University Accounting Students and Faculty Members Using the Blackboard Platform during COVID-19; Proposed Modification of the UTAUT Model and an Empirical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written and structured. However, the conclusion section is too vague and not very concise. 

The authors should make a more concise abstraction on the contribution of the paper. They talk about findings and results at the same time, which is what this paper shows results or suggests findings. 

The data analysis technique is presented from an exploratory point of view, but the variables and the presentation of the theory seem more confirmatory, what kind of work is this? Could you please indicate more on this issue?

The limitations of the work are not clear. The generalization of the results to other accounting students is not clear either. Would there be differences in other types of subjects (Marketing, Engineering, Math? Within accounting? Management accounting and financial accounting would have the same result? Does the cultural aspect play any role in the findings or results? These questions I think would be relevant to include in the last two sections of the paper.

Author Response

We would like to thank you so much for complimenting us on the work that was done in the paper and how it is structured.

Thank you. We have added to the abstract our contribution.

Regarding the second comment we appreciate your inquiry, however, the researchers did not present the data analysis technique from an exploratory point of view.

The researchers performed using structural equation modelling (SEM); it is an advanced, sophisticated and more accurate technique compared to multiple regression analysis r. The SEM of the survey data involves two foremost phases that consist of a confirmatory factor (CFA) analysis and a secondly path analysis. In a confirmatory factor analysis, the measurement framework is examined for validity by utilising three exams:

• Goodness of fit indices, 2) convergent and 3) discriminant validity tests. In a path analysis, a structural model is being examined for the dependency relationship between the group of independent factors with the dependent factor on the other side .

Regarding the last comment, the limitation of the study has been emphasised and made clearer.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

First of all, congratulations on the research presented in the article.

The use of digital platforms was widespread during the pandemic period, and this kind of research is significant. In my opinion, your article is fundamental to know more about the students' reactions and other stakeholders.

I will suggest some minor improvements, such as correcting some errors and text formation:

• Line 36: "examle"
• Line 111: "awebsite"
• In the sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 misses the bold letters
• The H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, have in duplicate the word "to".

The weakest point of the article is the connection to sustainability. In my opinion, it is not clear from the article the reason or reasons why the use of blackboard contributes to increased sustainability.

Another point that should be improved is the inclusion of limitations on conclusions.

Best regards

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer congratulating us on the research presented in the article

Regarding the first comment, We would like to thank the reviewer so much for complimenting us and mentioning that this research is significant and regarding your opining we suggested as a future direction for research should be conducted.

• Thank you so much for the second comment, we considered your comments and the Line 36 and Line 111, In the sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9  and lastly the H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9,. have been revised

Thank you for raising this critical point in third comment. We have added the sustainability context in the abstract as well as in Literature Review.

Regarding the last comment,  the Limitation on the conclusions has been improved and made clear as suggested 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript „University accounting students and faculty members using the Blackboard platform during COVID-19. Proposed modification of the UTAUT model and an empirical study” is well written, has a logical structure and seems to have meaningful input into the practice. However, there are some concerns that have to be considered by authors:

1) Please, highlight what is the connection between the topic of your paper and sustainability

2) Please, revise the title – isn’t it too long?

3) In the title and throughout the whole paper you pay attention of the readers that this research was made for accounting students and faculty members. I understand that you were making research there, where you are working and where you have the access to the people to make the survey. However, please, provide some information regarding the specifics of teaching accointing students. What is its difference from teaching engineering students or social sciences students?

4) Please, highlight the scientific novelty of your research. For now it is stated that “The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) modelwas modified by adding four new variables”. How does your model differ from the designs of S. Featherman, P.A. Pavel (2003); L. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Liu (2005); Al Saedi and others (2020); Venkatesh et al. (2003); Lai et al. (2012); Maillet et al. (2015); Delaunay and McLean (2016); Shorfuzzaman and Alhussein (2016); Liu (2008); Janvrin, Beerstaker & Lowe (2009)?

5) Please, correct references according to the MDPI references format. For example, references in Table 1 should be cited by numbers in square brackets: [ ], not by surnames with the year as it is now

6) Please, check if in the Figure 1 in the box “Voluntariness of” is not missed any word

7) Despite the large number of references, more attention can be paid to the difference between research that was conducted before COVID, when e-learning was not so widespread, and research during COVID. You can use these links to check pre-COVID research on e-learning and blended learning:

1) Makarova, I. et al. Digitalization of Engineering Education: From E-Learning to Smart Education. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 2019, 47, pp. 32–41

2) Poondej, C., Lerdpornkulrat, T. Gamification in E-learning: A moodle implementation and its effect on student engagement and performance  2019  Interactive Technology and Smart Education 17(1), pp. 56-66

3) Makarova, I. et al. Improving the quality of engineering education by developing the system of increasing students’ motivation. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2018, 716, pp. 150–161

4) Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191-210.

Thank you for your research and good luck in the future.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer so much for complimenting us on the work that was done in the paper and how it is structured.

We have introduced the link in the abstract as well as under Literature review ( first section)

 We have expanded on the justification in the second last paragraph of introduction.

The original contribution is highlighted in the revised abstract.

 The references in table 1 have been revised according the MDPI references format.

The missed word has been added.

Regarding the last comment, Firstly, we would like to thank you for the recommended references to used them in the paper. We have used some references related to the research on e-learning and blended learning.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf