Toward Sustainable Technology Use in Education: Psychological Pathways and Professional Status Effects in the TAM Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions for Improvement  

1. Strengthen Theoretical Context  
   Link the study’s focus on sustainability to broader goals like UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Define "sustainable adoption" operationally:  
   “Sustainable adoption refers to long-term, equitable integration of technology balancing pedagogical efficacy, environmental impact, and institutional adaptability.”

2. Expand Professional Status Insights  
   Explain why pre-service teachers show stronger PU → ATU links by referencing literature on professional identity development, such as Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), which highlights novices’ openness versus in-service teachers’ entrenched practices.

3. Mitigate Self-Report Bias  
   Propose triangulating self-reported data with objective metrics like LMS usage logs:  
   “Future studies could integrate platform analytics to validate self-reported data, reducing social desirability bias.”

4. Clarify Survey Adaptation  
   Detail how TAM scales were adapted for Romania, considering cultural nuances. Include a table comparing original vs. adapted items for transparency.

5. Engage with Recent Scholarship  
   Replace older citations with recent studies (e.g., García-Hernández et al., 2023) to reflect current trends in TAM and sustainability in digital education.

6. Specify Practical Implications  
   Connect findings to frameworks like TPACK or PD models:  
   “For in-service teachers, emphasize alignment with curricula (TPACK). For pre-service teachers, focus on usability training to leverage openness to ATU.”

7. Enhance Visual Clarity  
   Simplify Figures 1 and 2 by removing redundant labels, using color coding, and defining abbreviations in captions.

8. Address Sampling Limitations  
   Discuss how demographic homogeneity (e.g., 64.6% female, Romanian context) may affect generalizability, referencing studies like Tarhini et al. (2016) on cultural differences.

9. Align Conclusions with Hypotheses  
   Map conclusions directly to hypotheses:  
   “H4 highlights the need for tailored PU interventions for pre-service teachers, while H5’s null result shows PEU is universally critical.”

10. Highlight Sustainability’s Triple Bottom Line  
    Provide concrete examples of planet, people, and profit impacts:  
    “Increased digital adoption reduces paper use (planet), improves job satisfaction (people), and lowers PD costs (profit).”  

By addressing these points, the study will achieve greater depth, relevance, and actionable insights for both theory and practice. To enhance the study, strengthen theoretical links to sustainability goals, expand insights on professional status moderation, mitigate self-report bias through triangulation, clarify survey adaptation, engage with recent scholarship, specify practical implications using frameworks like TPACK, improve visual clarity, address sampling limitations, align conclusions with hypotheses, and highlight sustainability's triple bottom line with concrete examples.

Author Response

Comment 1

Strengthen Theoretical Context  
 Link the study’s focus on sustainability to broader goals like UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Define "sustainable adoption" operationally:  
 “Sustainable adoption refers to long-term, equitable integration of technology balancing pedagogical efficacy, environmental impact, and institutional adaptability.”

Response 1

To enhance the theoretical coherence of the manuscript, we have revised the Introduction to explicitly align our conceptual framework with UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) agenda, which promotes equitable, environmentally responsible, and institutionally responsive educational practices (UNESCO, 2020). Within this framework, we have added a clear operational definition of sustainable adoption as follows: “Sustainable adoption refers to the long-term, equitable integration of technology balancing pedagogical efficacy, environmental impact, and institutional adaptability.”

This definition was inserted to better reflect the multidimensional character of sustainability in education, and to emphasize that our study examines not only the acceptance of digital tools but also the psychological and contextual pathways through which lasting, meaningful engagement with technology can be achieved.

Comment 2:

Expand Professional Status Insights  
 Explain why pre-service teachers show stronger PU → ATU links by referencing literature on professional identity development, such as Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), which highlights novices’ openness versus in-service teachers’ entrenched practices.

