Strategic Digital Change in Action: A Transferable Model for Teacher Competence Development

Reviewer 1

Very interesting topic and highly relevant for other universities to learn from. The paper presents an interesting case of strategic digital change in action, however the model and the motivating claims should be more distinct in order to add insights to existing knowledge gaps.

Thank you for this suggestion. To make the distinctiveness of CUTE @ UNCuyo explicit, we have added a closing paragraph to Section 2 (Conceptual Framework). The new text contrasts our tri-phase, participatory architecture with two well-known initiatives already cited in the manuscript—A!OLE at Aalto University and EduVirtual at UNER—highlighting that the former relies on competitive pilot cycles and the latter on service-oriented support units, whereas CUTE @ UNCuyo integrates a research-based diagnosis, co-design and distributed implementation in a single iterative pathway. The paragraph also spells out two knowledge gaps identified in these prior studies—(i) the misalignment between process and output, and (ii) the absence of evidence from large Latin-American public universities—and explains how our case addresses both. We believe this targeted addition clarifies the article’s unique contribution and the motivation behind the study.

UNCute programme is described with richness, and depth it would be interesting to have more connection not only as an overarching overlay, but more distinctly throughout the critical change phases how this programme deviates and add more benefit to participants than other referred programmes.

To show, phase by phase, how CUTE @ UNCuyo differs from and improves on other initiatives, we have added a brief comparative sentence at the end of each subsection in Section 4 (“Implementation Process”):

• Action 3 (Feedback and Decision-Making Seminar) now notes that, unlike the largely top-down steering phase of UL Digital (Stare et al., 2023), our bridging seminar placed UNCuyo stakeholders at the centre of decision-making, ensuring that subsequent steps addressed locally perceived priorities.
• Action 4 (Framework Seminars) now explains that, whereas A!OLE (Kauppinen et al., 2020) spreads innovation via competitive faculty pilots, our seminars intentionally built a cross-faculty network whose legitimacy rests on broad institutional representation, not project funding.
• Action 5 (CUTE Ambassadors) now clarifies that the ambassador model goes beyond the individual-champion logic of Uniminuto’s “aeiou” centre (Bautista & Cipagauta, 2017) by coupling each micro-project with the CUTE canvas, allowing grassroots experiments to feed directly into the university’s strategic blueprint.

All references employed were already cited elsewhere in the manuscript, so no new literature has been introduced. These targeted insertions should make the distinctive benefits of each phase immediately visible to the reader.

The paper would benefit from a greater literature section that structure phase concerns with distinct process and output concerns, this would make it easier to follow up and relate to how this programme is capable of delivering novelty regarding TDC. 

We have expanded and reorganised Section 2 to make the distinction between process-oriented and output-oriented scholarship explicit. Two new subsections now precede the methodology: 2.4 “Process-focused literature on institutional TDC change” synthesises studies that map the usual three phases—diagnosis, participatory design and iterative implementation—and explains how CUTE @ UNCuyo adds phase-specific safeguards recommended in that literature. 2.5 “Output-oriented literature on teacher-level and institutional gains” reviews evidence concerning DigCompEdu improvements, communities of practice, sustainability and scalability, and shows how each phase of our model is tied to a measurable deliverable in a multi-campus public-university context.

The methodology section is nicely composed, although all bullets makes it somewhat difficult to read, this is similar in the lessons learned section p.12.

The twofold purpose is very strong on adding more contextual information and reporting from the case, it is unfortunate very little discussion about implications and how this can contribute to the general discussion on the topic. More emphasis on this would be recommended in the discussion. The reviewer appreciate the way connection to past experiences is integrated, but more would be preferred for publication and especially in concern for process integration, cultural differences/deviations, thematic past lessons learned, comparisons to improve depth along phases could relate and build more understanding in regards to timing/budget/resources. Please align more of the details connected to the overall experience such as (p.13): "The adaptation of the original CUTE project from the European context and the DigCompEdu framework to the Argentinian public universities’ reality has proven to be successful, which underscores the potential of the project and its transferability to other contexts." 

All long bullet blocks in Sections 3.2–3.4 and 6 have been rewritten as short paragraphs with sub-headings. This removes visual clutter while retaining the same content

Thank you for noting that (i) the long bullet list in the Discussion hindered readability and (ii) the section needed clearer implications. We kept the original wording and arguments but made two surgical edits:

• Recast the four-item bullet list as a single concise paragraph that conveys the same four principles in continuous prose.
• Added a short “Implications” paragraph (just before the closing section) that spells out how the model can be replicated in decentralised, low-budget HEIs and identifies three safeguards—baseline diagnostic, shared-vision seminar and peer-led diffusion units.

No other text was changed and no new references were introduced. These targeted edits preserve the substance of the Discussion while addressing your readability and implications concerns.

There are several key insights presented in this paper, and as the paper entails it "underscores the relevance of flexibility, adaptability and strategic alignment, since digital transformation processes require both the development of individual TDC among the faculty members together with the adjustment of institutional policies, structures and culture to be supportive, as well as a shared vision of the value of digital pedagogical innovation in order to be sustainable." The highlighted words could be more deeply connected to HEIs efforts at both strategic and operational level to improve learnings and transferability of findings.

We have added two sentences at the end of the Discussion (final paragraph) that make this connection explicit:

“At the strategic level, flexibility and adaptability were realised through an annual-cycle planning rhythm that allowed quick recalibration without reopening the university’s four-year budget; strategic alignment was secured by incorporating CUTE deliverables into the 2030 Strategic Plan and quality-assurance regulations. At the operational level, the same principles were embodied in low-cost ambassador networks, iterative seminar design and the shared CUTE canvas, which together let each faculty customise actions while still feeding data back to central decision-makers.”

