Telepresence and Interactivity in Mobile Learning System: Its Relation with Open Innovation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Especially after COVID-19 pandemics, the impact of e-learning or even m-learning increased, and the impact is likely to be a middle to long term one. In this sense, the author's approach is interesting and valid. Nevertheless, with a growing literature of findings, it may be sometimes hard to find one's path.
First of all, some of the most known approaches for m learning and m adaptation did not find any place in the paper, which is quite surprising. Some of them are, just to give an idea-
10.5539/ibr.v12n2p150
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301347374.pdf
https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejkm/article/view/1122
Second, especially picture quality, quality of presentation and the level of discussion requires improvement. You need a comparative setup to compare your findings with previous research and go beyond the phenomenon of just delivering another set of empirical evidence for m-learning. The topic is already at least 13 years old (see above), and especially at the dawn of a new era of post-COVID-19, I believe some new insights can be delivered, in particular, by taking a look at the change of habits in ICT use.
Third, with the research design I think the aforementioned points should also help you improve it.
Good luck!
Author Response
Respond to the comments of reviewer 1
- Especially after COVID-19 pandemics, the impact of e-learning or even m-learning increased, and the impact is likely to be a middle to long term one. In this sense, the author's approach is interesting and valid. Nevertheless, with a growing literature of findings, it may be sometimes hard to find one's path.
First of all, some of the most known approaches for m learning and m adaptation did not find any place in the paper, which is quite surprising. Some of them are, just to give an idea-
10.5539/ibr.v12n2p150
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301347374.pdf
https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejkm/article/view/1122
Respond: Thanks for the valuable comment and suggestion. According to this valuable suggestion, we have carefully read the recommended articles thought our work, and we have also cited these valuable works in this paper. In order to provide more support for the research and further study of mobile applications, we have added the overview of mobile learning from previous study in line 40-42 and 55-65, which introduce the approach of mobile learning application in previous literatures. That mainly includes “Mobile learning is defined as the learning activities which based on mobile data and wireless transmission (Attwell 2005). Masika (2015) used descriptive statistical methods to study mobile learning applications. However, more studies were using empirical analysis to explore the adoption behavior of mobile learning applications. Wang et al. (2016) studied the behavioral intention of mobile learning based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model (UTAUT) and structural equation Model. In addition, the empirical method was used to investigate the acceptance degree of mobile learning among college students by Fagan (2019). Lin et al., (2020) used the TBP model to conduct a comparative study on the influencing factors of mobile learning usage among users in different regions”, and so on.
- Second, especially picture quality, quality of presentation and the level of discussion requires improvement. You need a comparative setup to compare your findings with previous research and go beyond the phenomenon of just delivering another set of empirical evidence for m-learning. The topic is already at least 13 years old (see above), and especially at the dawn of a new era of post-COVID-19, I believe some new insights can be delivered, in particular, by taking a look at the change of habits in ICT use.
Respond: Thanks for the valuable comment and suggestion. According to this valuable suggestion, the overall idea of the article was sorted out, and more research on mobile learning was referred to. The discussion of ICT has been strengthened in the literature review section, and line109-122 has been added. That mainly include “Within the innovation of technology, people's behavior and demands are constantly changing. Some studies begin to integrate different theories on consumer behavior to explore the factors that influence users' usage decisions from different levels (Mohammadi, 2015; Liu et al.,2015; Tarmuji et al. 2019; Lin, 2020). Chang (2013) paid attention to the important role of user experience in behavioral intention research.” and so on.
Especially in the Discussion section, the research results of this paper are compared with the previous studies on mobile learning applications, and added in the line 370-374, 384-389, 390-31 and 397-410. That mainly includes “Almaiah et al. (2016) verified that the interactivity influence behavior intention by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in mobile learning acceptance. However, the interactivity was not affecting flow experience directly in this research, it exhibits chain effect on behavior intention through perceived ease of use”, and so on.
Moreover, we have added conclusion of comparison with literature reviewed above, summarized new insights of this study on mobile learning. It added in line 402-405, 413-415, 422-425 and 438-440. That mainly includes “Lu (2008) measured the influence of cognitive variables on behavioral intention of mobile learning technology. While this study focuses on two system characteristics of interactivity and telepresence, and extends the external factors that influence the adoption of mobile learning”, and so on.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is very clear in his presentation, with a clear methodologic explanation and interesting and practical conclusions
Author Response
Respond to the comments of reviewer 2
The manuscript is very clear in his presentation, with a clear methodologic explanation and interesting and practical conclusions
Respond: Thanks great for your valuable comment. We have further revised this paper to improve its quality.
Reviewer 3 Report
The main objective and outline of the paper:
The paper explores the usage intention of a mobile English language learning application by combining the Technology Acceptance Model and the Flow Theory. The paper claims that external variables as Interactivity, Telepresence plays a central role in the intention to use of the mobile application observed through the mediating perceived usage, perceived ease of use and the flow experience. The research formulates hypotheses, applies quantitative analysis and using the structural equation modelling with the AMOS software draws conclusions on the correlations and the nature of the influence of the input factors on the intention to use the selected mobile application. The paper aims to prove the applicability of the flow theory in the Technology Acceptance Model. The paper claims that the flow experience is an intrinsic mediator, while the perceived usage and the perceived ease of use also have significant mediating effect in the model. The importance of flow in behaviour intention to use a mobile application was justified.
General comments:
The paper is an empirical study that conducts the research based on a relatively large sample size, however it restricts the research on one selected mobile application, an English language learning app. The quantitative research is well elaborated, and the conclusions are well justified. The research gives ground to further usage of the extended TAM model applied for other mobile applications. The literature as well as the primary research support the research findings.
The conclusion summarises the concept of the paper and the research findings, while it calls attention to the limitations of the research.
The abstract summarises the essence of the paper but lacks the description of the research methodology and lacks to mention which mobile application is under scrutiny. The primary research outlines a theoretical framework, gives added value to the research field and suggestions to the mobile learning application developers.
On the other hand, due to language and linguistic problems the paper has to be rewritten because the majority of the sentences are incomprehensible.
The details are as follow:
1. External values:
a. Formatting and style
The paper is formatted as required. The abstract contains relevant information, gives a clear outline of the research but fails to mention the research methodology. The paper is subdivided into chapters and subchapters. The structure of the paper is up to the template and easy to follow. The paper strives to use academic style, but it is very badly written in English. Wrong words, wrong connotations, grammatically wrong sentences can be found throughout the paper that makes the reader struggle to follow and understand the content.
The paper has serious and grave English writing problems. There are numerous grammatical and language problems, dangling and half sentences, sentences without verbs, usage of nouns instead of adjectives and vice versa, singular and plural problems, wrong prepositions etc. Grammatical errors and badly formulated sentences occur regularly throughout the paper. The paper needs serious proofreading, rewriting and language checking. In this present form it is very difficult to read and understand.
b. The paper has 5 keywords. Please put the keywords in alphabetical order. A significant element of the paper the SEM is left out from the list.
c. Clarity of discussion style (discussions should be clear and concise)
The paper introduces the TAM model, then it gives a visual summary of the extended model including the selected external factors and the FT. After the formulation of the hypotheses the quantitative analysis is conducted, and the research findings are discussed. Due to the language and linguistic problems the discussion style is not clear, and it is very difficult to follow and understand the interpretation of the research findings. However, the discussion style is concise. The structure of the quantitative analysis is clear, the authors need to improve when and how to use the full term and the acronyms in case of a model. The paper includes all the relevant information referring to the research questions. The authors systematically reveal extra novel research findings, although it is mentioned only on page seven which mobile application is studied. The reader would have expected exact suggestions to mobile platform developers.
2. Intrinsic values:
a. Relevance of subject matter, Scientific merits
The paper investigates user experience on mobile learning platforms which is an up-to-date and relevant research topic in the 21st century. The proposed extended TAM model includes two new external factors and one mediating factor, all of which focus on behavioural studies. On integrating these factors, the authors call the attention to the importance of user experience that can contribute to better learning experience in the future. The research has some limitations since it studies only one mobile application and includes only two external factors. Furthermore, there is not enough information about the respondents.
b. Soundness of methodology, appropriateness of theoretical framework
The proportion of the theoretical framework and the primary research in question is disproportionate. The model building is supported by relevant literature, the literature review is quit short supposedly due to the lengthy discussion of the research results. The hypotheses are supported also by literature. The relevant factors are investigated and focused on. The thoroughness and elaboration of the analysis is appropriate, the data collection and analysis paragraph needs improving.
Line 215 – The sentence “The data was collected from the internet” is quite misleading.
