Understanding Innovation Resistance on the Use of a New Learning Management System (LMS)

Author Comments:

We would like to give our thanks to the reviewers who have provided pointed and appropriate comments to make this manuscript better. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We vigorously revised the whole manuscript (marked in red). We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.

One notable issue is the brief bibliography, which fails to comprehensively cover the subject of resistance to technology and its sources. It is essential for the authors to expand their literature review to include a broader range of relevant sources. By doing so, they can provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the existing knowledge and research in this area.

ð  Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have now expanded our literature review to include a broader range of relevant reference on technology acceptance and innovation resistance.

The article presents concepts such as affective and cognitive barriers, as well as functional barriers like Usage barrier, Value barrier, and Tradition barrier. However, these concepts are not adequately defined within the article. It is crucial for the authors to provide clear and precise definitions of these concepts, along with relevant theoretical frameworks, to ensure a solid foundation for their research.

ð  We agree that clear and precise definitions of concepts such as affective and cognitive barriers, as well as functional barriers (usage barrier, value barrier, and tradition barrier) are essential for the readers' understanding. In response to this, we have provided detailed explanations of these concepts, along with relevant theoretical frameworks in the introduction section.

The article does not sufficiently present the results of existing research on the investigated concepts. To strengthen their study, the authors should provide a thorough overview of previous research, highlighting key findings and insights. This will allow readers to understand the broader context and significance of their own study.

ð  To better contextualize our study, we have included a thorough overview of previous research in the literature review, highlighting key findings and insights related to innovation resistance in the context of implementing new LMS technologies.

The results section of the article heavily focuses on presenting statistics and numerical data, neglecting the interpretation of these results and their implications for educational practice. It is crucial for the authors to provide a more balanced approach by offering thoughtful interpretations of the findings and discussing their practical implications. This will help readers understand the real-world implications of the study's results.

ð  Regarding the results section, we understand the need for a balanced approach. We have revised the section to not only present statistics and numerical data but also offer thoughtful interpretations of the findings and their practical implications for educational practice. This will help readers grasp the significance of our research in real-world scenarios.

To streamline the article's main content, some of the tables with detailed results could be moved to appendices. By including only the results that directly relate to the stated research objectives, the authors can enhance the clarity and focus of their paper.

ð  We have taken your suggestion into account and moved some of the detailed result tables to appendices (Table 6.⇒Table A1., Table 7.⇒Table A2., Table 8.⇒Table A3.), keeping the main content streamlined and focused on the research objectives

To enhance the practical value of their research, the authors should offer practical recommendations or interventions that can help mitigate the identified barriers. Providing actionable strategies will be beneficial to educators and practitioners looking to implement new LMS technologies effectively.

ð  To enhance the practical value of our research, we have included a section dedicated to practical recommendations and interventions to mitigate the identified barriers. These actionable strategies will be beneficial to educators and practitioners looking to effectively implement new LMS technologies.

Author Comments:

We would like to give our thanks to the reviewers who have provided pointed and appropriate comments to make this manuscript better. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We vigorously revised the whole manuscript (marked in red). We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.

It is necessary that the article have related to sustainability and sustainable development. Currently, these topics are not covered in the submitted manuscript.  

Sustainable Learning refers to educational practices that contribute to a continually evolving, healthy learning ecosystem in which knowledge is co-created and shared in a community.

ð We appreciate your comment on sustainability and sustainable development. While our current study focuses on innovation resistance and the adoption of a new LMS in a university setting, we understand the importance of sustainability in education. Therefore, we have considered and mentioned incorporating aspects of sustainable learning in future research to contribute to a continually evolving, healthy learning ecosystem in the manuscript.

Author Comments:

We would like to give our thanks to the reviewers who have provided pointed and appropriate comments to make this manuscript better. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We vigorously revised the whole manuscript (marked in red). We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.

The aim of the article is clear, introduction is theoretically grounded, research metodology and the processs of the research is well desribed. The discussion and results correpond to the the reserch findings. It would be reccomended to expand disccusion by linking it to other similar studies and authors. 

ð Thank you for your positive feedback on the clarity of our aim, theoretical grounding, research methodology, and the description of the research process. We have worked on expanding the discussion section by linking our findings to other similar studies and authors, thus providing a more comprehensive perspective on the topic.

Author Comments:

We would like to give our thanks to the reviewers who have provided pointed and appropriate comments to make this manuscript better. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We vigorously revised the whole manuscript (marked in red). We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.

Rephrase sentence on line 118.

