Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Digital Competencies and Ways to Acquire Those through Their Studies and Self-Organized Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author(s) attention to detail in addressing the comments offered in the previous review. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback! We are glad that you liked our contribution. If you are interessted in Reviewer's 2 feedback, we will attach our answers in the Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important and interesting article that provides valuable knowledge about pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their digital competencies. The authors have made good improvements to the article, and it is nice to see that most of the issues highlighted in the last review have been addressed. There is however still some work that needs to be done in some of the sections (e.g., in the discussion and conclusion). The article is still a bit long and needs to be shortened, especially the discussion section. See details below.

OVERALL

1.     Please doublecheck the following terms throughout the entire article: pre-service teachers, students, pupils, teacher-educators, instructors… I can see that the authors have “cleaned up” the terms, but there still seems to be some use of “students” instead of “pre-service teachers”. To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to be consistent. This also relates to how pupils in school are described, as well as the university teachers/instructors.

2.     The study’s aim/objective seem to differ in the article, make sure it is the same throughout the entire article. In the abstract the aim is to diminish pre-service teachers’ digital competence gaps; in the introduction it is to find and explore strategies and measures to equip secondary-level pre-service teachers with digital skills to improve school education; and in the methods the aim is to gain insight into pre-service teachers’ views on the coverage of digital competencies in the teacher training program to work towards improvement. Furthermore, be aware that the phrase “work towards improvement” can be understood as the authors’ view/preunderstanding that there is a need to improve practice; it is important for researchers to be open and not have the answers before the research is done.

INTRODUCTION

3.     The term “advanced pre-service teachers” need to be explained first time it is mentioned.

4.     When referring to other authors (theory and previous research) it is important to include their names. This is done some places, but many places it is not.

5.     Section 1.3: There is a need to highlight the theories more. The authors refer to four theories, in addition to social constructivist tradition, but it is unclear which theories the authors refer to. From my perspective, the two last paragraphs should be moved to the previous research section.

6.     Section 1.4: I advise to move this forward to make it clear for the reader from the start what this article is about. The last section of the first sentence does not make sense, “digital skills as crucial components of 21st century competencies.”     

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

7.     The methods section is much clearer now, but there are still some things that need to be clarified.

8.     The last sentence in the first paragraph is too long.

9.     Figure 1: The reference to the blue section might be difficult if printed in black and white.

10.  The last sentences on p. 6 (from “Although survey participants…”) is too detailed; I advise to delete this.

11.  Section 2.3: See some suggestions in the enclosed file.

12.  Section 2.4.1: I advise to start the first paragraph with: “In the focus groups…”

13.  Section 2.4.2: The first paragraph ends with “The unit of”; this does not make sense. The first sentence in the second paragraph is too complicated.

14.  Ethical aspects regarding the method, participants’ informed consent, and the researchers’ roles (including bias and pre-understanding) is included in “Limitations” and at the end. This needs to be addressed in the Methods section also.

RESULTS

15.  The results section is much clearer now.

16.  Figure 3: This does not add any new to the text and can therefore be deleted.

17.  The bullet points under each sub-heading: I think it work better with themes (as in 3.2 and 3.4) instead of questions (as in 3.1 and 3.3).

18.  Section 3.5: The authors highlight three differences. The first and third are clear, but not the second; this needs to be clarified. I also wonder if digital “presence” is the correct word.

DISCUSSION

19.  This is a very long section, with some unnecessary repetition of the results. It is still mostly descriptive and lacks a critical discussion and reflection. I advise to delete the most detailed sections with examples from the results and focus more on the connection between the results and the theory. There is also a need to include more references (including the author names).

20.  I wonder why so many new references are included in the discussion (no. 38-44), instead of drawing on the references that were presented earlier in the article?

21.  The first paragraph on p. 18 can be deleted. Please present a short suggestion of what research is needed more general, not what you intend to do.

CONCLUSION

22.  Please make sure the conclusion is aligned with the rest of the article. Remember to include references and author names.

REFERENCES

23.  Make sure the references in the reference list are written as recommended by the ACS style guide, as exemplified in the journals author guidelines.

 

Looking forward to reading a revised version of this article.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I still find parts of the article a bit difficult to read, due to several very long and difficult sentences.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable answers. please find our answers attached in the word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made very good improvements to the article. I am pleased to see that all issues mentioned in the last review have now been met.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

More clarification is needed on those aspects; 

The context of the study 

Linking the literature with the research findings

The implication of the study 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor language/grammer mistakes 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although I commend the authors for attempting to provide depth to the quantitative data through a mixed methods approach, the focus group that was analyzed lacked sufficient quality to be an adequate data source for the thematic analysis. As was recommended in the limitations and perspectives section, I strongly suggest that the authors continue to develop this study with more focus groups and participants until they reach a point of data saturation. Additionally, I feel that the qualitative component lacks sufficient measures of qualitative quality. I recommend looking to Lincoln and Guba (1985) or Tracy (2010) for guidance on qualitative quality. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important and interesting article that provides valuable knowledge about pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their digital competencies. The overall objective is to find and explore strategies and measures to equip secondary-level pre-service teachers with digital skills. However, some sections need to be clarified (e.g., the methodology section) and more details need to be included to create a clearer connection from the introduction to the conclusion; see details below. Further, the article is a bit long, and needs to be shorten, especially the results section. 

 

TITLE, ABSTRACT, AND KEYWORDS:  

1. 1. Make sure to align the abstract, the title, and the keywords with the content of the article.  

2. 2. Please also include the aim of the article in the abstract. 

3. 3. In the article, both «students» and «pre-service teachers» are used. This is a bit confusing. I suggest using only one of them, e.g., «pre-service teachers».  

4. 4. The word «AI tools» is mentioned in the abstract and listed as a keyword. However, the word is hardly mentioned in the article.  

5.  

INTRODUCTION: 

5. 5. The context and background information are well presented in the introduction. 

6. 6. However, please provide a stronger rationale and argument for why this research is important, by including some more relevant research. It is also necessary to include a section in which the authors’ theoretical foundation or conceptual framework is presented.  

7. 7. Further, the aim of the study presented in the article is not clear. It seems like the article is part of a larger study; if so, this needs to be explained further.  

8. 8. This sentence is unclear (paragraph 4 p. 3): «These studies inspired the current contribution that extends the investigation to all disciplines».  

9. 9. P. 2: Both DigComp 2.0 and DigComp 2.2 are mentioned; I suggest to only include the newest.  

10. 10. P. 3: Paragraph 3 starts with «On an international level…» However, several international references have already been included. 

11.  

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 

11. 11. More details are needed in the methods section, to provide a clearer description of what has been done in the study. It makes sense to include some information regarding the university-wide online survey since the focus group interview draws on the results from the survey. However, at the moment, the description of what has been done is quite confusing. If the survey is that important for the article, more information regarding the survey is needed; if not, much of the text regarding the survey can be deleted.  

12. 12. More references are needed throughout the methods section, e.g., regarding the description of the mixed methods approach (p. 4), the workshop-like focus group interview (p. 5), thematic analysis (p. 6) and the description of the inductively and deductively analysis (p. 6)  

13. 13. The description of the focus group interview is unclear. It seems like there were four researchers present in the focus group, which is described as a workshop-like interview. More information regarding each of the researchers' role during the interview is needed. Was it an interview, or more like a conversation? Are the results presented in the results section based on the pre-service teachers’ perceptions, or a combination of the pre-service teachers’ and the researchers’ perceptions? This needs to be clarified.  

14. 14. Ethical aspects regarding the method, participants’ informed consent, and the researchers’ roles (including bias and pre-understanding) need to be included. 

15. 15. Please provide a presentation of the three pre-service teachers who participated in the focus group, such as their age, year of study, subjects etc., e.g., in a table. I also suggest naming the participants (fictive names), to make the results section easier to read. 

16. 16. The description of the thematic analysis does not make sense, especially not this sentence: «The themes that emerged in part were topics that the researchers had introduced inductively, based on the results of the online survey, and in part were derived deductively from the focus group’s transcript». Inductive analysis is a bottom-up analysis, in which themes emerge based on the data (in this case, based on the transcribed interview data). Deductive analysis is a top-down analysis, in which themes are based on theory. If some of the themes are coming from the survey, more information regarding this needs to be included. 

17. 17. Qualitative analysis is always based on some theory, conceptual framework, or pre-understanding, but this is missing in the article (see comment no. 6).  

18. 18. Please provide a readable version of Figure 1. 

19. 19. The sentence under Figure 1 (p. 4) starts with: «This aim». However, it is unclear what aim the authors are referring to. 

20. 20. Section 2.2, p. 4: The participants are described as «advanced pre-service teachers». This needs to be explained. The word «mediate» also needs an explanation.  

21.  

RESULTS: 

21. 21. This is a very long section. I suggest to only describe the results here and move all text which contains references to previous research or theory or text that include the researchers’ interpretations to the discussion. 

22. 22. The description of the topics in Table 1 does not make sense. The numbers in column 3 in the table is also unclear.  

23. 23. P. 8, paragraph 3: This paragraph is very confusing. Please see comment no. 13 and 14. 

24. 24. P. 8, paragraph 5: A reference is needed related to «active learning». I suggest including more regarding this in the theory section. 

25. 25. P. 10, paragraph 5: A reference is needed related to «scaffolding, active, student-centered, and collaborative learning» (see comment no. 24). 

26. 26. P. 9: What does the numbers in figure 2 mean? 

27. 27. P. 11, paragraph 1: The mixing of quantitative and qualitative data makes this paragraph difficult to understand. 

28. 28. P. 12: Table 2 and the following paragraph does not make sense. There are some numbers in the table, and some other numbers in the paragraph. 

29.  

DISCUSSION: 

29. 29. A more critical reflection and discussion is needed in this section. 

30. 30. Please include some aspects regarding the researchers’ roles in the limitations (see comment no. 14).  

