Does Teachers’ Intention Translate to Actual Usage? Investigating the Predictors of K-12 Teachers’ Usage of Open Educational Resources in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article brings an interesting insight into OER which are being used in China. The study reveals interesting findings demonstrated on a relevant research sample. The methods used are described properly and the data analysis is clear. 

The language of the study needs reconsideration, there are a few minor language lapses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe this study addresses an important issue in a timely manner. I really appreciate the authors' efforts to more closely examine the quality issue by incorporating it into the analysis. That said, there are a few very critical issues that need to be seriously addressed before this manuscript could be considered for publication. Below I outline my concerns and suggestions:

1. The most crucial issue, or in other words, the greatest contribution of the study, lies in the inclusion of the "quality of OER" in the analysis. Thus, this construct should be better focused throughout the paper, particularly in the introduction and conceptual framework sections. The nature and features of the quality of OER should be elaborated, which then informs more directly the choice of the measurement that evaluated participants' perceptions of the quality of OER. Besides, it should also be elaborated how this construct may impact, once included in the analysis, the whole system involving all of the three types of variables.

2. Ethical considerations in the process of participant recruitment have not been clearly illustrated. This leaves the reader a kind of impression that, quite likely, the participants may have been forced to participate and fill in the questionnaire, because the institution that administered the survey seemed to be associated with the government.

3. Discussion can, similarly, further highlight the importance of the quality of OER within the three-dimension framework. How the inclusion of this contruct reshapes the dynamics involved in the system may need to be further analysed and interpreted.

4. There are a huge number of stylistic infelicities. The authors do need to more carefully and professionally proofread the manuscript. There are too many awkward sentences and clauses, and there is even a grammatical error in the description of a questionnaire survey (Table 3).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is not clear enough and is not presented in an appropriate and well-structured way for the field. References cited are not primarily recent publications. The manuscript is not scientifically sound enough to test the hypothesis. The review is not exhaustive. The question is not original and new. The results do not improve current knowledge. The results are not significant enough. In the article, the data and analyzes are not properly presented. The highest standards of presentation of results have not been used. Methods, instruments, software and reagents are not described in sufficient detail. There is no general benefit from publishing this work. It is unclear how this work will advance current knowledge. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the authors have addressed most of my concerns, and this manuscript has been much improved. As to the language issues, I personally do not think they should be dealt with after acceptance of a paper. Rather they should be part of the preconditions for an accept decision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The structure of the manuscript has been improved and is presented in a clearer and more relevant way for the field.

Citing a good balance of earlier and more recent publications to provide a more holistic view of the development of the field is a good idea, but not enough.

The authors' answer is long enough and comprehensive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf