Exploring Students’ Acceptance of Construction Information Technology: The Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model for the Design of an Education Program at a Japanese University
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStudy represent the initial endeavor to gauge students’ views on construction IT education to provide insights for future curriculum recommendations.
The structure of the article is good. Aspects related to previous researches, methods and materials, results, discussions and conclusions are presented.
The results are accompanied by statistical analyses.
The references are sufficient and are in agree with the topic addressed.
The conclusions are in agreement with the presented results.
There would also be aspects to be discussed about the indicators taken into analysis, technology acceptance model, student's acceptance or designing a university education program but for an initial study i think it is enough for a study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your support. We appreciate your comments.
Best regars
Reeko Watanabe
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses a problem that is crucial in the 21st century due to its ability to integrate emerging technologies, effective learning processes and diverse media. The model they adopt (TAM) provides a framework for the effective implementation and use of ICTs in higher education and other sectors, promoting innovation, access to information and the development of essential digital skills in an increasingly digitized world. The text describes the current state of knowledge on the subject. The references used are recent and current, but also include classic texts. It is a work that makes a significant contribution to the field of higher education and competencies in the 21st century. It has scientific relevance and the text is well written and coherent with the objective presented, in a clear and understandable way.
However, I would like to make some suggestions for modifications to the authors:
1. Although the objective of the work is presented in several parts of the paper, it would be convenient that at the beginning, when the problem statement is defined, it is more clearly defined.
2. Although the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) model is widely used for ICTs due to its simplicity, effectiveness and ability to explain the behavior of users in the adoption of technologies, it has some limitations that the authors should cite, such as the lack of consideration of external factors, the assumption that the intention of use always translates into actual behavior and the limitation in the ability to predict changes in attitudes towards technology over time, the lack of consideration of contextual factors, or the failure to consider the diversity of users, etc.
3. Finally, since the authors propose as a second objective to propose a CIT education program, which is presented in the point: "6.2. Implications of the proposed CIT education program" and given the relevance of this implication, they should develop this program a little more, since only the figure is not enough.
In summary, I believe that the study has merit and I congratulate the authors for it, however, it needs to be revised with respect to the points made above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your constructive comments.
We replied to your questions in the attached file.
Best regards
Reeko Watanabe
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper “Exploring Students’ Acceptance of Construction IT through the Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model at Japanese University for designing a university education program” presents the results obtained from a field survey to investigate the acceptance of BIM courses and the affecting factors involved, such as knowledge, experience, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease based on the technology acceptance model (TAM) in Japanese universities. My observations are:
- (Line 38): “According to the findings of another survey…” Which is this survey?
- (Line 91): “Intelligent BIM provides an opportunity for Architectural..” What does the concept “Intelligent BIM” mean?
- (Line 92): “Architectural, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO)..” This abbreviation has appeared before. Review and eliminate duplicities.
- (Line 203): “The data set is based on a valid sample (N=136) of students majoring in civil engineering at national universities in Japan.” Is the size of this data sample large enough to be representative of civil engineering degrees at Japan's national universities? This needs to be clarified in the manuscript.
In method section:
- Why was the questionnaire only distributed to Civil Engineering students? The pilot study was validated by Architecture students. So, why was the questionnaire not distributed to architecture students? The BIM methodology is directly related to this degree.
- The survey items should be included in the manuscript. A table summarizing the different items should be included to clarify this issue.
- A sub-section with the statistical methods used should be included in the methodology section.
In result section:
- (Line 253): What type of correlation is reported in the manuscript? (pearson, spearman…)
-(Line 268): The results of the regression analysis should be included in a summary table.
-(Line 266): “The results show that both knowledge and experience are significant predictors of perceived usefulness (F(2, 133) = 8.109, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.095)” is an R2 = 0.095 significant? Please clarify this statement.
-(Line 278): The statistical analyses used in this section have not been defined in the methodology section. This fact causes confusion and unclear reading of the results.
-(Line 286) – Table 3: What are these items? These items are not shown in the methodology section. Please clarify this issue.
In the conclusion section, the authors should highlight the contributions of the study to practice.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We replied to you in the attached file. Thank you.
Best regards
Reeko Watanabe
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is about the current topic and the references are current.
The topic of the study has academic implications. However, I suggest clarifying the question of the study and clarifying the purpose of the study.
The research methodology is not objective and I recommend that the methodology model used be included in the abstract. I suggest this method be a little more detailed.
The final conclusions are very broad, and I recommend that they be reviewed. I also suggest that future work be included on the basis of the final conclusions.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We replied to you in the attached file.
Best regards
Reeko Watanabe
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks for letting me review a paper entitled “Exploring Students’ Acceptance of Construction IT through the Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model at Japanese University for designing a university education program”
The paper may be published after considering the below major issues:
1- Paper title: please revise your title to focus on main constructs only its looks like a paragraph not a scientific research paper title.
2- Ther research hypothesized model section is very poor, please justify each of your hypotheses and write it as H1: ……., and then justify the next hypotheses with related literature and write it as H2 and so on …..
3- Sample size is low (N=137) and cannot support the generalization of your findings, please justify
4- The data analysis techniques is outdated, you have to try PLS_SEM .
5- All predictors except knowledge are significant predictors, explaining 44.8% of the acceptance variance. I think there is a mistake in the path coefficient from knowledge to acceptance (0.95)!
6- The path from experience to acceptance (0.124) with a t value of 1.673 cannot be significant as shown in the appendix!
7- The implication section needs more effort to support the importance of your study.
8- No limitation or further study opportunity section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We appreciate your efffort. And we replied to your questions in the attached file.
Best regards
Reeko Watanabe
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have successfully addressed my previous comments
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorscan accept in its current form
Best wishes
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor
