The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Exploring factors influencing Factors

influencing
online classes due to social online classes
in COVID-19
distancing in COVID-19 pandemic:
a business students perspective
Adil Zia Received 28 May 2020
Revised 18 July 2020
Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration Al Baha University, Accepted 17 August 2020
Al Baha, Saudi Arabia

Abstract
Purpose – This study explores the factors responsible for influencing online classes for business school
during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study also examines the level of influence of these factors on online
classes.
Design/methodology/approach – Primary data were collected online from 716 business school students
using a questionnaire developed by the researcher. Smart PLS3 software was used to analyze the data.
Findings – Attitude, curriculum, motivation, technology and training were found to have an impact on online
classes. Three variables (attitude, motivation and training) have a positive impact on online classes, whereas two
variables (curriculum and technology) have a negative impact on the online classes. All the factors have been found
to be significant except technology which is found to have an insignificant impact (p 5 0.356) on online classes.
Research limitations/implications – Only one university’s students were surveyed.
Practical implications – Outlines the factors which have a positive and significant impact on online classes
during COVID-19 pandemic. This study can be generalized through a student’s community across the world as
the students face similar problems associated with online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Social implications – Suggest factors that can be considered while COVID-19 pandemic during social
distancing to make online classes more effective and to reduce the impact of this pandemic.
Originality/value – No study has documented the factors associated to impact the online classes during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords Education, Business school, Pandemic, Covid-19, Online classes, Social distancing
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The world is witnessing a unique kind of situation where education for all levels of study is being
imparted through online classes using Internet. This COVID-19 pandemic enforced all forms of
class paradigm to shift on-default to online mode of classes. The advent of this historic pandemic
was so sudden and abrupt that it did not provide time to prepare for such a situation. The whole
world willingly or unwillingly started teaching through online medium. This paper covers the
students’ perspective related to the online classes and the associated factors with it. Based on the
review of literature, the conceptual model was developed depicting all the number of items
associated to the constructs (Figure 1). Five factors were identified which have impact on the
online classes, and through statistically testing using SMART PLS3 their specific impact were
identified. The study is specific to the university students, but it can be generalized through
students’ community across the world as the students face similar problems and issues associated
to online classes during COVID-19 pandemic.

Background
This COVID-19 is a new influenza strain of corona virus which was first identified in Wuhan, The International Journal of
China in December 2019 (Sohrabi et al., 2020). This novel corona virus is caused by severe Information and Learning
Technology
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2056-4880
Declaration of interest: None DOI 10.1108/IJILT-05-2020-0089
IJILT acute respiratory syndrome, corona virus-2 (SARS CoV-2) (Sun et al., 2020). This is spreading
from person to person by respiratory droplets, produced by sneezing and coughing. Most
people have mild to moderate symptoms causing infections in nose, sinus and upper throat,
while in some people this disease is causing severe complications like trouble in breathing,
blood clotting, heart problems, serious viral and bacterial infections leading to their death
(Rothan and Byrareddy, 2020; Sismondo, 2020; Velavan and Meyer, 2020).
As this corona virus is new, the challenges are also new (Shereen et al., 2020). It is very
disappointing to hear that gathering and working at one place like offices, malls, colleges,
banks will escalate the spread of this disease, WHO has recommended social distancing
(Hageman, 2020; Kannan et al., 2020; Sohrabi et al., 2020). Avoiding close contact leads to
nearly total closure of schools, shops, malls, colleges, universities etc. All this give rise to
sudden increase in online classes as only alternative to traditional classes.

Literature review
To study the impact of various factors on online classes, the literature has been divided into
five constructs. These constructs have been identified through a thorough analysis of various
researches published around the world. These identified factors are not limited to Saudi
Arabia, rather the findings can be generalized across various countries.

Attitude
Inherent liking or disliking of something is considered to be the attitude toward that product
or services. In general, it has been observed that majority of students perceive negatively
about the online classes in a sense as compared to the traditional classes. The unlikely
behavior or negative attitude leads to students’ perceptions for unfavorable online classes,
resulting in negative and unfulfilled learning outcomes (Kauffman, 2015). The flexible nature
of online learning environment provides choice of time, place, space and pace of study etc.
which makes it more casual looking for the students (Gedera et al., 2015). All this provides a
flexible class and learning environment both for the students as well as for the teachers. It has
been observed that the students as well as the faculties who have the negative and unwilling
attitude toward the online classes have changed their behavior after attending the online
classes, and they have become more participative and interactive. At many times, the
faculties have observed that the students are more interactive and participative than the
classroom teaching (Gold, 2001). Now to test the impact of attitude of students on the online
classes, following hypothesis has been formulated.
H1. There is no significant impact of Attitude of students on the online classes.

