Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The details provided are relevant and I congratulate the authors for their research.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Authors:
In order to improve spelling, the article has been fully revised by a native speaker. The paper has been written in British English. As you will see, some changes have been made at lines: 50, 67, 81, 83, 110, 112, 115, 119, 139, 144, 163, 171, 227, 230, 240, 249, 257, 260, Table 3 Heading (page 6), 274, 294, 324, 336, 381, 445, 446, 485, 488.
In case you find anything else, do not hesitate to make us know.
The details provided are relevant and I congratulate the authors for their research.
Authors:
Thank you very much for your kindness and your always constructive comments/suggestions and changes.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
All comments have been addressed and I recommend publication
Author Response
Reviewer 2
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Authors:
In order to improve spelling, the article has been fully revised by a native speaker. The paper has been written in British English. As you will see, some changes have been made at lines: 50, 67, 81, 83, 110, 112, 115, 119, 139, 144, 163, 171, 227, 230, 240, 249, 257, 260, Table 3 Heading (page 6), 274, 294, 324, 336, 381, 445, 446, 485, 488.
Reviewer 2:
All comments have been addressed and I recommend publication.
Authors:
Thank you very much for your kindness and your always constructive comments/suggestions and changes. We appreciate so much your final decision.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Author,
1) Overall is good. However, you need to add the latest references (2018-2022), especially for Introduction and Literature Review.
2) Send to proof reader.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Dear Author,
1) Overall is good. However, you need to add the latest references (2018-2022), especially for Introduction and Literature Review.
Authors:
Thank you so much for your comment. As indicated, we have included 6 new references of articles published in 2022 to support our paper. Therefore, all quotes and references have been revised/re-organised accordingly.
New references:
[10]
Zeyer, A. Teaching Two-Eyed Seeing in Education for Sustainable Development: Inspirations from the Science|Environment|Health Pedagogy in Pandemic Times. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106343.
[11]
Chuliá-Jordán, R.; Vilches Peña, A.; Calero Llinares, M. The Press as a Resource for Promoting Sustainability Competencies in Teacher Training: The Case of SDG 7. Sustainability 2022, 14, 857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020857
[36]
Li, J.; Luo, H.; Zhao, L.; Zhu, M.; Ma, L.; Liao, X. Promoting STEAM Education in Primary School through Cooperative Teaching: A Design-Based Research Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610333
[43]
Soubra, L.; Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Abu-Dieyeh, M.; Crovella, S.; Abou-Saleh, H. Impacts on Student Learning and Skills and Implementation Challenges of Two Student-Centered Learning Methods Applied in Online Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159625
[47]
Zhou, T.; Zhang, W. Effectiveness Study on Online or Blended Language Learning Based on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127303
[50]
Lin, C.-H.; Chang, Y.-Y. A Progressive Three-Stage Teaching Method Using Interactive Classroom Activities to Improve Learning Motivation in Computer Networking Courses. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5191. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095191
Reviewer 2:
2) Send to proof reader.
Moderate English changes required
Authors:
In order to improve spelling and grammar, the article has been fully revised by a native speaker. The paper has been written in British English. As you will see, some changes have been made at lines: 50, 67, 81, 83, 110, 112, 115, 119, 139, 144, 163, 171, 227, 230, 240, 249, 257, 260, Table 3 Heading (page 6), 274, 294, 324, 336, 381, 445, 446, 485, 488.
Best regards,
The authors
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
In my opinion there is nothing new in the research, the scientific question of the study that digital resources that teachers used during the confinement imposed because of COVID 19 is very narrow. The sample size is small, and a basic analysis is done.
Author Response
We appreciate your comment. We know it seems quite obvious that most teachers had to change their methodology during confinement because of COVID19. Nevertheless, the situations did not affect all the countries equally. Not all the countries in the world followed a unique policy concerning resources. In Spain, for example, before the pandemic, not many educational centers used new technologies. Most educational centers did not have the opportunity to continue teaching. Many educational centers we contacted with told us that they closed as they could not provide their students with the type of educations they deserved. Some students have literally lost the very first year of their studies due to the lack of digital resources and the scarce training in the few resources that were available.
As for the size of the sample, we have included other studies that have already been published with a sample smaller than ours. We have to bear in mind that, initially, there were very few works on the topic. Now that the pandemic seems to be getting over, more studies are coming out. The country where studies are carried out is very important as there are still people reluctant to talk about their lack of training/knowledge concerning digital competence.
Reviewer 2 Report
Very relevant topic. The theoretical framework, methodology, data analyses and literature review is well developed. On the other hand, it would be relevant to specify the limits of the results highlighted.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments. Both the Discussion and the Conclusions sections have been broaden so as to provide more specific information in order to clarify the results obtained.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study aimed to analyze the digital resources teachers used most during the COVID 19 pandemic. Before the paper is recommended for publication, the following comments needs to be addressed:
- There is need for minor grammatical checks. For instance. Page 1, line 40: At present digital competence. There is need for comma. This should be checked throughout the manuscript.
- A footnote explaining the UNIFY, NPTEL, and PGCE should be included
- Will recommend a research model is included to give a pictural synopsis of the study.
- There should be a justification for the sample size considering that is quite low.
- There is no mention of sources of measurement item or scale. If the questions were developed by the authors, no preliminary validity and reliability analysis was done.
- Contribution of study to literature and future research recommendations should be included in the conclusion
Author Response
Thank you so much for your enriching comments. Here you can read point by point what we have done:
- We have revised the article twice so as to detect any possible grammatical, lexical or punctuation mistake. We have included the comma you indicated us (line 40). We have also made some additional adjustments so as to improve the whole manuscript. All changes have been conveniently highlighted.
- We have included a footnote concerning "UNIFY, NPTEL, and PGCE".
- We have also included in the Materials and Method section an in-depth explanation of the procedure followed and of the type of research carried out.
- As for the sample size, apart from providing more studies with smaller samples that ours in the Discussion section, we have to say that, although we aimed to have a greater sample, many educational centers told us that they could not participate in the research as they had to close during the pandemic. When we asked why they had to close, they noted that it was due to the lack of resources, the lack or scarce knowledge concerning digital competence, the lack of training concerning the use of technological resources and the lack of information from the Administration concerning what to do and how. The uncertainty of the situation blocked the development of education in certain countries, i.e. Spain. We never thought these issues where that serious. We now know that things started to change a year after, but that was not the period we wanted to study.
- This point is related to point 3. We have included in the Materials and Method section more information about the procedure followed. Also, we have included in the Informed Consent Statement section information concerning our sample and why we did our research this way.
- We have included in the Conclusions section more information about the contribution of our study to future research and literature. Everything has been conveniently highlighted.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript is relevant in the field of pedagogy. No extra quotes. there are links to magazines no older than 5-7 years. No working hypothesis. The overall goal of this study is to analyze the digital resources that 173 teachers used the most during the COVID-19 pandemic. For convenience, you need to add a chart based on the results of the work. The results of the study should be shortened and clarified. Ethical issues are being addressed.
It is also necessary to indicate how the data obtained was calculated?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments.
Concerning the hypothesis, we did not specifically mention it in a written way. The reason is due to the fact that for us, and only in the particular scenario of pandemic, it was very obvious that the lack of resources, the uncertainty of the situation (pandemic due to COVID19), the nearly non-existent digital competence (both for teachers and students) and the contradictory information or lack of information from the Administration on how to act in many countries, i. e. Spain, made the Education sector think on how to survive by using different resources/tools (trial and error situation). We didn't want to be repetitive.
As for the chart, we have tried to combine different tables/data but, as we have so much information and many data, it was not possible to everything in a single chart. We tried, for example, to combine data from different tables, but variables were so different that made impossible to really add something useful and new. That is why we think it is better to preserve what we have until now as the information that appears in the tables is simple and easy to understand by any reader.
Thank you so much for your comments again.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the author response, However, I am still of the opinion that paper lacks scientific novelty and has methodological weaknesses as also raised by reviewer 4.
Author Response
DIGITAL TEACHING COMPETENCE IN TEACHER TRAINING AS AN ELEMENT TO ATTAIN SDG 4 OF THE 2030 AGENDA
ANSWERS TO REVIEWERS AND/OR EDITORS (2nd round)
Dear reviewers and/or editors,
First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and contributions. We have implemented all your suggestions. We think that the article has gained quality. Please, find below in blue the comments/explanations to the changes you will see in our article.
SECOND REVISION
Having completed the second round of review of your article and considering reviewers´ comments and the changes made by the authors, we have decided to encourage the authors to revise thoroughly the manuscript as major revision. In general, the manuscript still needs to overcome weaknesses and to stress the novelty of the findings. Moreover, the authors should not draw conclusions on issues that have not been addressed in this study, or are not fully justified based on the observations or research made in the present work.
Please, find detailed comments below:
The abstract should be rewritten. The authors have given interesting information in their reply to the reviewers´ comments, but that information is missing in the abstract and even in the manuscript. The authors should better specify the context in which the questionnaires were applied, just after the abrupt confinement and blockdown in Spain when all schools were closed, and before the end of the 2019-2020 academic course. This information only appears in line 182, and even partially (since the authors did not mention that all schools were closed in Spain until the next academic year in September 2020, while in other countries restrictions were not so tough).
Authors:
Change implemented. The context has now been described in the abstract, and also in the Objectives and in the Sample subsections.
Please note that in our previous decision, we asked to prevent obvious comments as conclusions (as an example, the general phrase at the end of the abstract: “In order to ensure quality education, it is important to improve teachers’ digital competence as a part of their training”). Conclusions in the abstract and in the manuscript should be related to the observations and research made, but the authors have already presented the same idea in the Introduction section.
Authors:
Change implemented. In order to improve this aspect, we have removed the last paragraph of the Introduction. It had a "conclusive" connotation. We have decided to leave the sentence "In order...their training" in the abstract as, after including the explanation of the context under which the research was carried out, it makes sense to keep it. Nevertheless, if you consider it is better to omit it, please, let us know.
Please note that the authors do not specify in the Objectives section the period of analysis they refer to, in which the study was carried out. In the way this section has been written it is not possible for the readers to know that data were collected while the schools were closed in Spain (2.1. Objectives. The general objective of this study is to analyze the digital resources teachers used most during the COVID 19 pandemic. At a more specific level, it is necessary to find out how teachers assess the online tools and resources they have used, and to know the type of training they had received in respect to said tools and resources during the period of analysis).
Authors:
Change implemented.
Objectives have been rewritten as:
"The general objective of this study is to analyze the digital resources teachers used the most in Spain from March to June 2020, as a result of the changes the education sector had to face due to the COVID 19 pandemic. At a more specific level, it is necessary to find out how teachers assess the online tools and resources they used, and to know the type of training they received in respect to said tools and resources during the period of analysis".
English language still needs further revision throughout the manuscript by a native speaker. As for example, in Table 5: “I am the one who spoke most of the class”. Do the authors mean most of the time?
Authors:
Change implemented. The new statement reads as: "I am the one who spoke the most during the classes."
The new paragraph (lines 389-383) is not clear. What do the authors mean with the statement: “On the basis of the results obtained, it is possible to conclude that individualised education and preparation for future technological challenges cannot be provided”. In which way do the authors understand the term “individualised education” in this context? How did they conclude, based on the results shown in the manuscript, that “preparation for future technological challenges cannot be provided”?
Authors:
Change implemented. This paragraph has been rewritten so as to be fully understood:
"On the basis of the results obtained, and taking into account the setting where this research was carried out (Spain), it is possible to conclude that, for the moment, the Spanish educational system cannot guarantee neither a personalized education model nor a teaching-learning environment that can face potential technological challenges."
The new paragraph 381-401 must be re-written, not only considering the use of English but mainly for its content and meaning: “This present study is limited by reality, insofar as it focuses on the situation in Spain, where the research was carried out. Hence, it is probable that in other countries teacher training for Primary, Secondary and Baccalaureate Education, the educational stages subject matter of this paper, is better.” The authors should not draw conclusions on issues that have not been addressed in this study, without even referring to previous published work. It should be noted that the comparison of teacher education among diverse education systems, at different levels and among different countries has not been addressed in this research.
Authors:
You are totally right. This paragraph has been omitted as in the previous one, the setting where this research was carried out has already been included. Please, read previous change.
Please delete the sentence in line 403: “In view of the results obtained, we are able to confirm that this study’s general objective, as well as its specific objectives, have been fulfilled”.
Authors:
Change implemented.
Please revise English also in line 379: “with in person evaluation”.
Authors:
Change implemented. "On-site evaluation" is the new option.
Please note that there is only one sub-section in the Conclusions section, therefore it can be omitted. Instead of opening the sub-section: “Solutions for the problems detected”, the paragraphs can be listed directly in the text, as recommendations to improve after the analysis.
Authors:
Change implemented.
Please re-write line 406: “Given all these results, it is necessary to propose that teachers be provided serious training”. What do the authors mean by using the term “serious training”?
Authors:
Change implemented. We meant "a comprehensive training in technological and digital resources".
The last paragraph in the Conclusion section (lines 438-443) is redundant, repeating information already included, therefore it should be omitted.
Authors:
Change implemented. Therefore, as quote [61] appeared in that paragraph, it has been removed. Also, reference [61].
The References section should follow the Journal instructions: see Sustainability | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com)
Authors:
Change implemented. Reference 61 has been removed from the list as it was also removed for the body text. And references have been fully revised.
Other remarks:
Please correct the parenthesis in line 30: “(hereinafter referred to as SDG) 4”.
Authors:
Change implemented.
Line 111, publication year is missing: “the publication of the digital competence reference framework (Marco de referencia de la competencia digital docente).
Authors:
Change implemented.
Table 2 and 3. Please re-write: “Short videos” (delete: “to explain something”).
Authors:
Change implemented in both tables. Consequently, we have also deleted "to post files" in "Platforms or websites to post files". Additionally, the item "Google meet" has been changed to "Google Meet" (capital letter in Meet).
We want to encourage the authors to solve weaknesses, reinforcing and highlighting in which way these findings can open new opportunities even after pandemic time, in line with recent and abundant published work on this topic. In general, the manuscript needs to stress the novelty of the findings and to overcome weak points. The methodology used must be shown to better justified and to overcome the limitation of a discrete sample size, so there are no doubts that the possible limitations are fully overcome.
Authors:
Change implemented. In order to highlight why this article is important and why the sample is discrete, we have included additional information both in the Objectives and in the Sample subsections.
Best regards,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
All issues raised have been addressed
Author Response
DIGITAL TEACHING COMPETENCE IN TEACHER TRAINING AS AN ELEMENT TO ATTAIN SDG 4 OF THE 2030 AGENDA
ANSWERS TO REVIEWERS AND/OR EDITORS (2nd round)
Dear reviewers and/or editors,
First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and contributions. We have implemented all your suggestions. We think that the article has gained quality. Please, find below in blue the comments/explanations to the changes you will see in our article.
SECOND REVISION
Having completed the second round of review of your article and considering reviewers´ comments and the changes made by the authors, we have decided to encourage the authors to revise thoroughly the manuscript as major revision. In general, the manuscript still needs to overcome weaknesses and to stress the novelty of the findings. Moreover, the authors should not draw conclusions on issues that have not been addressed in this study, or are not fully justified based on the observations or research made in the present work.
Please, find detailed comments below:
The abstract should be rewritten. The authors have given interesting information in their reply to the reviewers´ comments, but that information is missing in the abstract and even in the manuscript. The authors should better specify the context in which the questionnaires were applied, just after the abrupt confinement and blockdown in Spain when all schools were closed, and before the end of the 2019-2020 academic course. This information only appears in line 182, and even partially (since the authors did not mention that all schools were closed in Spain until the next academic year in September 2020, while in other countries restrictions were not so tough).
Authors:
Change implemented. The context has now been described in the abstract, and also in the Objectives and in the Sample subsections.
Please note that in our previous decision, we asked to prevent obvious comments as conclusions (as an example, the general phrase at the end of the abstract: “In order to ensure quality education, it is important to improve teachers’ digital competence as a part of their training”). Conclusions in the abstract and in the manuscript should be related to the observations and research made, but the authors have already presented the same idea in the Introduction section.
Authors:
Change implemented. In order to improve this aspect, we have removed the last paragraph of the Introduction. It had a "conclusive" connotation. We have decided to leave the sentence "In order...their training" in the abstract as, after including the explanation of the context under which the research was carried out, it makes sense to keep it. Nevertheless, if you consider it is better to omit it, please, let us know.
Please note that the authors do not specify in the Objectives section the period of analysis they refer to, in which the study was carried out. In the way this section has been written it is not possible for the readers to know that data were collected while the schools were closed in Spain (2.1. Objectives. The general objective of this study is to analyze the digital resources teachers used most during the COVID 19 pandemic. At a more specific level, it is necessary to find out how teachers assess the online tools and resources they have used, and to know the type of training they had received in respect to said tools and resources during the period of analysis).
Authors:
Change implemented.
Objectives have been rewritten as:
"The general objective of this study is to analyze the digital resources teachers used the most in Spain from March to June 2020, as a result of the changes the education sector had to face due to the COVID 19 pandemic. At a more specific level, it is necessary to find out how teachers assess the online tools and resources they used, and to know the type of training they received in respect to said tools and resources during the period of analysis".
English language still needs further revision throughout the manuscript by a native speaker. As for example, in Table 5: “I am the one who spoke most of the class”. Do the authors mean most of the time?
Authors:
Change implemented. The new statement reads as: "I am the one who spoke the most during the classes."
The new paragraph (lines 389-383) is not clear. What do the authors mean with the statement: “On the basis of the results obtained, it is possible to conclude that individualised education and preparation for future technological challenges cannot be provided”. In which way do the authors understand the term “individualised education” in this context? How did they conclude, based on the results shown in the manuscript, that “preparation for future technological challenges cannot be provided”?
Authors:
Change implemented. This paragraph has been rewritten so as to be fully understood:
"On the basis of the results obtained, and taking into account the setting where this research was carried out (Spain), it is possible to conclude that, for the moment, the Spanish educational system cannot guarantee neither a personalized education model nor a teaching-learning environment that can face potential technological challenges."
The new paragraph 381-401 must be re-written, not only considering the use of English but mainly for its content and meaning: “This present study is limited by reality, insofar as it focuses on the situation in Spain, where the research was carried out. Hence, it is probable that in other countries teacher training for Primary, Secondary and Baccalaureate Education, the educational stages subject matter of this paper, is better.” The authors should not draw conclusions on issues that have not been addressed in this study, without even referring to previous published work. It should be noted that the comparison of teacher education among diverse education systems, at different levels and among different countries has not been addressed in this research.
Authors:
You are totally right. This paragraph has been omitted as in the previous one, the setting where this research was carried out has already been included. Please, read previous change.
Please delete the sentence in line 403: “In view of the results obtained, we are able to confirm that this study’s general objective, as well as its specific objectives, have been fulfilled”.
Authors:
Change implemented.
Please revise English also in line 379: “with in person evaluation”.
Authors:
Change implemented. "On-site evaluation" is the new option.
Please note that there is only one sub-section in the Conclusions section, therefore it can be omitted. Instead of opening the sub-section: “Solutions for the problems detected”, the paragraphs can be listed directly in the text, as recommendations to improve after the analysis.
Authors:
Change implemented.
Please re-write line 406: “Given all these results, it is necessary to propose that teachers be provided serious training”. What do the authors mean by using the term “serious training”?
Authors:
Change implemented. We meant "a comprehensive training in technological and digital resources".
The last paragraph in the Conclusion section (lines 438-443) is redundant, repeating information already included, therefore it should be omitted.
Authors:
Change implemented. Therefore, as quote [61] appeared in that paragraph, it has been removed. Also, reference [61].
The References section should follow the Journal instructions: see Sustainability | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com)
Authors:
Change implemented. Reference 61 has been removed from the list as it was also removed for the body text. And references have been fully revised.
Other remarks:
Please correct the parenthesis in line 30: “(hereinafter referred to as SDG) 4”.
Authors:
Change implemented.
Line 111, publication year is missing: “the publication of the digital competence reference framework (Marco de referencia de la competencia digital docente).
Authors:
Change implemented.
Table 2 and 3. Please re-write: “Short videos” (delete: “to explain something”).
Authors:
Change implemented in both tables. Consequently, we have also deleted "to post files" in "Platforms or websites to post files". Additionally, the item "Google meet" has been changed to "Google Meet" (capital letter in Meet).
We want to encourage the authors to solve weaknesses, reinforcing and highlighting in which way these findings can open new opportunities even after pandemic time, in line with recent and abundant published work on this topic. In general, the manuscript needs to stress the novelty of the findings and to overcome weak points. The methodology used must be shown to better justified and to overcome the limitation of a discrete sample size, so there are no doubts that the possible limitations are fully overcome.
Authors:
Change implemented. In order to highlight why this article is important and why the sample is discrete, we have included additional information both in the Objectives and in the Sample subsections.
Best regards,
The authors
