Behavior of Czech Teachers in the Techambition System during the COVID-19 Epidemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A copy of the paper is in annex, containing several comments and recommendations for the authors.
The subject is pertinent and the approach has some originality. The results are interesting to a wider audience. The article is generally readable although the structure can be improved – the authors included aspects of contextualization in the methods section, which does not seem like the best option.
The major issue is lack of relation with scholarship – there is a very vast array of articles published on this subject that could have been mobilized. The authors referred few sources and failed to address an issue which I feel is central to the discussion of what took place in education during the covid-19 closures: Emergency remote teaching and Learning. Instead, they use the term distance learning which has been widely criticized in this context. We have suggested some sources that can be useful for the authors in addressing this issue.
I therefore recommend:
- More importantly that the term distance education is replaced with ERTL, and this distinction is clarified based on the sources I suggested and/or others;
- If the authors deem it valuable, the relation with scholarship would benefit from analyzing a wider set of papers related to education during covid-19. The discussion of the results might also be expanded based on that.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments and proposed changes, I believe they will contribute to improving the quality of the article.
I made the proposed changes, moved the two subchapters to the introduction. He added a chapter on ERTL. The reference has been extended.
Reviewer 2 Report
Techambition is explained in 99th line which is inside the methodology, I suggest to take that part into introduction or could be in both since aim of the study and the conceptual explanations are done in that part. Discussion seems a bit missing so instead of summary part include more up to date references from covid period and ICT literature more so that you can better discuss the field. Comparisons with what the other countries have done during this pandemic, might make the article look more academic. Therefore study might have comparative discussion as well.Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments and proposed changes.
I moved the two subchapters to the introduction. I also added a chapter on ERTL. The reference has been expanded.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article raises a very interesting topic.
However, there are numerous problems that discourage its publication.
Origin of the data.
Have teachers given their consent for the data to be used in the way they use Techambition?
This must be clearly specified.
Ethics statement.
Does the investigation have the approval of an ethics committee?
It is highly recommended that this consent be requested. How the data is used can be problematic.
Structure of the article.
Information on previous studies and the impact of COVID-19 in the Czech Republic is presented in the Materials and Methods section and should be relocated to the introductory section.
Likewise, the objective of the study should appear at the end of the introduction.
Introduction.
The introduction is too superficial. The problem under study is not stated, nor is an effort made to summarize the results obtained in previous studies.
Bibliographic references are scarce for a research article.
A more in-depth review of the studies that have previously analyzed the effects of the pandemic on teaching practice at the international level is necessary.
Objective.
The goal is somewhat confusing. It should be written more clearly.
Participants.
The number of participating teachers must be clearly explained.
Tables are preferred over graphs.
It is highly recommended to provide information about your gender, age, and years of teaching experience.
Factor analysis.
What does this type of analysis contribute to the article? It must be clearly specified.
Information on the statistics from the Bartlett sphericity test and the KMO test should be provided to see if the data meet the assumptions for factor analysis.
Similarly, much more information should be provided on how each item saturates in the corresponding factor.
Cluster analysis.
The clusters that are proposed must be justified much more.
The explanation that is proposed is not sufficient for its existence is not sufficient.
Discussion.
There is no real discussion of the results.
The results are not compared with previous studies.
Study limitations are not shown.
No future lines of research are proposed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments and proposed changes, I believe they will contribute to improving the quality of the article.
Origin of the data.
Consent to the processing of anonymised data is part of the license agreement between the user and Techambition.
Ethics statement.
The research was discussed with the Research Ethics Committee at our faculty. As there is no data collection or collection and the data was transmitted in a completely anonymous form, no opinion was requested. It is possible to add it.
Structure of the article and Introduction.
Changes were made to the structure of the text, two chapters were moved to the introduction and a chapter on ERLT was added.
Objective
Added information in introduction and conclusion.
Participants.
Table with basic data characteristics was inculded. We had data about 1170 teachers.
Factor analysis.
The data seems to be suitable for this kind of analysis with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion overall value 0.762 and the correlation matrix is significantly different from the identity matrix according to Bartlett's test with test statistic ?²(105) = 2370.51 and p-value p < .001.
We also have information on the saturation of the factors, but the text would be significantly extended. Given that this is more of a descriptive description, we do not consider embedding necessary. But we can do so.
Cluster analysis
It is true that clusters could be done differently (eg a different number). It is a tool for data interpretation and they can always be interpreted differently. From our point of view, there is nothing wrong, we have created relatively consistent groups across clusters, we have described them and on this basis we have derived a hypothesis about the description of individual groups.
Discussion
Conclusion has been extended.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I feel that, at this point, my main concerns about the paper were addressed, even though the section about ERTL is concise, and the article still cites a relatively low number of sources.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been substantially improved compared to its previous version.
All issues raised in the initial review have been addressed.