Attitude

Curriculum

Online Classes
Motivation
Figure 1.
Conceptual model for Technology
online classes and
related factors
Training
Curriculum Factors
It has been observed that the online mode of classes are used along with the physical classes influencing
for improving the impact of teaching (Siemens and Tittenberger, 2009). It has been observed
that during the COVID-19 pandemic the courses which were initially designed for physical
online classes
and face-to-face classes were being taught through online medium or distance mode. As the in COVID-19
designing of these curriculum were not done considering that it would be taught in online
mode as well, there are many topics and activities included in the curriculum that cannot be
taught and performed using online mode. The online mode of classes requires higher
students’ engagement, hence it calls for collaborative curriculum development by faculties
and students (Alessi, 2000; Deejring, 2014). The online mode of classes does not provide the
feasible environment of teaching. There is lack of teachers’ vigil on the students. Teachers
vigilance call for the support of parents in this process of online classes (Nagel and Kotze,
2010; Kassens-Noor, 2012). It has also been witnessed that the commitment and contribution
of efforts in online classes is not same as the classroom classes (Hampel and Stickler, 2005).
As the world has become more dynamic in nature, no classroom teaching is complete
without the online access of the material (Hampel and Stickler, 2005). Many libraries are
providing even free of cost books to the students, and publishers provide the free online
access for the teachers (Annand, 2002, 2008). In terms of learners’ effectiveness and the
knowledge transfer, there is not much difference in online and paper-based study material.
However, the students in most of the cases prefer paper books and study material, but the low
cost of digital material makes it more popular among the learners community (Annand, 2008).
Therefore, following hypothesis has been formulated to test the impact of curriculum on the
online classes.
H2. There is no significant impact of curriculum on the online classes.

Motivation
It has been observed that the human beings are psychologically motivated through a series of
hierarchical needs (Maslow, 1943; Stoyanov, 2017). It has been observed that the students
may be found to be motivated in the initial few classes, but this level of motivation is observed
to show diminishing patterns. Many activities that usually students perform in class keep
them interested and motivated in the classroom teaching (Reeve and Lee, 2014) which is not
possible in the online classes. Activities like group task and role playing are some of the
tactics most commonly used for students engagement (Wentzel, 1993), but lack of feasibility
of all these activities makes it difficult for teachers to motivate students to attend and
participate in online class. The absence of activities in online classes makes it more of
monotonous and boring (Chandra, 2015; James, 2017). Therefore, following hypothesis has
been formulated to test the impact of motivation of students on the online classes.
H3. There is no significant impact of motivation on the online classes.

Technology
There are two most important aspects related to technology. First one is related to the
availability of technology, and second is related to the use of technology. Both the aspects
plays an important role in the process of teaching and learning. The availability of technology
means that the students have the gadgets to attend the online classes conducted by the
teachers. It include things like laptop, tablet, mobile phone, etc. with the Internet access
facility. Many students in Saudi Arabia have reported the unavailability of gadgets to attend
the online classes (Mcmurtrie, 2020), and many have reported the unavailability of Internet
services in their area of residence. Internet is the main platform through which the online
classes are being conducted using some available paid or free software. In Saudi Arabia,
IJILT many universities have provided laptops and tablets to the students at free of cost to attend
online classes (Dratcott, 2020).
The second aspect is related to the use of the technology which include the students’
knowledge related to the use of Internet and the related software. The young generation is
more familiar with the mobile technology and prefer to use iOS and Android devices for day
to day usage (Zia, 2020b). Generally it has been observed that the Internet literacy is very
highest in 16–24 years of age (Clement, 2019). Therefore, it has been observed that Internet
literacy is highest in this group of people resulting in no issues in the use of Internet to attend
the online classes. Therefore, following hypothesis has been formulated to test the impact of
technology on the online classes.
H4. There is no significant impact of technology on the online classes.

Training
Online classes are not same as class room teaching (Hampel and Stickler, 2005) therefore, it
requires training to gain the specific skillset for making the classes effective. Training is
necessary for teachers to transform from classroom teaching method to online mode of
classes which is a complex process for imparting quality education (Lane, 2013). Training is
required in the areas like organizing online classes, delivering lectures, connecting all the
students, evaluation of students’ assignments, presentations, home works, projects and
group projects etc. (Gold, 2001). In today’s dynamic environment, classroom teaching also
requires online study material search to complete various class assignments and homework.
This requires search of material and thus calls for training for both the instructors as well as
the students (Easton, 2003; Hampel and Stickler, 2005).
The role of training has been neglected for online classes (Hampel and Stickler, 2005;
Doukakis et al., 2013), but this is of immense importance as it will determine the quality of
knowledge transfer. Researchers have highlighted the importance of both the pre online class
as well as post online class training (Doukakis et al., 2013). Teachers’ productivity and the
quality of teachers improve over the period of time, and it improves with experience, but this
gain can be achieved by the means of training. Although there is no extreme variations
observed in the productivity, notable changes have been witnessed (Hall, 1972; Harris and
Sass, 2011). Therefore, to test the impact of training on the online classes, following
hypothesis has been formulated.
H5. There is no significant impact of training on the online classes.

