Usage Intention of e-Learning Systems in Ghanaian Tertiary Institutions: A Case Study of the University for Development Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research is timely important as it could provide the implications for developing strategies to promote the use of e-learning in higher educational institutes. However, I have some concerns regarding the statistic reports.
- First, most cited works are very old. Please include more updated literature.
- Based on my opinion, many independent variables selected to investigate in this study are the factors that potentially affect actual behaviors or the decision to start performing a new behavior/practice. Regarding the situation that this study focused, it is about continuous usage of e-learning systems. This means lecturers already adopted the behaviors. Therefore, the factors that would influence their decision to maintain the performing behaviors should be different. I would like authors to do more literature review, and discuss about this issue. Additionally, please try to present how those selected independent variables could influence lectures' decision to maintain their behaviors.
- I think there are some limitations which should be addressed. For instance, there are some other factors which could effect the continuous usage of e-learning systems among lectures. This is because the model could explain 51.8% of variances in lectures' intention to use e-learning in the future. For instance, lectures may decide to maintain usage of e-learning, if they could experience positive learning outcomes. Students could accomplish positive learning outcomes. Problems experienced by lectures during their usage of e-learning could also hinder their continuous usage.
- In the introduction, I think it is important to emphasize advantages of e-learning, so that, we can see reasons to promote the usage of e-learning. Many scholars also insist that fact to face is more effective for some subjects.
- Please show all questions used for measuring each variable either in the text or in the appendix.
- Authors did not perform a factor analysis to test whether each independent variable could significantly predict lectures' intention, but actually performed a multiple linear regression analysis. Please do not misunderstood. I noticed it was indicated in some parts that a factor analysis was performed to test the effect of independent variables on lectures' intention to use e-learning such as page 13, line 475. Please carefully check the whole paper.
- The test mentioned about figure 5, but I could not see figure 5.
- When carrying out the regressions, the VIF index should be calculated in order to corroborate the absence of collinearity among the variables of the regression.
- In reporting the result of multiple regression model, please also indicate F for change in R2
- In the table 5, please also indicate SE B value.
- I would suggest authors to perform a multiple linear regression again by excluding not significant variables, and see whether the effect of each variable in predicting lecturers' intention would change.
- Regarding the discussion, it is more appropriate to make discussions on how those significant variables could influence lectures' decision to maintain their usage of e-learning. Please explain why perceived usefulness, attitude, perceived trust, and facilitating conditions could influence the continuous usage of e-learning systems among lectures. Previous updated research and literatures should be used to discuss.
Author Response
This research is timely important as it could provide the implications for developing strategies to promote the use of e-learning in higher educational institutes. However, I have some concerns regarding the statistic reports.
1. First, most cited works are very old. Please include more updated literature.
Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have included updated literature to the work.
2. Based on my opinion, many independent variables selected to investigate in this study are the factors that potentially affect actual behaviors or the decision to start performing a new behavior/practice. Regarding the situation that this study focused, it is about continuous usage of e-learning systems. This means lecturers already adopted the behaviors. Therefore, the factors that would influence their decision to maintain the performing behaviors should be different. I would like authors to do more literature review, and discuss about this issue. Additionally, please try to present how those selected independent variables could influence lectures' decision to maintain their behaviors.
Response: thank you for the observation, we have extended the literature on the hypothesis development session of the manuscript.
3. I think there are some limitations which should be addressed. For instance, there are some other factors which could affect the continuous usage of e-learning systems among lectures. This is because the model could explain 51.8% of variances in lectures' intention to use e-learning in the future. For instance, lectures may decide to maintain usage of e-learning, if they could experience positive learning outcomes. Students could accomplish positive learning outcomes. Problems experienced by lectures during their usage of e-learning could also hinder their continuous usage.
Response: Sorry for not adding the limitations to the study, we have now added it to the manuscript.
4. In the introduction, I think it is important to emphasize advantages of e-learning, so that, we can see reasons to promote the usage of e-learning. Many scholars also insist that fact to face is more effective for some subjects.
