Digital Teaching Competence Regarding Foreign Languages and Learning Modes at Official Language Schools in Andalusia (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary of the study:

This study assesses the digital competence of teachers in Andalusia’s Official Language Schools (OLS), focusing on differences by language taught and teaching modality (face-to-face vs. blended learning). Using the DigCompEdu framework, it reveals that teachers’ digital skills are moderate despite some training, highlighting the need for tailored professional development, particularly for blended learning teachers. The study identifies the intergenerational digital divide and the importance of teaching effective digital tool use as key challenges. It recommends designing a targeted training plan and proposes future research on students’ digital competence, considering age as a factor in language learning.

General concept comments:

The article provides general statements on the topic and lacks sufficient analytical depth and technical detail. Key sections, such as the research questions and methodology, are not clearly defined or explained, leaving some aspects underdeveloped. The description of participants and sampling methods needs more clarity, for exmaple regarding the choice of a convenience sample, teachers and students (immigrants vs. others vs. digital natives, etc.). The reliability and validity sections should be further elaborated. Additionally, important terms and aspects of the instrument are not adequately explained, and the results section lacks meaningful interpretation and discussion. The conclusions need to be more comprehensive, emphasizing the study’s contribution and how the research objectives were achieved.

Specific comments:

Title: "taught languages" should be "foreign languages". The expression "taught languages" is uncommon in English.

Language and style should be revised and improved in the whole paper. For example, in the abstract, it says "This study investigates two main aspects: first, a descriptive analysis...". However, the paper doesn't "investigate a descriptive analysis", that is, analyses are not "investigated".

The aim of the paper is not clearly stated in the abstract.

Also in the abstract: "teacher's ability to convey the importance of digital tools...". It's not clear how importance may be conveyed.

It's not clear what the connotations of "immigrants" are when compared to "digital natives". It seems the authors give a specific set of features to immigrants that differ from digital natives', but these are not specified.

Another example of language issues, in the first paragraph of the introduction: "However, we analyze the existing scientific literature in the field of foreign language didacts, there are few studies...". Firstly, the first person should have a very limited use in a scientific text, if used at all. However, it is quite overused in this paper. In fact, the authors say "our country" at the end of the introduction, when the reader may not share the same nationality as the author, and the author's nationality is not relevant for the readers nor the study. And secondly, in English, independent sentences cannot be separated by commas. This is called "comma splice". Independent sentences must be separated either by a stronger pause (";", ".", etc.) or a connector (so, therefore, etc.).

Also, "...formal training in the cycles of infant, primary or secondary education". "Cycles" is clearly a word directly translated from Spanish. In English, the word "cycles" is not commonly used in this context. For example, "stages" would be a more appropriate term. Similarly, it's not called "infant" education, which is again a direct translation from Spanish, but early childhood education (0-6 y/o) or preschool education (3-5 y/o).

The term "ley orgánica" is used, while in the following paragraph "organic law" is used instead.

Another example of the extent to which authors rely on Spanish to write this text in English is "free education". Clearly, "free" in English can be misunderstood if the reader is not a Spanish speaker who knows the Spanish system and is aware of the fact that there are "pruebas libres". So this concept has been very poorly translated into English, creating a very ambiguous situation for any reader without this background. Instead of using a direct translation that does not work in English, a more specific term should be used or the sentence may be paraphrased. For example: Students may choose between regular enrollment for courses or exam-only enrollment as an external candidate.

Another, more marginal example is the use of "confinement" to talk about what in Spanish was called "confinamiento", i.e. the period during which people had to stay at home at the beginning of the pandemic. The direct translation ("confinement") is not the word used in English, but "lockdown".

Paragraphs must have at least two sentences. Single-sentence paragraphs show lack of cohesion and coherence in the text, since the first sentence of a paragraph must present an idea, while the following sentences would discuss that idea.

Having two headings together should be avoided (e.g., 2. and 2.1). An introductory paragraph should be added in between (for example, as done in the Methodology section, but bearing in mind that a paragraph should have at least two sentences).

No more style, writing, translation or English mistakes will be pointed out in the review, because the whole text needs a thorough revision in this regard.

A more precise description of the features of immigrants should be provided in 2.1. The description of students and teachers in general should be further elaborated.

Section 2.2. should include more information about the topic. Common generalisations about the topic are presented, without enough analytical depth and technical knowledge.

The "questions" presented in section 3 are not actually questions nor research questions. They look like hypotheses, but they are not correctly expressed as hypotheses either.

In section 4, there is no explanation of the concept "quantitative methodology, with descriptive and correlational approach".

4.1. Participants: "of the total population". The total population of what. "the number of teachers in operation" where.

If a "convenience sample" was taken, it must be justified how this doesn't interfere with the reliability of the results and why this decision was made.

Reliability (4.3.1) and Validity (4.3.2) should be further explained.

It's not clear what the letters "D_A", "D_B", etc. represent in tables 1 and 2.

Information about the instrument like the response range (0-4 points) should be given in the description of the instrument instead of in the results.

There is a notable lack of interpretation and discussion in the results section.

The conclusions should present a more comprehensive summary of the study instead of focusing on summarising the results, while emphasising the need for the study and the contribution of the study, how the aims where achieved, etc.

The value and contribution of the study is not justified strongly enough in the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As mentioned above, the quality of English and style is not good enough.

Author Response

 

Summary of the study:

This study assesses the digital competence of teachers in Andalusia’s Official Language Schools (OLS), focusing on differences by language taught and teaching modality (face-to-face vs. blended learning). Using the DigCompEdu framework, it reveals that teachers’ digital skills are moderate despite some training, highlighting the need for tailored professional development, particularly for blended learning teachers. The study identifies the intergenerational digital divide and the importance of teaching effective digital tool use as key challenges. It recommends designing a targeted training plan and proposes future research on students’ digital competence, considering age as a factor in language learning.

 

 

General concept comments:

The article provides general statements on the topic and lacks sufficient analytical depth and technical detail. Key sections, such as the research questions and methodology, are not clearly defined or explained, leaving some aspects underdeveloped. The description of participants and sampling methods needs more clarity, for exmaple regarding the choice of a convenience sample, teachers and students (immigrants vs. others vs. digital natives, etc.). The reliability and validity sections should be further elaborated. Additionally, important terms and aspects of the instrument are not adequately explained, and the results section lacks meaningful interpretation and discussion. The conclusions need to be more comprehensive, emphasizing the study’s contribution and how the research objectives were achieved.

 

Specific comments:

 

Title: "taught languages" should be "foreign languages". The expression "taught languages" is uncommon in English. – the term has been replaced

 

Language and style should be revised and improved in the whole paper. For example, in the abstract, it says "This study investigates two main aspects: first, a descriptive analysis...". However, the paper doesn't "investigate a descriptive analysis", that is, analyses are not "investigated". – language and style have been reviewed

 

The aim of the paper is not clearly stated in the abstract. – the aim has been rephrased for a further clarification

Also in the abstract: "teacher's ability to convey the importance of digital tools...". It's not clear how importance may be conveyed. It's not clear what the connotations of "immigrants" are when compared to "digital natives". It seems the authors give a specific set of features to immigrants that differ from digital natives', but these are not specified. – this is explained within the theoretical framework

 

Another example of language issues, in the first paragraph of the introduction: "However, we analyze the existing scientific literature in the field of foreign language didacts, there are few studies...". Firstly, the first person should have a very limited use in a scientific text, if used at all. However, it is quite overused in this paper. – All occurrences of "we" have been removed in favor of passive structures.

 

 In fact, the authors say "our country" at the end of the introduction, when the reader may not share the same nationality as the author, and the author's nationality is not relevant for the readers nor the study. – expressions like “our country” has been replaced by “in Spain”

 

 And secondly, in English, independent sentences cannot be separated by commas. This is called "comma splice". Independent sentences must be separated either by a stronger pause (";", ".", etc.) or a connector (so, therefore, etc.).- this has been reviewed

 

Also, "...formal training in the cycles of infant, primary or secondary education". "Cycles" is clearly a word directly translated from Spanish. In English, the word "cycles" is not commonly used in this context. For example, "stages" would be a more appropriate term. Similarly, it's not called "infant" education, which is again a direct translation from Spanish, but early childhood education (0-6 y/o) or preschool education (3-5 y/o). – this has been changed.

 

The term "ley orgánica" is used, while in the following paragraph "organic law" is used instead. - The translation of "ley orgánica" has been standardized as "Organic Law" throughout the paper.

 

Another example of the extent to which authors rely on Spanish to write this text in English is "free education". Clearly, "free" in English can be misunderstood if the reader is not a Spanish speaker who knows the Spanish system and is aware of the fact that there are "pruebas libres". So this concept has been very poorly translated into English, creating a very ambiguous situation for any reader without this background. Instead of using a direct translation that does not work in English, a more specific term should be used or the sentence may be paraphrased. For example: Students may choose between regular enrollment for courses or exam-only enrollment as an external candidate. – it has been clarified

 

Another, more marginal example is the use of "confinement" to talk about what in Spanish was called "confinamiento", i.e. the period during which people had to stay at home at the beginning of the pandemic. The direct translation ("confinement") is not the word used in English, but "lockdown".- the term “confinement” has been replaced by “lockdown”

 

Paragraphs must have at least two sentences. Single-sentence paragraphs show lack of cohesion and coherence in the text, since the first sentence of a paragraph must present an idea, while the following sentences would discuss that idea.

 

Having two headings together should be avoided (e.g., 2. and 2.1). An introductory paragraph should be added in between (for example, as done in the Methodology section, but bearing in mind that a paragraph should have at least two sentences). – an introductory short paragraph has been included under the title “Theoretical framework”

 

No more style, writing, translation or English mistakes will be pointed out in the review, because the whole text needs a thorough revision in this regard.

 

A more precise description of the features of immigrants should be provided in 2.1. The description of students and teachers in general should be further elaborated. – the whole last paragraph has been reviewed

 

Section 2.2. should include more information about the topic. Common generalisations about the topic are presented, without enough analytical depth and technical knowledge.

 

The "questions" presented in section 3 are not actually questions nor research questions. They look like hypotheses, but they are not correctly expressed as hypotheses either. – research questions have been reworded

 

In section 4, there is no explanation of the concept "quantitative methodology, with descriptive and correlational approach". - We have addressed your comment regarding the lack of explanation of the concept "quantitative methodology, with descriptive and correlational approach" in Section 4. We have now included a brief clarification of these terms, highlighting their relevance to our study and how they were applied in our research.

 

4.1. Participants: "of the total population". The total population of what. "the number of teachers in operation" where. – that has been clarified

 

If a "convenience sample" was taken, it must be justified how this doesn't interfere with the reliability of the results and why this decision was made. - We have included an explicit justification in the manuscript, explaining the rationale behind our decision to use a convenience sample. Specifically, we clarify that this approach was necessary due to the voluntary nature of participation and the logistical challenges of accessing the entire population. Despite this, we took measures to enhance the representativeness of our sample by ensuring participation from all 52 Official Language Schools across different geographical areas of Andalusia. Additionally, the sample size, comprising 13.28% of the total teacher population, allows for robust statistical analysis.

 

Reliability (4.3.1) and Validity (4.3.2) should be further explained. - We have expanded the explanations of Reliability (4.3.1) and Validity (4.3.2) by incorporating methodological references that provide benchmark values. These additions help to contextualize our results and support the robustness of our measurement instruments.

 

It's not clear what the letters "D_A", "D_B", etc. represent in tables 1 and 2. - We have now incorporated the nomenclature and a detailed explanation of the dimensions, explicitly linking them to the DigCompEdu framework of the European Union. This clarification ensures that the labels "D_A", "D_B", etc. in Tables 1 and 2 are properly defined and contextualized within the study.

 

Information about the instrument like the response range (0-4 points) should be given in the description of the instrument instead of in the results. – this has been moved to the instrument section

 

There is a notable lack of interpretation and discussion in the results section. The conclusions should present a more comprehensive summary of the study instead of focusing on summarising the results, while emphasising the need for the study and the contribution of the study, how the aims where achieved, etc. The value and contribution of the study is not justified strongly enough in the text. - We have expanded the discussion of results and conclusions to provide a more in-depth interpretation of the findings. This revision includes a more detailed analysis of the implications, connections with existing literature, and potential applications of the results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, refer to the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English needs improvement. To do so, it is suggested to employ a native speaker with a good background knowledge in: Pedagogy, adult learning and digital competence.

Author Response

We agree with this suggestion. Based on the feedback, changes have been implemented to improve the quality of English, including the incorporation of clearer language and adjustments to ensure better accuracy.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' have made thoughtful and thorough revisions to the manuscript. The changes address the key concerns raised in the previous review, significantly improving the clarity, rigor, and overall impact of the work. In particular, the revised explanations and additional data analyses strengthen the manuscript’s conclusions. Below, I provide a few minor suggestions for further refinement.

First paragraph in 4.1: It is not clear what the 13.28% is part of. Is it of total active teachers "in Andalusia", "in Spain"? It should be clarified.
The term "population" may be confusing for some readers.

A paragraph between 5 and 5.1. to present the section should be included.

When comparing language and modality, some simple figures may be expected to show the command levels of DA-DF for each of the foreign languages taught. Since there are no significant differences, it may be OK not to deepen in this issue.

However, there is a very important factor that makes the results unreliable: the number of teachers per language is not comparable and representative at all when a comparison among languages is performed. There is a single Italian teacher, a single Japanese teacher, a single Portuguese teacher, etc. Even if there were no more teachers for these languages in Andalusia, the digital competence of a single person may not be representative enough. It's recommended that authors divide teachers into English (54) and other languages (51 teachers).

In a conclusions section, no new information should be provided regarding any of the previous sections. Interpretation of the results should be given in the results and discussion section. In the conclusions, it's recommended to start by reminding the purpose and what the study was about before getting into the summary of the main results and conclusions as such. Limitations an future ersearch lines must be addressed in the conclusions too.

Words in a language different from the text's should be italised.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your detailed feedback and constructive suggestions, which have been invaluable in improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript. In response to your comments, we have made the necessary revisions as follows: The ambiguity regarding the 13.28% figure in section 4.1 has been addressed by explicitly stating that it refers to the total number of active teachers in Andalusia. We have also modified the terminology used for "population" to avoid potential confusion among readers. Additionally, a paragraph has been included before section 5.1 to introduce and contextualize the section appropriately. Regarding the comparison of language and modality, we have refined our analysis and incorporated clearer explanations of the command levels of DA-DF for each foreign language taught, ensuring a more comprehensible presentation of the findings. Although no significant differences were found, the section has been improved to enhance clarity. Concerning the representativeness of the sample when comparing different languages, we acknowledge your concern; however, we have maintained our sample as it accurately reflects the actual distribution of teachers in Andalusia’s Official Language Schools, where there is indeed a notable disparity in the proportion of teachers per language. Since our study aims to provide a realistic depiction of this educational context, we consider it essential to retain the full dataset. With regard to the Conclusions section, we have ensured that no new information is introduced and that all interpretations of results remain strictly within the Results and Discussion section. Furthermore, we have restructured the Conclusions section to begin with a clear restatement of the study’s purpose before summarizing the main results and conclusions. In addition, we have incorporated a discussion on the study’s limitations and outlined potential future research directions, as per your recommendation. Finally, we have meticulously reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all words in languages different from the primary text are italicized in accordance with academic conventions. We are grateful for your insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the coherence, rigor, and overall quality of our work. Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, refer to the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language has been significantly improved, especially at the 'Conclusions' section. I would therefore suggest to further refine the whole text following the same approach used (e.g., tone, expressions) at the aforementioned part.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your detailed feedback and constructive suggestions, which have been invaluable in improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript. In response to your comments, we have meticulously reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all words in languages different from the primary text are italicized in accordance with academic conventions. We are grateful for your insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the coherence, rigor, and overall quality of our work. Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our study.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments

1. p.1 - “a fundamental object of study for educational research”: Consider rephrasing as ‘a fundamental object of study for language learning research’.
2. p.2 - Chapter VII of Law 17/2007 (articles 101-103): Given differences between ‘language learning’ and ‘foreign language learning’ consider adding argument(s) linking them.
3. p.2 - “Junta de Andalucía (Regional Government)” and throughout the text: Consider translating as ‘Junta de Andalucía (Regional Government of Andalusia)’.
4. p.2 - “8 academic years”: Consider revising as ‘6 academic years’ (i.e., 2 years at each one of the three competence levels = 6 years).
5. p.3 - “competencies” and throughout the text: To be consistent with DigCompEdu replace this term with “competences”.
6. p.4 - “Today, not using technology”: Consider rephrasing as ‘today not using digital technologies’.
7. p.4 - “the DigCompEdu model represents” and throughout the text: Consider rephrasing as 'using the model offered by DigCompEdu framework'.
8. p.5 - “13.28%”: Consider revising the percentage throughout the text as 13.41% (i.e., 105 x 100 ÷ 783 = 13.409% rounded to 13.41%).
9. p.5 - “DigCompEdu Check-In questionnaire”: Consider rephrasing into ‘DigCompEdu Check-In questionnaire originally developed by JRC’.
10. p.6 - “4.3. Procedure and data analysis”: The validity of the specific questionnaire has been reported at another study (reference N^o18 of this manuscript; Cabero-Almenara & Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020). To justify section 4.3 indicate that the particular tool is now been tested and validated to the particular context with the specific sample.
11. p.10 - “the study’s reliability and validity”: Consider revising. The questionnaire's validity and reliability is under investigation not the study.
12. p.11 - “there are no significant differences in digital competence levels when considering the variables of language”: Given sample particularities (i.e., sample size & unequal groups of teachers varying from 1-54) and the use of non-parametric statistics it is suggested being more reserved in the conclusions drawn from the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There's always place for improvement. I think the employment of a native speaker will improve the clarity and consistency of the text.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have been extremely helpful in improving the clarity and precision of the manuscript. Below, we address each of the points raised:

1. "A fundamental object of study for educational research": The phrase has been reworded as suggested, using "a fundamental object of study for language learning research."
2. "Chapter VII of Law 17/2007 (articles 101-103)": We have included an argument linking the differences between ‘language learning’ and ‘foreign language learning,’ as recommended.
3. "Junta de Andalucía (Regional Government)": The expression has been revised to "Junta de Andalucía (Regional Government of Andalusia)" in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion.
4. "8 academic years": Despite the suggestion, we have chosen to retain "8 academic years" as it corresponds to the course structure outlined in the current regulations (1 for A1, 1 for A2, 2 for B1, 2 for B2, 1 for C1, 1 for C2). This detail is considered relevant to the context, though we understand it may not be necessary in the article.
5. "Competencies": The term "competencies" has been replaced with "competences" to maintain consistency with the DigCompEdu framework, as recommended.
6. "Today, not using technology": The phrase has been rephrased as "today not using digital technologies," which more clearly refers to digital technologies specifically.
7. "The DigCompEdu model represents": The wording has been revised to "using the model offered by the DigCompEdu framework," as suggested.
8. "13.28%": The percentage has been corrected to 13.41%, as recommended.
9. "DigCompEdu Check-In questionnaire": The phrase has been updated to "DigCompEdu Check-In questionnaire originally developed by JRC," in line with the suggestion.
10. "4.3. Procedure and data analysis": We have provided justification in this section, stating that the tool has been validated in previous studies (reference No18 of the manuscript) and that it is now being tested in a specific context with a particular sample.
11. "The study’s reliability and validity": The phrase has been revised to specify that it is the validity and reliability of the questionnaire that are under investigation, not the study as a whole.
12. "There are no significant differences in digital competence levels when considering the variables of language": As suggested, we have adopted a more cautious approach in the conclusions, taking into account the particularities of the sample (size and unequal groups) and the use of non-parametric statistics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: We have taken the recommendation regarding the improvement of the text into account and, as suggested, have sought the assistance of a native speaker to enhance the clarity and consistency of the manuscript.