31.  

CONCLUSION: 

31. 31. Please make sure the conclusion is aligned with the aim/objective of the article and connect the discussion of the findings more to the core concepts presented in the introduction. I would also like to see a more critical reflection and discussion. 

32.  

REFERENCES 

32. 32. More references regarding methodology and theoretical perspectives are needed. 

33.  

 

33. Looking forward to reading a revised version of this article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

33. I find parts of the article a bit difficult to read, due to several very long and difficult sentences.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, thank the authors for developing this type of study, from the student's perspective on preliminary results already carried out in teaching digital competencies. Even so, I am concerned about a series of aspects that the authors must address, improve and deepen in their study.

·        On line 31 a dot and followed is required, between [2] All these

·        On line 74 a full stop is required after [1]

·         In line 93, the authors search for the state of the art on the digital competencies of students and teachers. However, at the beginning, the authors only discuss one side of the methodological design. Where are the quantitative studies that analyze teachers' digital skills? In this aspect, authors such as Julio Cabero and Francisco D. Guillén-Gámez offer a multitude of studies on teaching digital competencies: such as:

Basgall, L., Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Colomo-Magaña, E., & Cívico-Ariza, A. (2023). Digital competences of teachers in the use of YouTube as an educational resource: analysis by educational stage and gender. Discover Education, 2(1), 28.

Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., Guillén-Gámez, F. D., & Gaete-Bravo, A. F. (2023). Digital competence of higher education students as a predictor of academic success. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(2), 683-702.

Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Linde-Valenzuela, T., Ramos, M., & Mayorga-Fernandez, M. J. (2022). Identifying predictors of digital competence of educators and their impact on online guidance. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1), 1-19.

 ·        When the authors talk about the integration of ICT in the classroom, they provide findings from Farjón et al. [14] or Wilson et al. [fifteen]. However, they do not delve into international authors such as Guillén-Gámez, who analyze not only the integration of ICT in education, but also factors incident to the digital competencies of teachers, such as attitude-anxiety, quality of infrastructure, digital skills, among other factors.  I recommend reading: Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Ruiz-Palmero, J., & García, M. G. (2023). Digital competence of teachers in the use of ICT for research work: development of an instrument from a PLS-SEM approach. Education and Information Technologies, 1-21.

 

·        The authors reflect on the use of digital media in STEM. I recommend to the authors that these findings also be corroborated with those of the following study, which also analyzes knowledge, skills and attitudes: Bautista-Vallejo, J. M., & Hernández-Carrera, R. M. (2020). Learning based on the STEM model and the key of metacognition. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 6(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2020.v6i1.6719

 

·        The authors on line 100 state “Moreover, a Norwegian research team found that various factors including learning experience, the way theory and practice are linked, reflection, access to resources and support, and collaboration in learning, influence the development of digital competencies among young teachers and students [12].” However, more evidence on these findings is needed to substantiate. For example, the authors highlight the lack of experience as a factor affecting teachers' digital competencies. More studies are necessary to support this result. For example, the following study analyzes the experience of teachers: Marín Suelves, D., Vidal Esteve, M. I., Peirats Chacón, J., & San Martín Alonso, Ángel. (2019). Transversal digital competence in teacher training: analysis of an experience. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 5(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2019.v5i1.4890

 

·        • However, the authors do want to reflect on the digital competencies of teachers and students based on the most currently used resources. Perhaps a good study would be Basil's which analyzes Google classroom, Email, Moodle, Canvas, Google, Microsoft Team, Zoom, Google Meet, Cisco Webinar, Facebook groups, Open Educational Resources (OERs), Google docs, Google slide, WhatsApp and Telegram Channel: Oguguo, B., Ezechukwu, R., Nannim, F., & Offor, K. (2023). Analysis of teachers in the use of digital resources in online teaching and assessment in COVID times. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 9(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2023.v9i1.15419

 

In general, I consider that there is a lack of related studies on analyzes of teaching digital competence. The authors could add a section on “related studies on digital competencies” and discuss the findings of all these authors.

 

·       • Line 154 “Our main research interest is…”, I recommend avoiding using the first person, better in the third person singular.

·       • Improve the objective of the study, this is not understandable. The same thing happens with hypotheses. The authors have to explain it in simpler language. It is better understood throughout the study rather than in the objective and hypothesis section itself.

·       • Figure 1 needs a larger pixel, the quality is por

·       • The authors state “became evident that only about half of the study participants reported that they felt sufficiently prepared through their studies to mediate digital competencies.” I recommend expressing the exact percentage in values.

·       • From line 182 to line 195, the authors state a series of results. What are the exact percentages?

·       The authors do not provide sufficient demographic information about the participants. Age? Gender? Type of university degree? IN what academic year was the survey carried out?

·       • Who conducted the previous online survey? Are these results published in an article? There is no clarification on this. Was this survey validated? The authors must provide information about this. In addition, the survey must be attached.

The authors must improve all these aspects to be able to continue with the evaluation of the manuscript.