Response: Thank you for alerting us on the advantages of e-learning, some advantages has been added to the manuscript.
5. Please show all questions used for measuring each variable either in the text or in the appendix.
Response: Sorry for not adding this to the manuscript. We have added to the appendix.
6. Authors did not perform a factor analysis to test whether each independent variable could significantly predict lectures' intention, but actually performed a multiple linear regression analysis. Please do not misunderstood. I noticed it was indicated in some parts that a factor analysis was performed to test the effect of independent variables on lectures' intention to use e-learning such as page 13, line 475. Please carefully check the whole paper.
Response: We apologize for not doing this, we have rerun the analysis and presented them sequentially.
7. The test mentioned about figure 5, but I could not see figure 5
Response: we apologize for this mistake; we have added figure 5 accordingly.
8. When carrying out the regressions, the VIF index should be calculated in order to corroborate the absence of collinearity among the variables of the regression.
Response: Thank you for bringing our attention to this issue. We have rerun the analysis and added the VIF. However, we have eliminated the regression analysis.
9. In reporting the result of multiple regression model, please also indicate F for change in R2
Response: We have indicated in a different table (table 7) the test carried out to ensure the model fit.
10. In the table 5, please also indicate SE B value
Response: In table 5 now table 6, we employed the bootstrapping method in SmartPLS and thus this will not include the SE B values.
11. I would suggest authors to perform a multiple linear regression again by excluding not significant variables, and see whether the effect of each variable in predicting lecturers' intention would change.
Response: We acknowledge this suggestion. However, we found the multiple regression not significant in this study, thus we have replaced this with a cross-factor loading analysis to eliminate all factor not loading well.
12. Regarding the discussion, it is more appropriate to make discussions on how those significant variables could influence lectures' decision to maintain their usage of e-learning. Please explain why perceived usefulness, attitude, perceived trust, and facilitating conditions could influence the continuous usage of e-learning systems among lectures. Previous updated research and literatures should be used to discuss.
Response: Thank you for the observations, we have adding some information on the discussion to how those constructs impart on the continuance use intention.
Reviewer 2 Report
Current and original area of research.
More attention should be paid to the originality and innovation of the research.
Fully correct research sample selection procedure. Only the complexity of the description of the statistical significance of the sample is questionable. It appears from the text that the entire population of N employees at the University under study was included in the survey.
It would be important to shift the statistical emphasis to strengthen the cognitive area of the research.
In the theoretical part, the article is eminently specialized - I suggest simplifying the text in the part describing the methods and their econometric complexity.
Statistical significance of the research does not raise any doubts. However, the cognitive layer of the article is modest. I have a feeling that the authors of the research and the article focused disproportionately on the econometric sphere in relation to the undertaken - very complex - research topic.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Author Response
Current and original area of research.
- More attention should be paid to the originality and innovation of the research
Response: Thank you for the suggestions, we have modified the manuscript.
- Fully correct research sample selection procedure. Only the complexity of the description of the statistical significance of the sample is questionable. It appears from the text that the entire population of N employees at the University under study was included in the survey.
Response: Sorry for not making this clearer. The entire population of staff at the University tops 2,000. But the teaching faculty which is the point of interest are 673 and sampled 372 out of the total teaching staff.
- It would be important to shift the statistical emphasis to strengthen the cognitive area of the research.
Response: Thank you, we are sorry for focusing too much on the statistical aspect of the paper. The improved version balances these issues.
- In the theoretical part, the article is eminently specialized - I suggest simplifying the text in the part describing the methods and their econometric complexity.
Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We have done this.
- Statistical significance of the research does not raise any doubts. However, the cognitive layer of the article is modest. I have a feeling that the authors of the research and the article focused disproportionately on the econometric sphere in relation to the undertaken - very complex - research topic.
Response: Thank you for the thumbs up. We would improve the cognitive layer of the article.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors addressed all my comments in their revisions, and I am satisfied with the revised version.
