Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge: An Australian Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is relevant and currently being discussed. The truth is that novice teachers are often less skilled than their colleagues, what is in fact the reflection or the result of the pre-service teacher preparation. The digital era has also changed the competencies that teachers need, and this should be reflected in their preparation.

The text is logically structured and clearly organized. The theoretical background is sufficient and objective. I appreciate that, even though the majority of sources are from the pre-COVID period, authors mention the influence of the COVID situation.

The authors used the available sampling; the sample in the research is relatively small, which the authors mention as a limitation of the study. Nevertheless, the authors compare the distribution of the sample with university data and broader Australian statistics and generalize the results to the Australian context (Australian case study). They also use different statistical methods to ensure the quality/reliability of results in the context of the study.

The procedure of data collection is clearly described. I suggest the authors highlight (make more visible) the research question (subchapter 3.3) and/or hypothesis (mentioned in line 204). The authors may want to consider changing the title of '6. Analysis of research questions' (being a non-native speaker, it might be a wrong "linguistic feeling" – you do not analyze the question but rather data and report results).

After going through more versions of the questionnaire, I suggest the authors check the use of the verb 'adopt' vs. 'adapt' (the other questionnaires use 'adapt' - the verb 'adopt' slightly changes the meaning, e.g., MK3, SSK2, SSK3, SK2, PCK4; see e.g. the source the authors adapted for their research (Schmidt et al., 2009a, b))

There is a mistake in the test ITEM in the Appendix: SK3 - 'strategies of develop my understanding....' ."

 

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

 

First, I would like to thank the reviewers for their very invaluable feedback. Second, I would like to express my sincere apologies for the delayed response. Thirdly, the responses and corrections.

 

Reviewer 1: the research question was revised; the research question analysis was corrected, and spelling and terminologies were reviewed.

 

Reviewer 2: A new question was adapted to reflect the need to mention the TPACK Modelling responses. The team wishes to thank Reviewer 2 for the extensive feedback, which have been addressed such as the Reference section, for example.

 

Reviewer 3: The team thank Reviewer 3 for the observation, which was included at the end of the Implication Section. The authors have noted a similar observation in a previous paper, and we appreciate the opportunity to highlight the development of digital awareness and skills amongst younger learners.

 

Reviewer 4: spelling addressed.

 

The team is grateful of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the corrections meet the reviewers’ expectations, and we look forward to the possibility of publishing Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge: An Australian Case Study with Education Sciences.

Most sincerely,

Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Writing the review for this article is something of a challenge.  On the one hand it is well written, well referenced and follows expected processes for collecting and analysing the survey data. However, I have two main concerns with it. The first concern is that it does not cohere.  The Research Questions are not really addressed by the survey questions.  The content is more aligned with the article's title.  The data and subsequent analysis don't link to the Research Questions.  The second Research Question which focuses on the importance of the use of technology being modelled by initial teacher educators is important - but not addressed sufficiently in the article.  On page 9, line 359 you write, "this section includes eight survey questions on modelling in as many content areas" - plus the additional one for Physical Education.  However, the survey as provided does not appear to have specific questions related to modelling - by campus based or professional practice based teacher educators. I wonder if the survey questions you have in mind are those that focus on the participant's self perception of "knowing about" technologies. 

The second concern i have is that the focus for research has moved to the second question.  It is clear that PST may be knowledgeable of technologies and even use them in their own social life but they tend not to be confident  using them as pedagogies.  See, for example, the end of the  following quote from Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al. (2022, p. 2), 

"the teacher is key in such process of integrating technologies and plays a crucial role in the adoption and implementation of ICT in the classroom, since the transformation and improvement of education will depend, among other aspects , on educational action, which implies that teachers must have effective digital competencies that allow them to integrate and use technologies in a pedagogical way.

While the correlation between participant gender and TPACK responses may be interesting - it is not clear why this has so much focus in the article.  It certainly isn't linked to the key Research Questions. 

I have attached the article with my working annotations for your consideration.   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

 

First, I would like to thank the reviewers for their very invaluable feedback. Second, I would like to express my sincere apologies for the delayed response. Thirdly, the responses and corrections.