Response 2

We have revised the Discussion section to include a theoretically grounded explanation for the stronger link observed between perceived usefulness (PU) and attitude toward use (ATU) among pre-service teachers. Drawing on the work of Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), we emphasize that pre-service teachers, who are in the early stages of professional identity formation, tend to be more receptive to new pedagogical tools and open to the instrumental value of digital technologies. In contrast, in-service teachers often exhibit more established teaching routines and may face institutional or cognitive inertia, which moderates the strength of PU–ATU associations. By incorporating these developmental considerations, the revised discussion more fully explains the differential effects observed in our moderation analysis.

Comment 3

Mitigate Self-Report Bias  
 Propose triangulating self-reported data with objective metrics like LMS usage logs:  
 “Future studies could integrate platform analytics to validate self-reported data, reducing social desirability bias.”

Response 3

To address this point, we have expanded the Limitations and Future Directions section to include a methodological recommendation for data triangulation in future studies. In particular, we suggest that researchers complement self-reported measures of actual system use with objective indicators, such as learning management system (LMS) logs or platform analytics. This approach would improve the validity of usage metrics, reduce the influence of social desirability bias, and provide a more accurate picture of technology engagement.

Comment 4:

Clarify Survey Adaptation  
 Detail how TAM scales were adapted for Romania, considering cultural nuances. Include a table comparing original vs. adapted items for transparency.

Response 4:

The Measurements section has been expanded to include additional details on how the original TAM scales were culturally and linguistically adapted for use in the Romanian context. Rather than presenting a full comparison table, we incorporated representative examples of adapted items directly into the narrative to maintain clarity and ease of reading. These examples illustrate how relevant concepts were translated with attention to semantic nuance and educational relevance. The added content outlines the entire process of translation, back-translation, expert panel validation, and pilot testing, ensuring transparency in the adaptation procedure.

Comment 5

Engage with Recent Scholarship  
 Replace older citations with recent studies (e.g., García-Hernández et al., 2023) to reflect current trends in TAM and sustainability in digital education.

Response 5

To reflect recent developments in the literature, we have updated several references throughout the Introduction and Theoretical Framework sections. In particular, we incorporated recent studies that explore the intersection between TAM and sustainable digital education (e.g., García-Hernández et al., 2023; Sayaf et al., 2021), and that emphasize current perspectives on technology integration in teacher training programs. These additions strengthen the theoretical foundation of the paper and align our work with contemporary research directions in educational technology and sustainability.

Comment 6:

Specify Practical Implications  
 Connect findings to frameworks like TPACK or PD models:  
 “For in-service teachers, emphasize alignment with curricula (TPACK). For pre-service teachers, focus on usability training to leverage openness to ATU.”

Response 6:

We have expanded the Discussion and Conclusions sections to articulate more concrete practical implications of our findings. In particular, we now connect our results to established professional development frameworks. For in-service teachers, we recommend technology integration strategies that align with curriculum standards through the lens of the TPACK framework (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). For pre-service teachers, our findings suggest that their attitudinal openness can be leveraged through usability-focused training programs that strengthen their intention to adopt educational technologies. These implications aim to support differentiated training pathways and sustainable digital engagement across career stages.

Comment 7:

7. Enhance Visual Clarity  
    Simplify Figures 1 and 2 by removing redundant labels, using color coding, and defining abbreviations in captions.

Response 7:

Figures 1 and 2 have been revised to improve visual clarity and readability. We simplified the diagrams by removing redundant labels and streamlining the layout. Abbreviations (e.g., PU, PEU, ATU, BI, ASU) are now fully defined in the figure captions to support interpretation. In addition, subtle color coding has been introduced to differentiate the components of the serial mediation models, without compromising accessibility. These visual improvements are intended to facilitate reader comprehension and enhance the presentation of core findings.

Comment 8

8. Address Sampling Limitations  
    Discuss how demographic homogeneity (e.g., 64.6% female, Romanian context) may affect generalizability, referencing studies like Tarhini et al. (2016) on cultural differences.

