Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please check my attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to acknowledge the effort made by the authors to carry out this research conducting the factors which may contribute to the high school athletic class students’ school life adaption. While the paper has great potential and presents interesting results, there are parts of the study that need much more detail.

Introduction section:

Q1:Paragraph1.Defining social media with very Old reference, social media has been changed dramatically within the last 5 years

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Well, even the references seem “out-of-date”, but the nature of the social networking remains the same. Social networking sites provide the platform for people to create their personal profile and enable users to communicate with each other without meeting each other in person. However, we did add updated references to list the most popular social networking service providers and we also added latest article in refer to the description of “social networking”, please see line 45 and 62. Thank you.

Q2: Paragraph2.Very old claim on category. 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We deleted the categorization and put the most-used SNSs sites instead. Following the descriptions of the features providedb y these sites. Thank you.

 

Q3: Paragraph 3. Very old claim to build your argument on.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We re-constructed this paragraph and cited two latest articles relating social media use and education (2019, 2020). Thank you.

Q4: Paragraph 4. Old case study.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We deleted the whole paragraph and re-wrote the paragraph. First we mentioned the impacts of COVID-19 on learning then we identified that foe many hands-on courses, for example, physical education courses, it is quite challenging to put it on-line. Therefore, the aid of extra materials on SNS will certainly help for students’ learning and involvement.

Q5: Paragraph 5. Unsupported claims

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had revised the paragraph accordingly.

 

Q6: Paragraph 6. Using [8,9] wrong references for the claim.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Sorry for the mistakes. We had replaced the right ones with the wrong ones. Thank you.

Methods: The method has been summarized and well explained to the specific points, however it are still missing the selection justification (can be improved)

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had revised the paragraph accordingly.

Results:Table 2 is not captioned or not exist, however it was referenced twice and I could not find it to double check it.

Response: Thank you for the comments. It was our mistake. We re-arrange the tables and they are in correct order to refer to. Thank you.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written but requires certain modifications indicated below:

1 The introduction section needs to be modified. In the starting few sentences, definition had been provided but authors need to give page numbers of the same.

2 Authors need to elaborate on why UTAUT 2 was preferred over other technology adoption models.

3 A separate section on literature review on conceptualization of constructs need to be undertaken. 

4 Data analysis is OK but inplications of the study need to be highlighted.

 

Author Response

The manuscript is well written but requires certain modifications indicated below:

1 The introduction section needs to be modified. In the starting few sentences, definition had been provided but authors need to give page numbers of the same.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had revised them accordingly.

2 Authors need to elaborate on why UTAUT 2 was preferred over other technology adoption models.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had explained while TAM had good explanatory power of people’s technology intendion but UTAUT adopt broader view not solely from psychological and sociological perspectives alone and UTAUT explained better than TAM. Later, UTAUT2 was developed based on UTAUT to be applied in a broader context. 

3 A separate section on literature review on conceptualization of constructs need to be undertaken. 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had added description in Method section. Basically, the study adopted UTAUT2 as research framework.

4 Data analysis is OK but implications of the study need to be highlighted.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had highlighted the implications in the recommendation section. Thank you.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper seeks to examine the application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model II (UTAUT2) in the context of undergraduate physical education students in Taiwan.
physical education students in Taiwan.   I would like to congratulate the authors for producing a solid paper that contributes to the scientific literature. However, here are a few comments to be taken into account to improve the paper.

Abstract

• The abstract is correct and provides a brief description of the context, the proposed research and the results obtained.

Measurement

• Indicate whether it was an e-questionnaire or a paper questionnaire. Also indicate how the instrument was sent to the sample.

Data analysis

• Indicate whether any test was performed to analyze the normal distribution or not of the data (Kolmogorov, Shapiro Wilk, etc.).

Results

It is suggested to include a table that characterizes the sample and makes it more attractive to understand the data. In addition, it is suggested to include this section in participants and not in results.

I consider that the rest of the sections are very well defined and easy to understand. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper seeks to examine the application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model II (UTAUT2) in the context of undergraduate physical education students in Taiwan.   I would like to congratulate the authors for producing a solid paper that contributes to the scientific literature. However, here are a few comments to be taken into account to improve the paper.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Abstract

• The abstract is correct and provides a brief description of the context, the proposed research and the results obtained.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

 

Measurement

• Indicate whether it was an e-questionnaire or a paper questionnaire. Also indicate how the instrument was sent to the sample.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had described how the questionaires were distributed in section 2.1. Basically, we invited 760 participants who studied in the PE departments from universities in Taiwan. Using Stratified quota sampling method, 10 students (five males and five females) in each grade were selected with a total of 40 students from each university. So far, we still go to campus for studying.

 Data analysis

• Indicate whether any test was performed to analyze the normal distribution or not of the data (Kolmogorov, Shapiro Wilk, etc.).

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Basically, PLS algorithm is distribution free. Therefore, we didn’t run normally test.

Results

It is suggested to include a table that characterizes the sample and makes it more attractive to understand the data. In addition, it is suggested to include this section in participants and not in results.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We had added Table 1 to list the descriptive statistics. Thank you.

I consider that the rest of the sections are very well defined and easy to understand. 

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you, the paper looks much way better. I wish you all the best for our future research and work. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the changes done by authors. I accept the manuscript in present form.