The authors did not include whether a pilot survey had been conducted. At first reading some of the statements in the questionnaire are not unambiguous, respondents might misinterpret the statements (e.g. INT1, T1, T4, T5 – a verb is missing).
The literature review supports and justifies the primary research. The authors claim that further research needed in the field to include other relevant factors in the model.
c. Correctness of conclusions
The conclusion part well summarises the essence of the paper. The conclusions are partly correct and can be drawn from the research done. The possibility of further future research is discussed in the conclusion.
Line 40 – TPB model – not explained.
Line 47 – which application?
Line 202 – filed – wrong word maybe?
Line 240 – The value for KOM is not justified by literature.
Table 3 - There is no justification why Principal Component Analysis is used.
Line 247 – How does the reader see that the variables are significant? It is not explained.
Line 254 – reference to the square root of AVE – where does the reader find it?
Line 274 – there seems to be a wrong factor mentioned in the sentence.
Line 267 – please check the sentence.
d. Suitability of Figures and Tables
The paper includes three figures and eight tables. The tables and the figures are well formatted and clear. In case of figures should it be edited by the authors, it has to be referenced in the paper, please add in the figure’s footnote “developed by authors”. The figures and the tables support comprehension, and they are referenced as required in the body of the text. Figure numbering must be checked (line 301).
e. Suitability of references
The paper includes a long list of references, all of which are referenced in the paper. The references vary in time and space (international), providing relevant background to the research. The references include the most up-to-date literature as well, mainly from the last 5 years, that also supports the literature review and the research analysis as well. The format and the reference style are up to the requirements. The literature is well cited in the text.
line 200 – no year is needed in brackets.
Recommendation:
The submitted paper deals with a modern, up-to-date problem that is user experience in mobile learning applications. It builds a theoretical model combining TAM and FT and claims that two external factors and the flow experience significantly influence users’ intention to use a certain mobile application. The quantitative research results justify its relevance, and the researchers mention the possibility of further research and further development in the software industry. Despite of the paper’s elaborated research and advanced analysis, due to its shortage of English writing and the serious grammatical and language errors I do not recommend the publishing of the paper in this form. The paper needs significant and serious rewriting.
Author Response
Respond to the comments of reviewer 3
Thanks the expert’ detailed comments and suggestions very much. Those comments and suggestions were deep and valuable, so we have reviewed the content in paper carefully, and researched other relevant literature to increase understanding of the research topic. Now the revised content is presented in order to obtain the expert’s approval.
- General comments.
The paper is an empirical study that conducts the research based on a relatively large sample size, however it restricts the research on one selected mobile application, an English language learning app. The quantitative research is well elaborated, and the conclusions are well justified. The research gives ground to further usage of the extended TAM model applied for other mobile applications. The literature as well as the primary research support the research findings.
The conclusion summarizes the concept of the paper and the research findings, while it calls attention to the limitations of the research.
The abstract summarizes the essence of the paper but lacks the description of the research methodology and lacks to mention which mobile application is under scrutiny. The primary research outlines a theoretical framework, gives added value to the research field and suggestions to the mobile learning application developers.
On the other hand, due to language and linguistic problems the paper has to be rewritten because the majority of the sentences are incomprehensible.
Respond: Thanks for the valuable comments and suggestions. We strongly agree with your suggestions, and we have carefully reviewed whole article in the light of the recommendations and have made detailed revisions in the light of specific recommendations.
- External values:
- Formatting and style
The paper is formatted as required. The abstract contains relevant information, gives a clear outline of the research but fails to mention the research methodology. The paper is subdivided into chapters and subchapters. The structure of the paper is up to the template and easy to follow. The paper strives to use academic style, but it is very badly written in English. Wrong words, wrong connotations, grammatically wrong sentences can be found throughout the paper that makes the reader struggle to follow and understand the content.
The paper has serious and grave English writing problems. There are numerous grammatical and language problems, dangling and half sentences, sentences without verbs, usage of nouns instead of adjectives and vice versa, singular and plural problems, wrong prepositions etc. Grammatical errors and badly formulated sentences occur regularly throughout the paper. The paper needs serious proofreading, rewriting and language checking. In this present form it is very difficult to read and understand.
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. It is very helpful to improve our research. We have asked for the professional language review of some native English speakers and MDPI English editing, and carefully checked and modified the typos, grammatical and other mistakes of this paper.
- The paper has 5 keywords. Please put the keywords in alphabetical order. A significant element of the paper the SEM is left out from the list.
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have reordered the keywords and added the SEM into the list.
- Clarity of discussion style (discussions should be clear and concise)
The paper introduces the TAM model, then it gives a visual summary of the extended model including the selected external factors and the FT. After the formulation of the hypotheses the quantitative analysis is conducted, and the research findings are discussed. Due to the language and linguistic problems the discussion style is not clear, and it is very difficult to follow and understand the interpretation of the research findings. However, the discussion style is concise. The structure of the quantitative analysis is clear, the authors need to improve when and how to use the full term and the acronyms in case of a model. The paper includes all the relevant information referring to the research questions. The authors systematically reveal extra novel research findings, although it is mentioned only on page seven which mobile application is studied. The reader would have expected exact suggestions to mobile platform developers.
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have compared the result of current study with previous literatures, highlighting the characteristics of this research. The structure of the discussion section was reorganized to be clearer and more concise. We have also given constructive suggestions to mobile application software developers, which list in line 395-399.
- Intrinsic values:
- Relevance of subject matter, Scientific merits
The paper investigates user experience on mobile learning platforms which is an up-to-date and relevant research topic in the 21st century. The proposed extended TAM model includes two new external factors and one mediating factor, all of which focus on behavioral studies. On integrating these factors, the authors call the attention to the importance of user experience that can contribute to better learning experience in the future. The research has some limitations since it studies only one mobile application and includes only two external factors. Furthermore, there is not enough information about the respondents.
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have described the specific information about respondents, which are university students in Guangzhou city. This study selects two important system features and adds an intermediate variable of flow experience, which was based on the innovation of the current development of information and communication technology and the trend of the future development of mobile applications. It added in line 268-273.
- Soundness of methodology, appropriateness of theoretical framework
The proportion of the theoretical framework and the primary research in question is disproportionate. The model building is supported by relevant literature, the literature review is quite short supposedly due to the lengthy discussion of the research results. The hypotheses are supported also by literature. The relevant factors are investigated and focused on. The thoroughness and elaboration of the analysis is appropriate, the data collection and analysis paragraph needs improving.
Line 215 – The sentence “The data was collected from the internet” is quite misleading.
The authors did not include whether a pilot survey had been conducted. At first reading some of the statements in the questionnaire are not unambiguous, respondents might misinterpret the statements (e.g. INT1, T1, T4, T5 – a verb is missing).
The literature review supports and justifies the primary research. The authors claim that further research needed in the field to include other relevant factors in the model.
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. In the literature review section, more studies on the application of mobile learning were referred to and more detailed discussions were made, and modified the contents.
Lines 109-122, that includes “Many studies have focused on the external factors that influence users' behavior in the field of information and communication technology. In the early stage of IT, re-searches mainly involved in the effect of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on behavioral intention (Venkatesh, 2003; Hsu, 2004; Alenezi,2011).”, and so on.
Lines 143-145, that includes “Although the intrinsic motivation plays importance role in IT usage, the extrinsic motivation of interactivity has been underlined, which could help users getting effective connection (Shen & Chuang, 2010).”
Lines 151-155, that includes “Few studies have verified that interactivity would impact on users’ flow experience until Novak et al. (2000) set about the online customers behavior. Viewed from the research results of Novak et al. (2000), the higher speed of the interacting with the others users or computer, the stronger flow which users may achieved from the system.”
Lines 166-168, that includes “Telepresence describes the user's experience of the virtual reality environment (Kim & Bi-occa, 2004, Held & Durlach, 1992), and Steuer (1992) explained the meaning of telepresence, which relevant to people’s feeling about the system environment.”
Line 215 -has been deleted and add more information to illustrate the data collection method.
We fixed the sentence of INT1, T1, T4, T5, and the other gramma problems also have been revised.
In addition, data collection and analysis were also modified and supplemented,
Lines 256-258, explained why use online survey.
Lines 261-263, explained the social media would be used for issue the questionnaire.
Line 268-273, posted the LAIX was the investigating mobile learning application, as well as Guangzhou university students who use mobile English learning application were chosen as the respondents.
Line 278-282, mentioned what is SEM and why use it for this study.
- Correctness of conclusions
The conclusion part well summarizes the essence of the paper. The conclusions are partly correct and can be drawn from the research done. The possibility of further future research is discussed in the conclusion.
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions.
