Key Quality Factors in Digital Competence Assessment: A Validation Study from Teachers’ Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript deals with competence-based (CB) assessment for learner-centered education in primary and secondary schools, a timely and important topic. It applies a quantitative research method based on a large dataset and factor analysis to validate the quality criteria related to CBA. Data analysis is clear and coherent. The text is easy to read. Overall, the study provides a valuable contribution to the field with high impact potential. The following improvements are suggested to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript:
P02: Please specify what processes are involved in CB education. The cognitive and social dimensions are already mentioned. Are there more components such as emotional/affective?
P19-21: Please add a section with the implications of the current work for practice. How can educators use KQCs in the context of CBA? If applicable, please provide a practical instrument.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments that led to improvements in the first version. We tried our best to address every one of them.
Below we provide the point-by-point responses.
|
Comments |
Answer |
|
P02: Please specify what processes are involved in CB education. The cognitive and social dimensions are already mentioned. Are there more components such as emotional/affective? |
The aim of this article was to validate a model for the assessment of competences from an instrument based on a set of quality criteria that were found to be relevant from the literature review. Accordingly, we attempted to introduce the main features of competence assessment without, however, delving into all the processes underlying CBE. Our intention was rather to focus on the quality criteria used to evaluate competence assessment programmes, also in order to avoid the risk of wandering into contexts that were then not covered by the data analysis. However, we greatly appreciate this feedback, as it allowed us to further clarify our objective in the introduction of the article and to delimit the scope of our study more explicitly. |
|
P.19/21 Please add a section with the implications of the current work for practice. How can educators use KQCs in the context of CBA? If applicable, please provide a practical instrument. |
The main aim of the study is to validate the digital competence assessment model and to identify its quality factors when implemented in competence-based teaching and assessment practices. The evidence that emerged from the results (e.g. CAM's support for instructional planning, assignment of tasks, monitoring student progress, etc.) should guide educators in its application to the primary and secondary school context, but without providing practical guidance on the design and tools to be used. In fact, it is important to emphasise that the educational intervention and the practical tools to be used by educators must be contextual. Each group should consider implementing the model based on the evidence from the study but anchoring it to their own context. In order to further clarify these implications (described in the conclusions and the scope of the study) we have included an additional paragraph at the end of the Discussion. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I recommend you some little changes:
- In research questions write the sentences without abbreviations, it will be better for your future readers.
- The sixth line in 2.2 Data analysis - As it (normality test) was positive, to test .... with non-paramtetric test. If the data come from normal distribution, you test with parametric test.
- In Figure 1 the line marking is not correct - you maybe wanted to write 1; 1,5; 2; 2,5; ... Now you have 1; 2; 2; 3; 3; ...
- Please check the numbers of literature sources in text, I noticed that you missed (7) in the text.
Nice day.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments that led to improvements in the first version. We tried our best to address every one of them.
Below we provide the point-by-point responses.
|
Comments |
Answer |
|
- In research questions write the sentences without abbreviations, it will be better for your future readers. |
Abbreviations have been removed from research questions to make reading easier |
|
- The sixth line in 2.2 Data analysis - As it (normality test) was positive, to test .... with non-paramtetric test. If the data come from normal distribution, you test with parametric test. |
The paragraph aims to inform that the analysis of the distribution of data was positive (significant), hence not normal. As such, we proceeded to carry out no parametric tests to explain it. The sentence was modified within the article to improve its clarity. |
|
- In Figure 1 the line marking is not correct - you maybe wanted to write 1; 1,5; 2; 2,5; ... Now you have 1; 2; 2; 3; 3; ... |
The image has been modified |
|
- Please check the numbers of literature sources in text, I noticed that you missed (7) in the text. |
The number of literature sources in the text has been fixed |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
