Digital Competences of Polish and Slovak Students—Comparative Analysis in the Light of Empirical Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The comment 2 (attached below) from the previous review report was not addressed at all in the revised manuscript. The concern indicated in comment 2 was of significance and can shatter the ground of the entire paper. I believe the authors should address this issue in the revision.
A concern regarding the results of the U-Mann-Whitney test is that obviously Polish students rated nearly all their competences higher than their Slovak counterparts. Did this outcome mean that Polish students were truly more competent or simply because Polish students answered the questionnaire with systematically looser standards or more optimistic attitudes? So it may not be appropriate to directly compare the responses of the students from the two countries without further controlling for more variances between students in the two countries. Maybe the authors should consider using the mean deviation values or the standardized values when comparing the responses between the two countries. The authors should also try other sounder statistical techniques to control for other influential factors or to explore the data further and generate more insightful findings.
Author Response
Thank you for your significant attention, which significantly improved the quality of the research results presented by us. Indeed, the use of standardization allowed for drawing additional conclusions so valuable for a comparative analysis. We have expanded the theoretical background. The article has been supplemented with a discussion including a critical analysis of the results obtained by us.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised, supplemented study addresses the spread of digitalisation, describing and evaluating its educational context. The authors describe in detail the professional context of the topic, especially the European aspirations, in the introduction. The range of professional references can be correctly identified at the international level, in the case of national authorities the requested clarification has been made (lines 92-92 and 96-97).
The authors present the results of the study with sufficient thoroughness; the applied statistical analysis methods can be considered adequate. The correlations between the two student populations are remarkable, although the sample size, vocational training background, and grouping of variables call for caution concerning marked generalisation. Nevertheless, the study is a significant contribution to the digital competence surveys conducted among university students, to the description of their methodological - analysis techniques and the interpretation of the obtained results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your helpful comments concerning our manuscript. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, which have helped us clarify many points and improve the paper.
Thank you very much for your time and efforts concerning our paper. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript. We would be glad to respond to any further question and comment that you may have.
We are grateful for paying attention to the very important aspect of the presentation of research results, which is the critical analysis and discussion of the results. The article has been supplemented with a discussion including a critical analysis of the results obtained by us. We hope that the revised version of our article will receive a positive opinion. Thank you for your time and valuable comments on our article. All comments will affect the quality of our research papers.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors do not present a robust discussion, thus there is not a critical analysis of the results, which limits the international impact.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your helpful comments concerning our manuscript. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, which have helped us clarify many points and improve the paper. We hope these revisions are adequate.
Thank you very much for your time and efforts concerning our paper. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript. We would be glad to respond to any further question and comment that you may have.
We are grateful for paying attention to the very important aspect of the presentation of research results, which is the critical analysis and discussion of the results. The article has been supplemented with a discussion including a critical analysis of the results obtained by us. We hope that the revised version of our article will receive a positive opinion.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My concerns are all addressed in the revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- To be honest, I don’t quite understand figures 1 and 2 and the discussions. The students were divided into two groups in Poland and three groups in Slovakia. But the manuscript didn’t explain based on what criteria were the students being divided into different groups, and what the meanings and interpretations of these divisions are. Figures 1 and 2 are not self-explanatory, either. These details must be addressed so the manuscript can be more readable.
- A concern regarding the results of the U-Mann-Whitney test is that obviously Polish students rated nearly all their competences higher than their Slovak counterparts. Did this outcome mean that Polish students were truly more competent or simply because Polish students answered the questionnaire with systematically looser standards or more optimistic attitudes? So it may not be appropriate to directly compare the responses of the students from the two countries without further controlling for more variances between students in the two countries. Maybe the authors should consider using the mean deviation values or the standardized values when comparing the responses between the two countries. The authors should also try other sounder statistical techniques to control for other influential factors or to explore the data further and generate more insightful findings.
- In the abstract, it was written: “The numbers indicate that students of ICT have a greater tendency to exaggerate the level of their 26 knowledge in the area of information and communication technologies.” Where did this statement come from? It seemed no part of the survey results suggest this statement? Please explain.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study deals with the spread of digitisation, describing and evaluating its educational context. This is a timely scientific issue, especially in the context of the accelerating processes associated with the dramatic events of recent months. The authors describe in detail the professional context of the topic, especially the European aspirations, in the introduction. The range of professional references is well identifiable at the international level, in the case of national references, clarification (lines 90 and 104) is proposed for the benefit of readers. The work of the authors is well connected to the national level student surveys already carried out on the given topic; it provides an opportunity for comparison.
It can be raised from the reader's point of view, the questionnaire used, and a short, a few sentence description of the survey method. This is especially important because the authors define a relatively large number of competencies. The correlations between the two student populations are remarkable, although the sample size, vocational training background, and grouping of variables call for caution concerning marked generalisation. Nevertheless, the study is a significant contribution to the digital competence surveys conducted among university students, to the description of their methodological - analysis techniques and the interpretation of the obtained results. Recently, I treat the conclusions of the study with reservations given the limitations of the given survey and the presentation of the similarities and differences between the two student populations, which have been described only modestly. At the same time, I agree with the authors that their valuable empirical work is suitable for analysing changes in the differentiating system of digital competencies. The study is a valuable contribution to international scientific thinking, and further debate regarding the definition of digital competencies acquired and to be developed among university students.
Reviewer 3 Report
While your work has rich insights and provides some interesting proposals, it presents several important issues: (1) Authors do not present a clear theoretical framework with testable theoretically-motivated hypotheses in their introduction. (2) There is not well-structured theoretical background. (3) The authors do not present a robust discussion, thus there is not a critical analysis of the results, which limits the international impact. Some recent studies could help authors to discuss the results (for example in this issue https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/476)
