Digital Resources and Digital Competence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of University Students of the Childhood Education Degree of the University of Jaén

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This manuscript contributes toward the education issue of digital resources and digital competence.
2. The topic is a trend of important education issues.
3. This work is also a good reminder for all educators to pay attention to the students' digital competence.
4. The title, abstract, introduction of the study are appropriate.
5. From the perspective of this reader, one suggestion is to include a description in the discussion about how the findings of this study can be applied in the field of higher education.
6. Authors must review the report of the plagiarism checker software by TurnItIn.com (attached).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

We welcome your comments on the manuscript.

Regarding to include a description in the discussion about how the findings of this study can be applied in the field of higher education, it is an investigation that we intend to carry out as indicated in the conclusions.

Regarding the review carried out through the Turnitin.com program in which a value of 41% plagiarism is obtained, we consider that this is not the real value of plagiarism because when performing the analysis with this tool, bibliographic references, as well as small fonts or acronyms, must be previously eliminated. The source with the highest percentage of plagiarism (6%) is a previous article by the authors (Eufrasio Pérez-Navío, María Teresa Ocaña-Moral, María del Carmen Martínez-Serrano. "University Graduate Students and Digital Competence: Are Future Secondary School Teachers Digitally Competent?", Sustainability, 2021) and it refers to the work methodology followed, which is the same in both cases.

Modifications have been made to the manuscript.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Recommendations:

It is recommended to rework the title to make it more limited to the actual contents of the article, since the reference to a survey is too general for only 7 items, of which only one generates a simple inferential analysis, limited to a small sample in a single institution, within a single career.

It is recommended to unite in a single section Introduction and theoretical framework, now with little differentiation. Include a new section on the state of the question, a research result directly related to the objectives of this research, which will also give greater robustness to the Discussion.

It is recommended that once the state of the question is prepared in an express and robust manner, the Discussion may be more extensive.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

We welcome your comments on the manuscript.

Your recommendation to rework the title has been considered. The final title is “Digital Resources and Digital Competence: A Cross-Sectional Survey in University Students of the Childhood Education Degree of the University of Jaén”

Regarding the recommendation to unite in a single section introduction and theoretical framework and include a new section on the state of the matter, we consider that there is a clear differentiation between both, since in the first a general definition of competence, its types and its impact on Higher Education in Spain within the EHEA is established, while in the second one, the state of the question is established, deepening into digital competence, which is the object of study of this work.

Modifications have been made to the manuscript.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The following is a series of recommendations for the author(s) to include in the final version of the article.

1. It is important to bear in mind that the journal has an international orientation, so it is necessary that some issues, specific to Spain or to the University of Jaén, are well explained.
   • In this sense, the document mentions ANECA in line 77. It is recommended that a footnote be included indicating what the acronym means, and briefly explaining the role it plays in reference to university studies.
   • Likewise, in line 195 reference is made to the ILIAS platform, appearing again in table 3 (line 225-226), in table 4 (line 251-252) and in line 253. It is in this last line where it clearly appears that it is a digital platform of the University of Jaén. It is recommended that a small callout be made the first time it appears in the text so that readers do not have to advance to understand what the author(s) of the article are referring to.
2. Line 92 mentions the DIGCOMP study. It would be convenient to add the year in which the study was carried out, so that the reader does not have to go to reference number 14 and look for the date in which the study was carried out.
3. Something similar happens in line 99 when talking about DigCompEdu. It would be necessary to indicate when the European Framework for Digital Competence of Teachers was approved.
4. In the Materials and methods section, it is indicated that the Student's t statistical test was used (line 150). This data does not coincide with what is indicated in line 214, which states that the ANOVA test was used, something that reappears in Table 4. Nevertheless, and in view of the type of independent variables, it seems that it would be normal to use ANOVA for the variable Age and Course, and Student's t-test for the variable Gender.
5. In line 197, and as it is written, it seems that when they speak of dependent variables they do so on the 5 response options and not on the different dimensions that make up the data collection scale.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

We welcome your comments on the manuscript.

All your indications have been taken into account and are reflected in the attached revised manuscript.

Best regards