Conceptual model
Based on the review of literature, a model has been proposed with five factors that are
expected to have impact on the online mode classes conducted during the COVID-19
pandemic and social distancing (Figure 1). In this model, attitude, curriculum, motivation,
technology and training are independent factors, whereas online class is dependent factor.

Methodology
Survey instrument and sample
In this study, factors having impact on the online mode of classes were evaluated. To fulfill
this aim, university students were considered as the research population. As the study aimed
to measure the impact of social distancing in COVID-19, the business school students (both
masters and the bachelors) were considered for the study. These students are facing the
current situation because the university has instructed all the faculties to conduct online
classes for the remaining session, therefore they constitute the best population for the study.
The primary data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire to measure the Factors
impact of these factors on the online classes. The questionnaire included questions related to influencing
all the five factors (attitude, curriculum, motivation, technology and training). Additionally,
the primary demographic data were also collected for further analysis. In all, 970 students
online classes
submitted their responses for the research. Out of 970 questionnaires, 716 questionnaires in COVID-19
were included in the study, while others were excluded due to reasons for incomplete
responses. This sample size was sufficient according to the recommended sample size
(Ong and Fadilah Puteh, 2017) constituting a response rate of 73.81%.

Calculation
To measure the impact of these five factors on the online classes, the questionnaire was
developed (Appendix). The items of the questionnaire were adapted from the literature, and
some items are proposed by the researcher. For all the items, the responses were collected
using a five-point Likert scale which ranges from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. As
the model consists of five constructs (latent variables), namely, attitude, curriculum,
motivation, technology and training (Figure 1), all the factors were subject to SMART-PLS3
algorithm to test the impact. The model showed that all the zero-order constructs, i.e. attitude,
curriculum, motivation, technology and training were reflective models. Bootstrapping was
performed to test the significance level of these constructs, and blindfolding analysis was
performed to test the predictive relevance.

Analysis
The model developed was estimated using SmartPLS3. The sample size of the present study
fulfilled the recommended criteria for relationship modeling in SmartPLS (Ong and Fadilah
Puteh, 2017). Further, as all the five zero-order constructs are formative model, PLS algorithm
was applied (Hair et al., 2014). The results of the PLS algorithm includes the calculation of
composite reliability of the model to evaluate the internal consistency of the constructs.
Hence, the evaluation of the outer loadings of the indicators was done to measure the
reliability of all the individual indicators and average variance extracted (AVE) to measure
the convergent validity of the items (Table 1).

Findings
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model for the factors responsible for online classes and the five
dependent variables. The path coefficients indicate the direct effect of a variable assumed to
be a cause on another variable assumed to be an effect. In this model, all the five factors were
subject to test their impact on the online classes.
As this model is a formative model, the outer loadings were recorded. The beta values
indicate the correlation between the indicator variables, and the latent construct was
evaluated. The composite outer loadings for all indicators are in the acceptable range of 0.7
(Table 1), whereas, AVE was more than 0.5 which meant that all the measures of all the
constructs in the model had a high level of convergent validity in the model. The individual
item reliability showed the constructs and their items followed by the loadings in the model is
at acceptable level. The skewness and kurtosis values corresponded to the items of the scale.
The AVE ranged from 0.715 to 0.911, the Cronbach α values range from 0.802 to 0.951 and the
corresponding composite reliability ranged from 0.882 to 0.969. The outer loading of 0.70 and
more was obtained for all the 15 items of the questionnaire (Table 2).
The cross-loadings were checked using the Fornell–Larcker criterion to check the
discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and HTMT ratios were calculated (Henseler
et al., 2014a, b). According to the studies of Henseler et al. (2009) and Hair et al. (2011), the
IJILT Composite Cronbach
Construct Items Loadings Skewness Kurtosis reliability AVE α Roh

Attitude 1 0.918 0.816
0.317 0.922 0.797 0.873 0.890

2 0.913 1.114 0.089
3 0.845 0.868
0.28
Curriculum 1 0.861 0.615
0.719 0.883 0.717 0.803 0.814
2 0.886 0.742
0.716
3 0.790 0.709
0.629
Motivation 1 0.729
0.385
0.723 0.911 0.774 0.856 0.885
2 0.941
0.467
0.738
3 0.935
0.674
0.508
Technology 1 0.920
0.979
0.812 0.882 0.715 0.802 0.848
2 0.937
0.946
0.713
3 0.894
0.912
0.781
Training 1 0.941
0.911
0.832 0.969 0.911 0.951 0.953
2 0.979
0.712
0.852
3 0.944
0.881
0.861
Table 1. Online 1 0.927
0.843
0.961 0.948 0.860 0.918 0.920
Individual item classes 2 0.914
0.887
0.955
reliability 2 0.944
0.873
0.962

Items Attitude Curriculum Motivation Technology Training Online classes

A1 0.918
A2 0.913
A3 0.845
C1 0.861
C2 0.886
C3 0.790
M1 0.729
M2 0.941
M3 0.935
T1 0.920
T2 0.937
T3 0.894
Tr1 0.941
Tr2 0.979
Tr3 0.944
OE1 0.927
Table 2. OE2 0.914
Outer loadings OE3 0.944

Fornell–Larcker criterion and the cross-loadings were checked for discriminant validity
(Table 3). The diagonal elements show the square root of the average variance extracted. The
off-diagonal elements show the correlations between the constructs. For this model, cross-
loadings were checked. It was measured that the values of AVE should be greater than MSV.
All values for the construct were greater than its vertical and horizontal values.
Another criterion to check the discriminant validity through the values of heterotrait–
monotrait Ratio (HTMT) was observed, and it was observed that the HTMT values for all the
dimensions were less than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2014); hence discriminant validity was present
in the model (Table 4).
Collinearity was checked for the constructs by validating VIF values, which should be less
than five. All the VIF values of the constructs are less than five (Table 5). Therefore, it was
concluded that the collinearity issue does not exist between the constructs. Hence, the Factors
independent constructs are not correlated. influencing
The bootstrapping procedure reports the significance of the path coefficient values
(Figure 3). The result showed that the p-value for all five relations are significant (Table 6). It
online classes
was also found that all three variables (attitude, motivation and training) have positive in COVID-19
impact on online classes, whereas two variables (curriculum and technology) have negative
impact on the online classes. All the factors have been found to be significant except
technology which is found to have insignificant impact (p 5 0.356) on online classes. The
t-values of items of the constructs are very high which means that they all are significant and
contribute in the respective constructs.

Constructs Attitude Curriculum Motivation Online classes Technology Training

Attitude 0.893
Curriculum 0.639 0.847
Motivation 0.818 0.827 0.880
Online Education 0.944 0.640 0.864 0.927
Technology 0.245 0.248 0.287 0.293 0.845 Table 3.
Training 0.954 0.612 0.862 0.970 0.259 0.955 Discriminant validity

Constructs Attitude Curriculum Motivation Online classes Technology Training

Attitude – – – – – –
Curriculum 0.757 – – – – –
Motivation 0.816 0.821 – – – –
Online classes 0.843 0.738 0.851 – – – Table 4.
Technology 0.283 0.289 0.336 0.332 – – HTMT (Heterotrait–
Training 0.837 0.690 0.828 0.832 0.286 – monotrait ratio)

Constructs VIF

Attitude 1 2.149
Attitude 2 2.577
Attitude 3 2.147
Curruculum 1 3.160
Curruculum 2 2.587
Curruculum 3 3.377
Motivation 1 3.509
Motivation 2 2.013
Motivation 3 2.259
Online classes 1 2.149
Online classes 2 1.885
Online classes 3 1.986
Technology 1 1.390
Technology 2 2.358
Technology 3 2.262
Training 1 1.805 Table 5.
Training 2 2.321 VIF Values for
Training 3 1.771 constructs
IJILT Further, the R-square value for online classes is 0.949 which is considered to be very high
(Figure 2). The f-square (effect size) shows that attitude, curriculum and technology have
medium effect, whereas motivation and training have large effect size (Table 7).
The root mean square residual (RMSR) was calculated to measure the mean absolute value
of the covariance residuals, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) based on
transforming both the sample covariance matrix and the predicted covariance matrix into
correlation matrices. The SRMR is defined as the difference between the observed correlation
and the model implied correlation matrix. Thus, it allows assessing the average magnitude of
the discrepancies between observed and expected correlations as an absolute measure of
(model) fit criterion. The results of the blindfolding procedure with omission distance (D)
value 5 7, the Q2 values obtained is 0.781 which is more than zero (Table 8) which indicated
that the path model’s predictive relevance is high. Moreover, in this model, the value of SRMR
is 0.098 which was considered as a good fit (Table 9). A value less than 0.10 is considered a

Constructs Original sample (O) p values

Attitude → online classes 0.197 0.020

Curriculum → online classes
0.071 0.002
Motivation → online classes 0.485 0.000
Table 6. Technology → online classes
0.042 0.356
Path coefficients Training → online classes 0.409 0.000

A1
0.918
A2 0.913
0.845
A3

Attitude
C1
0.861
C2 0.886 0.197
0.790
C3
Curriculum –0.071
M1 OE1
0.729 0.927
M2 0.941 0.485 0.977 0.914 OE2
0.953 0.944
M3 OE3
Motivation –0.042 Online classes
T1
0.920
T2 0.937 0.409
0.894
T3
Technology
Tr1
0.941
Figure 2.
Tr2 0.979
Path coefficients
0.944
values for factors of
Tr3
online classes
Training
 Path Coefficients Factors
0.5 influencing
Path Coefficients

0.4
0.3
online classes
0.2
in COVID-19
0.1
0
s s s s s
se se se se se
as as as as as
Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl
ne lin
e ne ne ne
nli on nli nli nli
- >o -> - >o - >o - >o Figure 3.
u de lu m t ion lo gy ing Path coefficients
ttit icu iva no ain
A rr ot ch Tr graphical presentation
Cu M Te

Constructs Online classes

Attitude 0.069
Curriculum 0.039
Motivation 1.149
Technology 0.141 Table 7.
Training 2.495 F square (effect size)

Dependent construct SSO SSE Q2 (51
SSE/SSO) Table 8.

Blindfolding
Online Classes 300.000 65.666 0.781 (Predictive relevance)

Hypothesis Result

H1: There is no significant impact of attitude of students on the online classes Rejected
H2: There is no significant impact of curriculum on the online classes Rejected
H3: There is no significant impact of motivation on the online classes Rejected
H4: There is no significant impact of technology on the online classes Accepted Table 9.
H5: There is no significant impact of training of teachers on the online classes Rejected Hypothesis testing

good fit. Henseler et al. (2014) introduce the SRMR as a goodness of fit measure for PLS-SEM
that can be used to avoid model misspecification.
The RMS_theta is the root mean squared residual covariance matrix of the outer model
residuals (Kroonenberg and Lohmoller, 1990; Ringle et al. 2015). This fit measure is only
useful to assess purely reflective models because outer model residuals for formative
measurement models are not meaningful. The RMS_theta assesses the degree to which the
outer model residuals correlate. The measure should be close to zero to indicate good model
fit because it would imply that the correlations between the outer model residuals are very
small (close to zero). The RMS_theta builds on the outer model residuals, which are the
IJILT differences between predicted indicator values and the observed indicator values. For
predicting the indicator values, it is necessary in PLS-SEM to have the latent variables
scores. However, PLSc-SEM assumes common factors, which are subject to factor
indeterminacy and, thus, determinate latent variable scores do not exist. RMS_theta values
below 0.12 indicate a well-fitting model, whereas higher values indicate a lack of fit
(Henseler et al., 2014), and in this model, the value obtained is 0.079 which is below the
desired value. Hence, this model fits well for this relocation of five factors for the online
classes.

Discussions
The present study contributes to the understanding related to the factors associated to
online classes due to COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, initially five factors were identified
through the review of literature, and then their impact was studied. To find the impact of all
the five constructs (Factors) through SMART-PLS3 software, path coefficients were
evaluated. It was found that motivation (0.485) has the highest positive impact on online
classes, whereas attitude (0.197) has the least positive impact. It is obvious that motivation
plays a vital role in any teaching and learning practice (Alves et al., 2016; Akhtar and Khan,
2019). Motivation is important for all forms of services (Zia and Azam, 2013), customers
need to be motivated to purchase services (Zia and Khan, 2018; Zia, 2019, 2020a; Zia and
Hashmi, 2019). Similarly, students also need to get motivated to attend their classes online.
But in this pandemic of COVID-19, where all have to observe social distancing due to which
online classes have been arranged, students motivation is of utmost importance for the
successful online classes. Path coefficient values for attitude shows that it has 19.7%
impact on the online classes. This construct is having least positive impact among the five
identified constructs may be because it has been observed that already students’ attitude
toward online activities for education and for some activities related to education is
favorable. Students use online resources for homework, assignments, activities and other
tasks related to their course of study. The other construct, training (0.409), scored a
moderate value of path coefficient among the five constructs. This is because of the reason
that it is second most important factor which can make the online classes successful.
Training makes the students more familiarized to the new process of online classes and
helps students to clarify any hassles and doubts during online classes.
Curriculum and technology were found to have negative impact on online classes. As we
all know that the shift of regular classes to the online mode of classes was sudden due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the curriculum was never developed to be taught through this
medium of communication. Therefore, the delivery of this curriculum which was initially
developed for regular classes become extremely difficult through online classes. It was
observed that there were many topics in the curriculum that cannot be taught through
online classes and hence need physical presence in the class. This further created another
related problem of the technology adaptability. Sudden shift did not provide time to the
students to get themselves familiarized to the new mode of teaching. Further, it was found
that attitude, motivation and training have the significant positive impact, whereas
curriculum has significant but negative impact, and last construct (factor) technology has
insignificant and negative impact on online classes.
To test the significance of the constructs on the dependent variable (online classes),
bootstrapping was performed using SMART PLS3. The results of the hypothesis show
that H1, H2, H3 and H5 were rejected and hypothesis H4 was accepted. This means that
attitude, curriculum, motivation and training have a significant impact on online
classes, whereas technology has negative and insignificant impact (Table 10) on online
classes.
Conclusion Factors
The results of the study have the significant implications for all the faculties and the influencing
teaching staff who are conducting online classes due to COVID-19 pandemic and social
distancing. These findings will help them to understand the students’ behavior related to
online classes
online classes. Further, the findings helps to understand the factors associated to online in COVID-19
classes, and therefore they can be manipulated to make online classes more effective. Based
on the analysis performed for the identification of factors associated with the impact on the
online classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, five constructs were identified (attitude,
curriculum, motivation, technology and training). All the five constructs were found to have
impact on the online classes. The level of impact from highest to the lowest is shown in
Table 11.
The finding reveals that the motivation is one factor that has almost 50% (approx...)
impact on the performance of online classes. This is the major challenge for the faculties and
the teaching staff members to motivate students to attend the classes. The concept of social
distancing does not allow students even to have combined studies to discuss the topics
which are not clear in the online classes (Dratcott, 2020). Therefore, all students have to be
very much attentive and self-motivated to attend these online classes. There is a missing
factor of vigil in the online classes. Faculties cannot understand the body language of the
students while teaching and conducting the online classes. Moreover, this will results in
more monotonous lectures. Therefore, based on the findings and the level of their impact,
faculties and teaching staff should pay attention to the factors mentioned in Table 11 where
these factors are mentioned showing the level of impact on online classes from highest to the
lowest.