Response 8:

The Limitations and Future Directions section has been expanded to acknowledge the demographic composition of our sample and the implications for generalizability. Specifically, we discuss how the predominance of female participants and the single-country (Romanian) context may limit the extent to which findings can be generalized to other educational settings. To support this point, we reference Tarhini et al. (2016), who emphasize the importance of cultural and contextual factors in technology acceptance research. We also suggest that future studies incorporate more diverse and cross-cultural samples to strengthen the external validity of findings.

Comment 9:

9. Align Conclusions with Hypotheses  
    Map conclusions directly to hypotheses:  
    “H4 highlights the need for tailored PU interventions for pre-service teachers, while H5’s null result shows PEU is universally critical.”

Response 9:

The Conclusions section has been refined to provide an explicit mapping between our findings and the five hypotheses. Specifically, we now clarify that H1 was supported, confirming the predictive role of PU, PEU, and ATU on BI. H2 and H3 were confirmed, as both PU and PEU influenced ASU through serial mediation by ATU and BI. H4 was supported, showing that PU had a stronger effect on ATU among pre-service teachers, which underscores the need for targeted, stage-specific interventions. In contrast, H5 was not supported, indicating that PEU influences attitudes equally across both professional groups. This consistency highlights the universal importance of usability in technology adoption. These clarifications enhance the theoretical consistency and applied relevance of the conclusions.

Comment 10:

10. Highlight Sustainability’s Triple Bottom Line  
      Provide concrete examples of planet, people, and profit impacts:  
      “Increased digital adoption reduces paper use (planet), improves job satisfaction (people), and lowers PD costs (profit).”   

 Response 10:

We have revised the Discussion section to include clear and specific examples that reflect the three dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line framework. The revised paragraph explains how the use of digital technologies in education can reduce the need for printed materials and minimize travel associated with in-person training, thus contributing to environmental sustainability. It also highlights how teachers' positive perceptions of technology are linked to increased motivation, greater job satisfaction, and a stronger sense of professional relevance, which are essential for sustained engagement. In addition, we clarify that aligning professional development with the specific needs of teachers at different career stages can improve cost-efficiency. For instance, focusing on perceived usefulness in pre-service training and prioritizing usability across experience levels allows for more targeted and economical training formats. These examples strengthen the connection between our findings and the broader sustainability goals outlined in the TBL framework.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Teachers increasingly use technology in their teaching, and much research exists on teachers' attitudes towards it. This research is part of this approach, particularly about the psychological and contextual factors that influence such practice. In this regard, the theoretical framework and the quantitative methodology used for data analysis are well documented. In conclusion, it is important to emphasize the results arising from the data analyses. Therefore, it is important to highlight these contributions to the studies of Sayaf et al. [59] and those of Means et al. [60], which are highlighted at the end of the conclusion. Finally, the limitations presented are relevant and enhance the scientific quality of the results presented. However, it would have been interesting to highlight the limitations of the psychological and contextual aspects in order to use digital technologies adequately.

Author Response

Comment 1

Teachers increasingly use technology in their teaching, and much research exists on teachers' attitudes towards it. This research is part of this approach, particularly about the psychological and contextual factors that influence such practice. In this regard, the theoretical framework and the quantitative methodology used for data analysis are well documented. In conclusion, it is important to emphasize the results arising from the data analyses. Therefore, it is important to highlight these contributions to the studies of Sayaf et al. [59] and those of Means et al. [60], which are highlighted at the end of the conclusion. Finally, the limitations presented are relevant and enhance the scientific quality of the results presented. However, it would have been interesting to highlight the limitations of the psychological and contextual aspects in order to use digital technologies adequately.

Response 1:

In response to your recommendation to better highlight the contributions of our findings, we have revised the conclusion to articulate more clearly how our results extend previous work, particularly the studies of Sayaf et al. (2021) and Means et al. (2014). Specifically, we now emphasize how our mediation-based approach supports a deeper understanding of sustainable digital engagement in education, reinforcing the critical role of attitudinal and motivational mechanisms in the long-term adoption of technology by teachers.

We have also addressed your important point regarding the limitations of psychological and contextual variables. Although the study focuses on central TAM constructs, we now explicitly acknowledge in the limitations section that additional psychological dimensions (e.g., technostress, role conflict, or perceived institutional support) and contextual features (e.g., digital infrastructure, leadership practices, or policy context) were not included in our model. Recognizing these constraints, we propose these variables as valuable directions for future research that seeks to capture the multifaceted nature of sustainable technology integration in education.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study adopts the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as its core theoretical framework to examine the acceptance of educational technology use among pre-service and in-service teachers. It further incorporates professional status as a moderating variable to analyze the psychological factors influencing actual system use behavior. Overall, the paper demonstrates a certain level of methodological rigor, with an adequate sample size, proper translation and reliability validation of the measurement scales, and the use of Hayes’s PROCESS macro for mediation and moderation analyses, reflecting technical depth and procedural consistency. The findings highlight differences between pre-service and in-service teachers in terms of perceived usefulness and attitude formation, offering initial insights into teachers’ digital transformation and sustainable technology adoption.

However, the study reveals significant shortcomings in terms of theoretical contribution and innovation. While TAM is a time-tested model, it has been extensively applied in educational contexts over the past decade. The mere inclusion of mediation and moderation variables does not constitute a substantial advancement or theoretical breakthrough. Furthermore, although the study claims to focus on "sustainable use" and "sustainable education," the operationalization and analysis remain strictly within the scope of the traditional five TAM constructs (PU, PEU, ATU, BI, ASU), without introducing any indicators that truly reflect sustainability values or behaviors. This disconnect results in a notable gap between the stated research theme and the actual content of the study, weakening the alignment between the title and the substance of the article.

Additionally, the use of a convenience sample from a single country limits the generalizability and external validity of the findings. While the statistical results are significant, most of the relationships identified are consistent with existing literature and thus lack novelty or unexpected theoretical insights.

In summary, while the study is methodologically sound in terms of design and execution, it falls short in delivering theoretical innovation, scholarly contribution, and thematic coherence. If the authors can enhance the theoretical framework, introduce more robust sustainability-related constructs, and realign the study's focus with its stated objectives, the work may have potential for future development into a meaningful empirical study. Therefore, based on the above considerations, I recommend reject and encourage resubmission after substantial revision.

Author Response

Comment 1 

However, the study reveals significant shortcomings in terms of theoretical contribution and innovation. While TAM is a time-tested model, it has been extensively applied in educational contexts over the past decade. The mere inclusion of mediation and moderation variables does not constitute a substantial advancement or theoretical breakthrough. Furthermore, although the study claims to focus on "sustainable use" and "sustainable education," the operationalization and analysis remain strictly within the scope of the traditional five TAM constructs (PU, PEU, ATU, BI, ASU), without introducing any indicators that truly reflect sustainability values or behaviors. This disconnect results in a notable gap between the stated research theme and the actual content of the study, weakening the alignment between the title and the substance of the article.

Response 1

We understand your concern regarding the use of TAM in its classical form and your expectation of a stronger theoretical advancement. In response, we have revised the manuscript to better articulate the originality of our contribution. Rather than introducing new variables, we emphasize how this study reinterprets established TAM constructs as psychological proxies for sustainability, specifically, as mechanisms through which long-term engagement and professional adaptability are fostered. This framing is now clarified in both the theoretical background and conceptual model sections, drawing from recent scholarship on sustainable digital education (e.g., García-Hernández et al., 2023; Sayaf et al., 2021).

We have further clarified that the structural innovation of the model lies in its integration of dual serial mediation and contextual moderation, which reflects differentiated psychological mechanisms across career stages. This layered approach captures not only whether teachers adopt technology, but how sustainable patterns of digital engagement form depending on motivational and attitudinal dynamics.

To address the perceived, disconnect between the title and the study’s substance, we have strengthened the conceptual discussion of sustainable technology use—framing it as a process of continuous, intentional engagement with digital tools that supports professional resilience, adaptability, and contextual alignment. We also clarify in the discussion and conclusions how our results map onto sustainability principles in education, especially from a psychological and institutional perspective.

Comment 2:

Additionally, the use of a convenience sample from a single country limits the generalizability and external validity of the findings. While the statistical results are significant, most of the relationships identified are consistent with existing literature and thus lack novelty or unexpected theoretical insights.

In summary, while the study is methodologically sound in terms of design and execution, it falls short in delivering theoretical innovation, scholarly contribution, and thematic coherence. If the authors can enhance the theoretical framework, introduce more robust sustainability-related constructs, and realign the study's focus with its stated objectives, the work may have potential for future development into a meaningful empirical study. Therefore, based on the above considerations, I recommend reject and encourage resubmission after substantial revision.

Response 2:

Regarding the sample, we fully acknowledge the limitations of using a convenience sample from a single national context. This aspect is now more explicitly addressed in the discussion section. At the same time, we wish to emphasize that the study was also designed to explore the cultural specificity of how TAM mechanisms manifest within the Romanian educational landscape. Given that much of the TAM literature is rooted in Anglophone or high-income educational systems, we believe our findings contribute to diversifying the empirical base and highlighting potential cultural moderators. While the correlational patterns we identified are indeed consistent with previous studies, our model brings nuanced insights into how psychological mechanisms differ between pre-service and in-service teachers, a career-stage perspective that remains underrepresented in process-based TAM research. We also propose that future cross-cultural replication studies could assess the generalizability and transferability of these patterns across educational systems.

Finally, we appreciate your recommendation to further align the theoretical framework with the declared focus on sustainability. We believe the current revisions address this concern by clarifying our model’s interpretive shift and enhancing its contribution to the literature on sustainable digital transformation in teacher education.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your contribution and for sharing your perspectives on the acceptance of educational technologies using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a theoretical framework for both training and practice.

The literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and its extensions. However, it would benefit from a more critical and analytical approach. Rather than primarily summarizing prior studies, consider engaging more deeply with the literature to highlight specific gaps, tensions, or inconsistencies that your study addresses. Clarifying how your work builds upon, diverges from, or challenges existing findings would strengthen the theoretical positioning of your contribution within the broader research landscape.

The TAM model is theoretically robust; therefore, it is complex to apply in real-life educational settings. It would be helpful to propose a simplified version for institutional use.

Although the authors mention it in the study's limitations, it is suggested that future work should not be limited to a cross-sectional design to establish causal relationships.

Likewise, the use of self-reports to measure actual technology use can introduce bias. It would be advisable to supplement with objective data.

Convenience sampling limits the generalizability of the results. It would be ideal to use random or stratified sampling to improve external validity.

Contextual variables such as institutional support, level of digital literacy, type of teacher training received, and educational specialty were not included or considered, which could significantly influence technology acceptance

Author Response

Comment 1: More Critical and Analytical Literature Review

 Response 1:

      In response to your observation, we revised the literature review to move beyond descriptive synthesis. The new version critically engages with the limitations and tensions in TAM-based studies—particularly the over-reliance on its traditional constructs and the lack of integration with sustainability principles. We now articulate how our study diverges from prior research by reinterpreting core TAM variables as proxies for sustainable digital engagement and by highlighting how our approach aligns with UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) vision.

Comment 2: Proposal of a Simplified Version of TAM for Institutional Use

Response 2:

Acknowledging the model’s complexity, we propose a streamlined interpretation that clusters TAM components around three institutional anchors: value (PU), usability (PEU), and readiness to adopt (BI + ATU). This version is briefly presented in the Discussion section as a conceptual bridge between theory and applied policy, with implications for training design and implementation.