In response to your remark, we rewrote the sentence “Third, the risk barrier was defined as the degree to which the LMS recognized that it had risk factorswas recognized to have risk factors.” as follows.

è  “Third, the risk barrier was defined as the degree to which the LMS was recognized to have risk factors.”

Rephrase line 119.

We rephrased the sentence “The risk barrier was a total ofThere were three 3 questions related to the risk barrier, and the instrument obtained Cronbach's alpha of .855.” as follows.

è  “There were three questions related to the risk barrier, and the instrument obtained Cronbach's alpha of .855.”

Rephrase sentence on lines 122-123.

We revised the sentence “There were three questions related to the traditional barrier was a total of 3 questions and the value of the Cronbach's alpha is found to be .798.” as follows.

è  “There were three questions related to the traditional barrier and the value of the Cronbach's alpha is found to be .798.

Rephrase line 270.

We revised the sentence “This study emphasizes that various strategies may be needed to overcome various the differing types of innovation barriers and inertia related to innovation resistance.” as follows.

è  “This study emphasizes that various strategies may be needed to overcome the differing types of innovation barriers and inertia related to innovation resistance.

Line 277: insert a space between "2" and "Innovation ...".

We changed “2Innovation” to “2 Innovation” by inserting a space between "2" and "Innovation”.

Line 278: insert a space between "4" and "Innovation ...".

We changed “2Innovation” to “2 Innovation” by inserting a space between "2" and "Innovation”.

Author Comments:

We would like to give our thanks to the reviewers who have provided pointed and appropriate comments to make this manuscript better. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We vigorously revised the whole manuscript (marked in red). We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.

Asking the question as the authors do is interesting. It seems to me however that it is necessary to develop a presentation of the TAM in relation to which the article proposes an alternative vision.

ð Thank you for your feedback. We agree that providing a clearer presentation of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and its relationship to our proposed alternative vision will enhance the article's overall coherence and understanding. In the revised version, we dedicated a section to discuss TAM and its relevance to our study. We also highlighted how our approach differs from TAM and how it addresses the gaps in existing research on innovation resistance in the context of adopting a new LMS.

From the point of view of the approach, there are a lot of CFA results tables, but ultimately quite a few exploitation and interpretation proposals confronted with similar research in connection with the acceptance of change processes.

ð Regarding the CFA results tables, we acknowledge that a balanced approach is needed to ensure that the paper offers sufficient exploitation and interpretation of the findings. We provided more detailed interpretations of the CFA results and compare them with similar research on change acceptance processes. This will help readers understand the implications of our study and how it contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

Author Comments:

We would like to give our thanks to the reviewers who have provided pointed and appropriate comments to make this manuscript better. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We vigorously revised the whole manuscript (marked in red). We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.

Firstly, there is inadequate engagement with the relevant literature. This led the paper to be one sided, lacking critical rigour. Moreover, there appears to be an implied research gap but this is not clearly articulated. This led to a weak statement related to the contribution to scholarship. 

We appreciate your review and constructive feedback. We understand the importance of engaging with relevant literature and providing a balanced perspective on the topic. In the revised version, we thoroughly addressed this concern by expanding our literature review and critically evaluating the existing research on innovation resistance, innovation barriers, and inertia related to LMS adoption. We clearly articulated the research gap and highlight our contribution to scholarship more explicitly.

To add to the lack of clarity or direction of the paper, a guiding research question is missing. Hypotheses are not listed either, leading to a paper deficient of a guiding conceptual framework driving the study.

To address the lack of clarity and direction, we included a guiding the following research questions in the introduction.

è  “1. What sub-variables of innovation resistance are perceived by users in the context of a university adopting a new LMS? 2. How can users be categorized based on their perception of innovation resistance for using a new LMS? 3. What are the characteristics of demographics and support.”

The methods section is also weak lacking critical information about the sample and ethics clearance.

Regarding the methods section, we provided additional information about the sample and ethics clearance, ensuring transparency and rigor in our research design.

The findings section is relatively adequate but lacks significance in view of the omissions listed above.

In the findings section, we further highlighted the significance of the results in the context of our research objectives and the proposed alternative vision.

The discussion is weak due to the lack of critical outlook in the introduction and literature review. Limitations ought to be listed while a conclusion should be added.

To strengthen the discussion section, we incorporated a critical outlook by revisiting and enhancing the introduction and literature review. We will also include a section on limitations and conclude the paper more effectively.

Some comments are added to the attached PDF.

We have carefully reviewed the comments provided in the attached PDF and addressed each of them in the revised version of the article. Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback, and we are committed to improving the quality of the paper based on your recommendations.