Privacy Concerns and Online Learning of Postgraduate Students through the Lens of Stimulus–Organism–Response Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a really interesting paper in which authors study the privacy concern and online learning of some students. Using the famous SOR authors study the PCA and the PCF in an online environment and classroom and the findings show that the OCL is negatively influenced by both PCA and PCF. After that results they give some advices about the implications that this study has in the teaching-learning process. Finally, limitations section put the focus on the localization of the problem but I enjoyed reading the paper and can accept it in its present form.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments
This is a really interesting paper in which authors study the privacy concern and online learning of some students. Using the famous SOR, authors study the PCA and the PCF in an online environment and classroom and the findings show that the OCL is negatively influenced by both PCA and PCF. After that results they give some advices about the implications that this study has in the teaching-learning process. Finally, limitations section put the focus on the localization of the problem but I enjoyed reading the paper and can accept it in its present form.
Response to the Reviewer
All the authors are very grateful to the reviewer for his/her positive and encouraging words and for the acceptance of the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend to reject the paper because
(1) what it studies is nothing new in terms of theory and practice
(2) the research model proposed is, again, nothing new in terms of the theory used, the constructs included, the hypotheses posted, and the findings.
(3) more importantly, I see very little, if any, relevance between the study and the theme of the special issue.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 Comments
Comment 1
What it studies is nothing new in terms of theory and practice.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. This study has several theoretical and practical contributions (Please see page 2, 9, and 10) as mentioned below:
“SNSs promotes peer exchanges and group discussions through smooth flow of communication as it diminishes the fear of judgement (Majid & Panchapakesan, 2015). The participants may easily collaborate over breaks for sharing the handouts, PowerPoint slides, concept maps, reading material etc. These work as time-free spaces for the students to think, share and sleepover ideas (Chugh, Grose & Macht, 2021). Similarly, the course facilitators can effortlessly stay connected using the SNSs. It provides a convenient and flexible forum for giving instructions, assigning homework and assessments, conducting discussions and providing feedback (Baleni, 2014).
However, the negative aspects of the usage of SNS have outweighed the benefits in some contexts (Islam, Matmaki, Laato & Turel, 2022; Parviz & Piercy, 2021). Number of studies report threats and risks involved in using SNS in classrooms (Abdulahi, Samadi, Gharleghi, 2014; Che, Kim & Rao, 2021; Zimmer, 2022; Masood, Luqman, Feng & Shehzad, 2022). These studies highlight the issues such as impact on peer-to-peer relationship, addiction and overuse, social stressors, health threats and negative impact upon academic performance. The most prominent ones are risks and privacy concerns. The participants are reported to be concerned with invasion of privacy, identity theft, cyber bullying and hacking (Fogel & Nehmad, 2007; Alhazmi, Al-Hammadi, Kaed & Imtiaz, 2021). Hence, extensive research has been conducted about usage, benefits and risks involved in employing SNS in classrooms (Granados & Jaramillo, 2019; Zhai, Wang & Ghani, 2020; Youn., 2009; Rahman, Khan, Alam, Mustamil & Chong, 2014). But, the factors that negatively influence students’ behaviour and its impact upon the online learning behavior is yet to be discovered, especially postgraduate students’ behaviors. The postgraduate programmes are research oriented, therefore the students at this level are assumed to be comparatively more sensitive about privacy invasion than the students enrolled in undergraduate or school level. The postgraduate students are expected to produce original work and copyright or plagirism is one of their primary concerns (Pangilinan et al., 2020). Consequently, they can be at a higher risk of intellectual theft. Thus, it is crucial to explore the context for the explanation of postgraduate students’ behavior in online learning.
To fill this gap, based on stimulus-organism-response (SOR) model, Mehrabian & Russell (1974), the current study explores the interplay of students’ privacy concerns, their knowledge sharing perception and online learning behavior. The model comprises of a stimuli (privacy concern), organism (knowledge sharing perception) and response (online learning behavior). The students’ knowledge sharing is presumably dependent on the beliefs which may be influenced by the percentage of risks involved in sharing the learned information, knowledge or ideas. The model attempts to explain the mediation of knowledge sharing perception between the privacy concern and online learning behavior of the postgraduate students.”
“This study has explored the antecedents, moderating effect and outcome of knowledge sharing perception through the SOR (stimulus-organism-response) model. Hence, the SOR model has uniquely being used as a lens to find out the effect of privacy concern upon the online learning where knowledge sharing perception plays a mediating role. Hence, this study has a theoretical contribution on two levels. One aspect is the investigation of privacy concern as an antecedent of the online learning, second is the investigation about the knowledge sharing perception as an organism between the privacy concern (as a stimulus) and online learning (as a response). Moreover, this study has focused on the tertiary level students. Thus, this study has investigated about the impact of privacy concern on online learning specifying the usage of SNS by the tertiary level students through SOR theory which is a unique domain.
In addition, the research under consideration has significant practical implications. Firstly, the results from the study indicate that the teachers should practically work on minimizing the negative impact of privacy concern through creating an awareness about the ethical considerations while using SNS. Similarly, the counseling of the students about the knowledge sharing perception could also benefit in collaborative learning.
Thirdly, the study confirms that the privacy concern influences knowledge sharing behavior, hence negatively impacting the online learning. This implies that online collaborative learning could not be effective and smooth without openness towards knowledge sharing. Hence, an online environment should ideally be a platform for the students where they may freely share and exchange knowledge. The teachers, supervisors and management in this case should work on mitigating the factors causing the rise in privacy concern. Furthermore, the results from the study also contribute to the aspect of teaching practices. The results from the study brings our attention towards the methodology, teaching styles and design of the activities in online teaching. The teachers should strategically work on conducting such activities where there are lesser chances of students’ discomfort related to the privacy concern.”
Comment 2
The research model proposed is, again, nothing new in terms of the theory used, the constructs included, the hypotheses posted, and the findings.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. This is the first study which explained the linkage between privacy concern, knowledge sharing perceptions, and online collaborative learning in the light of SOR paradigm. Further, this relationship not only linked but also established in a systematic way which is a major contribution to the SOR model and extant literature.
Moreover, the question about the constructs, so it is important to develop a new construct or explore a new phenomenon through qualitative research but plethora of empirical research is available which checked/established the relationship between constructs that is already developed.
Comment 3
More importantly, I see very little, if any, relevance between the study and the theme of the special issue.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a severe impact on educational institutions worldwide, leading to the near-total closures of schools, colleges and universities. Education is important to the development of individuals and the sustainability of the society. In order to maintain continuous and effective education, many educational institutions have started to switch their teaching mode to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the sustainable online learning, students’ attitude toward online learning and their interest of learning should be considered because online classes may replace classroom learning for a long period of time. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a new revolution in education. We may expect more online elements of education to emerge even after COVID-19 has passed. Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors or issues of online learning, and for this reason, this study comes under the scope of online learning.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is relevant to the journal's mission in difficult times where e-learning has developed greatly. In this sense, I consider the paper to be relevant for several reasons. 1. It is a study that contributes to increasing the field of knowledge regarding the mediating role of perceptions of knowledge sharing between the relationship of privacy concern and online learning.
The topic of the paper "Privacy Concern and Online Learning of Postgraduate Students through the Lens of StimulusOrganism-Response Model" is interesting and a timely study as it constitutes an emerging research problem such as privacy and online learning.
The paper is well structured, facilitating the understanding of the study. The theoretical underpinning is based on the research questions, providing current and novel literature in relation to the study problem and the stated objectives.
Objective: The main objective of this study is not explicitly stated in the method section. I believe it should be included and made explicit in order to facilitate the readers' understanding of the study.
The research phases are presented in a clear and structured way. However, this evaluator considers it necessary to introduce a specific "conclusions" section.
Results: this evaluator considers that the results shown in terms of the study problem are relevant. The author should also identify possible lines of research emerging from his study in relation to privacy issues and e-learning.
Author Response
Reviewer 3 Comments
Comment 1
The article is relevant to the journal's mission in difficult times where e-learning has developed greatly. In this sense, I consider the paper to be relevant for several reasons. 1. It is a study that contributes to increasing the field of knowledge regarding the mediating role of perceptions of knowledge sharing between the relationship of privacy concern and online learning.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer for his/her appreciation of our research work.
Comment 2
The topic of the paper "Privacy Concern and Online Learning of Postgraduate Students through the Lens of Stimulus-Organism-Response Model" is interesting and a timely study as it constitutes an emerging research problem such as privacy and online learning.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer for his/her encouraging words.
