Teacher and Context Factors Associated with the Educational Use of ICT: A Costa Rican Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

First of all this is an interesting study and reveals significant results. Regarding the content it is fine and acceptable. I suggest you to highlight the novelty of the study in the introduction section and separate this section into two sections: Introduction and Literature Review for reasons of clarity . Moreover, in the literature review section should be a further analysis regarding the literature used and how it is connected with the topic. 
The results section is fine. However, before the conclusion section you could place another section with the limitations of the present study and suggestions for future research around the topic.
Although the quality of language used is good , a proofreading of the paper is still needed in order to avoid some spelling mistakes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We appreciate all your contributions. This is not merely formality but rather an appreciation as, having re-read the manuscript and taken into account your recommendations we can appreciate how they help us to improve our work.

We have introduced a more explicit justification of the study topic.

Regarding your suggestion of separating the disciplinary and epistemological framework from the literature review, this is an approach with which we would normally agree. However, in this instance, as the decision to opt for the integration of these sections was based on recommendations on one of our previous papers. Adopting your suggestion and separating these sections at this time would mean a return to the very beginning of the writing of the research. It is for this reason that we would appreciate your understanding.

Following your recommendations, we have tried to give a more explicit link to the research results and our research.

After the conclusions section, we have included two brief and new sections regarding limitations and ethical considerations.

In addition, we have requested that the external translation service carry out a new review to address the observations on the use of the English language.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

English has to be revised as there are sentences that seem to be a direct translation from Spanish.

ICT/ICTs should be unified as there are occasions where this is confusing.

In the abstract there is an important mistake concerning methodology: please correct Atlas it and replace it with Atlas ti.

Objective section has to be improved. Whole sentences a paragraphs are required. 

Method section should be re-written as it is confusing.

Tables should follow the same style criteria. There are 3 different styles in the paper. 

ETC should never be used in academic and scientific writing. Researchers have to be concrete and use a direct style.

Fist person singular/plural cannot be used in academic writing. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We appreciate all your contributions. This is not merely formality but rather an appreciation as, having re-read the manuscript and taken into account your recommendations we can appreciate how they help us to improve our work.

The external translation service has been asked to carry out a new review to address the observations on the use of the English language.

The use of ICT has been unified.

The name of the ATLAS.ti software has been corrected, correcting the translation error and respecting the use of uppercase and lowercase letters of said software.

The objectives section has been reformulated, making the wording clearer.

The methodology section has been rewritten

Regarding the observation on the heterogeneity of the format of the tables, the guidelines from the last update of APA 6a have been followed. The guidelines limit the use of the table to the organized presentation of numerical data. Only one table has been used, the others, despite their appearance, are actually deemed to be figures (according to that APA 6 reference). However, we agree that the appearance of these figures (built with the table tool and converted into an image) can be mistaken for tables with heterogeneous formats. Therefore, while maintaining the criteria for Table and Figure of APA 6, we have redesigned the figures that are similar to tables so that they do not present a heterogeneous appearance.

Regarding the use of etc., we fully share your appreciation and have corrected this issue, that several of the cases came from the referred source.

Finally, this observation of the reviewer is interesting to us, since it was the subject of debate among the co-authors. The senior author was inclined towards the position expressed by the reviewer; however, the younger co-authors were inclined towards the use of the first person, in line with a debate that Castelló, Corcelles, Iñesta, Vega and Bañales (2011), following Hyland (2005) when they stated:

Academic writing has gradually lost its traditional label of objective and impersonal discourse and has become a persuasive undertaking involving the interaction between writer and reader (Hyland, 2005). In this sense, it is increasingly valued that students adopt a position with respect to the topics they write about, that is, that they build their own voice and reflect it or transfer it to the text (p.106).

However, on the occasion of your recommendation, we have instructed the translator to use the impersonal third person in the English version.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents a study on the factors that promote or limit the use of ICT tools by teachers in Costa Rica. To start with the study is highly limited by the small number of participants (7). 

Authors mention some models that support the proposed methodology but miss some highly used methods for the study of technology adoption like UTAUT, TAM, etc. These have been used extensively also in the educational domain and should have been, at least, considered.

It is not clear how the factors presented in Table 2 are then correlated to the collected results in order to reach the conclusions. Table 2 seems to be forgotten in the study and new "factors" and categories were created by the researchers. 

It is really hard in the end to actually understand if any recommendations on the teachers use and adoption of ICT could be extracted from this article. Most of the comments seem to come from the perception of the researchers rather than from the actual results.

Identifying the participants with adjectives is ethically arguable. Particularly when authors refer to one of the participants as "clueless", "absent-minded" and "distracted". And when authors decide to say that this participant had "non-satisfactory" performance. Where participants being evaluated or studied? Authors should reflect on the ethical aspects of producing and publishing an article with these considerations on the participants. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We appreciate all your contributions. This is not merely formality but rather an appreciation as, having re-read the manuscript and taken into account your recommendations we can appreciate how they help us to improve our work.

Regarding the first observation about limited number of the sample. We understand that this is a fairly frequent academic scientific debate. However, following, among others, Flyvbjerg (2006), we believe that it can be understood that in qualitative research the relevant selection of key informants is an accepted mechanism that supplies the dimension of number of participants. Our cases have been selected using a rigorous assessment process by experts familiar with the educational system in which they are embedded, seeking a contribution that is directed at obtaining information and in which they also represent a case of maximum variation (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Kazez, 2009).

With regard to your observation

 "Authors mention some models that support the proposed methodology but miss some highly used methods for the study of technology adoption like UTAUT, TAM, etc. These have been used extensively also in the educational domain and should have been, at least, considered."

We would like to share the following analysis. Indeed, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) are possible references that would have enriched the analysis and theoretical construction of the study.

It is true that TAM has been widely used in the research field, although it has had to be revised frequently and rethought by its authors. In addition, it focuses on an isolated user of technologies and especially “the computer” without considering the adoption of more recent mobile technologies and cultural and social context variables.

In the case of UTAUT, the theoretical context is similar, but in addition seeks to be, above all, a predictive model with a large number of associated variables in some dissenting cases that, in many cases, have not allowed focused analysis. The model was not considered consistent with the scope and focus of this qualitative research.

Actually, once Table 2 (Figure 2, in the previous version) was reviewed, it was intended to be a theoretical compilation of different factors through various prior investigations. At no time was it labelled a closed precategory map. However, we understand that the reader may arrive at the erroneous idea that it could be a catalog of precategories. In order to avoid such confusion, we have eliminated it and reworked the text of that section.

Regarding the questioning of the recommendations, we share with the reviewer that generalization versus transferability as relatively opposed concepts between quantitative and qualitative research respectively, is a recurring debate (Hernández Sampieri, Fernández Collado and Baptista Lucio, 2014; McMillan and Schumacher, 2006; Stake, 1998; Taylor and Bogdan, 1998, among others). That we, when opting for qualitative research, in a way have decided in favor of transferability, and only in this sense can the recommendations be interpreted. It is a reality that is difficult to avoid that when a qualitative research is carried out with wide immersion, the boundaries between the researchers' perception and the data is always fluid, and only the quantity and quality of the data and, in our case, the triangulation of techniques, permits us to outline recommendations with relative solvency. As can be seen in “Section 2.4. processing and analysis of information” of our work and in the accompanying appendices, the process employed was very rigorous, extensive, careful and systematic within the framework of the methodology chosen for this study of the factors that influence the use of ICT by Costa Rican teachers .

Finally, with regard to your observation:

“Identifying the participants with adjectives is ethically arguable. Particularly when authors refer to one of the participants as "clueless", "absent-minded" and "distracted". And when authors decide to say that this participant had "non-satisfactory" performance. Where participants being evaluated or studied? Authors should reflect on the ethical aspects of producing and publishing an article with these considerations on the participants.”

We want to share the following analysis.

These observations are unfortunately a result of the translation of the research from Spanish to English. In their source language, the use of adjectives to outline the cases does not refer to pejorative descriptions of the teachers. Rather, to a distinctive characteristic of their pedagogical mediation style, that characterizes the observed progress from a less to more sophisticated approach. In agreement with the observation, each case will be referred to as teacher 1, teacher 2, etc.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been thoroughly improved from the previous version which is good. In relation to my previous comments, I would like to add the following:

• I understand that authors do not want, at this stage, to further research the use of TAM and UTAUT and other technology adoption models. So, references to the models together with a basic description and a justification for not using them are enough. Unfortunately the description is too short and the justifications are quite incorrect in the considerations about UTAUT and TAM.
• It is good that adjectives qualifying the participants have been removed. On Figure 1 (should be Table, rather) authors should make clear that they are referring to Basic/Advanced Teaching Practice USING ICT as it may be inferred that it related to the overall teaching practice and, again, can be offensive to the participants
• Finally, qualitative research has a lot of advantages and merits (and, personally, preferred in relation to purely quantitative research) and there are methods and tools, to ensure a critical and systematic analysis of the contents, which I miss in this article.

These aspects can still be improved to create a very good article. Nevertheless, I still find that this journal is not the right receptacle for this article so I'm still suggesting MDPI to forward it to a more suitable journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you again for your detailed review, and for appreciating the effort made by us to meet your recommendations.
We agree with you that it is an interesting epistemological debate, which has also produced doubts for us. However, in every process one is obliged to make decisions and choose, and so far the investigative process and its approach is already concluded so it would be almost impossible to change it. Nevertheless, we will consider this debate in future elaborations.

We have strengthened the indication on the basic and advanced level of the teacher, making direct emphasis on the reference to the use of ICT. We have renamed Figure 1 as Table 1 (in this regard it is difficult to have a stable criterion because in other publications we have been recommended to use the name table only for the organized presentation of numerical data).

Regarding the suitability of the journal, we sent the article because Sustainability had a monographic issue open on: ICT and Sustainable Education

Thank you very much indeed for your contributions.