The Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the Implementation of Instructional Supervision and Its Effect on Teachers’ Instructional Process Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction of the paper can be improved in order to provide the audience enough information about the context in which the study has been conducted. Although there is some information about governmental programs related to teachers learning, the study should be placed in an international context. Moreover, the introduction should comprise the main focus of the study. 

The literature review does not emphasize the state of scientific research in the field. I consider that presenting details about the techniques used in carrying out supervision is not necessary, as the audience are specialists in the field. Moreover, there are not enough references to sustain the main ideas presented in the literature review. This should be improved. Many of the references are papers of the main author, which is not necessary a bad idea, but the paper should also include other research in the field in order to sustain the main ideas. 

The implications of the results presented in 3.1 are not explained. Why most of the use of ICT is carried out in the implementation stage? Same observation for 3.2 and 3.3.

The discussion and conclusion sections are poor related to other scientific results in the field. Moreover, the authors do not emphasize the consequences of using ICT techniques over the learning process, which should be the main idea of the paper. 

Author Response

Point 1

The introduction of the paper can be improved in order to provide the audience enough information about the context in which the study has been conducted. Although there is some information about governmental programs related to teachers learning, the study should be placed in an international context. Moreover, the introduction should comprise the main focus of the study. I have query about questionnaires: was is developed by the authors or taken from an available study. In both the cases please furnish details else it does become transparent and scientific. In case it is from another study then please mention the cultural adaptation and the reliability.

Response 1

An introduction was developed and described more deeply based on literature from several international journals related to the main focus of the research in an international context. Theories and research results related to the research variables, namely instructional supervision, teaching and learning process, and the use of information and communication technology are added, on pages 1-3.

Point 2

The literature review does not emphasize the state of scientific research in the field. I consider that presenting details about the techniques used in carrying out supervision is not necessary, as the audience are specialists in the field. Moreover, there are not enough references to sustain the main ideas presented in the literature review. This should be improved. Many of the references are papers of the main author, which is not necessary a bad idea, but the paper should also include other research in the field in order to sustain the main ideas.

Response 2

The literature was revised and developed. Several sections related to instructional supervision are reduced, whereas theory and research results related to the main idea of the research, namely the use of information and communication technology in teaching and learning were added. Many journals were added to support the explanation on pages 2-3 and references on pages 13-15.

Point 3

The implications of the results presented in 3.1 are not explained. Why most of the use of ICT is carried out in the implementation stage? Same observation for 3.2 and 3.3.

Response 3

The implications of the results presented in Table 3.1 are explained more clearly. Figure 3.1, including the implementation stage, Figure 3.2, Table 3.2, and Table 3.3 are also explained more clearly on pages 6-9. 

Point 4

The discussion and conclusion sections are poor related to other scientific results in the field. Moreover, the authors do not emphasize the consequences of using ICT techniques over the learning process, which should be the main idea of the paper.

Response 4

The discussion and conclusions section is described more deeply related to the main idea of the research, namely the influence of the use of ICT in the implementation of instructional supervision on the quality of teacher instruction, namely on pages 12-13.

Point 5

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Response

English language and style have been edited through the MDPI editing service.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Check the format of the paper, especially the extra spaces.
2. How are Pearson Product Moment correlation analysis techniques and regression used to test hypotheses? What is the specific inspection process?
3. What is the basis for the value classification in Section 3.1? Why are they classified like this?
4. The picture names are repeated, why are two ‘Figure 3’?

5.In the discussion part, maybe you can express some of your own opinions based on the research content of the paper?

Author Response

Point 1

Check the format of the paper, especially the extra spaces.

Response 1

The paper format has been checked and revised.

Point 2

How are Pearson Product Moment correlation analysis techniques and regression used to test hypotheses? What is the specific inspection process?

Response 2

 The use of Pearson product-moment analysis and regression techniques are described more clearly on the research method on pages 4-5, and hypothesis testing on pages 8 and 10.

 Point 3

What is the basis for the value classification in Section 3.1? Why are they classified like this?

Response 3

The basis for the value classification in Section 3.1 is clearly described on page 5.

Point 4

The picture names are repeated, why are two ‘Figure 3’?

Response 4

The name of figure 3 is revised to figure 4, on pages 9-10.

Point 5

In the discussion part, maybe you can express some of your own opinions based on the research content of the paper?

Response 5

Discussion of research findings is explained in more depth based on the results of previous studies, theories, and opinions of researchers, namely on pages 12-13.

Point 6

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Response 6

English language and style have been edited through the MDPI editing service.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read an interesting text on teacher supervision. The text is on the issue of ICT implementation in education in Indonesia. Research on the application of new media in education is now a leading topic due to the acceleration of didactics, education through computerization and COVID. The text is therefore timely; however, the results in the empirical part are predictable. I have some major and minor suggestions, remarks, reservations that may improve the quality of the text.

1. Unfortunately the main variables, namely: Instructional Supervision and Instructional Process Quality were not defined in the introductory section. It is not clear how to interpret the two leading terms in the study. A lot of contextual information appears in the theoretical framework, but the theoretical basis is missing.
2. In line number 147, the term "testing correlations" appears. It is not clear what this means. Is it the use of a parametric or non-parametric test being a correlation coefficient?
3. The design of the research tool is not clear. On what basis were the items selected?
4. The term from line 180 is not clear. What does the phrase "Pearson Product Moment correlation" mean?
5. I think the scale used in table number 1 is wrong. After all, you asked about the frequency of use. The answers are not compatible with the question.
6. Are we dealing with percentage answers in Figure 1?
7. In Fogura number 2, website responses and google forms appear. These are separate categories, but there is some inconsistency. After all, a google form is an interent page.
8. What is zero-order correlation analysis? Could you please explain in more detail? Is it a simple linear correlation?
9. Table number 3 is not very clear. It is not clear what goes into the model. What is the independent variable and what is the dependent variable?

Author Response

Point 1

Unfortunately the main variables, namely: Instructional Supervision and Instructional Process Quality were not defined in the introductory section. It is not clear how to interpret the two leading terms in the study. A lot of contextual information appears in the theoretical framework, but the theoretical basis is missing.

Response 1

The theory and research results about the main variables of the study, namely instructional supervision,  teacher’s instruction quality, and the use of ICT in the instructional supervision are described more deeply in the introduction, on pages 2-3.

Point 2

In line number 147, the term "testing correlations" appears. It is not clear what this means. Is it the use of a parametric or non-parametric test being a correlation coefficient?

Response 2

The correlation analysis technique is described more clearly on pages 4-5, and on testing the hypothesis on pages 8 and 10.

Point 3

The design of the research tool is not clear. On what basis were the items selected?

Response 3

The research design including the basis of the instrument items development is described more clearly on page 4.

Point 4

The term from line 180 is not clear. What does the phrase "Pearson Product Moment correlation" mean?

Response 4

The phrase “Pearson Product Moment correlation” is described more clearly on pages 4-5 and on testing hypotheses on pages 8 and 10.

Point 5

I think the scale used in table number 1 is wrong. After all, you asked about the frequency of use. The answers are not compatible with the question.

Response

The use of the scale is described more clearly on pages 3 and 4.

Point 6

Are we dealing with percentage answers in Figure 1?

Response 6

The result of the analysis in Figure 1 is explained, which it means the percentage of instructional supervision techniques that use ICT at the implementation stage on page 6.

Point 7

In Fogura number 2, website responses and google forms appear. These are separate categories, but there is some inconsistency. After all, a google form is an interent page.

Response 7

An additional explanation is given in Figure 2, including an explanation of the use of Google Forms.

Point 8

What is zero-order correlation analysis? Could you please explain in more detail? Is it a simple linear correlation?

Response 8

The zero-order correlation analysis is explained more clearly on data analysis techniques, pages 4-5, and at hypothesis testing on pages 8 and 10.

Point 9

Table number 3 is not very clear. It is not clear what goes into the model. What is the independent variable and what is the dependent variable?

Response 9

Table 3 was revised to Table 4, supplemented by Table 3 and Table 5, and the analysis results are explained more clearly on pages 10-11.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider that the paper has been improved enough to be published. Although I don't consider to be a very insightful research, the paper might be of interest for certain specialist in the field of education. 

Author Response

Point by Point Response to Reviewer 1’s Comments

Round 2

Point 1

1. I consider that the paper has been improved enough to be published. Although I don't consider to be a very insightful research, the paper might be of interest for certain specialist in the field of education.

2. Research design and methods can be improved.

Response 1

The research design and methods were improved by adding correlation and regression testing. The analysis results of reliability and validity are explained more clearly on all instruments, namely instruments for collecting data of instructional supervision frequency, steps, ICT-based communication techniques, effectiveness, and quality of teacher instruction, on page 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The presentation of Table 4 should be improved.

Author Response

Response Point by Point to Reviewer 2’s  Comments

Round 2

Point 1

The presentation of Table 4 should be improved.

Response 1

The presentation of Table 4 is revised, namely on pages 10 -11.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to re-read the text. The article has been significantly modified. The current version differs strongly from the text that was submitted a few weeks ago. However, I have one question relating to the regression model presented in table number 5 - why only three variables were included in the model, which are: sharing information tools, recording tools, synchronous tools? 

We know full well that we can add more variables that could significantly strengthen the prediction of the instruction process variable. I'm thinking here of processes on the learner side as well as the teaching side. It may be worthwhile to explain in the theory or discussion section the rationale for including these three variables in the model.

In general, the text has been greatly revised. As it stands, the paper can be accepted for publication. Only the clarification of the regression model construction needs minor changes.

Author Response

Response Point by Point to Reviewer 3’s Comments

Round 2

Point 1

Thank you for the opportunity to re-read the text. The article has been significantly modified. The current version differs strongly from the text that was submitted a few weeks ago. However, I have one question relating to the regression model presented in table number 5 - why only three variables were included in the model, which are: sharing information tools, recording tools, synchronous tools?

We know full well that we can add more variables that could significantly strengthen the prediction of the instruction process variable. I'm thinking here of processes on the learner side as well as the teaching side. It may be worthwhile to explain in the theory or discussion section the rationale for including these three variables in the model.

In general, the text has been greatly revised. As it stands, the paper can be accepted for publication. Only the clarification of the regression model construction needs minor changes.

Response 1

The reason for only testing the influence of three classifications of the ICT-based communication techniques as independent variables on the dependent variable of teacher instruction quality is described more clearly, namely on page 10. In addition, the finding is discussed more deeply on the discussions page 12.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx