuhause. Podcast published on 2020-04-20 . Available online:
https://www.aircampus-graz.at/podcasts/fernlehre/ (accessed on 26 May 20 20).
29. Hodges, C.; Moore, S.; Lockee, B. Trust, T.; Bond, A. The difference between emergency remote teaching
and online learning. Educ. Rev. 2020. Availab le online: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-
difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (accessed on 26 M ay 2020).
30. Govindasamy, T. Successful implementation of e-Learning Pedagogical considerations. Internet High. Educ.
2001, 4, 287299.
31. Euler, D.; Seifert, S. E-Learning in Hochschulen und Bildungszentren; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germ any, 2009.
32. Collis, B.; Moonen, J. Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations; Kogan Page: London,
UK, 2001.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).