Challenges for Teachers’ and Students’ Digital Abilities: A Mixed Methods Design Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Despite the fact that the subject of the article is very relevant, a significant revision of the article is required.
I
This study has a low originality according to the anti-plagiarism 68.71% and contains a large number of citations and borrowings:
1) Paragraph 183-186 is borrowed from the mdpi Viruses | Instructions for Author website
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/viruses/instructions.
2) 174- questions borrowed from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/577886 .
3) 122-128 - paragraph of borrowings from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/577886 .
4) 135-143 – a very large volume of citations from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/577886 .
II
49- "with a special emphasis on girls" - it's not entirely clear why this is happening
III
There is no visual presentation of the results of the study.
Author Response
I am grateful for the comments made by the reviewer, since I could correct some mistakes, as well as make some improvements to the manuscript. Please, find the comments below:
Part I:
1.- The paragraph has been borrowed because we forget to do it before submitting.
2.- This study is part of a broader research and this is the reason why plagiarism detecting programs could infere a higher percentage of plagiarism than it should be. The research team decided to divide the research into two studies and to work on manuscripts to be sent to different journals. Part of the results were published in Frontiers (577886) and part of the results were submitted to Sustainability. The qualitative method used made it possible to study the results derived from the same question with different designs. The one in Frontiers was based in the level of physical activity in which teachers were involved (low and high). Therefore, the sample was stratified and the results segregated according to the independent variable (level of physical activity). This is better explained in the published manuscript. In this current manuscript, the sample was not stratified and other independent variables were considered (i.e. sex, age and academic level of participants) for qualitative data analysis.
3.- The paragraph has been modified.
4.- Data analyses citations are the same as in the published manuscript, because we used the same data analyses' methods.
Part II: The sentence has been explained in the text.
Part III: Results have been presented in the text as well as in Tables 1-7 and Figure 1. We wonder if we are giving the correct answer, because it is what we have understood as "visual presentation" of results.
Please find attached the last version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This needs a proof read.
Authors haven’t really addressed the previous comments.
The authors have made some changes but not some of the fundamental suggestions. Also the discussion section has the first couple of sentences still there from the template. I still feel that it needs a proof read by an English speaker.
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
I am grateful for the comments made by the reviewer, because we had the opportunity to check the changes made to a previous version of the manuscript. Please, find the comments below:
- This new version of the manuscript has considered some of the changes proposed by reviewer 3 in the revision of the previous version. We also did comments for those proposals in the revision of the previous version. We only could find attached the previous review made by reviewer 3. Therefore, we are not able to see which are the mentioned fundamental suggestions. Thus, we would be grateful to find out those and discuss or apply them.
- Considering language quality, we have made some corrections and we agree to ask for a proof read in the case the manuscript is accepted for publication.
Please, find attached the last version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I would suggest English editing to improve clarity of the manuscript.
I would prefer to see the type of mixed method design described: Triangulation design, embedded design, explanatory design, or exploratory design. The results were not particularly innovative because most journals have explored the topic of the sudden influx of digital teaching with COVID on teachers (thus the average score).
I did find the qualitative analysis techniques interesting, even though there was no mention of trustworthiness criteria. It was primarily a survey design with open-ended responses rather than a true mixed method in my opinion.
Author Response
I am grateful for the comments made by the reviewer, since I could correct some mistakes, as well as make some improvements to the manuscript. Please, find the comments below:
- Considering language quality, we have made some corrections and we agree to ask for a proof read if the manuscript is accepted for publication.
- The specific design has been described in the Design section (lines 109-115).
- The results are meant to be innovative to the extent that teacher's digital abilities were unknown until the lockdown broke the Spanish educational system. The study aims to consider which were their digital abilities, as well as their concerns related to their capacity to face this situation by using those abilities. The lockdown situation gave the opportunity to proof the Spanish Educational System (as well as others, of course) in relationship to the digital resources (materials and skills). We consider results in this context.
- Trustworthiness criteria is not mentioned in this terms because this approach avoids the subjectivity involved in the construction of categories by the researcher, since the computer program establishes the connections using statistical procedures [1]. Therefore, it is worth to replicate and to intend to find the same results.
- In this study, we have followed Creswell and Plano Clark's consideration of the "use of open-ended qualitative questions on a survey instrument as a validated quantitative data triangulation mixed methods design" [2,p.180]
Please, find attached the last version of the manuscript.
1. Bauer, M.W. Análisis de textos asistidos con programas computacionales. Subjetividad y Procesos Cognitivos 2003, 3, 101– 112, ISSN:1852-7310
2. Doyle, L.; Brady, A.-M.; Byrne, G. An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing 2009, 14(2), 175-185, doi:10.1177/1744987108093962
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, the originality of the study decreased slightly after the changes were made. The article contains excessive citation, which could have been avoided.In additionto the objectives of the study, I would like to get acquainted with the objectives of the study (94-97). It would also be good to present a literature review in the article that confirms or refutes the existence of research in this direction.
Author Response
We strongly appreciate the comments made to the manuscript, since we think that these recommentations improve the manuscript.
We would like to give an answer to the reviewer's comments.
1- Originality: A few studies have considered these variables. As an example, we have carried out a last review considering different data bases and the words "lockdown" & "covid" & "teacher" (general terms) and only 44 manuscripts from scientific journals were found, 31 from them being repeated (in different data bases). Therefore, only 13 studies were published. Only 1 considered European and Northern American (USA) teachers, but this was focused on music teachers (N=15). The rest were from China, South Africa, Australia, Northern India and Northern European countries (Germany, Vaud region in Switzerland, Scotland and Austria). None of them from Southern European countries. Nevertheless, studies concerning to educational methodological aspects are meant to consider regional perspectives, because the educational systems differ from one region to another (worldwide). Therefore, representativeness shouldn't be the right criteria to establish a study's originality, in our opinion. Moreover, only one of the studies considered a mixed method design; participants were students, not teachers. We consider that our study has not been previously developed, considering the objetives and the different methodological aspects. This appreciation has been included in the text (see lines 96-99).
2.- Objectives: we have made some corrections to offer a better understanding of the objectives (see lines 100-103).
3.- Literature review: As we have explained previously, a few studies have considered these variables, but none with the aims and methods used in this study. This appreciation has been included in the text (see lines 96-99).
Thank you for the comments and the appreciations facilitated to improve the manuscpript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
Overall I think it is an interesting idea and I agree that we need to be surveying teachers about their experiences during COVID-19. But this paper lacks the rigour that I would expect from something that was to be published. I made some corrections to the English in the beginning of the paper but the whole paper would benefit from being copy-edited by an English speaker. However, that is not my main concern. I believe you have made claims that aren't backed by your data or previous research. It is easy to make claims about online teaching and learning being unsatisfactory but there are lots of variables and I don't think you have clearly addressed these.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
"The research presented in this paper is interesting and addresses one of the main educational problems arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are two aspects that are considered improvable and that would therefore require a new elaboration.
On the one hand, the theoretical framework does not address the main policies related to digital teaching competence, which have been carried out in Spain in the last 20 years. Through various programs, both the Ministry of Education and the Education Departments of the Autonomous Communities have promoted the improvement of the digital skills of teachers. The training plans are diverse and especially the implementation of the Teaching Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) from the INTEF, and the possibility of its certification by the teaching staff. These actions are also part of the activity of the European Teaching Digital Competence Framework.
Therefore, a previous tour of the different training actions to which the teaching staff has had access over these years, and their degree of implementation in the autonomous communities in which the sample is located, is lacking.
Likewise, within the questionnaire, the previous training received by teachers in the field of digital competence is not mentioned.
In the discussion, the discussion of the results with other investigations is not precisely highlighted, but rather focuses in a very exclusive way on the conclusions drawn from the analysis data and on how to access them.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The analysis of the data has to be more extensive and analytical
2. The limitations of this study are clearly stated