Comment 3
The paper is well structured, facilitating the understanding of the study. The theoretical underpinning is based on the research questions, providing current and novel literature in relation to the study problem and the stated objectives.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you again to the reviewer for positive and encouraging words.
Comment 4
Objective: The main objective of this study is not explicitly stated in the method section. I believe it should be included and made explicit in order to facilitate the readers' understanding of the study.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We have added the purpose of the study in the methodology section in the revised manuscript. (See page 5)
In-text Changes
“The purpose of the current study, first, is to investigate the relationship between two dimensions of privacy concerns (i.e., PCA and PCF) and OCL. Second, is to investigate the mediating role of KSP between the relationship of PCA and PCF with OCL.”
Comment 5
The research phases are presented in a clear and structured way. However, this evaluator considers it necessary to introduce a specific "conclusions" section.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We have added a conclusion section at the end in the revised manuscript. (See page 10)
In-text Changes
“The findings of this study are quite promising as it providing empirical support for the potential and significant role of PCA and PCF in OCL. Simultaneously, this study contributes to the literature by investigating KSP as a mechanism between the relationship of PCA and PCF with OCL. Ultimately, our findings provides insights that educational institutions can use these results and should address the issues like privacy concern and its consequences because such concerns will restrict the online learners to collaborate. Concurrently, This study set the stage for further research that how contextual and individual level factors influence OCL.”
Comment 6
Results: this evaluator considers that the results shown in terms of the study problem are relevant. The author should also identify possible lines of research emerging from his study in relation to privacy issues and e-learning.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We have added possible lines of research emerging from this study in relation to privacy issues and e-learning in the limitations and future studies section in the revised manuscript. (See page 9)
In-text Changes
“Finally, this study investigate privacy concern as a contextual factor and KSP as a personal factor which play a significant role in OCL. Future studies could extend this line of research to investigate other contextual factor such as teachers behaviors in the online learning platforms, internet access, ease of use of technology, and personal level factors of learners such as students internet and technology self-efficacy, psychological ownership of knowledge, psychological entitlement etc.”
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article reports an interesting study on students privacy in online learning. The article is overall well written. However, the authors should follow the journal's guidelines for formatting and referencing. The references should be presented with the journal's guidelines.
More information is needed about the adaptation of the instruments, were they translated? Were the original authors contacted?
What are the procedures for collecting data from students, could you clarify in more detail?
It is suggested that the first time you use CMB indicate Common Method Bias.
The statistical procedures used seem appropriate to the study and adequately explained.
Table 2 needs to be explained in more detail, flagging the most relevant data. Are the correlations between the questionnaire variables significant? What does it mean?
Further evidence-based discussion of the results is suggested. The authors only flag 2 studies in the discussion, can they bring in other authors to better understand the significance of their results? What other studies corroborate or contradict the results?
The article needs a grammatical and language revision.
Author Response
Reviewer 4 Comments
Comment 1
The article reports an interesting study on students privacy in online learning. The article is overall well written. However, the authors should follow the journal's guidelines for formatting and referencing. The references should be presented with the journal's guidelines.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you very much to the reviewer for his/her encouraging words. We revised the paper formatting and reference accordingly to the journal guidelines.
Comment 2
More information is needed about the adaptation of the instruments, were they translated? Were the original authors contacted?
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. The questionnaires were shared in English language, the reason was, data were collected from Master and PhD student, and the medium of education in Pakistan is English language. Therefore, it was easy for the student to understand the questions and fill the questionnaire.
Moreover, the original authors of the instruments for this paper has not been contacted while one of the co-authors have worked on these construct early and he got the permission to use the construct for the sake of academic research.
In-text Changes
“The questionnaires were distributed in English language because the medium of education in Pakistan is English and all the participants were well educated i.e., Master and PhD students.” (Page 5)
Comment 3
What are the procedures for collecting data from students, could you clarify in more detail?
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We discusses the data collection procedure in more details in the revised manuscript.
In-text Changes
“The proposed model has been tested through data collection from the post-graduate (Master and PhD) students in Pakistan. Only those students who had the learning experience using the social media participated in the survey. The questionnaires were distributed in English language because the medium of education in Pakistan is English and all the participants were well educated i.e., Master and PhD students. A cover letter was attached with each questionnaire which explained the purpose of the research, ensure the anonymity, and they are participating voluntarily in the study and can withdraw anytime. Total of 450 questionnaires distributed, however, 295 responses were received back. Six out of the 291 responses were incomplete, hence 285 valid responses (63.33% of the total) could be used for testing the study model.” (Page 5)
Comment 4
It is suggested that the first time you use CMB indicate Common Method Bias.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We used the full form CMB as common method bias at the first place in the revised manuscript. (See page 6)
In-text Changes
“Common Method Bias (CMB) issues assessed through Harman’s single factor technique show that the first factor explained 38.61% which is less than 50% of the total variance, provide support for CMB that is not a major concern.”
Comment 5
The statistical procedures used seem appropriate to the study and adequately explained.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer for the positive words.
Comment 6
Table 2 needs to be explained in more detail, flagging the most relevant data. Are the correlations between the questionnaire variables significant? What does it mean?
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We explained Table 2 in the revised manuscript. (See page7)
In-text Changes
“The means and standard deviations of the variables and their inter-correlations are demonstrated in the anticipated directions (see Table 2). The results of Table 2 indicates that PCA and PCF both are negatively and significantly correlated with OCL as (r=-.467, p<.01) and (r=-.335, p<.01) respectively. Similarly, PCA and PCF negatively and significantly correlated with KSP as (r=-.347, p<.01) and (r=-.412, p<.01) respectively. While KSP and OCL are positively and significantly correlated as (r=-.317, p<.01). Also, Table 2 indicates that the demographic variables also has been observed insignificant with the study variables.”
Comment 7
Further evidence-based discussion of the results is suggested. The authors only flag 2 studies in the discussion, can they bring in other authors to better understand the significance of their results? What other studies corroborate or contradict the results?
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We have updated the discussion part with relevant citations from the literature in the revised manuscript. (See page 9)
In-text Changes
“In this study, the relationship of privacy concern with online learning has been studied using the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) model. Presumably the students’ concern about the privacy has an effect upon online learning i.e. students’ belief about privacy alters their perception about sharing knowledge on SNS while learning online. The results from the study prove that there is a strong influence of privacy concern on online learning. The findings inform a negative relationship which implies that the rising privacy concern (abuse & finding) negatively affects online learning. Majority of the responses validate that sharing academic knowledge is risky while using SNS and they believe that their personal information or shared academic content may not be used for the intended purpose. The results are consistent with Kim (2021) and Anwar (2021) that SNS is comparatively an unsafe forum for online learning as there is a high chance of information leakage. The findings from Rajab and Soheib (2021) confirm the similar outcomes where privacy is found to be a major determinant of student’s behavior in online collaborative learning.
The results of the second set of hypotheses again prove a significant mediating role of knowledge sharing perceptions between the relationship of privacy concern and online learning. Knowledge sharing is one of the fundamental components of collaborative learning; hence any learning activity cannot be conducted successfully unless the participants are open to share knowledge. As stated in Al-Emraan, Grani, Al-Sharafi, Ameen and Sarrab (2020) study, usage behavior is altered by student’s beliefs about the information leakage. Similarly, the study of Nilsen et al. (2013) has identified number of issues voiced by the students such as technological, personal and teaching methodology about online learning. The study proves that the perception about sharing knowledge mediates the privacy concern and online learning which implies that knowledge sharing perception is affected by privacy concern therefore altering the online learning. The privacy concern is also proved to be a negative factor in Kozar (2016) and Bedenlier et al. (2021) study where students are observed to be reluctant in using webcams while online sessions. It can be simplified as the privacy concern has a significant impact upon the knowledge sharing perception which then alters the online learning outcomes. The responses from the students show that they feel they lose control over the information they share, they are being watched, the information they shared may be used in an unforeseen manner, and they may get themselves in trouble. These are also the highlighted causes (i.e., privacy concern) of the knowledge hiding on SNS in online collaborative learning (Zhai, Ming, & Usman, 2020). Moreover, the findings could be categorized into rationalized hiding, playing dumb, evasive hiding, which validates the intentional hiding by the students while collaborating online. Hence, knowledge sharing perception is one of the major determinants in our findings. The results confirm that the participants on any SNS will feel more comfortable to share their knowledge and collaborate openly. Contradictorily, the more concerned are the students about their privacy, the lesser they will collaborate and share. It is observed in the stated results that students.”
References
Al-Emran, M., Granić, A., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Ameen, N., & Sarrab, M. (2020). Examining the roles of students' beliefs and security concerns for using smartwatches in higher education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34(4), 1229-1251.
Anwar, M. (2021). Supporting privacy, trust, and personalization in online learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31(4), 769-783.
Bedenlier, S., Wunder, I., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Kammerl, R., Kopp, B., Ziegler, A., & Händel, M. (2021). “Generation invisible?. Higher Education Students’(Non) Use of Webcams in Synchronous Online Learning. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100068.
Kim, S. S. (2021). Motivators and concerns for real-time online classes: focused on the security and privacy issues. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14.
Kozar, O. (2016). Perceptions of webcam use by experienced online teachers and learners: A seeming disconnect between research and practice. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 779-789.
Nilsen, A. G., Almås, A. G., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2013). Teaching online or on-campus?–What students say about desktop videoconferencing. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(1-02), 90-106.
Rajab, M. H., & Soheib, M. (2021). Privacy concerns over the use of webcams in online medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cureus, 13(2), e13536.
Zhai, X., Wang, M., & Ghani, U. (2020). The SOR (stimulus-organism-response) paradigm in online learning: an empirical study of students’ knowledge hiding perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(5), 586-601.
Comment 7
The article needs a grammatical and language revision.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We have proofread our article. Hopefully grammatical and language issues may no longer exist in the required manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper. It is an interesting toping and I consider it fits to the journal. The article reports on a very interesting study that may reach large audiences. The article is very well organized, in conceptual and methodological terms, and presents very relevant results.
However, I have a few observations.
In the Abstract, there are too many acronyms.
What is the criterion that was the basis for the selection of the 450 students in Pakistan (Master and PhD)?
The bibliography is up to date.
Author Response
Reviewer 5 Comments
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper. It is an interesting toping and I consider it fits to the journal. The article reports on a very interesting study that may reach large audiences. The article is very well organized, in conceptual and methodological terms, and presents very relevant results. However, I have a few observations.
Comment 1
In the Abstract, there are too many acronyms.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. Actually we used the acronyms for the sake abstract length and to be more attractive and looks less redundant.
Comment 2
What is the criterion that was the basis for the selection of the 450 students in Pakistan (Master and PhD)?
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer. We have calculated the sample size on “Daniel Soper sample calculator (https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89)” to run structural equation modelling (SEM), and the minimum recommended sample size was 137. We collected data from 285 respondent through convenience sampling method which was enough to run SEM or model of the study. Moreover, we selected Masters and PhD student, the reason is, both of these programs are research oriented degree programs and Ghani et al. (2020) reported that the privacy concern of these students is relatively high in term of ideas discussing or sharing on the online learning platforms. Therefore, we select Masters and PhD students. (See page 5)
In-text Changes
“The sample size was calculated on “Daniel Soper sample calculator (https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89)” by putting effect size .30, number of latent variables 4 and observed variables 19 to run structural equation modelling (SEM). The minimum recommended sample size was 137. Our final sample was 285 respondent which was enough to run the study model through SEM. Moreover, we selected Masters and PhD student, the reason is, both of these programs are research oriented degree programs, and Ghani et al. (2020) reported that the privacy concern of these students is relatively high in term of ideas discussing or sharing on the online learning platforms.”
Comment 3
The bibliography is up to date.
Response to the Reviewer
Thank you to the reviewer for the positive words.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not think the authors have addressed my concerns raised in the previous round.
1. Being the first or conducting a study that no other scholars have done it before is NOT a good justification for conducting the study or a good contribution to the literature. This is a necessary condition but clearly not sufficient. Using SOR is nothing new.
2. Mostly importantly, I do not see any link between the study and the theme of the special issue. Based on the argument by the authors, everything can be included and considered as relevant!
Author Response
Thank you to the reviewer for his/her feedback.
Reviewer 4 Report
Many thanks to the authors for the update of the paper. The main suggestion in the previous review was improved.
Congratulation for the good job.
Author Response
Reviewer 4 Comments
Many thanks to the authors for the update of the paper. The main suggestion in the previous review was improved.
Congratulation for the good job.
Authors Response
Thank you so very much to the respected reviewer for positive and encouraging words.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
