South African Postgraduate STEM Students’ Use of Mobile Digital Technologies to Facilitate Participation and Digital Equity during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editors and authors, the manuscript entitled "South African Postgraduate STEM Students' Use of Mobile Digital Technologies to facilitate participation and digital equity during the COVID-19 Pandemic" presents a highly valuable and timely focus on the transition to online learning through mobile technologies. during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in the context of South Africa, a country seeking to address the injustices and inequalities of the pre-democratic period. Research argues that this transition can be harnessed to encourage active participation, quality inclusive learning, development of relevant and responsive content, and achieving mobile digital equity.

This interpretive case study (a qualitative research approach that seeks to understand and analyze in depth a particular phenomenon or situation in its real context), conducted at a South African teacher training institution, answers the question of how STEM postgraduate students (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) used mobile digital technologies to facilitate teaching and learning under COVID-19 conditions. The research was based on data obtained from twenty intentionally selected STEM graduate students who participated in online discussion forums and kept reflective journals. The study was carried out following rigorous ethical protocols.

Mishra and Koehler's widely recognized Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model has served as a perfectly adequate conceptual framework for this study. According to the authors of the manuscript, the TPACK model constructs were used during data analysis. The results highlight that mobile digital technologies were used for translanguaging, supporting students in developing disciplinary scientific understanding through exposure to practical work and connecting interdisciplinary concepts in STEM subjects.

One of the main achievements of this study is its contribution to the operationalization of STEM education in developing countries, offering insights on how to address issues of access and social justice through the effective use of mobile technologies. The findings also highlight how these technologies can be harnessed to improve practice in STEM subjects in the post-COVID period.

From a statistical perspective, the manuscript presents a robust and well-defined methodology for data collection and analysis. The purposeful selection of participants and the focus on the TPACK model allow for an accurate assessment of how mobile technologies are integrated into STEM teaching and their impact on participation and digital equity.

The information collection instrument has been validated. According to the document (page 6), the texts of the transcripts were sent to the participants for validation by the respondent, to check if their responses had been accurately captured. This is an important step in qualitative research to ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected.

In summary, some of the positive aspects are the following:

Relevance of the topic: The study addresses a highly topical and relevant topic, such as the use of mobile digital technologies in education during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an emerging research area of great importance for contemporary education.

Methodology: The choice of an interpretive case study is appropriate for the type of research question posed. It allows for an in-depth exploration of how STEM graduate students use mobile digital technologies in a specific context.

Theoretical framework: The use of the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) model to frame the study provides a solid foundation for data analysis.

Results: The study findings are significant and provide valuable insight into how mobile digital technologies can be used to facilitate teaching and learning in STEM subjects.

Some suggestions for improvement, which the authors may or may not take into account, are the following:

1. Deeper Contextualization: Although the summary provides an introduction to the South African context and the need to address inequalities, it might be useful to add even more detail about the educational and political-social landscape in South Africa.

2. Expansion of the sample: Although the study focuses on a specific case, it could be beneficial to expand the sample to include students from different institutions or contexts. This could provide a broader view of how mobile digital technologies are used in STEM education.

3. Comparison with face-to-face teaching: It would be interesting to include a comparison with face-to-face teaching to determine the specific advantages and disadvantages of online mobile teaching and learning.

4. Long-term follow-up: A long-term follow-up study could provide valuable information on the long-term impact of the use of mobile digital technologies in STEM education.

5. More Detail in Results: If possible, enrich the summary of the study findings by providing specific examples of how mobile technologies were used for translanguaging and for the disciplinary development of science. This would allow readers to gain a deeper understanding of how the results manifested themselves.

6. Practical Implications and Future Research: Adding a short section at the end of the manuscript that highlights the practical implications of the findings and suggests possible directions for future research in this field would enhance the relevance and applicability of the study.

7. Language and Structure Review: Perform a final review of the manuscript to ensure that the writing is clear and consistent throughout the document, and that the structure follows a logical flow from the introduction to the conclusions.

8. Major review of bibliographic references (MUST BE CARRIED OUT):

a) The names of the authors must be in reverse order (last name, first name initials) and separated by commas. For more than two authors, the word "et al." after the first author. In the references provided, this rule is mostly followed, but there are some exceptions. For example, in reference 2, the author's name would be "Singh-Pillay, A." instead of "Singh-Pillay, 2023.".

b) The title of the article must be in lower case, except for the first word and proper names. In the references provided, this rule is mostly followed, but there are some exceptions. For example, in reference 1, "Online Teaching and Learning Within the Context Of Covid-19. Exploring the Perceptions of Postgraduate Mathematics Education Students Mathematics Education Journals" should read "Online teaching and learning within the context of Covid-19. Exploring the perceptions of postgraduate mathematics education students mathematics education journals".

c) The title of the newspaper or magazine must be in italics and in capital letters and lower case. In the references provided, this rule is mostly followed, but there are some exceptions. For example, in reference 1, "Mathematics Education Journals" should be italicized.

d) The year of publication must be in parentheses and followed by a point. In the references provided, this rule is mostly followed, but there are some exceptions. For example, in reference 2, the publication year "2023" should be in parentheses.

e) The volume of the newspaper or magazine must be in italics. In the references provided, this rule is mostly not followed. For example, in reference 1, the volume "5" should be italicized.

