Exploring Human Values and Students’ Aspiration in E-Learning Adoption: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript provides a report surrounding using structural equation modeling to connect student perceptions of human values through motivation/aspirations towards e-learning adoption. While much of this is accomplished, there are many areas which the manuscript could adjust to improve the report.
Many of the considerations from the first 2 sections (introduction & literature review) involve how Schwartz's model of human values is reviewed/explored. There are many inconsistencies in the literature review, specifically the manuscript states on line 101 that Schwartz proposed his theory to address the gap of empirical techniques for value measurement 30 years before it was recognized. The manuscript's description of Schwartz's model in lines 117-120 is difficult to follow, and Fig 1 seems to be malformed. In general, Schwartz's model describes the human values which affect motivation, and this section does not explain that well. Additionally, the idea of 'conservation' is different that 'conservative' views, despite these ideas being interchanged throughout the report.
There are similar misconceptions regarding the ideas of 'aspirations' vs 'anticipation' vs 'expectation' in section 2.2. The current logical flow seems to suggest that motivations influence aspirations, however portions of the section attempt to state the inverse (aspirations determine motivations). Whichever the manuscript chooses to purport needs to be made clearer and better supported.
Similar issues exist throughout section 2.3 in addition to many paragraphs have sentences which do not seem to support each other or be related (e.g. lines 163-169). These limit the manuscripts impact and the support of the literature review.
Section 3.1 has no research questions in it, rather there are 'research objectives' which is fine save that the section is entitled 'research questions'. Additionally, the model proposed in Fig 2 has significant issues with regard to spacing, fonts, alignment, spelling, etc.
Section 3.2 has hypotheses which seem to be inconsistent against themselves. The first set of hypotheses (H1a-H1f) seem that they should be directly from Schwartz's work and therefore read as being redundant. The set of hypotheses relating values to aspiration (H2-H5) all are negatively correlated, despite the previous hypotheses. For instance, if self-transcendence is positively correlated with conservation yet negatively correlated with openness, then one would expect that the secondary effects of self-transcendence would have opposite effects between openness.
The methods section seems to explain the general methods of EFA, CFA, and SEM rather well however the results should be in it's own section and not tied into the methods. This allows for easier reproducability by other researchers in the future. Additionally, there is no mention of ethical considerations or IRB review for the experiment in this manuscript.
Table 2 is difficult to read and would be better served as a matrix or in some other form, especially if it's across two pages. Further, the 'Item's in the list are completely unknown at this point in the manuscript and have no labeling until later. These should be explained in the methods and then utilized/referenced throughout the results section.
Table 6 has incorrect values in the 'Recommended value' column (i.e. 0.3 should probably be 3).
Table 7 utilizes a wide variety of acronyms that are unreferenced.
Figure 3, the final product of the manuscript, is unreadable and has many, many values overwriting each other. This is the overall result of the paper and should be it's own page probably.
Following the new results section should be a discussion section before the conclusion. This would provide space for the report to expound and explain the intricacies of the weightings and values found through the SEM.
It's great to see the appendix with the full questionnaire! Additionally, the reference list is extensive and much appreciated.
Overall there are many, many positives from this manuscript. With some determined editing and including a few more sections this could be a report of great value to the community. Many thanks to the authors!
While the phrasing of the language content and readability is reasonable, there are significant issues throughout which would require a detailed readthrough by a copyeditor. Specifically, numerous spelling mistakes (both in text and in tables/charts), capitalization issues (entire paragraphs without any capital letters, including at the beginning of sentences), and other typographical concerns.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for give me the opportunity to review this interesting paper titled Understanding the Impact of Human Values on Students' Motivation and Expectations in E-Learning Adoption: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis. As the authors noted the utilization of ICT marks the beginning of a new era in education, however, despite the importance of the social factors in the adoption of e-learning, few studies have investigated it in the impact of values on the acceptance of the use of technology. In this context, this study aims to investigate the role of societal culture in the adoption of e-learning by Saudi Arabian students in higher education through a cross sectional study involving 509 university students at King Abdulaziz University.
Altogether it is an interesting study quite well written and with an interesting discussion section.
The objective is well defined, and citations are current.
The procedure and the research process are amply described, the sample size is quite high, and the instruments and the statistical analysis are coherent.
Say this, here are a few comments:
1. Perhaps it could be useful if you review the wording of the abstract. It contains more than 200 words, the maximum indicated by the journal.
2. Please review the wording of point 2.3. Although you offer useful and interesting information, it could be seen as eminently descriptive (e.g., various models and their essential characteristics). Perhaps you could help the reader a little more by focusing more on those aspects more related to the objective of your work.
3. In a similar vein, perhaps it would be interesting to review the wording of the lines 242-250, trying to connect them more, helping the reader more.
4. Please check the display of figure 2 and figure 3.
5. I'm a little confused with your description of the participants. On the one hand, perhaps it would be interesting to distinguish more clearly between participants and procedure. On the other hand, it could also differentiate between participants and the software used for analysis purpose, in its current wording it incorporates information from more aspects than participants. And perhaps it would also be useful to include a slightly more detailed description of such participants in the text, although it also described in the table included in the section,
6. It describes its measurement model very broadly and offers the questionnaire used in the appendix. However, it would be interesting to incorporate a small section, perhaps before offering Table 2, describing the variables considered and their essential aspects, for example, the measurement scale used, is it likert type? with how many anchor points?
7. Perhaps the presentation and location of figure tables and comments in 4.4 Structural model could be restructured a bit to help the reader.
8. It could be useful if you recalled the objective of your work at the beginning of your discussion section.
9. In my modest opinion, it would be useful to include a conclusion section where, among other things, he develops in more detail the practical implications of his study, something to which he refers in lines 520-535.
10. Please carefully check the whole format (e. g., in the abstract on line 15 and line 25 there are two words in bold that I don't think should be in bold, and some extra space between paragraph and paragraph. In lines 93, 94, 98 and so on, there are numerous words that should start with a capital letter)
11. Please check the references in the text, it doesn't seem to follow the instructions (i.e. reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ]), and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105).
12. Please check the references section, it does not seem to completely follow the format indicated by the journal, such as using the journal short name (e.g., line 568 Education and Information Technologies instead of Educ Inf Technol)
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The text deals with a topical issue that has been much discussed in recent times. The authors look at the issue of e-learning from the perspective of the impact of students' aspirations and societal values.
The abstract is unusually long for a scholarly article. It states that the sample on which the research was conducted was 400 students, in the text we find information about 509 questionnaires that were returned (as is the statistical treatment).
The author states that "The goal of the study is to gain a better understanding of how societal culture affects the adoption of e-learning and to provide insights for improving the implementation of this technology in higher education." in the abstract.
However, the article primarily focuses on a narrowed area - basic human values, it would be appropriate to modify this objective.
It would be helpful if the author would add the basis, argumetns, presumptions for his statements, for the stated hypotheses.
In the article, we find information that the questionnaire items were translated into Arabic, but the source of the questionnaire or information about its validity (or information whether the translation was validated) is not explicitly stated.
The Conclusion section lacks a comparison - a link to previous research.
In the ...values are crucial...Boehnke paragraphs, the capitalization of letters (names, sentence beginnings) is missing. In Table 4, there is a value 0. .886
n the ...values are crucial...Boehnke paragraphs, the capitalization of letters (names, sentence beginnings) is missing. In Table 4, there is a value 0. .886
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Many thanks for your significant efforts towards improving the manuscript. The additions/modifications which have been made to the report dramatically improve the readability, so thanks!
There are some minor concerns remaining with Fig 3 (many of the values are still overlapping and unreadable) and new issues with Fig 2 (mixed fonts, i.e. both sans-serif and serif; unaligned arrows and labels; multiple types of arrows used; still spacing issues in the boxes, etc.) but none of these necessarily detract from the report itself.
My recommendation would be to fix these in the final proofing before publishing.
Thanks again for all your efforts and best of luck in your future research endeavors!
Author Response
We extend our sincere gratitude for your diligent review, ongoing support, and invaluable insights.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for give me the opportunity to review again this interesting paper titled Understanding the Impact of Human Values on Students' Motivation and Expectations in E-Learning Adoption: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis.
Although the authors have considerably improved the work, I am still a bit confused with some of the modifications they say they have made, for example:
- In point 4.1. you keep talking about more things than just participants, I don't know if it would be possible, since there is talk of more things, to rename the point as participants and procedure.
- I don´t find at the beginning of section 6, so-called conclusion in the paper, that you have remembered the objective of their work (which is complex, and I think it would be interesting if they helped the reader a little more making it more readable). This section 6 in my modest opinion is more like a discussion section than a real conclusion section. I find the conclusions from line 533 to 551, and maybe the authors could more clearly distinguish both. I also think it would be interesting to strengthen discussion a little more. For example, although in the introduction you offer several studies that allow you to contextualize your objetive and work, in the discussion you barely incorporate them to comment on the results you have obtained in light of such references.
- Nor do I see that what is indicated by the publication regarding the references is applied. They should be described as follows, depending on the type of work: Journal Articles, 1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range. For example, the short name for Frontiers in Psychology (line 698) is Front. Psycho.
Please check again carefully the whole format (e. g., lines 20, 70, it seems the letter size is bigger than the rest, the word “shift-ed” in line 177 extra space between lines 351-352, capital letter in line 366, yellow and green color in lines 675, 717).
Author Response
We extend our sincere gratitude for your diligent review, ongoing support, and invaluable insights.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version of the text represents an academic piece presenting results that could be of interest to the target audience of the journal. The findings are presented in a comprehensible and formal manner at the required level of sophistication.
Author Response
We extend our sincere gratitude for your diligent review, ongoing support, and invaluable insights.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
