Predictors Influencing Urban and Rural Area students to Use Tablet Computers as Learning Tools: Combination of UTAUT and TTF Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Topic:

The topic is interesting and up-to-date.

Approach:

The models applied are validated and used by prior authors in similar research contexts.

This statement is however unacceptable: "Many studies in the literature do not include moderator variables in the objective model, especially in education because they show that moderators have no effect" -> how one can show moderators have no effect if one is not using them?

Data gathering:

More information is needed regarding how the respondents were exactly selected.

Were the instructors choosing them? On what merits? 

Also, outside of China, we do not know what "normal universities" are - please explain this term for general audience or avoid it. 

Results:

I have not verified the calculations, yet the procedure that was followed seems adequate.

Discussion:

I am a bit disappointed with this part.

I'd expect there: (a) interpretation of the results, (b) comparison to other studies, (c) possibly, speculation of the cause of differences.

What we get is mostly (a), but with too much ungrounded speculation, e.g.:

"...ICT development is quite slow [21], [22]. Therefore, university students in rural areas consider it enjoyable to use a tablet computer as a learning tool"

But your study did not prove or even investigate the relationship between ICT development speed and what students consider as enjoyable!

Regarding (b) there is literally no discussion of prior work, like: our results show X, but Y's results show Z - or, our results show X, like Y's results. 

I see that you argue there were no prior studies exactly like yours, but there is plenty of studies investigating other educational tools using the same or similar models, e.g.: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-022-11116-2, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-020-10157-9, https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/7178 or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X21002621.

You titled your section "Discussion and Implication" - that's good, but there's not much written about implications of your results.

What have you revealed, actually? What can we change in education having this knowledge? 

Language:

the paper is generally well written and easy to read, but some errors have been spotted:

Tablets computers => Tablet computers

There is also a discrepancy in notation of different models ("technology acceptance model and UTAUT" - either both should be spelled out or written using acronyms).

Prepositions in names/titles should not be uppercased (Of, To -->> of, to) [e.g., Tab. 5]

Some sentences should be rearranged as they are difficult to comprehend, e.g.:

"that seven and nine of 14 hypotheses are supported for rural and urban area samples, respectively"

Also, the style could be improved, e.g.: ...in rural areas. In rural areas... -->> ...in rural areas, where...

Technical remarks:

there are some technical faults in the paper, e.g., lowercase at the beginning of the abstract, different font size in rows 39-74, Chinese letters in table 1, unnecessary grid in fig. 2 and 3.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Predictors Influencing Urban and Rural Area students to Use Tablet Computers as Learning Tools: Combination of UTAUT and TTF Models”  (ID: sustainability-1786740). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked as yellow in the paper. The main correction in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. response to comment: (this statement is however unacceptable: "Many studies in the literature do not include moderator variables in the objective model, especially in education because they show that moderators have no effect" -> how one can show moderators have no effect if one is not using them?)

Response: We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript, we have rewritten this sentence.

2. response to comment: (More information is needed regarding how the respondents were exactly selected. Were the instructors choosing them? On what merits? )

Response: It is really true as reviewers suggested that we need to explain how the respondents were exactly selected. We have explain more in line  307 - 331

3. response to comment: (Also, outside of China, we do not know what "normal universities" are - please explain this term for general audience or avoid it.)

Response: according to reviewer comment, we have added the explanation aobut normal university in data collection, line 306-309.

4. response to comment: ("...ICT development is quite slow [21], [22]. Therefore, university students in rural areas consider it enjoyable to use a tablet computer as a learning tool"

But your study did not prove or even investigate the relationship between ICT development speed and what students consider as enjoyable!.)

Response: special thanks for critical comments and we sorry if our sentences is too strong, we have re-written the sentences to make it clear.

5. response to comment: Regarding (b) there is literally no discussion of prior work, like: our results show X, but Y's results show Z - or, our results show X, like Y's results.)

Response: a deeper explanation about the findings and discussion has been added in line 495 – 530. We are very happy to listen input for changes in the quality of the paper for the better quality of manuscript.

6. response to comment: (I see that you argue there were no prior studies exactly like yours, but there is plenty of studies investigating other educational tools using the same or similar models, e.g.: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-022-11116-2 , https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-020-10157-9 , https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/7178 or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X21002621 . )

Response: special thanks for critical comments and we sorry if our sentences is too strong. We just want to explain that the literature on the influence of the TTF model, geographical location, and differences in university students in the village and the city on the use of tablet computers for learning tools still limited.

Besides we have cited this similar model for support our study.

7. response to comment: (You titled your section "Discussion and Implication" - that's good, but there's not much written about implications of your results. What have you revealed, actually? What can we change in education having this knowledge?)

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have added more explanation about how can we change in education having this knowledge in line 497 – 530.

8. response to comment: (the paper is generally well written and easy to read, but some errors have been spotted:

 Tablets computers => Tablet computers

 There is also a discrepancy in notation of different models ("technology acceptance model and UTAUT" - either both should be spelled out or written using acronyms).

 Prepositions in names/titles should not be uppercased (Of, To -->> of, to) [e.g., Tab. 5]

 Some sentences should be rearranged as they are difficult to comprehend, e.g.:

"that seven and nine of 14 hypotheses are supported for rural and urban area samples, respectively"

 Also, the style could be improved, e.g.: ...in rural areas. In rural areas... -->> ...in rural areas, where...)

Response: We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript. We worked on the manuscript for a long time and the repeated addition and removal of sentences and sections obviously led to poor readability. Our manuscript has been reviewed by a colleague and revised to improve readability.

9. response to comment: (there are some technical faults in the paper, e.g., lowercase at the beginning of the abstract, different font size in rows 39-74, Chinese letters in table 1, unnecessary grid in fig. 2 and 3.)

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have double checked some technical faults in the paper

Reviewer 2 Report

1.This study is useful to understand the actual behavior to use tablet computers as learning tools. 

2. Although it integrates different information theories as the research framework of the survey, its contribution to academic theory and practical management implications are still relatively weak.

Author Response

response to comment: (Although it integrates different information theories as the research framework of the survey, its contribution to academic theory and practical management implications are still relatively weak.)

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have added the explanation about theory and practical management implications in Contribution and Implication, line 497 – 530.

Reviewer 3 Report

Wang et al studied the factors that govern the intention and actual use of digital devices such as tablets in urban and rural areas of China. Though a well curated dataset they conclude that in rural areas, hedonic motivation is the driving factor while in the urban areas habit is the driving factor for the use of tablet for learning; however, task technology fit is common between both the areas. Overall, this study has a lot of merits and warrants publication in this journal. I have some doubts which may be nice to be cleared. 

(1) Were the devices with or without internet? Can the authors make it clear if the tablets were used for explicitly note taking, organization of courses etc. or were they used largely for internet use too. Internet can largely influence the use of tablets in rural areas which can be the cause of hedonic motivation.

(2) Demographic data are skewed towards social majors and females. Can the authors comment on this and suggest if a normalization is required to comment on the overall demography. I know they mentioned about it in the limitations, but it will be good to write 1-2 paragraphs on the effects of not having the similar number of students across age, gender, and majors. 

Author Response

1. response to comment: (Were the devices with or without internet? Can the authors make it clear if the tablets were used for explicitly note taking, organization of courses etc. or were they used largely for internet use too. Internet can largely influence the use of tablets in rural areas which can be the cause of hedonic motivation.)

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have added the explanation that The tablet computers used by normal university students have an internet connection to facilitate uploading learning to storage drives. Moreover, students use tablet computers to take online classes, MOOC, or SPOC in line 318-322.

2. response to comment: (Demographic data are skewed towards social majors and females. Can the authors comment on this and suggest if a normalization is required to comment on the overall demography. I know they mentioned about it in the limitations, but it will be good to write 1-2 paragraphs on the effects of not having the similar number of students across age, gender, and majors. )

Response: Special thanks for this critical comment. we realize the importance of data normality in a study. However, this respondent is clearly a normal university, where we know that the number of female teacher candidates is more than male. and this is an open secret. More detail about explanation already explain in method section line 330-336. We will very happy to edit the text further based on helpful comments from the reviewers,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for your corrections. Unfortunately, there are still a few points that you have missed:

Ad. Response: It is really true as reviewers suggested that we need to explain how the respondents were exactly selected. We have explain more in line 307 - 331

No, you have not. You explained which schools you selected but the question remains who selected the respondents in these schools? 

Were they all students at those schools (I guess not), chosen randomly by you (how?), picked by school management (on what merits?), or volunteered freely?

Ad. Response: special thanks for critical comments and we sorry if our sentences is too strong. We just want to explain that the literature on the influence of the TTF model, geographical location, and differences in university students in the village and the city on the use of tablet computers for learning tools still limited.

They could be, but still your work needs the discussion of prior work. If there are no similarities, at least explain the differences of what you did vs. what the prior researchers did. I still can see just the two references you have already had before the previous round of review, and you have not even used the sources I recommended (these were just exemplary, as I said there were many more).

Ad. Response: We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript. We worked on the manuscript for a long time and the repeated addition and removal of sentences and sections obviously led to poor readability. Our manuscript has been reviewed by a colleague and revised to improve readability.

But you still have not corrected even the errors I pointed to, e.g. "in rural areas. In rural areas" (you should not repeat the same phrase in two neighboring sentences) - and these were just examples.

Ad. Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have double checked some technical faults in the paper

Probably, but new errors have been introduced, e.g., in Table 1, "More than 5 jam" (what was that supposed to mean?)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and  comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked as yellow in the paper. The main correction in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

1. response to comment: who selected the respondents in these schools?

Response: dear reviewer, the students are asked to volunteer to fill in the questionnaire. We have explained in line 312 -313

2. response to comment: your work needs the discussion of prior work. If there are no similarities, at least explain the differences of what you did vs. what the prior researchers did. I still can see just the two references you have already had before the previous round of review, and you have not even used the sources I recommended

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We indeed should to more explain the differences of what you did vs. what the prior researchers did. More explanation in hypothesis testing section, line 418 – 434 was added.

This finding supports previous studies that teachers pay more attention to whether technology-based learning media increase teaching effectiveness. Wijnen [80], found that primary school teachers analyzed whether technology could stimulate elementary students' higher-order thinking skills. Also, Nikolopoulou [47] showed that the performance expectations of elementary and junior high school teachers significantly affect behavioral intentions to use mobile internet. Alturki [81] discovered that perceived usefulness significantly impacts behavioral intentions to use mobile learning in universities. Additionally, several studies have revealed that perceived usefulness affects the use of MOOC for sustainable learning [81]–[83].

Previous studies have shown that PEU significantly influences behavioral intention to use technology-based learning media [41], [84]–[86]. In contrast, hypothesis 2 test results in this study showed that PEU does not affect BI for rural and urban students (p > 0.05). This finding is consistent with previous studies that PEU did not significantly affect the use of digital mathematics textbooks in Indonesia [75].

 SN also did not affect the intention of rural and urban area university students to use tablet computers as learning tools, meaning that Hypothesis 3 was rejected (p > 0.05). timothy [87] also found that SN did not significantly affect behavior intention to use interactive whiteboards.

Besides, we again have adjusted the text to be clearer.

Once again, thank you very much for the comments and suggestions.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the corrections. I found no new issues.