These suggestions for improvement are intended to further highlight the qualities of the manuscript and ensure that the research is communicated effectively and accessible to readers.

None.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find attached a schedule of revision for comments received.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "South African Postgraduate STEM Students' Use of Mobile Digital Technologies to facilitate participation and digital equity during the COVID-19 Pandemic" addresses an interesting topic in the field of education: the use of mobile digital technologies to overcome the challenges posed by the pandemic and promote digitalisation. In turn, the researchers delve into the specific context of South Africa, a country struggling to improve social and educational inequalities. Furthermore, the study employs a well-established theoretical framework, Mishra and Koehler's Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, to underpin the study's qualitative research design, and the emphasis on cross-linguistic pedagogies and virtual hands-on work through PhET simulations opens up new possibilities for improving STEM education in resource-constrained settings.

Finally, to enhance the scientific article, it is recommended to add recent research on the benefits of using mobile digital technologies in higher education. In this regard, it is advisable to consult the Web of Science and SCOPUS databases for the last five years. It is also advisable to clarify the research objectives and it is recommended to expand and deepen the conclusions in order to make them more convincing in relation to the results obtained. Furthermore, the prospective or theoretical-practical implications of this research should be developed and substantiated in order to analyse the usefulness of the study and its contribution to the scientific community.

In conclusion, the research described in this article constitutes an interesting contribution to the field of technology education, especially in the context of South Africa's response to the educational-technological challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Future research could incorporate quantitative data analysis to provide statistical evidence of the effectiveness of digital mobile technologies in improving student outcomes, participation rates and digital equity, and while the study's focus on postgraduate STEM students is valuable, it would be beneficial to include a broader sample.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find attached a schedule of revision undertaken in response to the insightful comments received.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Regarding the content, I do not have any changes to recommend, it makes a good literary review to support the relevance of the problem to be studied and a good structuring of the content, it uses the correct methodology for this type of study and it is a consistent and well-detailed methodology to give significance to the results they show, makes a good discussion of the results with respect to the studies carried out previously, and marks the conclusion obtained well.

Although I advise looking at these things:

A table or figure should never appear without reference to it in the previous text. You can use: See Figure 1. Review this in all the tables and figures of the article.

Never two sections without a paragraph of text in between. You should put a couple of lines describing/naming the subsections you are going to deal with within that section. You must correct this between sections 2-2.1, 2.3-2.3.1 and 4-4.1.

The section “6. CONCLUSION” should be “6. Conclusion".

The section “7. RECOMMENDATION” should be “7. Recommendation”.

In the section “6. Conclusion”, it is necessary to develop a deeper analysis of the conclusions and implications of the study. In addition to the possible future lines of research opened with this research.

Don't forget to add before the “References” section, the “Author Contributions”, “Conflicts of Interest” and “Funding” sections. Look at the template.

And the references in the “References” section must follow the model set by the journal. You must correct the errors that exist. Look at this in the template.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

please find attached a schedule of revision, undertaken in response to comments received.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

The received paper is well-written, however there are some issues that should be fixed:

- Regarding the title: "South African Postgraduate STEM Students’ Use of Mobile Digital Technologies to facilitate participation and digital equity during the COVID-19 Pandemic " what kind of participation you refer to? It is not clear.

- In the Abstract clearly identify your objective(s). They are not directly indicated.

- Part of the line 77: "The findings of this research are significant" should be removed. Only a concrete contribution is important, not the statement that "something is significant". Also, the contribution should not be too general (e.g. "The research contributes to SDG 4."). Therefore, please provide a specific, unique aspect of your research that will be in line with the generalised thought. 

- If the lines 79-85 is about the contribution, please highlight it. In the present form I am not sure if you skip from the contribution to results, or maybe you describe results to support the sentence about the contribution. This could be clarified.

- The line 86 "This paper comprises five sections", should be removed if it stays as it is, or you should explain what will be in the sections.

- In the Introduction please provide a hypothesis of you research and briefly outline methods and limitations to show a reader how you achieved your goal. 

- The lines 192-194 contain repetitions, please redact the excerpt.

- In the lines 245-258 - please do not cite all questions from the questionnaire as they are presented in the next section. Please find some categories that will reveal their content, if possible. Or, describe their content in a general way.

- In the methodology section please how you constructed the codes and categories (e.g. apriori, aposteriori). Also, mention about the limitations of your qualitative research.

Some technical issues appeared, such as grey color in the text, lack of commas, font of the table. For this reason the text should be revised in this aspect.

Kind regards.

The English language is fine, however the style could be polished. Minor punctuation errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Please find attached a schedule of revisions undertaken in response to the helpful comments received

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for the revision and your clear reply.

After improvements, I would suggest you rewriting the aim (in the Abstract) in order to avoid the statement "the aim is to answer the question". Please consider for instance, the aim of the study is to verify... (...).

Also, in the line 36 (where you write about the contribution), please add what is a novelty of your study. 

After the changes the text can be considered for publication.

Kind regards. 

Author Response

Dear Editor , 

Thank you for the insightful comments that helped improve this research paper's quality. The revisions undertaken were as  follows: 

the aim in the abstract was re-written as suggested by the reviewer - see highlighted in green in the abstract.

In response to the comment , please add what is novel about the study in line 36 - this has been done - see highlighted in green

i trust the revisions made are in order. 

regards 

asheena