Enhancing Critical Digital Literacy of Preservice Preschool Teachers through Service Learning: The Moderator of Online Social Capital
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses three important constructs (Critical digital literacy, Service learning, and Online social capital [as a moderator]) of preservice preschool teachers. It presents a theoretical model regarding the relationships among those constructs that carry significant implications for preschool education.
From the suggestions for future studies, the authors seem aware of their study limitations.
However, I have several concerns regarding the reporting in the methods and findings sections.
- From the report in the method section, it seems that the psychometric work was done on the research sample, which increases the capitalization on the chance of the results regarding the quality of the measurement tool. (The research has to employ a well-established measurement tool and not develop it on the research sample.)
-The results of the path model do not conform to conventional reporting of such analysis (e.g., SEM diagram). The reader 'cannot see the forest from the trees' (too many irrelevant discrete reports are included, while a comprehensive one is missing.)
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI enjoyed reading this manuscript and the results are also interesting. I’d like to suggest a few points to consider.
1. Among the three hypotheses, Hypothesis 1 needs to be elaborated. There is no clear explanation about why or how service learning enhances critical digital literacy. On the contrary, Hypothesis 2 explains the relationship between online social capital and critical digital literacy as follows (line 183-187): “Therefore, when preservice preschool teachers establish and participate in online social networks, they are more likely to enhance their critical digital literacy skills. This is 184 because online social interactions facilitate the exchange of information, collaborative learning, and exposure to diverse perspectives, ultimately benefiting their ability to navigate and utilize digital tools and information effectively in their educational practice.”
Hypothesis 1 needs to be clearly elaborated to support the claim as well as Hypothesis 2 does.
2. There is a lack of explanation in the results section. Although the statistical analysis process and the outcomes in numbers are all presented, no interpretation was provided for each table. For example, numbers listed in Table 2 and Table 3 are described again in the text and concluded that they are significant or satisfying. However, there is no interpretation of these results and how these results supported hypotheses. If the results section does not provide an argument about how the statistical results support hypotheses, the discussion section should provide it.
3. There is a lack of arguments about how the results supported three hypotheses. What are discussed in this section are all based on literature review. Discussions about why and how the results supported the hypotheses and what are the implications of such results need to be provided in this section (line 501-521).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLine 531-540 seem to have multiple suggestions, however, they are confusing. It would be better to revise two paragraphs.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