Comment 3: Limitations of Cross-Sectional Design and Future Research Directions

Response 3:

We elaborated in the "Limitations and Future Directions" section on the need for longitudinal research designs that can capture dynamic changes in perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. We emphasize that causal interpretations are beyond the scope of our study and explicitly suggest mixed-methods or repeated-measure studies to enhance explanatory power.

Comment 4: Use of Self-Report Measures

Response 4:

We acknowledge the limitations of self-report instruments in assessing actual system use and expanded the discussion by proposing future triangulation with digital trace data (e.g., LMS usage logs or platform analytics). This would reduce potential social desirability bias and offer a richer picture of behavioral engagement.

Comment 5: Convenience Sampling and External Validity

Response 5: 

We clarified the limitations posed by the use of convenience sampling and the cultural specificity of our Romanian sample. We now recommend stratified sampling in future studies and explicitly note that generalizability should be approached with caution. Nonetheless, we also frame our study as a meaningful contribution to the diversification of TAM evidence across underrepresented educational contexts.

Comment 6: Inclusion of Contextual Variables

Response 6:

We agree with your suggestion and now highlight the absence of important contextual factors—such as institutional support, teacher digital literacy, type of training received, and specialization—as a key limitation. These are now explicitly discussed as variables worth integrating in future TAM models for a more ecologically valid understanding of sustainable technology adoption.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their thoughtful revisions. However, while the study attempts to reinterpret the five core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in relation to the theme of “sustainable technology use” and employs dual serial mediation and professional status moderation to enhance the model’s structure, the theoretical contribution remains limited. No concrete variables reflecting sustainability values or behaviors are introduced; thus, the notion of “sustainability” remains at a conceptual level and does not align with the core principles of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as advocated by UNESCO. Furthermore, the study remains firmly grounded in the traditional TAM framework, and the results are consistent with a large body of existing literature, lacking in theoretical novelty or unexpected insights. Although the authors reference cultural specificity, the study’s convenience sample from a single country does not sufficiently demonstrate how cultural factors distinctly shape TAM mechanisms. Overall, while the research design and execution are methodologically sound, the manuscript does not meet the standards for theoretical innovation, thematic coherence, or scholarly contribution. Therefore, in this round of review, I recommend rejection, with the suggestion that the authors consider a major revision and resubmission after substantial theoretical and conceptual redevelopment.

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you to the authors for their thoughtful revisions. However, while the study attempts to reinterpret the five core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in relation to the theme of “sustainable technology use” and employs dual serial mediation and professional status moderation to enhance the model’s structure, the theoretical contribution remains limited. 

Authors' Response: We are grateful for the reviewer’s thoughtful evaluation. In this revised version, we have significantly strengthened the theoretical positioning of our study by adding a new section (1.2.1), entitled “Reframing TAM through a Sustainability Lens: Toward Educational Transformation.” This section offers a conceptual reinterpretation of TAM in alignment with UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) framework. 

Specifically, we reframe TAM’s constructs (PU, PEU, ATU, BI) as proxies for sustainability-driven dispositions, such as pedagogical adaptability, ethical responsibility, and institutional innovation. We clarify that our aim is not to inflate the model with additional variables, but to deepen its explanatory power through a process-oriented, sustainability-sensitive lens. This revision addresses the critique regarding limited theoretical contribution and reinforces the model’s relevance for long-term digital engagement in teacher education.

Comment 2: No concrete variables reflecting sustainability values or behaviors are introduced; thus, the notion of “sustainability” remains at a conceptual level and does not align with the core principles of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as advocated by UNESCO.

