Turkish Physical Education Teachers’ Use of Technology: Application and Diffusion of Technological Innovations

The paragraph on page 5 is identical to the paragraph on page 6. One of them should be deleted.

Table comment has been changed and deleted.

Fix table 2. (Variables) - In the third line only "problems":

Table 2: Line 235- Lines have been edited.

Line 453- “this” has been deleted.

All tables in the paper should have an explanation (legend) below the table: 

Explanations were added under the tables.

The abstract should provide a summary of the article. The Age (mean) is not necessary to report in the abstract.

The abstract has been updated. Average age has been deleted.

The introduction is completely focused on the importance of technology. Very little attention was paid to PE. It is necessary to focus the debate on physical education, as the central focus area for this study is physical education. Massive research is available on the topic, and reporting on the previous research is necessary.

New resources have been added and this section has been updated with a focus on physical education.

The section 1.2 is mainly a theoretical framework/perspective. I suggest writing it as a separate section. And try to engage theory with the research questions.

It is a separate section.

The methods section reports the study used quantitative methods. However, the results show participants' reflections through interviews. Careful revision is required to correct the mistakes in reporting the main information.

The method has been changed as a sequential explanatory mixed-methods.

In the participants section, add a table with background information about participants. This will help readers easily understand the main information.

A table containing participant information has been added.

The results section should be carefully checked. There is the repetition of sentences and paragraphs. Pages 5 and 6 have repetition.

It has been changed.

Add more concrete discussion on the results and how these results are helpful and applicable to different stakeholders, such as teachers, students, institutions, and policymaking institutions.

Additions have been made.

R 45-48: With digitization, the role of the teacher in the classroom  has also changed. Therefore, the teacher is no longer in the position of transmitting information but a guide about teaching how to access information.

It would be necessary to reformulate or even abandon them, given that the title of the article refers to the use of technology by teachers.

The sentence has been deleted.

R 90-93: Additionally, individuals who are accustomed to applying  existing technologies find it difficult to accept new technologies [10, 11] or even resist using them [12]. Therefore, they have difficulty in adapting [13]; it is possible to find studies in the literature.

Bibliographic source 13 is an article from 1991. We believe that in the course of 33 years the difficulties of individuals in terms of adapting to new technologies have undergone certain changes!

These statements have been deleted and replaced.

R 93-96: It is thought that teachers also show resistance in applying technological innovations in education. Additionally, it is thought that while some technological tools are preferred among teachers, some are not. However, the diffusion of any technological innovation is important for research.

Assertions are made without indicating bibliographic sources. If the statements are those of the authors, rewording would be necessary.

It has been deleted.

R 129-131: The participants were PE teachers working in different regions and provinces during  the 2019-2020 spring academic semester in Turkey. In total, 678 PE teachers voluntarily participated in the study. It is not very clear whether the participating physical education teachers referred, in the responses, only to the period of the pandemic or to the current period.

We do not notice the connection between the questions of the questionnaire, the pandemic and the title of the article.

The data collection process coincided with the pandemic period, but the article was not associated with the pandemic. In general, technology use of physical education teachers in Turkey was examined.

Table 1: The answers regarding the possession of some technological tools, the use of some applications by physical education teachers are presented.

We believe that we are dealing with two different aspects: having a laptop, Facebook account, personal blog is one aspect, using them for educational purposes, in physical education lessons, is another aspect.

Requires revisions, additions.

Since the data belongs to the year 2019-2020, no additions could be made to the data.

Reviewer 2

First of all, thank you for revising the article. Some corrections have been made, and the article does look good. However, on many occasions, the author(s) hesitated to make the changes per suggestions in the first round of review. For example, the core focus of the research background should focus on physical education and technology, how the primary focus of introduction is technology, and only a few lines were added in the last part of the section on physical education. More concrete discussion is required on physical education in this changing world under technology and how technology has impacted physical education in the recent past.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. We have edited according to this feedback in lines 104-114 in yellow colors highlighted with new references numbered 16,17,18,19,20, 21, 22 and 23. (In references as well Lines 553-567.

The 1.2 The diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory is part of the first heading, i.e., 1. Introduction. It was suggested that it be made into a separate heading (not a subheading) and changed to a theoretical framework for the article. 

We have edited this in line 65 as a separate heading as suggested.

The methods sections have been changed. However, the information is still limited and does not meet scientific standards. The article used multiple techniques, including interviews and questionnaires. However, the information on interview participants is still missing. Table 1 provides good information but is very limited—more information on teachers' characteristics, such as their teaching experiences, education, etc, is necessary. Measures used in the study are explained; however, similar information on interviews is still missing. Who conducted the interviews, how long were they, and were they audio/video recorded? What methods were used to analyze the questionnaire and interview results? How were questionnaires and interviews coherent and helpful in achieving better outcomes? 

We have edited according to this feedback in lines 140-147

Lines 157, Table 1 information provided according to demographic characteristics of PE teachers. In addition, this is described in Lines 162-165.

Research designed edited and explained in lines 140-147, 169, 174,175, 202, 203, 225, 232,   accordingly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language. The article requires a language check. 

Manuscript edited for English language check via MDP professional editing service and certification attached.

Reviewer 3

When I read the title of the article I had another expectation. I would have liked to see to what extent teachers use technology in their teaching work, not as independent users. Regarding our observations we saw that you reworded, supplemented and corrected. We think it's fine and we can propose it for publication.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. Physical education teachers use of technology discussed in heading 1.2 and lines 104-114 with new references numbered 16,17,18,19,20, 21, 22 and 23.