Predicting the Intention to Use Learning Analytics for Academic Advising in Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Kindly refer to the attached review comments file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have incorporated the comments in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have conducted a comprehensive assessment of your manuscript and would like to provide a detailed critique, which encompasses the following key points:
1. Abstract: While your abstract adequately covers most essential elements, I recommend making the following additions:
a) Briefly present the research design and sampling method.
b) Specify the percentage of female and male participants.
c) Provide a concise overview of the implementation procedures.
2. Introduction: The introduction section requires substantial improvement in the following aspects:
a) Restructure the paragraphs to enhance coherence and engagement. Paragraphs 1 and 2 primarily offer descriptive content, while paragraph 3 lacks direct articulation of the research problem. To address this, consider reorganizing these paragraphs to emphasize the development of the research area, existing research gaps, and unexplored areas. Explain how your study intends to address these gaps and underscore the urgency of your research. Employ comparative analysis of previous studies, highlighting the significance of your work. Avoid relying solely on descriptive content, and instead, compare and contradict the findings of previous studies to construct a strong foundation for your study.
b) Summarize the hypotheses briefly to establish connections between the introduction and literature review (may be towards the end of the introduction)
c) Include a concise discussion on the intentions of users regarding the utilization of learning analytics dashboards for academic advising. Begin by delineating various applications of learning analytics dashboards in higher education before delving into their specific relevance to academic advising.
3. Literature Review: The literature review section necessitates significant revisions. The title focuses on the use of learning analytics dashboards for academic advising, yet this topic is scarcely addressed. To rectify this, consider the following:
a) Create two distinct sub-sections. The first should provide an encompassing overview of learning analytics dashboards, encompassing their historical context, definition, and various applications within higher education. The second sub-section should delve into the specific application of learning analytics dashboards for academic advising, drawing insights from prior studies in this domain. Then, provide the details. This would include writing new reviews in line with those sub-sections.
4. Methodology: The methodology section, particularly the 'Model Development,' requires clarification. If no actual models were developed, consider rephrasing it as follows:
a) Transform 'Model Development' into a 'Conceptual Framework' and place it within the literature review section. Exclude the hypotheses from this section and focus solely on elucidating the conceptual framework employed.
b) Introduce a new sub-section, 'The Study,' wherein you can briefly synthesize earlier points, elucidate the research gap, and expound upon the research objectives. Additionally, incorporate the paragraphs concerning the use of learning analytics dashboards in Malaysian higher education into this sub-section, and present all hypotheses therein.
5. Method Section: The method section necessitates significant restructuring:
a) Establish a new sub-section titled 'Research Design' and comprehensively explain the chosen research design.
b) Introduce a sub-section named 'Research Context and Participant' to elaborate on the research context, participants, and the applied sampling method.
c) Create a sub-section labeled 'Research Instruments' to provide a detailed account of the research instruments employed.
d) Designate a sub-section named 'Data Collection and Analysis' to elucidate the respective processes.
Overall, two salient observations emerge from your manuscript. Firstly, your primary research focus pertains to the utilization of learning analytics dashboards for academic advising within higher education. However, the manuscript contains extensive discussions on technology and learning analytics, veering away from its intended focus, thereby resulting in a lack of clarity and coherence. Secondly, your study primarily takes the form of a straightforward survey research endeavor. It is important to note that your study does not involve the creation or implementation of any novel models or technological systems. While it is conceivable that the term "model development" alludes to statistical models, this terminology can be misleading for readers. To address these concerns effectively, it is advisable to engage with existing literature in your field, particularly studies employing similar research designs, in order to glean insights and adapt established structural frameworks that enhance the clarity and overall impact of your work.
In its current form, this manuscript requires major revisions.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Minor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
We have incorporated the comments in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study focuses on Learning Analytics (LA) in the context of education technology. This research is interesting as it highlights that while LA has the potential to improve teaching and learning outcomes, its adoption remains limited, and users often struggle with its effective utilization.
The study develops and validates a model for users' intention to use LA dashboards, incorporating elements from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, personal innovativeness, service quality, and information quality.
Data was collected from 209 Malaysian academic staff and university students, primarily through social networking platforms.
The research employs statistical analysis techniques to examine the relationships among the model's constructs. Graphics are very well presented and help qualify the findings.
The findings indicate that information quality, social influence, performance expectancy, and system quality positively influence the intention to use LA. Personal innovativeness also has both direct and indirect positive effects on intention, mediated by performance expectancy.
The study suggests that these insights can benefit educational institutions, policymakers, and service providers in promoting the adoption and usage of LA. It also discusses how developed economies are leading in the adoption of LA technologies to enhance teaching and learning. However, the study acknowledges some limitations, including its focus on selected universities in Malaysia and suggests potential areas for future research.
Overall, this article is well written, with academic soundness. It is an interesting contribution to the adoption of Learning analytics in Education.
Suggestions for improvement
Perhaps making the case of LA in Sustainable Education a little clearer might make the article fit better. A line in the abstract and in the introduction and conclusions might be sufficient. The term 'sustainability' is not mentioned even once.
I have only spotted one minor typo, which is Learninganalytics, a term that should be separated in two words.
Thanks for this contribution to the journal of Sustainability.
Author Response
We have incorporated the comments in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In my modest opinion, the manuscript entitled “Users’ Intention to Use Learning Analytics Dashboards for Academic Advising in Malaysian Higher Education” may offer a noteworthy contribution to the human factor literature if a few concerns are adequately addressed. The following are the main concerns:
First and foremost, the content of the abstract needs to be logically organized. At this time, it does not allow the average reader to understand how the purpose of the study fits the methodology adopted by the authors. I would advise the authors to organize the abstract by considering the following conceptual categories: purpose of the study, rationale, method, results, and implications and/or applications of the results of the study. I would also encourage the authors to consider that the abstract is written to capture the attention of a broad audience of readers. Thus, clarity and simplicity are a must.
Second, the literature review needs to broadly offer a rationale for the study so that the motivation behind the study is self-evident. Namely, what have other researchers found that answers the research question? What have other researchers failed to address or consider?
Third, as currently stated, the hypotheses are not easy to follow. The rationale of each hypothesis is also not very transparent. I would encourage the authors to review the empirical evidence supporting each hypothesis and present it concisely.
Fourth, in the method section, the following statement is questionable: “Thus, the sample size of 209 has exceeded the recommended 261 minimum sample size and is highly adequate to validate the developed model”. The sample size may be adequate if it is considered as a whole. If demographic characteristics are considered, such as technical skills, or gender, predictions may be made for individual differences within the overall sample. Then, the samples may be less than ideal. Alternatively, what is the authors’ rationale for ignoring demographic characteristics as potentially related to users’ intentions?
Fifth, in the method section, the response rate needs to be reported.
Sixth, a copy of the survey may need to be provided.
Seventh, the presentation of the results needs to be streamlined so that the reader can easily find whether each hypothesis is supported. The discussion section also needs to be clarified.
Extensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
We have incorporated the comments in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Kindly refer to the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are very grateful to the Journal Editor’s efforts in essentially discussing the manuscript reviews with the reviewers and identifying further significant points for enhancements. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks and careful feedback which helped them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enabled us to update various parts of the manuscript as shown by the responses to each comment in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the effort you've put into revising your manuscript. It's clear that a substantial amount of work has gone into it. However, the discussion section remains inadequate. A well-crafted discussion should tie your research findings back to the literature you've reviewed earlier in the paper. The absence of references in this section undermines its credibility and disconnects it from the broader scholarly dialogue on the subject. I strongly recommend you take the time to extensively revise this part of your manuscript. For your guidance, I have included some comments within the text.
Please don't be disheartened by this critique; it's meant to help you improve the quality of your work.
Best wishes for your ongoing revisions.
Sincerely,
Reviewer.
Minor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
The authors are very grateful to the Journal Editor’s efforts in essentially discussing the manuscript reviews with the reviewers and identifying further significant points for enhancements. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks and careful feedback which helped them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enabled us to update various parts of the manuscript as shown by the responses to each comment in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In my modest opinion, the authors of the paper “Users’ Intention to Use Learning Analytics for Academic Advising in Malaysian Higher Education” have adequately addressed the concerns expressed regarding the earlier version of the manuscript. Indeed, their alterations have made the content of the manuscript much stronger academically. If a broad readership is considered, the revised text is likely to be easier to comprehend. I would advise a minor change to the title to avoid repetitions. That is, the title could be “Users’ Intention to Rely on Learning Analytics for Academic Advising in Malaysian Higher Education”.
Minor editing of the English language is required
Author Response
The authors are very grateful to the Journal Editor’s efforts in essentially discussing the manuscript reviews with the reviewers and identifying further significant points for enhancements. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks and careful feedback which helped them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enabled us to update various parts of the manuscript as shown by the responses to each comment in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction section should include at least 10 latest references (2021 to 2023) from well-known journals in the field and appropriate extracts from them to motivate the researchers in the subject. I only recognized 7 cited papers, two belonging to 2021 and the rest are old for the whole introduction, while several statements are without citations. Your statements in introduction should be cited by recent related literature in the field. Even the new added content in introduction is without citations. Kindly note that all newly added references are in different sections not in introduction as in your response.
Additionally, it is recommended to add a paragraph at the end of the introduction section that informs the readers about the structure of your article.
Literature Review: I have proposed to include a table in the literature review section showing how your research differs from other related works, and how your study model differs from others and what it results from.
Research Model: Still need more justification. Why system quality and information quality in favor of service quality, and why personal innovativeness? the selection of these variable needs scientific justification.
Procedure and Participants: There is a discrepancy in the perspectives between academic staff (lecturers or tutors) and students with regard to behavior. While academic staff prefers learning analytics and its potential to improve teaching methods from some sides, the motivation for students may differ. Consequently, this study attempts to understand a comprehensive exploration of the factors influencing LA usage and adoption. Toward this end, this study in my opinion should determine whether their perspectives differ by analyzing each perspective separately (each perspective should be considered as a separate unit). This needs strong and scientifically justification.
In Table 6. Authors have thankfully added VIF values. However, The VIF value is advised to be lower than 3.oo by several previous studies. In contrast, in the table I have noted values above 5.00. How you justify these values and how you deal with it???
The limitations and the suggestions for future research in the area need to be more addressed in new section (create new section related to it). The presentation of limitations and future work could be detailed and expanded. (Authors have stated it appropriately despite of not creating new section related to limitations and future recommendations).
Author Response
The authors are very grateful to the Journal Editor’s efforts in essentially discussing the manuscript reviews with the reviewers and identifying further significant points for enhancements. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks and careful feedback which helped them to significantly enhance this work and its presentation. The productive and valuable remarks enabled us to update various parts of the manuscript as shown by the responses to each comment in the response document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