Authors' Response: We acknowledge that the current study does not incorporate explicit variables measuring sustainability values or behaviors as defined in frameworks such as UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). This point has now been clearly stated in the revised manuscript (see end of Section 2.3), along with a reflection on its implications. At the same time, the study offers a conceptual reinterpretation in which the core TAM constructs—particularly Perceived Usefulness and Attitude Toward Use—are framed as proxies for sustainability-aligned dispositions. These include long-term pedagogical relevance, digital adaptability, and system-wide educational resilience, all of which are central to ESD’s aims.

In response to this observation, we have strengthened the manuscript by identifying specific, empirically validated instruments for future research—such as the Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire (Gericke et al., 2019) and the UNESCO ESD Competencies Framework (Rieckmann, 2018). These tools can support the direct operationalization of sustainability-related constructs in future studies, building on the conceptual model proposed here.

We also emphasize that one of the article’s key contributions lies in its parsimonious yet transformative reframing of TAM. Rather than adding new variables—which risks overcomplicating the model—we propose a reinterpretation that is theoretically sound, empirically grounded, and practically adaptable for teacher education. This interpretive shift enables TAM to function as a pathway for sustainable technology integration without compromising its clarity or explanatory power.

In sum, while the absence of dedicated sustainability metrics is a valid point, we believe that the study makes a meaningful contribution by advancing a psychologically informed and career-sensitive model of sustainable digital engagement. The revised manuscript now articulates this more explicitly and provides a clear direction for empirical expansion. We hope that these refinements address the reviewer’s concerns and demonstrate the manuscript’s potential to inform and inspire further research at the intersection of digital education and sustainability.

Comment 3: Furthermore, the study remains firmly grounded in the traditional TAM framework, and the results are consistent with a large body of existing literature, lacking in theoretical novelty or unexpected insights.

Authors' Response: We understand the reviewer’s concern regarding the theoretical familiarity of both the model and the results. It is true that our study retains the original TAM structure; however, we respectfully argue that the value of this work lies in the conceptual repositioning and the interpretive reframing of TAM as a sustainability-oriented, developmental model. While we did not introduce additional variables, we extended the meaning and implications of the existing constructs—particularly PU, PEU, ATU, and BI—by embedding them within the psychological and institutional context of sustainable technology integration in education.

In particular, we demonstrated that career-stage differentiation (pre-service vs. in-service) moderates attitudinal mechanisms of adoption in ways that are theoretically meaningful for educational sustainability. The stronger PU → ATU relationship among pre-service teachers reveals that their openness to digital innovation can act as a critical leverage point for embedding sustainability values early in teacher formation—an insight not commonly emphasized in TAM-based studies.

Furthermore, our dual serial mediation structure, which models both BI and ATU as sequential mediators, adds a process-based dimension to the understanding of sustainable digital engagement. This goes beyond the direct effect emphasis typical of TAM applications and positions technology use as an evolving psychological pathway, sensitive to motivational, affective, and contextual nuances.

While we acknowledge that some individual effect sizes may resemble those reported in previous TAM literature, the narrative synthesis and theoretical interpretation of these effects within a sustainability and professional identity development lens represents, in our view, a novel contribution. We hope this clarified perspective on our model’s originality helps contextualize its place within and beyond existing TAM literature.

Comment 4: Although the authors reference cultural specificity, the study’s convenience sample from a single country does not sufficiently demonstrate how cultural factors distinctly shape TAM mechanisms.

Authors' Response: We agree that the convenience sampling within a single national context limits the generalizability of our findings to other cultural environments. This is now more explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations and Future Directions section of the revised manuscript. However, we also emphasize that the purpose of our cultural reference was not to establish universal claims about culture-specific TAM mechanisms, but rather to highlight how TAM can be meaningfully applied and interpreted within an underrepresented context—namely, the Romanian educational system.

Most TAM-based research in education has been conducted in high-income or Anglophone countries, often overlooking culturally distinct environments (e.g., post-communist, Eastern European educational systems). In this regard, our study contributes to diversifying the TAM evidence base and drawing attention to how local educational traditions, infrastructure, and teacher development pathways may shape psychological engagement with technology. We see this as a valuable step toward context-aware theorization, especially relevant for sustainable implementation strategies.

