Key Factors Influencing Design Learners’ Behavioral Intention in Human-AI Collaboration Within the Educational Metaverse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find attached my comments related to your paper.

All the best,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, authors investigates the key factors that impact design learners' intention to engage in Human-AI collaboration in an Educational Metaverse (EMH-AIc). The authors build on social cognitive theory (SCT) to create a model that includes external environmental factors (rewards, teacher support, facilitating conditions) and individual cognitive aspects (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, trust). They use data from 533 design learners, analyzed with SPSS and SmartPLS, to verify the model's validity. The study concludes that rewards, teacher support, and facilitation significantly impact learners’ behavioral intentions, mediated by their self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and trust. The study contributes to understanding how Educational Metaverses can improve personalized design education and promote sustainable educational practices by optimizing human-AI collaboration. Please check my following comments: 

1) The introduction should better clarify the research gap. Explicitly state the unique contribution of this study compared to existing research on behavioral intentions in the Educational Metaverse.

2) The justification for using SCT over other models like the TAM or UTAUT should be more thoroughly explained. Adding a comparison of these models in the context of Educational Metaverse would strengthen the theoretical foundation.

3) The authors list 19 hypotheses, but some appear redundant or overly detailed. Simplifying or combining similar hypotheses could make the paper more concise and easier to follow. Additionally, the formulation of research questions could be more focused.

4) Provide more justification for the choice of snowball sampling, especially addressing the potential biases or limitations it introduces. It is important to discuss how this impacts the generalizability of the results.

5) The results section lacks depth in interpreting the implications of the findings for actual design learners and educational institutions. The discussion should include a more critical analysis of how these results can be applied in real-world educational settings.

6) The authors should expand on the limitations of the study. For instance, the study focuses only on design learners from certain geographical areas, which could limit the generalizability of the findings. Discuss how the specific context may affect the applicability of the conclusions.

7) The conclusion should go beyond summarizing the results and provide a more thorough discussion of the potential impact on educational policy or practice. Additionally, clearer directions for future research are needed, focusing on how this study opens avenues for further exploration in other fields beyond design education.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have fully addressed all of my comments and suggestions.