Limitations
Unlike any research, this study also has some limitations and market implications. First of all,
as the sample size of this study is 716, although this sample size is sufficient for the SmartPLS
statistical software and techniques used in for this study, in future, researches could conduct
this study employing a larger sample size which may strengthen some of the insignificant
relationships of the constructs. Furthermore, a sample can be a more diverse sample and
collected from different universities as well. Similar studies are possible for diverse
demographic groups like gender, age, education and others. Another limitation could be the
introduction of new items of the questionnaires. These items may have resulted in the weak
loadings in the constructs. Another suggestion can be the use of a seven-, nine- or ten-point
Likert scale instead of a five-point Likert scale employed in the present study, although

S. No Constructs/factors Path coefficient values

1 Motivation 0.485 Table 10.

2 Training 0.409 Factors showing the
3 Attitude 0.197 level of impact on
4 Curriculum
0.071 online classes from
5 Technology
0.041 highest to lowest

Criteria Values

rms theta 0.079 Table 11.

SRMR 0.098 Model fit summary
IJILT Preston and Colman (2000) suggest that seven-, nine-, and ten-point scales are preferable for
such studies but not employed in this study.

References
Akhtar, S. and Khan, A. (2019), “Internet usage and associated factors among college students in
Saudi Arabia”, International Journal of Community Medicine And Public Health, Vol. 6 No. 6,
p. 2331, doi: 10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20192293.
Alessi, S. (2000), “Designing educational support in system-dynamics-based interactive learning
environments”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 178-196, doi: 10.1177/
104687810003100205.
Alves, H., Fernandes, C. and Raposo, M. (2016), “Value co-creation: concept and contexts of application
and study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1626-1633, doi: 10.1016/[Link].
2015.10.029, Elsevier.
Annand, D. (2002), “Concurrent development and cost-benefit analysis of paper-based and digitized
instructional material”, Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 47-54, doi: 10.1016/
S1096-7516(02)00067-2.
Annand, D. (2008), “Learning efficacy and cost-effectiveness of print versus e-book instructional
material in an introductory financial accounting course”, Journal of Interactive Online Learning,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 152-164.
Bertin, J.C. and Narcy-Combes, J.P. (2007), “Monitoring the learner — who, why and what for?”,
Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 443-457, doi: 10.1080/
09588220701746021.
Bertin, J.C. and Narcy-Combes, J.P. (2012), “Tutoring at a distance”, Computer Assisted Language
Learning, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 105-109, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2011.649087.
Bertin, J.-C., Grave, P. and Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2010), Second Language Distance Learning and
Teaching, IGI Global, Vol. 2010, pp. 1-258, doi: 10.4018/978-1-61520-707-7.
Chandra, R. (2015), “Classroom management tools for effective teaching”, International Journal of
Education and Psychology Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 13-15.
Clement, J. (2019), “Average daily internet usage worldwide 2019, by age and device”, GlobalWebIndex,
pp. 3-5, available at: [Link]
use-age-device/.
Deejring, K. (2014), “The design of web-based learning model using collaborative learning techniques
and a scaffolding system to enhance learners’ competency in higher education”, Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 436-441, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.01.236, Elsevier BV.
Dewey, J. (1966), “Democracy and education (1916)”, in Boydston, J. (Ed.), The Middle Works of John
Dewey, available at: [Link]
Doukakis, S., Koutroumpa, C., Despi, O., Raffa, E., Chira, T. and Michalopoulou, G. (2013), “A case
study of e-tutors’ training program”, 12th International Conference on Information Technology
Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), IEEE, Antalya, Turkey, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/
ITHET.2013.6671052.
Dratcott, A. (2020), “Coronavirus drives remote learning’ s acceptance in the Middle East and beyond
latest updates”, available at: [Link]
Easton, S.S. (2003), “Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning”, Communication
Education, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 87-105, doi: 10.1080/03634520302470.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50,
doi: 10.2307/3151312.
Gedera, D., Williams, J. and Wright, N. (2015), “Identifying factors influencing students’ motivation
and engagement in online courses”, in Koh, C. (Eds), Motivation, Leadership and Curriculum
 Design: Engaging the Net Generation and 21st Century Learners, Springer, Singapore, doi: 10. Factors
1007/978-981-287-230-2_2.
influencing
Gold, S. (2001), “A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers”, Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Network, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-57, doi: 10.24059/olj.v5i1.1886.
online classes
Hageman, J.R. (2020), “The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)”, Pediatric Annals, Vol. 49 No. 3,
in COVID-19
pp. e99-e100, doi: 10.3928/19382359-20200219-01.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “Journal of marketing theory and practice PLS-SEM:
indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152, doi:
10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121, doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
Hall, S. (1972), “Teaching the teachers”, Education þ Training, Vol. 14 No. 11, pp. 342-343, doi: 10.
1108/eb043335.
Hampel, R. and Stickler, U. (2005), “New skills for new classrooms: training tutors to teach languages online”,
Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 311-326, doi: 10.1080/09588220500335455.
Harris, D.N. and Sass, T.R. (2011), “Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement”,
Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 95 Nos 7–8, pp. 798-812, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.11.009.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), New Challenges to
International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20), Emerald Group
Publishing, Bingley, pp. 277-319, doi: 10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J.
Jr, Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2014a), “Common beliefs and reality about PLS”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 82-209, doi: 10.1177/1094428114526928.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014b), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
James, A.N. (2017), “Classroom management strategies”, Teaching the Male Brain: How Boys Think,
Feel, and Learn in School, 2nd ed., Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 178-194. doi: 10.4135/
9781483393407.n12.
Kannan, S., Ali, P.S.S., Sheeza, A. and Hemalatha, K. (2020), “COVID-19 (Novel Coronavirus 2019) -
recent trends”, European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 2006-2011, doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202002_20378.
Kassens-Noor, E. (2012), “Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in
higher education: the case of sustainable tweets”, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 9-21, doi: 10.1177/1469787411429190.
Kauffman, H. (2015), “A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online
learning”, Research in Learning Technology, Vol. 23 No. 2015, p. 230, doi: 10.3402/rlt.v23.26507.
Kroonenberg, P.M. and Lohmoller, J.B. (1990), “Latent variable path modeling with partial least
squares.”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85 No. 411, pp. 909-910, doi: 10.
2307/2290049.
Lane, L.M. (2013), “An open, online class to prepare faculty to teach online”, Journal of Educators
Online, Vol. 10 No. 1, doi: 10.9743/JEO.2013.1.1.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 370-396,
doi: 10.1037/h0054346.
Mcmurtrie, B.B. (2020), “Students without laptops, instructors without internet: how struggling
colleges move online during covid-19”, available at: [Link]
Without-Laptops/248436.
IJILT Nagel, L. and Kotze, T.G. (2010), “Supersizing e-learning: what a CoI survey reveals about teaching
presence in a large online class”, Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 45-51, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2009.12.001.
Ong, M.H.A. and Puteh, F. (2017), “Quantitative data analysis: choosing between SPSS, PLS and
AMOS in social science research”, International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 14-25, available at: [Link]
6679190202.
Patey, A.M., Hurt, C.S., Grimshaw, J.M. and Francis, J.J. (2018), “Changing behaviour ‘more or less’-do
theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical
interpretive synthesis”, Implementation Science. Implementation Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-13,
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0826-6.
Preston, C.C. and Colman, A.M. (2000), “Optimal number of response categories in rating scales:
reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences”, Acta Psychologica,
Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5.
Reeve, J. and Lee, W. (2014), “Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in
classroom motivation”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 527-540, doi: 10.
1037/a0034934.
Ringle, C., Wende, S. and Becker, J. (2015), PLS Algorithm j SmartPLS, SmartPLS 3 (version3.2.1),
SmartPLS gmbH, Boenningstedt.
Rothan, H.A. and Byrareddy, S.N. (2020), “The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) outbreak”, Journal of Autoimmunity, Vol. 109, May, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.102433.
Shereen, M.A., Khan, S., Kazmi, A., Bashir, N. and Siddique, R. (2020), “COVID-19 infection: origin,
transmission, and characteristics of human coronaviruses”, Journal of Advanced Research,
Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 91-98, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.03.005.
Siemens, G. and Tittenberger, P. (2009), Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning, University
of Manitoba, Image Rochester NY, p. 65, available at: [Link]
technologies/cetl/[Link].
Sismondo, S. (2020), “COVID-19”, Social Studies of Science., Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 173-174,doi: 10.1177/
0306312720918403.
Sohrabi, C., Alsafi, Z., O’Neill, N., Khan, M., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C. and Agha, R. (2020), “World
Health Organization declares global emergency: a review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-
19)”, International Journal of Surgery, Vol. 76 April, pp. 71-76, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.02.034.
Stoyanov, S. (2017), “An Analysis of Abraham H. Maslow’s A Theory of Human Motivation”, London:
Macat Library, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 1, pp. 1-98 doi: 10.4324/9781912282517.
Sun, P., Lu, X., Xu, C., Sun, W. and Pan, B. (2020), “Understanding of COVID-19 based on current
evidence”, Journal of Medical Virology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 548-551, doi: 10.1002/jmv.25722.
Velavan, T.P. and Meyer, C.G. (2020), “The COVID-19 epidemic”, Tropical Medicine and International
Health, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 278-280, doi: 10.1111/tmi.13383.
Wentzel, K.R. (1993), “Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: the role of multiple classroom
goals”, The Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 4-20, doi: 10.1177/0272431693013001001.
Zia, A. (2019), “Store brands purchase intentions: an empirical investigation of super markets in Al-
baha, Saudi Arabia”, Shanlax International Journal of Commerce, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 96-101,
available at: [Link]
Zia, A. (2020a), “Assessing the service quality of department store using RSQS an empirical study of
Albaha region, Saudi Arabia”, Rajagiri Management Journal, pp. 19-33. doi: 10.1108/ramj-11-
2019-0023.
Zia, A. (2020b), “Exploring consumers intent to download mobile application on android vs. iOS
platforms in Saudi Arabia”, Pacific Business Review International, Vol. 12 No. 12, June (Early Cite).
Zia, A. and Azam, K.M. (2013), “Unorganized Retail shopping experience in India: an empirical
investigation”, Pacific Business Review International, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 7-16.
Zia, A. and Hashmi, A.R. (2019), “Exploring the factors affecting service quality of zain mobile Factors
subscribers in Albaha, Saudi Arabia”, International Journal of Innovative Technology and
Exploring Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 11. doi: 10.35940/ijitee.J9934.0981119. influencing
Zia, Adil and Khan, A.A. (2018), “Measuring service quality of apparel stores using RSQS an empirical
online classes
study of Albaha region”, Saudi Arabia, Vol. 3085 No. 12, pp. 58-65. in COVID-19

Appendix

Constructs Statements of the questionnaire References

Attitudesl I am willing to attend online classes Kauffman (2015)

I always try to attend all my online classes Gedera et al. (2015)
I like to attend online classes Gold (2001)
Curriculum I understand all the topics taught through online Siemens and Tittenberger (2009)
classes
I am able to complete all the topics of the course Bertin and Narcy-Combes (2007),
through online classes (2012), Bertin et al. (2010)
I can complete all the assignments, homeworks and Hampel and Stickler (2005)
activities prescribed in the course
Motivation I want to complete my course even in COVIT-19 Researcher
pandemic through online classes
I want my course to be completed on time during this Reeve and Lee (2014)
crisis
I always want to support teaching faculties to attend Wentzel (1993), Chandra (2015)
online classes
Technology I have the gadgets (laptop, mobile, tablet, etc.,) to Dratcott (2020)
attend online classes
I am familiar with the Internet. Mcmurtrie (2020)
I am comfortable using online video and audio Clement (2019)
software
Training I am familiar with studying online Dewey (1966)
I do not have any problem in attending online classes Dewey (1966) Table A1.
I can complete the assignments and homework Patey et al. (2018) Questionnaire to
allotted to me by myself measure the impact of
Online Overall I am willing to attend online classes Researcher factors on online
Classes I am confident to attend all my online classes Researcher classes during COVID-
I am willing to cooperate with my faculties in online Researcher 19 pandemic and social
classes distancing

About the author

Dr. Adil Zia is professor of marketing, College of Business Administration, Albaha University, Saudi
Arabia. He has earned Ph.D. in marketing from Aligarh Muslim University, India with more than 13
years of teaching and research experience. He has published research papers in Scopus, ABDC, Emerald,
Web of Science and other reputed indexed journals. His area of interest include, research methods,
marketing management, services marketing, retail management and consumer behavior. Adil Zia can be
contacted at: dradilzia@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]