Self-Assessment of Soft Skills of University Teachers from Countries with a Low Level of Digital Competence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a very interesting concept and has the potential for developing into an extremely interesting research which can be taken up by other researchers for other countries. It is also very well written and presented and shows sound methodological principles. The statistical approach taken is also valid.

I have, though, some reservations about the way the results have been presented. The results seem to flow on into the discussion section, and rather than a mature discussion of results I see more results in the form of additional tables. In fact it seems that the discussion has been skipped. I would insert the tables in the results section and then discuss the results in terms of the broader teacher context aiming to provide some further insights into the statistics. The conclusion is also presented rather hastily, and I would  end this paper with a more holistic conclusion rather than with a set of bullet points simply summarising the results. Having said this, I feel that this paper is worthy of academic value. 

Author Response

Please, find attached the document with the reviewer response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on face-to-face classroom teaching systems, resulting in the need for distance learning. The author selected countries with low digitization through the Global Innovation Index. A soft skills survey was designed based on the Bochum Inventory of Personality and Competencies. The soft skills of university teachers in these countries were analyzed through 219 sample data. The results showed that the soft skills of university teachers were able to cope with the increase in digital competencies caused by COVID-19, independent of the level of digitization in their respective countries.

It is a topical and targeted study, and the author has collected data from several countries. The paper is generally well-written and well-structured. However, in my opinion, the paper has some shortcomings in some data analysis and textual aspects :

• In this paper, countries with Global Innovation Index (GII) index <29, i.e., low digitization, are selected for the reference study. However, according to the World Bank, the Gini coefficient of the selected countries is high (as shown in the table below), which means that the gap between the rich and the poor is large. The universities may be located in urban areas with a high middle class, and the knowledge and socio-economic status of the university faculty mean that they may belong to a more digitized class in their respective countries. Additional analysis is suggested.

• In essence, this paper is too long and boring in parts, and the extensive statistical analysis narrative could be revised to make it easier to read and convey the main points.
• This is an article that leads to a conclusion but does not explain what the reasons are. The four main points only point out the deviations under different comparison conditions without cross-tabulation. For example, female teachers who are young and have little teaching experience (Line 576-577 combined with Line 582-583)
• The references to recent literature are cited, but the number is a little weak and insufficient. It is recommended that more relevant literature be cited to strengthen the basis of the discussion.

Author Response

Please, find attached the document with the reviewer response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study about teachers' soft skills. It is clearly written and has its merits. However, the study needs some important improvements before it can be considered for publication. Here are a couple of suggestions:

 p.3: last paragraph of section 1 belongs to methods. Also, you talk here about inferential statistic analysis, which I would have expected to find in the result section, BUT I did not. See my other comments below, that is an important point to address before publication.

142. 3: note that Cronbach alphas provide evidence of the internal consistency of subscales, as you explained, but there are not sufficient proofs to validate the instrument as indicated at line 142. Please rephrase this. What you have done is sufficient in this case because you goal is not to validate an instrument, but you should use proper words by only talking about internal consistency and reliability (like you did in lines 143-144, perfect!).
143. 5: Circular diagrams are not appropriate for any kind of data, unfortunately. While there are appropriate for nominal data like (a), (c) and (e), figures (b) and (d) should be presented as histograms (continuous data variables with classes). (Also, please do not forget that proper histograms should not have spacing between consecutive classes.)
144. 6 : line 190-191, please clarify which chi-square independent tests were significant and which were not within the main text of your study.
145. 6 : line 194 to 197, these are results of your study that would merit attention in the discussion section. In particular, why do you think the additional skills showed the largest standard deviation? Also, do you think the high average answers could be partly explained by a bias of social desirability, or would that be at least a limitation of your study?
146. 7 – p. 11 : VERY IMPORTANT. I would have expected to see inferential statistics here, comparing means between male/female, private/public, etc., but what I found were only descriptive statistics. I must say this was a little disappointing because it is difficult to draw any valid conclusions with only descriptive statistics. At most, descriptive statistics can SUGGEST some results…. For comparing results between male/female or private/public, you can perform a simple mean comparison and derive conclusions from p-values. For areas of knowledge, age and teaching experience, you would have to perform ANOVA and then t-test whenever necessary.
147. 11 : Most of discussion section belongs to result section and seems to answer my earlier comment. These results should replace the (differentiated) descriptive statistics presented in the result subsection. THEN you will be able to properly discuss the obtained results in the discussion section, in reference with current and relevant literature.
148. 18 : finally, I suggest your conclusion would have more value if presented in a continuous text (after having decided what you stay in the conclusion and what should be moved to the discussion section). Also, could you think about the study limitations, and perhaps avenues for future research?

I will be happy to revise this proposition when you have had the chance to address the above comments. Thanks a lot!

Author Response

Please, find attached the document with the reviewer response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I offer the following comments through the eyes of a potential reader.

I found the title of the manuscript interesting since I anticipated learning about the relationship of soft skills with digital competence. Coming out of the current era of COVID and online education, this looked promising.

I had difficulty understanding what were "soft skills" except for a few brief examples. It would be helpful to have at least one full paragraph on what are "soft skills".

It was difficult to see the relationship of "soft skills" and "digital skills" in the manuscript. This needs at least a full paragraph to establish this link. If not, the acquisition of soft skills is irrelevant for effectiveness with digital skills.

You do an excellent job dividing out the results of self-perceived "soft skills" by the five different groups. That seems to be the focus of the manuscript, not talking about the relationship of soft skills and digital skills.

The most interesting sentence in the manuscript appears on lines 383 through 385 when you state that students stated that teachers had a low valuation of their digital skills. Now, that is an interesting question to study and then gather student suggestions on how the teachers could improve their digital skills.

Maybe the template for this journal only lists the subheadings that were used by the author(s). But, the sections that were missing for me as an interested reader were "recommendations" for improvement of the learning situation, "further research" with suggestions on how others could further investigate this subject (like understanding the student statement identified above), and "limitations" of the research study and caution about generalizing the results.

My final point is that if there is no clear connection between soft skills and digital skills, why care about the acquisition of soft skills and how do those skills (with lots of examples) help the teacher to be more digitally capable.

Author Response

Please, find attached the document with the reviewer response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This revised version of the paper shows great improvements in comparison with the initial one. I can see that the reviewers' comments were taken into consideration, yielding a clearer and richer version of the paper.

In my opinion, it is now acceptable for publication in the Electronics journal, though the result section of the paper could still be more concise.

Thanks a lot!

Reviewer 4 Report

You have addressed my comments and questions. I am satisfied. This will be a useful article for the field.