The Technological Challenge Facing Higher Education Professors: Perceptions of ICT Tools for Developing 21st Century Skills

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is need:

• To define the concept of active methodologies- not solely mentioning student active participation.
• Although the literature review is extensive, important literature connecting the concept of 21^st century skills is absent, especially in relation to ICTs and sustainability. For example, the classic 4Cs framework (collaboration, critical thinking, creativity and communication) that is mentioned could be connected with the 10Cs framework that extends the 4Cs in connection to ICTs and sustainability. See-

Μakrakis, V.(2017). Unlocking the potentiality and actuality of ICTs in developing sustainable–justice curricula and society. Knowledge Cultures, 5(2): 103-122. doi: 0.22381/KC5220177

Makrakis, V., and N. Kostoulas-Makrakis. (2017). An instructional-learning model applying problem-based learning enabled by ICTs. In Research on eLearning and ICT in Education, edited by P. Anastasiades & N. Zaranis, 3-16. Switzerland: Springer.

Makrakis, V. & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2013). A methodology for reorienting university curricula to address sustainability: The RUCAS-Tempus project initiative. In S. Caeiro et al. (Eds.), Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions (pp. 23-44). Springer International Publishing Switzerland. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02375-5_18.

 

There is an attempt by the authors to see ICT as transformative tools. In this case it is suggested to see Makrakis, V. (2014). ICTs as transformative enabling tools in education. In ICT in education in global context edited by R. Huang Kinshuk and J. Price, 101-119. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

• It is pointed that “it would be wise to 356 carefully attend to the capacity they have of designing lessons in which the students are involved and 357 that prepare them for this XXI century”. Since there is no reference to any such a model, see the CARE learning design methodology in a recent article by Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. & Makrakis, V. (2020). Developing student-driven learning activities to promote refugee quality education through the CARE methodology, International Journal of Early Years Education, 28(2), 176-188, DOI: 1080/09669760.2020.1765091
• As pointed in the paper, the sampling consists of 345 teachers form Higher Education fields with different 147 contract profiles and that, the sample is formed by those teachers 161 who voluntarily accepted to participate in the research. In this case, it has to be described as convenient sampling to avoid confusion.
• The questionnaire is structured into six composite variables. It is pointed that the internal consistency of the items included in these scales was tested by Cronbach alpha, there is NO information about the alpha coefficients. So, it has to be added!!!
• The analysis seems to be proper and well presented. However, it could be interested if the stepwise regression method was used to see the individual contribution of each variable, although the ‘enter’ method used is right.
• The discussion needs to be elaborated more in terms of the implications of the results in designing and developing courses infused by 21^st transversal skills, student-driven learning design (to accomplish the position of authors with active methods) and ICTs as enabling tools.

Author Response

1. To define the concept of active methodologies- not solely mentioning student active participation.

In response to the suggestion, in lines 65-70 we have added a more complete definition of the so-called active methodologies.

 

2. Although the literature review is extensive, important literature connecting the concept of 21^stcentury skills is absent, especially in relation to ICTs and sustainability. For example, the classic 4Cs framework (collaboration, critical thinking, creativity and communication) that is mentioned could be connected with the 10Cs framework that extends the 4Cs in connection to ICTs and sustainability. See-

Μakrakis, V.(2017). Unlocking the potentiality and actuality of ICTs in developing sustainable–justice curricula and society. Knowledge Cultures, 5(2): 103-122. doi: 0.22381/KC5220177

Makrakis, V., and N. Kostoulas-Makrakis. (2017). An instructional-learning model applying problem-based learning enabled by ICTs. In Research on eLearning and ICT in Education, edited by P. Anastasiades & N. Zaranis, 3-16. Switzerland: Springer.

Makrakis, V. & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2013). A methodology for reorienting university curricula to address sustainability: The RUCAS-Tempus project initiative. In S. Caeiro et al. (Eds.), Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions (pp. 23-44). Springer International Publishing Switzerland. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02375-5_18.

The proposed references have been used to delve into the issues mentioned throughout the article.

 

3. There is an attempt by the authors to see ICT as transformative tools. In this case it is suggested to see Makrakis, V. (2014). ICTs as transformative enabling tools in education. In ICT in education in global context edited by R. Huang Kinshuk and J. Price, 101-119. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

The aspects highlighted by these authors have been emphasized in the lines 336-341.

 

4. It is pointed that “it would be wise to 356 carefully attend to the capacity they have of designing lessons in which the students are involved and 357 that prepare them for this XXI century”. Since there is no reference to any such a model, see the CARE learning design methodology in a recent article by Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. & Makrakis, V. (2020). Developing student-driven learning activities to promote refugee quality education through the CARE methodology, International Journal of Early Years Education, 28(2), 176-188, DOI: 1080/09669760.2020.1765091

Some aspects proposed by these authors have been included and mentioned in the lines 57-59.

 

5. As pointed in the paper, the sampling consists of 345 teachers form Higher Education fields with different 147 contract profiles and that, the sample is formed by those teachers 161 who voluntarily accepted to participate in the research. In this case, it has to be described as convenient sampling to avoid confusion.

In the line 163, The sampling has been modified and it has been added “for convenience”.

 

6. The questionnaire is structured into six composite variables. It is pointed that the internal consistency of the items included in these scales was tested by Cronbach alpha, there is NO information about the alpha coefficients. So, it has to be added!!!

In the line 180, The internal consistency indices of each of the dimensions have been added.

 

7. The analysis seems to be proper and well presented. However, it could be interested if the stepwise regression method was used to see the individual contribution of each variable, although the ‘enter’ method used is right.

The stepwise method was used to analyze the contribution of each variable separately. However, and since the differences between them were practically nil, it was decided to finally apply the "enter" method.

 

8. The discussion needs to be elaborated more in terms of the implications of the results in designing and developing courses infused by 21^st transversal skills, student-driven learning design (to accomplish the position of authors with active methods) and ICTs as enabling tools.

The discussion has been developed focusing on the mentioned aspects.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think that the major issue in the article is the Introduction part. I would expect to read a quite focused on the topic Introduction section. Instead there are some points in this section which better sits in the discussion part. For example the end part of the initial paragraph is unsupported and it would be more related to the discussion. Is it possible for the authors to focused more on the teaching integration of technology through the digital skills development? 

Is it possible for you to include mainly english references? Spanish is not recommended in an international journal.

Author Response

1. I think that the major issue in the article is the Introduction part. I would expect to read a quite focused on the topic Introduction section. Instead there are some points in this section which better sits in the discussion part. For example the end part of the initial paragraph is unsupported and it would be more related to the discussion. Is it possible for the authors to focused more on the teaching integration of technology through the digital skills development?  

Part of the introduction has been integrated into the discussion section, specifically on lines 338-341 of this article.

The discussion of the results has focused on the need to integrate and use ICT in higher education.

 

2. Is it possible for you to include mainly english references? Spanish is not recommended in an international journal.

All references in Spanish have been replaced by references in English.

Reviewer 3 Report

Initially, the term “XXI century skills” is suggested to be replaced by “21^st century skills”: because the latter is used in the relevant literature (see references no. 5, 10, 65), and this paper is not historically oriented.

In introduction, on pg. 2, the authors need to explain why they adopted the definition of Fullan and Langworthy (“the 6 Cs”), versus other definitions of 21^st century skills. Since the study took place in Spain, it would be useful to mention all the countries (Spain, etc.) from which the empirical evidence derived; focus on findings regarding the six specific 21st century skills, in higher education sector. This will then facilitate the discussion (i.e., possible agreement with earlier research), as well as possible implications. For example, can the findings of this study be generalized, are there implications for other countries’ higher education practices? (other than Spain)

At the end of the introduction the authors state the purpose of this paper, but the specific research questions/objectives are not clearly stated (this would further facilitate the discussion).

