Education Practices Mediated by Digital Technologies: Mobilization and Teachers’ Strategies in Primary and Secondary Schools in Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your study seems very interesting; however, I believe several important aspects need to be addressed before it can be published:

1. Does the applied survey have any form of validation to ensure the reliability of the results obtained?

2. The characterization of the sample (section 2.1) is presented in the methodological section. I believe it should be in the results section, as it is obtained after conducting the survey. In the same section, the characterization graph (1-4) are in different formats. It is suggested to unify the format throughout the document.

3. Graphs 5 and 6 are presented with descriptions in Portuguese. Additionally, graph 5 has an incomplete outer frame. Graphs 5 to 9, which show the survey responses, are in different formats and colors. It is recommended to unify these aspects.

4. The results section includes information that should be in the methodological section, especially regarding the description of the questions. Specific examples can be found in lines 386-388 and 456-458.

5. The discussion does not fully address the research questions, or it is not clear. I suggest using the obtained data and discussing from the specific questions towards the research questions.

6. References 34 and 43 are not in the correct format. They need to be reviewed and corrected to meet the established standards.

Author Response

Thank you for your appointments. 

Comment 1 Does the applied survey have any form of validation to ensure the reliability of the results obtained?

Yes, the research underwent internal validation, with pre-tests and analysis of the questions by researchers and professors. The final questionnaire was designed based on the answers obtained in the pre-test.

Comment 2.  The characterization of the sample (section 2.1) is presented in the methodological section. I believe it should be in the results section, as it is obtained after conducting the survey. In the same section, the characterization graph (1-4) are in different formats. It is suggested to unify the format throughout the document.

I have included the characterization of the sample in the results section and unified the formats

3. Graphs 5 and 6 are presented with descriptions in Portuguese. Additionally, graph 5 has an incomplete outer frame. Graphs 5 to 9, which show the survey responses, are in different formats and colors. It is recommended to unify these aspects.

I translated graphs 5 and 6. Adjusted and standardized the format of charts 5 to 9

4. The results section includes information that should be in the methodological section, especially regarding the description of the questions. Specific examples can be found in lines 386-388 and 456-458.

It includes information about the construction of the questionnaires and how they relate to the results

5. The discussion does not fully address the research questions, or it is not clear. I suggest using the obtained data and discussing from the specific questions towards the research questions.

I have reviewed the missing questions and included them in the discussion

6. References 34 and 43 are not in the correct format. They need to be reviewed and corrected to meet the established standards.

Tight format

 

Isend the attached article with the textual inclusions marked in red. Thank you for your reading and analysis, which helped a lot to improve the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic and the reseach are really interesting and relevant. The research done and presented in the article according the main principles of scientific articles. The methodology of the research are presented, the conclusions formulated on the basis of the research results. On the other hand some comments and recommendations could be done. The first, really great idea is to present research limitations, but maybe the place of them could be near the discussion because due from the research limitations the discussion also could be rised. 

The grafico 6 (line 370) is not informative. 

The discussion could follow the conclusions (now in the article is oposite). Also coclusions could be more concentrated and generalized.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your important comments and analyses. I send the adjusted file according to your guidelines, I inform you that this version also includes the adjustments requested by other evaluators.

Comment 1. The topic and the reseach are really interesting and relevant. The research done and presented in the article according the main principles of scientific articles. The methodology of the research are presented, the conclusions formulated on the basis of the research results. On the other hand some comments and recommendations could be done. The first, really great idea is to present research limitations, but maybe the place of them could be near the discussion because due from the research limitations the discussion also could be rised. 

I've made the adjustment

Comment 2: The grafico 6 (line 370) is not informative. 

Includes the information in the chart

Comment 2. The discussion could follow the conclusions (now in the article is oposite). Also coclusions could be more concentrated and generalized.  

I made the adjustments to the conclusions, however, the discussion and conclusions contain other adjustments requested by evaluators.   Thank you very much. My best regards,   Eucidio Pimenta Arruda 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is an exciting piece of survey-based research that has received a significant number of responses (N=275). It is mostly well written, but I feel that addressing the following issues would result in a much stronger article.

The design of the survey questions should be more clearly explained. In particular, what is the origin of the "30 questions" on pages 3 to 6? It needs to be clarified what is meant by based on the "European Community Digital Competency Framework (which could be referenced more clearly in the Materials and Methods section.)

When it comes to response rates, it would be valuable to have some context. For instance, how does the achieved response rate of 275/9122 compare to other similar surveys? This information could help us better understand the effectiveness of our survey design.

There are more limitations than those discussed. These need to be included.

The discussion, a key part of any research, needs to more comprehensively cross-reference the literature. This will not only strengthen the research's findings but also demonstrate the team's thorough understanding of the field.

Research questions were posed but not directly addressed in the discussion or conclusions. They need to be directly addressed somewhere. The conclusions may be an appropriate place.

I think this is a decent piece of work, however I recommend

1. The design of the survey should be clearer

2. Context should be provided for the response rate

3. Limitations should be expanded

4. The discussions should reference the literature more

5. The research questions should be more clearly addressed, possibly in the conclusions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English is appropriate. 

Author Response

important analysis to improve the article.
I have sent the answers to the questions presented below. The forwarded file also presents the adjustments requested by other evaluators.

 

1. The design of the survey should be clearer

I made the adjustments and included a broader explanation about the Framework, to better justify this choice.

2. Context should be provided for the response rate

It includes discussions about research limitations and addresses the number of responses and their generalizability.

3. Limitations should be expanded

Research limitations were expanded, as suggested

4. The discussions should reference the literature more

Include references to literature in discussions, relating them in a more solid way.

5. The research questions should be more clearly addressed, possibly in the conclusions.

I returned to the questions in the conclusion, in order to make it clearer how each of them is answered by the research. Textual changes are in red.

 

My best regards,

 

Eucidio Pimenta

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the recommendations provided during the review process. They have made the necessary adjustments, and the quality of the manuscript has significantly improved. In its current state, the document meets the required standards and is ready for publication.