 

Reviewer 1: the research question was revised; the research question analysis was corrected, and spelling and terminologies were reviewed.

 

Reviewer 2: A new question was adapted to reflect the need to mention the TPACK Modelling responses. The team wishes to thank Reviewer 2 for the extensive feedback, which have been addressed such as the Reference section, for example.

 

Reviewer 3: The team thank Reviewer 3 for the observation, which was included at the end of the Implication Section. The authors have noted a similar observation in a previous paper, and we appreciate the opportunity to highlight the development of digital awareness and skills amongst younger learners.

 

Reviewer 4: spelling addressed.

 

The team is grateful of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the corrections meet the reviewers’ expectations, and we look forward to the possibility of publishing Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge: An Australian Case Study with Education Sciences.

Most sincerely,

Authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article seems to be very noticable, particularly conducting the process of research. It could be more elaborated but the limitations connected with article requirements do not allow to do it. The empirical part is well done, and I admire the high effort put in it. However, I could be a good idea to mention all  categories of teacher knowledge as content knowledge and pedagogical knowlege are two categories. It is difficult to discuss perspectively the matter connected with the TPACK without underlying also more the aspects of:  the curricullum knowledge, knowledge of learners, educational knowledge covering beliefs and values (Shulman, 1987; J. Cogill, 2008). These aspects can relate to implementing the strategies or didactic methods into TPACK, as it is an educational category. Also, in the future, it could be worthy conducting mixed methods, what can lead to wortk out the monography. As far as the results are presented I am under positive impression, although the sample is not as high representative as the Authorwishes. I think also that conclusion could elicit in concrete way some conditions for an appropriate using the TPACk in classroom in terms of awarness of  young generations', commitment to technology, what demnds high teacher knowledge skills  and meta refelction upon it. 

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

 

First, I would like to thank the reviewers for their very invaluable feedback. Second, I would like to express my sincere apologies for the delayed response. Thirdly, the responses and corrections.

 

Reviewer 1: the research question was revised; the research question analysis was corrected, and spelling and terminologies were reviewed.

 

Reviewer 2: A new question was adapted to reflect the need to mention the TPACK Modelling responses. The team wishes to thank Reviewer 2 for the extensive feedback, which have been addressed such as the Reference section, for example.

 

Reviewer 3: The team thank Reviewer 3 for the observation, which was included at the end of the Implication Section. The authors have noted a similar observation in a previous paper, and we appreciate the opportunity to highlight the development of digital awareness and skills amongst younger learners.

 

Reviewer 4: spelling addressed.

 

The team is grateful of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the corrections meet the reviewers’ expectations, and we look forward to the possibility of publishing Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge: An Australian Case Study with Education Sciences.

Most sincerely,

Authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is written well and in excellent English.

There was one instance of correction PTS' used in place of PSTs' (line 580). The correction is only minor, but should be made. 

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

 

First, I would like to thank the reviewers for their very invaluable feedback. Second, I would like to express my sincere apologies for the delayed response. Thirdly, the responses and corrections.

 

Reviewer 1: the research question was revised; the research question analysis was corrected, and spelling and terminologies were reviewed.

 

Reviewer 2: A new question was adapted to reflect the need to mention the TPACK Modelling responses. The team wishes to thank Reviewer 2 for the extensive feedback, which have been addressed such as the Reference section, for example.

 

Reviewer 3: The team thank Reviewer 3 for the observation, which was included at the end of the Implication Section. The authors have noted a similar observation in a previous paper, and we appreciate the opportunity to highlight the development of digital awareness and skills amongst younger learners.

 

Reviewer 4: spelling addressed.

 

The team is grateful of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the corrections meet the reviewers’ expectations, and we look forward to the possibility of publishing Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge: An Australian Case Study with Education Sciences.

Most sincerely,

Authors.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have certainly made significant improvements to this article.  

To ensure you are very pleased with the final published article, there are a few referencing errors you will want to fix – e.g. lack of space between p. and numeral and an extra comma when referring to author et al.  

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the final comments and observations.

The team of authors have carefully rectified the editing style of intext citations and page numbering spaces, as well as reviewed the whole article and reference section.

The team hopes the corrections are satisfactory.