Regarding the characteristics of the sample, did the authors collect data regarding University teachers’ ICT usage in their teaching/lectures? It would be interesting to investigate the impact of this characteristic on teachers’ perceptions (besides gender and years of teaching experience); how could this predict teachers’ attitudes? If such data/analysis is not available, it could be added as a limitation of this study.

I think the phrase “the university course in which they are giving class” is not clear. For example, by “first course” (pg. 4) do authors mean students attending their “1^st year of studies”?

In reference list, there are several references written in Spanish language (no. 1, 7, 14, 15, 25, 26, 32 etc..); since this Journal has an international readership, these references should be translated into English language (placing in parenthesis “in Spanish”). Regarding the English language, I think an English native speaker should read the final paper. Some sentences are not clear: e.g., on pg. 8 lines 253-255, and on pg. 9 line 279. Minor spelling mistakes regard: In Table 1 (“couse” instead of “course”), on pg. 6 line 222 (“sems” instead of “seems”), on pg. 8 line 253 (should be plural “analyses”), pg. 9 line 272 (“teaches” instead of teachers). Finally, some words seem to be written in Spanish: e.g., in Table 6 “Competencie” and on pg. 10 lines 324 and 336, “y” (rather than “and”?).

Author Response

1. Initially, the term “XXI century skills” is suggested to be replaced by “21^st century skills”: because the latter is used in the relevant literature (see references no. 5, 10, 65), and this paper is not historically oriented.

It has been replaced in all the expressions that appeared throughout the text.

 

2. In introduction, on pg. 2, the authors need to explain why they adopted the definition of Fullan and Langworthy (“the 6 Cs”), versus other definitions of 21^st century skills. Since the study took place in Spain, it would be useful to mention all the countries (Spain, etc.) from which the empirical evidence derived; focus on findings regarding the six specific 21st century skills, in higher education sector. This will then facilitate the discussion (i.e., possible agreement with earlier research), as well as possible implications. For example, can the findings of this study be generalized, are there implications for other countries’ higher education practices? (other than Spain)

These issues have been mentioned in the lines 84-90.

 

3. At the end of the introduction the authors state the purpose of this paper, but the specific research questions/objectives are not clearly stated (this would further facilitate the discussion).

The research questions that guide the methodological approach and the discussion of the results have been specified (lines 134-140).

 

4. Regarding the characteristics of the sample, did the authors collect data regarding University teachers’ ICT usage in their teaching/lectures? It would be interesting to investigate the impact of this characteristic on teachers’ perceptions (besides gender and years of teaching experience); how could this predict teachers’ attitudes? If such data/analysis is not available, it could be added as a limitation of this study.

In the final paragraph of limitations, a phrase has been added highlighting the interest in studying the impact of ICT usage on teachers' attitudes (lines 381-383).

 

5. I think the phrase “the university course in which they are giving class” is not clear. For example, by “first course” (pg. 4) do authors mean students attending their “1^st year of studies”?

In line 134, it has been specified that it refers to the number of hours that teachers spend teaching in that specific course. Also, in line 161 It has also been clarified that it refers to "teachers who spend more hours in a course".

 

6. In reference list, there are several references written in Spanish language (no. 1, 7, 14, 15, 25, 26, 32 etc..); since this Journal has an international readership, these references should be translated into English language (placing in parenthesis “in Spanish”). Regarding the English language, I think an English native speaker should read the final paper. Some sentences are not clear: e.g., on pg. 8 lines 253-255, and on pg. 9 line 279. Minor spelling mistakes regard: In Table 1 (“couse” instead of “course”), on pg. 6 line 222 (“sems” instead of “seems”), on pg. 8 line 253 (should be plural “analyses”), pg. 9 line 272 (“teaches” instead of teachers). Finally, some words seem to be written in Spanish: e.g., in Table 6 “Competencie” and on pg. 10 lines 324 and 336, “y” (rather than “and”?).

References in Spanish have been replaced by references in English.

Regarding the language, we have sent the article to a professional to check the expressions and grammar in English.

The spelling corrections indicated have been incorporated.

The sentences on lines 255-357 have been clarified so that they can be better understood.

Phrase 283 has been better clarified so that it can be understood.