Effects of Teachers’ Media Utilization and Computational Thinking on Sustainable Development in Early Childhood Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript which I read with interest. The researchers provide a clear account of the data gathering and analysis. What is less convincing is the way the context has been established and the conclusions drawn. The following points are indicative and besides addressing these, a careful review overall is suggested.

 

1. A more consistent explanation of the research and what it sets out to investigate is needed.

In the Abstract, for example, it states “This study aims to analyze the correlation between early childhood teachers’ playfulness, creativity, problem-solving ability, and their degree of media use and computational thinking ability”. It then goes on to say “It investigates whether early childhood teachers’ playfulness and creativity significantly impact their problem-solving skills.” This appears to be a different issue because it is not considering media utilisation and computational thinking.

 

2. The Introduction touches on a number of elements that are features in the research such as creativity, playfulness and problem-solving, but these are not outlined in a way that coherently and convincingly establishes the reason for the research. While the Introduction is setting the scene in broad terms it is important to avoid tangential information, sweeping claims and unsubstantiated statements such as lines 90-91, “However, the use of multimedia is deemed necessary as it facilitates curiosity and concentration in young children and enhances learning effects.” Where is the evidence for this? The discourse on creativity is not as rigorous as it should be. For example, the text (lines 47-49) raise concerns about the implied equivalency between “teaching creativity” and “creative teaching. The explanation about the purpose – “to make lessons more interesting and efficient” - is too superficial.

3. For the broader professional readership it would be helpful to explain that the statistically significant effect you describe in lines 269-270 does not imply causation.  

4. Similarly, it would be helpful to know a little more about the instruments used, especially since these have been adapted for this study. Aim to provide information that will give the reader confidence in the reliability of these instruments.

5. The conclusion is written as one paragraph over two pages so paragraphs for each main finding are required. It is important that what has been learned from the research is clearly communicated. A redraft of this section would be beneficial.

6. A statement about ethical compliance procedures would be expected if not an ethics clearance number from the university.

Overall, I suggest more work is required to create a clear sense of the research problem or issue that this research aims to address. The conclusions should then relate to this. I suggest there needs to be a stronger sense of research purpose throughout.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English usage is sound.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented is interesting and the treatment is appropriate. Although the participant sample is small and specific, it provides important insights for future broader research. The writing is correct as well as the references and citation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

The research methodology is clear, the article structure is well-organized, and the overall quality is good. However, there are inconsistencies in the capitalization in the tables and the pronoun "this" is used excessively throughout the text. Besides The discussion section predominantly uses the phrase "This can be in line with the findings of...", making the language and meaning monotonous. Revisions are needed.

 

 

There is a lack of definitions for key terms, such as media literacy. Please be sure to include these definitions.

Separate the Discussion and Conclusions sections. Additionally, ensure that the discussion section is more than one paragraph.

In the conclusion section, divide it into the following four parts: summary, implications, limitations, and future work. You do not need to separate these into distinct paragraphs, but the content of these four parts must be included.

 

 

The excessive use of pronouns like "this" is not suitable for academic writing. Please revise.

The phrase "this can be contextualized in the study..." appears too frequently. Please revise.

I believe that given names do not need to be included when citing in the text. For example, in line 308, it should be "This can be in line with the findings of Jeong [17]" rather than "... findings of Jeong, D. W. [17]". Please check.

In the sentence "This can be contextualized in the research of Kyung-Hwa Lee, Eunkyung Kim, and Kyung-Hoon Yoo (2013)", the full given names are included. This is certainly incorrect. Please revise.

 

 

Check the usage of single and double quotation marks, especially on the second page. You have used too many single quotation marks.

In the research questions section, it is recommended to remove expressions like "first, second, third". You can try using "RQ 1: Does...".

Ensure that the headings in Table 1 are all capitalized correctly. Also, make sure the word "entry" is used correctly.

Some phrases in Table 1 have all words capitalized, while others do not. Please maintain consistency.

Consider adding some references. It would be good if the number of references is over 30.

It should be SPSS 18.0, not SPSS 180. Please revise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check grammar: “the higher the score, the higher the teacher’s playability.”

Is it "Hangul" or "hangul"? Please check.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is much improved and represents the research and researchers well. Two small corrections:

P.2 lines 55-56 I think you mean "Thius, teaching creatively ..." ( not creativity).

P11, lines 384-385 "Therefore developing computational thinking is necessary to enhance early childhood teachers' playfulness" might be better expressed as "Therefore developing computational thinking enhances early childhood teachers' playfulness"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have revised the manuscript to reflect all the points raised by the reviewer and have also reviewed and revised the conclusion. After reading the conclusion multiple times, I could not find any parts that needed revision and judged that the references were appropriately cited. Therefore, I did not make any changes to the conclusion section.

Thanks to the reviewer, the quality of the paper has improved significantly. I would like to express my gratitude once again for the detailed and thoughtful comments during the review process. 

Sincerely,
Mi-Young An

=================================================
This paper is much improved and represents the research and researchers well. Two small corrections:

P.2 lines 55-56 I think you mean "Thius, teaching creatively ..." ( not creativity).

P11, lines 384-385 "Therefore developing computational thinking is necessary to enhance early childhood teachers' playfulness" might be better expressed as "Therefore developing computational thinking enhances early childhood teachers' playfulness"