Moreover, the cultural and institutional specificity of our findings provides a useful foundation for future comparative or cross-cultural studies, which could examine the replicability and variation of TAM pathways in different socio-educational systems. While our study does not measure cultural dimensions directly (e.g., Hofstede variables), it contributes a detailed, situated perspective that may inform more robust international research designs. We hope the reviewer will recognize the value of this context-specific contribution in expanding the geographic and systemic reach of educational technology research.

Comment 5: Overall, while the research design and execution are methodologically sound, the manuscript does not meet the standards for theoretical innovation, thematic coherence, or scholarly contribution.

Authors' Response: We respectfully acknowledge the reviewer’s overall assessment and understand the high expectations for theoretical and scholarly contribution. In response to the detailed feedback, we have undertaken a substantial revision of the manuscript to enhance both its theoretical innovation and thematic coherence. These changes are detailed throughout the revised text and include:

• The addition of a new subsection (1.2.1) that explicitly reframes TAM through the

lens of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), supported by recent literature (2020–2024);

• Clarification of how core TAM constructs (PU, PEU, ATU, BI) are interpreted as

proxies for sustainability-aligned dispositions such as pedagogical continuity, contextual adaptability, and internalized motivation;

• Integration of professional status as a theoretically meaningful moderator,

revealing distinct adoption pathways across career stages (pre-service vs. in-service teachers);

• Extension of the TAM model through dual serial mediation, modeling attitude

and intention not as isolated predictors but as interdependent components of a developmental sustainability trajectory;

• Explicit acknowledgement of limitations and recommendations for future

research, including the operationalization of ESD competencies through validated instruments (e.g., Gericke et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2020).

We believe these revisions significantly improve the manuscript’s scholarly merit by proposing an interpretive shift that aligns psychological acceptance mechanisms with long-term educational sustainability goals. Rather than expanding TAM with new variables, we offer a parsimonious but conceptually enriched model that speaks to current priorities in both educational research and practice.

In light of these changes, we respectfully ask that the revised manuscript be re-evaluated in terms of its theoretical contribution, conceptual coherence, and practical relevance for advancing sustainable digital transformation in education.

Comment 6: Therefore, in this round of review, I recommend rejection, with the suggestion that the authors consider a major revision and resubmission after substantial theoretical and conceptual redevelopment.

Authors' Response: We fully understand the reviewer’s recommendation and the reasoning behind it. As advised, we have treated this feedback as a call for substantial revision and have undertaken a comprehensive theoretical and conceptual redevelopment of the manuscript. The revised version reflects a deeper alignment with Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) principles, introduces a clearer narrative linking TAM to sustainability, and reframes the model to emphasize long-term, psychologically grounded adoption processes across teacher career stages.

Concretely, we have:

• Reinterpreted the core TAM constructs as proxies for sustainability-relevant dispositions;
• Integrated UNESCO’s ESD vision explicitly within the theoretical framework;
• Highlighted the study’s contribution to diversifying TAM literature through cultural contextualization (Romanian educational system);
• Proposed a dual serial mediation model and career-sensitive moderation to capture developmental and motivational nuances of technology engagement;
• Addressed all limitations transparently and outlined concrete directions for future ESD-integrated research.

While the original submission may have lacked sufficient theoretical innovation, the revised manuscript incorporates substantial conceptual redevelopment, as recommended. By explicitly aligning TAM with the UNESCO ESD framework, diversifying the TAM literature through contextual cultural application, and reframing technology acceptance as a process-based, career-sensitive sustainability pathway, we believe the study now meets the standards of scholarly contribution expected by the journal. We respectfully ask that this version be re-evaluated in light of its clarified theoretical vision, enhanced coherence, and relevance for guiding sustainable digital transformation in education.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf