The Role of Digital Media in Early Childhood Education and Care: A Qualitative Analysis of Educators’ Perceptions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “The Role of Digital Media in Early Childhood Education and Care: A Qualitative Analysis of Educators' Perceptions." This manuscript clearly addressed an important issue but currently reads more as an exploratory descriptive report than a rigorously executed qualitative study. With substantial methodological clarification, stronger analytical depth, and significant editorial refinement, it may make a useful contribution. So major revision is required. I have provided my feedback to the author below.

Introduction

Line 36, Arthur et al., 2001 is outdated and should be replaced with more recent citations if possible or removed because two more citations are already listed.  

Lines 104-108, authors state limited qualitative research exists, but this claim needs stronger justification. Numerous qualitative studies on educator perceptions already exist internationally. Instead, I would recommend the author better articulate "What is uniquely Croatian about this context? And why does this study fill a specific knowledge gap? For example, clarify whether the Croatian preschool system differs structurally, or the policy framework differs, or educator digital competencies differ regionally.

Lines 119-126: Research questions are overly broad and partially overlapping, and they read more like exploratory prompts than precise research objectives. Consider refining into clearer domains: (1) Patterns of children’s digital media exposure, (2) Educational use in preschool settings, (3) Mediating roles of educators and parents.

Methodology

Lines 130-131: The author did not mention the type of qualitative research they conducted. What is a descriptive, phenomenological, or grounded-theory study? Please clarify.

Lines 138-149: The author mentioned they conducted convenience sampling with only 20 participants from one Croatian county, which significantly limits transferability. All participants were female, yet no discussion is provided regarding gender homogeneity. I would recommend justifying the sample composition and discussing repressiveness limitations more critically.

Lines 157-161: Insufficient procedural details, including duration of sessions? Moderator qualifications? Settings? Reflexivity? And data saturation? Are focus groups recorded in-person or online? How was moderator bias minimized? Please clarify.

Lines 163-177, in the data analyses section, I see a significant methodological weakness. The thematic analysis is described too generally. No mention of the Braun & Clarke framework explicitly; who were the coders? Did the author have intercoder agreement? Any documentation of reflexive memoing? Any track of an audit trail? Or did member checking take place? To improve the rigor of the manuscript, I recommend the author clearly specify whether it was an inductive or deductive analysis, describing the theme generation process and validation strategies along with valid in-text citations and references to be added in the list.

Results

The manuscript lacks a structured participant characteristics table. Although participant details are briefly described narratively, presenting these data in a formal table is essential for transparency, methodological rigor, and adherence to qualitative reporting standards such as the COREQ checklist. The inclusion of a demographic and professional profile table would greatly strengthen the manuscript.

Lines 189-509, results are extremely repetitive. I see similar educators' concerns (e.g., screen time, parental influence, behavior problems) are echoed multiple times across the sections. Consider condensing repetitive statements and focus on thematic depth rather than the frequency of similar quotes.

Lines 330-338: The author enforces theoretical classification (multimodal frameworks) without demonstrating these emerging from participants' data. I see a concern that the author might be over-theorizing beyond participant narratives.

In tables 1-3, it would be nice to have one or two quotes added in the tables as example quotes right next to the examples so it will give a nice visual display of the quotes and can help understand the context.

Discussion

The discussion has good linkage to broader literature; however, it reads as overgeneralization to me. So, I would recommend the author use more cautious phrasing; for example, instead of stating “The findings confirm," it should say “The findings suggest."

Also, discussion largely reinforces existing literature and provides limited novel theoretical contributions. Consider expanding the discussion on Croatian educational policy implications, institutional infrastructure disparities, and educator training systems.

Conclusion

Conclusions are stronger than warranted and too long, so need to make it concise. Practical recommendations (e.g., mandatory parent workshops) may be premature given exploratory qualitative design. I would recommend tempering the policy implications.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please find attached the revised manuscript and a separate Word document containing detailed responses to all reviewer comments. All changes made in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow for easier review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The Role of Digital Media in Early Childhood Education and Care is an important topic. This paper examines this issue. Certain sections require revision to enhance clarity and utility. The abstract is okay. It has too many details. It should explain what is new about this study and what it contributes to the field. To fix this, the writers should make it clear what they are trying to find out, how they plan to do so, and what it means for people who work with children and make policies. The introduction gives us some background. It repeats some things. The writers have done a job of finding other studies to reference, but they could make it easier to follow. To make it better, they should clearly state what they are trying to find out, how it aligns with what other people have found around the world, and why it's useful to hear from educators in Croatia. The part where they review what others have said about the media is good, but it doesn't really pull everything together. To fix this, they should discuss opinions on whether digital media is good or bad and include more recent studies from around the world. This will make it clearer why this study is important. The goals of the study are clear. They are stated very generally. To make them better, the writers should state what they want to find out, such as how the results can be used to train educators or work with parents. The way they conducted the study is a choice, but they do not provide enough details. To fix this, they should explain how they chose the sample, why they spoke only to educators, and how they analysed what people said. If they do not do this, it is hard to trust the results. The results are interesting. They are mostly just descriptions. To make them better, the writers should connect what they found to the questions they were trying to answer, balance the negative things they heard, and include more quotes from the people they spoke with. The discussion part tries to make sense of the results. It stays at a general level. To improve it, the writers should connect their findings to prior work on media, consider the study's limitations, and suggest concrete steps educators and parents can take. The conclusion is short. It does not give us any specific ideas for what to do next. To improve it, the writers should offer proposals for teaching children about digital media, training educators, and implementing policies. They should also say how this study adds to the conversation about early childhood education. Overall, this paper has the potential to be very useful. It needs a lot of work to be clearer, more rigorous, and more useful to people who work with children. If the writers can strengthen the literature review, clarify the methodology, and provide specific recommendations, the paper will be much stronger. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The clarity of the English needs improvement to make it more comprehensible. 

Author Response

Please find attached the revised manuscript and a separate Word document containing detailed responses to all reviewer comments. All changes made in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow for easier review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To investigate how educators in early childhood education and care perceive the role of digital media in children’s learning, behavior, and development, with particular emphasis on patterns of use, educational potential, and the role of educators and parents in mediating children’s digital experiences was set as the aim of the study described in the manuscript. After carefully examining and reading the paper, I can conclude that the aim has been achieved.

There are just a few comments and suggestions.

• In text citation Mikelić Preradović et al., 2017 has no entry in reference list. After careful research, I concluded that it is, only the author has a different last name: Preradović, N. M., Lešin, G., & Boras, D. (2017).
• The paper has three research questions, according to which the data analysis was organized, but there are seven subsections in Chapter 3. Results. It is recommended to outline in the chapter preamble how the subsections will be structured in relation to the research questions (what division of the subsections will be made). Now this explanation is at the end of the previous subsection, but it is confusing (for the first subsections - at the end of the preamble).
• Regarding Table 3, it is not really clear whether it applies specifically to children's learning and activities (usage of tools and media), or to the tools and media used in the learning process in general.
• Chapter 5, Conclusions, has three paragraphs before the subsections, which should not be considered a preamble to Chapter 5; it should also be placed as a subsection on findings.
• List of References: there is no reference to Swargiary, K. (2024) in the text, but there are two references to Swargiari, 2024.

In conclusion, thank you for the interesting and valuable research.

Author Response

Please find attached the revised manuscript and a separate Word document containing detailed responses to all reviewer comments. All changes made in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow for easier review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for thoroughly addressing my comments. I am very satisfied with the revisions, and the manuscript is now in much stronger shape.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to congratulate the authors on the excellent work and the significant improvement in quality and clarity since the previous submission. In addition, the research questions are clearly formulated, and the method employed by the authors is reliable. The thematic analysis provided is clear and insightful, too. The paper has managed to identify the complexity of using digital media in early childhood education, with equal emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, the inclusion of educators' voices has added credibility to the study, while its focus on Croatian preschools ensures its originality. On top of that, the discussion was adequately supported by the relevant literature, and the results were insightful and made a good contribution to the topic under investigation. Overall, I consider the paper to be comprehensive and meaningful.