These additions show concretely how the three concepts operate across governance layers, clarifying both institutional learning and the conditions for transfer to other HEIs. No other text changed and no new references were added.

Reviewer 2:

I believe that this manuscript has great potential and I enjoyed learning about your action-based research. I do have suggestions that I hope will improve the structure of the manuscript. My main feedback is in the methodology and way results are presented. Both sections could use some restructuring to better parallel each other and make clearer what the Actions are, how they were analyzed, and what they were a case of. For the document analysis, which framework was applied to determine the “Action 0.” Also, what is “Action 0?” I think this is referring to the original CUTE, but it is not laid out before the methods as to what the different targeted Actions are, which would possibly help inform how you approached the analysis. This  continues into other "Actions.” Maybe lay out what the actions are beforehand. I was also confused by the numbering starting at the Diagnostic Phase, which is numbered ‘7.’ I believe this was the sequence I was hoping to see first before the data sources were mentioned so that we could understand the process and contexts for the methods. Also, the sentence could be reworded before this to be clearer. Maybe something like, “CUTE and UNCuyo was planned and implemented with a diagnostic phase that included three actions, a bridging action, followed by the intervention phase that included two actions.” That is not perfect, but it would help to more explicitly signpost what we will be reading.

We added a roadmap to Section 3: a signpost sentence plus Table 1 summarising both phases, the bridging seminar and all five Actions, with their data sources and analytical frames. Bullet 1 of “Data sources” now specifies that Action 0 (the documentary review) was coded against DigCompEdu’s six areas and 22 competences. Results subsections have been retitled “Action 0” to “Action 5,” creating a one-to-one match with the Methodology. These edits make each Action, its analysis and its place in the sequence fully transparent.

Reworded to: “This design was materialized through a sequence of two phases (diagnostic and intervention), comprising five actions which were interconnected, and a bridging action between the two stages”

When going into the section on Context and Diagnosis, I believe this is where your Results is starting. It would help to use that title and subhead with all the different phases instead.

Solved with the previous comment

I also suggest subheadings in the Methodology section. It would help the reader to know which parts are context, data sources, and data analysis. It was clear how Action 1 was evidenced, but it is not as clear what part of the context was Action 0. It may help to move some of this writing to the overall context and re-mention relevant parts to what was in the documents and how it related to Action 0. Action 0 is not even mentioned until after Action 1. Also, there is discussion of the data and analysis here. That could all be moved up to Methodology.

Thank you very much for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have revised Section 3 to make the structure of the methodology more accessible and to improve the clarity of how each phase and action unfolds. First, we have introduced a brief narrative overview at the beginning of Section 3.2 ("Project structure") that explicitly presents the overall sequence of phases and actions. This overview clearly defines what Action 0 entails, explains its central role in the diagnostic phase, and clarifies that it was conducted using the DigCompEdu framework as an analytical reference. This helps situate Action 0 before introducing the other actions and establishes its purpose as the initial mapping of institutional practices.

We also included subheadings in the Methodology section (3.1 Working principles, 3.2 Project structure, 3.3 Data sources and collection, and 3.4 Data analysis) so that readers can more easily distinguish between the context, the data sources, and the analytical approach. Furthermore, the Results section now mirrors the structure introduced in the Methodology, with each action explicitly labelled (Action 0 through Action 5), reinforcing the one-to-one correspondence between methods and findings that you recommended.

We believe that these targeted adjustments resolve the concerns raised and make the structure and flow of the study much easier to follow.

The Bridging action is included in the Implementation Phase in the results, but it would help to separate out so that it is clearer how it relates to both the Diagnosis and Intervention phases. I also suggest calling the last subheading the Intervention Process or Intervention Phase to be consistent with previous language.

Solved with the previous changes.

Minor edits:

End of paragraph 2 on page 2, it says, “teaching stuff.” Is that meant to say “teaching staff?”

Changed “stuff” for “staff” and checked all other instances.

In list of two main objectives, use a semicolon to separate first and second goal since it’s following a colon.

Made this change in P. 2, par. 2.

Since there are three main principles in the conceptual framework, consider subheadings to make it easier to follow and distinguish. Additionally, be consistent with titles of frameworks and their descriptions. For example, in the listing of the frameworks, “the European conceptualization of TDC through the DigCompEdu framework of reference” could be changed to parallel the later title of “The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu).”

Included subheadings for sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.

In P. 3, changed the first mention to DigCompEdu to “The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu)”, and referred to it as only “DigCompEdu” in all subsequent instances.

In the Conceptual Framework, it states that the DigCompEdu is dvided into a total of six areas and 22 competences. If each area has six different achievement levels ranging from A1 to C2, why is it not 36 competences? Are there some areas with different ranges? Maybe a table would help. Relatedly, how are these used for data analysis?

Thank you for pointing out this potential confusion. We have slightly reworded the sentence in the Conceptual Framework to clarify that the six achievement levels (A1 to C2) apply to each of the 22 competences within the six areas of the DigCompEdu framework. While this could give the impression of a matrix structure (6 × 6), these are levels of progression, not additional competences, and the total number of competences remains 22, not 36.

Regarding the inclusion of a table: we considered it, but a complete matrix listing each of the 22 competences with its 6 progression levels would be disproportionately long for this manuscript. We agree that mentioning the levels is important, as they are intrinsic to the logic of the framework. However, they were not directly applied in our data analysis, since our coding focused on the presence or alignment with specific competences and areas, rather than assessing progression levels. We hope this clarifies the distinction and how DigCompEdu was used in the study.