Digital Competence and Gender: Teachers in Training. A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study presented does not provide new knowledge. Numerous previous studies have revealed gender differences in self-perception of digital skills (Hargittai & Shafer, 2006; Harigitttai and Hinnan, 2008; Wasserman & Richmond-Abbott, 2005). In addition, the study is based on self-reported and unobserved competence, the main limitation pointed out by the main national and international studies
The methodological design does not allow for analysis of gender differences (The sample consisted of 329 students, of whom 69.9% were women 86 and 30.1% men). It does not incorporate effect size analysis.
The literature review is not current (last five years preferably). The study does not review key works on the subject such as those by Hargittai, Helsper, Deursen ... It presents a generic review of the main topic with little specialized knowledge.

Author Response

We thank all the reviewers for their thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

In the following, the detailed comments from reviewers and our responses are reported. The suggestions have been incorporated into the manuscript. Likewise, we have highlighted these changes in the article. Moreover, references have been incorporated in order to answer reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Even though the study is relevant and could be of use for the improvement of future trainees, there is only a paragraph, the last one, to say what this research is intended for. Many differences are seen but nothing is said on how to solve this situation.

The Discussion and Conclussion section should be a source of ideas on how to solve these differences, clarify the implications that these could have on future teachers and offer a set of ideas for trainers and schools of education in general.

Author Response

We thank all the reviewers for their thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

In the following, the detailed comments from reviewers and our responses are reported. The suggestions have been incorporated into the manuscript. Likewise, we have highlighted these changes in the article. Moreover, references have been incorporated in order to answer reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper concerns the assessment of digital skills in first-year university students taking a degree in primary education in teacher training in Spain. In particular, the research focuses on the identification of possible differences due to gender.

I report the presence of several errors, both typing and spelling:

- in line 14 the sentence beginning with "A descriptive and interpretative..." must be reworded;

- In line 55 it is necessary to replace with "is one of the variables frequently correlated with gender".

- Row 58 "the"

I suggest modifying the title of the paper. Specifically, the "future teachers" inserted after the two points is not clear.

It is needed to broaden the methodology part by including the motivations that led the authors to carry out this research, i.e. Identify the research gap and justify it. Explain also the choice of a sample belonging just to the first year of university.

The research question should be formulated in a clearer way and it should be supported by an appropriate review of the literature. In addition, it is necessary to remove the hypothesis mentioned immediately after. The term hypothesis is always associated with a statement to be tested. Not being structured in this way, inserting a hypothesis after the research question is misleading.

Finally, since the COTAEDU questionnaire is developed on the basis of a pre-existing one, the COTASEBA, it is necessary to further explain the latter as it has not been defined in depth.

Good luck with your research.

Author Response

We thank all the reviewers for their thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is strongly improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication. We hope that the current version answers their concerns.

In the following, the detailed comments from reviewers and our responses are reported. The suggestions have been incorporated into the manuscript. Likewise, we have highlighted these changes in the article. Moreover, references have been incorporated in order to answer reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor revision of English: "and providing initial ITC courses (before University), more signatures focused on educational technology".

Author Response

Estimated reviewer,

We thank you for your thorough comments and final recommendations that helped to improve the manuscript. Thanks to them, we think that the paper is improved, especially regarding the effectiveness in communication. 

We solved these language issues (ITC / ICT) (signatures / subjects).

Thanks for your attention.

Best regards