Line 40 – TPB model – not explained: changed to Theory Planed Behavior (TPB)
Line 47 – which application? E-learning application
Line 202 – filed – wrong word maybe? It should be field.
Line 240 – The value for KOM is not justified by literature. Added the literature of KOM.
Table 3 - There is no justification why Principal Component Analysis is used. “The Principal Component Analysis was tested, and the factor loading of each item in 6 types is higher than 0.5, which indicated that the questionnaire scale has good construction validity.”
Line 247 – How does the reader see that the variables are significant? It is not explained. We have illustrated the factor loading and CR to explain the convergent validity.
“The factor loading under standard estimate are higher than 0.5, and it shows that each item can well explain its dimension (Kline, 2011). Then, the CR value is greater than 0.8, and the convergent validity exhibit acceptable thresholds over 0.7 (Bagozzi, 1981).”
Line 254 – reference to the square root of AVE – where does the reader find it? “Table 5 lists the discriminant validity among variables, while each value on the diagonal is greater than the other value of its column, and it reveals that the measurement has good discriminant validity.”
Line 274 – there seems to be a wrong factor mentioned in the sentence. We have changed the wrong factor to flow experience.
Line 267 – please check the sentence. The sentence has been rewriting: “The modify space for this model is from 0.05 to 0.08, which is unhelpful for improving the model fit.”
- Suitability of Figures and Tables
The paper includes three figures and eight tables. The tables and the figures are well formatted and clear. In case of figures should it be edited by the authors, it has to be referenced in the paper, please add in the figure’s footnote “developed by authors”. The figures and the tables support comprehension, and they are referenced as required in the body of the text. Figure numbering must be checked (line 301).
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have added the footnote “developed by authors” for Table 1. Besides, we have fixed the repeating numbering for Figure 3.
- Suitability of references
The paper includes a long list of references, all of which are referenced in the paper. The references vary in time and space (international), providing relevant background to the research. The references include the most up-to-date literature as well, mainly from the last 5 years, that also supports the literature review and the research analysis as well. The format and the reference style are up to the requirements. The literature is well cited in the text.
line 200 – no year is needed in brackets.
Respond: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. In line 200, the year has been deleted.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you very much for this new version of the article, and for your efforts. I believe that this is a suitable piece of work which not only integrates present research findings but also delivers a distinctive new contribution to the literature.
Author Response
Respond to the comments of reviewer 1
Dear authors, thank you very much for this new version of the article, and for your efforts. I believe that this is a suitable piece of work which not only integrates present research findings but also delivers a distinctive new contribution to the literature.
Respond：
Thanks great for your acceptance and valuable suggestions, which give lots of help to improve the quality of our work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The research paper has been revised according to the requirements and following the recommendations of the reviewer. It has been significantly improved.
The research paper has also been restructured, the language issues and the reference issues have been mostly modified as suggested.
The hypotheses and the discussion part have been altered as required and the results and findings are discussed to make the paper comprehensible and easy to read. The conclusion and discussion parts have also been reorganised and modified as recommended. The paper was corrected, rewritten and language edited.
The chapters are supplemented with the necessary and extra information and explanations. The bibliography is also amended and extended.
Some minor changes are still to be considered.
Line 202: the word “continuance” seems to be misspelled - maybe continued as in the following paragraphs?
Line 330: “hypothesis” needs to be in plural.
Line 496: “China” needs to be capitalised.
Author Response
Respond to the comments of reviewer 3
The research paper has been revised according to the requirements and following the recommendations of the reviewer. It has been significantly improved.
The research paper has also been restructured, the language issues and the reference issues have been mostly modified as suggested. The hypotheses and the discussion part have been altered as required and the results and findings are discussed to make the paper comprehensible and easy to read. The conclusion and discussion parts have also been reorganized and modified as recommended. The paper was corrected, rewritten and language edited. The chapters are supplemented with the necessary and extra information and explanations. The bibliography is also amended and extended.
Some minor changes are still to be considered.
Line 202: the word “continuance” seems to be misspelled - maybe continued as in the following paragraphs?
Line 330: “hypothesis” needs to be in plural.
Line 496: “China” needs to be capitalized.
Respond：
Thanks for the expert’ detailed comments and suggestions very much. Now the revised content is presented to obtain the expert’s approval.
To improve the quality of the paper, the word “continuance” has been revised.
The case and plural errors have been fixed in the research.
Moreover, we have carefully check the whole paper to revise the similar errors.
