Experience with Using BBC Micro:Bit and Perceived Professional Efficacy of Informatics Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article can be published after reviewing the text and references and improve tables.

Put in the summary the main gains with the study.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We improved the text, references and tables. We also put the main gains in the summary. An updated version is available in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Positive aspects:

The subject is interesting and relevant.

The methodology is well done.

The literature review is consistent, despite the fact that a large part of the references are not from indexed journals.

The choice of representative dimensions of "Perceived Efficacy" is coherent.

 

Negative aspects:

The bibliography presented prevents the reader from checking part of the work, since it is not in English (references 67, 68 and 69).

Tables are not referenced throughout the text.

Despite the dimension "efficacy for classroom management" being indicated as representative of "Perceived Efficacy", Table 5 seems to indicate a non-statistical relevance. The authors do not comment on this in the interpretation, just as they do not refer to it in the discussion.

It is not clear which statistics were used to construct Table 6.

The conclusions that the authors present in the discussion are too closely linked to the results of tables 5 and 6, which requires that the aspects I indicated above be clear.

As a minor aspect, authors should review some errors that appear throughout the text, as well as review the format of references.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We tried to improve our manusctipt based on your comments. Below we summarize our responses on your comments.

Tables are not referenced throughout the text. and The conclusions that the authors present in the discussion are too closely linked to the results of tables 5 and 6, which requires that the aspects I indicated above be clear.

We improved the text, references and tables. We also improved the interpretation of the Table 5 and 6 in the text and the summary.

Despite the dimension "efficacy for classroom management" being indicated as representative of "Perceived Efficacy", Table 5 seems to indicate a non-statistical relevance. The authors do not comment on this in the interpretation, just as they do not refer to it in the discussion.

What we found is that there is a statistically significant relationship only between the dimension efficacy for instructional strategies and experience with BBC micro:bit.

It is not clear which statistics were used to construct Table 6.

We used the inferential statistics method for data processing. We added it in the text.

The bibliography presented prevents the reader from checking part of the work, since it is not in English (references 67, 68 and 69).

We would also like to comment on the Slovak literature cited in the bibliography. Slovakian Gavora implemented and improved the OSTES test based on adaptation and the socio-cultural context in Slovakia, and we used this publication, which had already been modified in comparison to the original OSTES test. We use the test in its native language, Slovak.

As a minor aspect, authors should review some errors that appear throughout the text, as well as review the format of references.

We formatted the references and tried to delete some errors occurred in the text. An updated version is available.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research study may be appreciated as the authors have contributed significant knowledge about the Experience with Using BBC micro: bit and the Perceived Professional Self-efficacy of Informatics Teachers, however, I have the following minor reservations that may enhance the quality of the manuscript if addressed properly:

1.      The abstract section is poorly written; a statement of the problems and clear objectives, and research questions are missing in the abstract. Further, detailed descriptions of sample size data collection, analysis, and recommendations are missing.

2.      Introduction and detailed review of the literature section are well written but the theoretical background is missing. A good theoretical background is needed to be added. Further, the term “Self-efficacy” was not elaborated on as needed.

3.      A good rationale is missing and needs to be developed by the authors and then must be justified their study logically with strong arguments.

4. Methodology section must also be improved by adding a detailed description of the sample size their selection procedure validity and reliability must be determined.

6. Data analysis is very good and results are properly calculated but in the discussion section, the findings are not authenticated by empirical studies.

7. Recommendations based on findings are also missing.

To sum up, the study addressed an important topic; and very good contribution to the relevant field.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We tried to improve our manusctipt based on your comments. Below we summarize our responses on your comments.

1. The abstract section is poorly written; a statement of the problems and clear objectives, and research questions are missing in the abstract. Further, detailed descriptions of sample size data collection, analysis, and recommendations are missing.
   
   We rewrited the abstrach and added all the points you suggested.
2. Introduction and detailed review of the literature section are well written but the theoretical background is missing. A good theoretical background is needed to be added. Further, the term “Self-efficacy” was not elaborated on as needed.
   
   We improved the literature section and focused more on the term self-efficacy.

3. A good rationale is missing and needs to be developed by the authors and then must be justified their study logically with strong arguments.

We tried to put logical argument into the discussion and conclusion chapters. It is tracked in the attachment.

4. Methodology section must also be improved by adding a detailed description of the sample size their selection procedure validity and reliability must be determined.

We added a description of sample size, selection procedure, validity and reliability in the methodology.

6. Data analysis is very good and results are properly calculated but in the discussion section, the findings are not authenticated by empirical studies.

We put recommendations with empirical studies in the discussion.

7. Recommendations based on findings are also missing.

We tried to improve discussion and conclusion chapters with recommendatios.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The modifications answered my questions. I believe that the work is important for the scientific community.