Teacher Perceptions about ICT Integration into Classroom Instruction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has a very interesting central purpose for the current educational moment. Despite this, some issues can be considered for improvement:
* Greater bibliographical depth, using more current and bigher impact references throughout the article.
*The conclusons are somewhat poor for a scientific article of this nature; It is recommended a greater depth in them that provides scientific solvency.
*The results would be convenient if they included a little more discussion with reference bibliographic sources.
*The method for the systematic review, despite being appropriate, suggests asking ourselves and/or asking ourselves why the PRISMA method has not been used for the systematic review given its reliability and scientific validity for this type of study.
Author Response
Hello,
Find the attached document
Thanks
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
congratulations to this interesting article.
In the introduction section, around lines 29 to 33, I would recommend looking for more recent literature and including it.
The attitude of teachers towards technology also plays a central role, please ad literature dealing with this topic. Additionally I miss a differentiation according school level, in which teachers teach. Maybe there are differences between a Kindergarten teacher and a secondary school teacher regarding their use of technology.
Congrats again.
Author Response
Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I approached this review with interest, as I think there is potential for a contribution to be made in this area of teachers’ perceptions about technology integration into classrooms. The paper used a meta-ethnography approach to a systematic literature review of relevant research in the field.
General concept comments:
Article
The article follows a logical structure and presents an introduction and background to the review in order to locate the paper in appropriate literature and broader themes. The introduction correctly identifies that research has shown the importance of teacher perceptions of technology integration and its influence on their decisions about technology integration. The authors cite seminal research in the field in paragraph 1.
Unfortunately, the introduction does not successfully identify the need for this research/review of the literature. There is a clear need for greater ‘author voice’ to guide the reader through the existing literature and to lead the reader clearly to a point where the gap is not only identified, but to a point where a clear rationale is presented. The introduction takes the reader through a list of related topics: teacher views, findings in the research relating to how technology integration improves student learning (a big claim), the importance of teacher confidence and background, teacher difficulties with integrating technology and the impact of Covid on practices in schools. I think that the author could potentially weave a powerful narrative which links these ideas, but that does not currently exist in the paper. Rather, it appears as a list of (unconnected) findings from various research papers.
A further problem I have with the introduction and background to the paper is that much of the literature cited is very old for this topic. While some papers remain relevant due to their theoretical nature, the relevance of research on teachers’ practices and attitudes which date back more than five years is questionable due to the speed and nature of change in technology-enabled education. While I think the methodology outlined is sound, I do think that focusing the review on papers over a 10-year period, from 2010 to 2021 is too great a period of time to be relevant. The questions guiding the review relate to the influence of school and local-global contexts with technology integration and it could be reasonably argued these contexts have changed significantly in that time.
Regarding context, I would also like to have seen the number of teachers in each sectors presented in the overview of studies reviewed, as early childhood teachers and university-based educators were included as well as school teachers.
Prior to the Discussion, the authors include a model of conceptual factors shaping teachers’ perceptions (I assume this means perceptions of technology integration, but this is not stated). However, there is no in-text reference to the model which explains its purpose or value to the review.
The findings are explained and referenced. In the Discussion, the writing really does not achieve what is required. There are a few points I would like to mention. Firstly, there is a reasonable good job done of summarising the findings. Unfortunately, in the discussion following these summaries, the language is often unclear or makes strong ‘blanket’ claims (such as “it is crucial that..”), which are unsupported. Again, as with the Introduction and Background sections, there is a need for the author’s voice to clearly and succinctly state the argument and explain how it is supported from the review and by locating the claims in the broader field of the literature.
A comment on the overall writing: The mix of fonts and lack of clear numbering of sections give the impression that the article has been rushed and is still in draft format. There are a number of claims which are made, which are not supported by references and in some cases, there are errors in referencing. There is often a lack of clarity of message which comes from the use of incorrect or imprecise vocabulary and overly lengthy sentences.
My view is that there is a case for further research in this field, but that this review of the literature is not robust enough for publication in its current state.
Specific issues:
The title refers to “instructions”: Teachers’ perceptions about technology integration into classroom instructions. The reference to “instructions” is unclear.
L 49-50 “This technological change had a negative impact on students everywhere.”
- This claim is unsupported with a reference.
L 65-67 “Teachers have opinions of practically everything, and their opinions are the main determinants of the technologies that are chosen for use by students in instructional technology.”
- This claim is unsupported with a reference.
L 144 – 148 – This section lacks clarity and is difficult to understand.
Tables in the paper should align columns to the left, as it is very difficult to read text in columns with centred alignment.
L275 – 278 - – This section lacks clarity and is difficult to understand.
L280 – 283 “the use of digital tools in the classroom fosters interactions and collaborations between teachers, students and significant stakeholders involved in technology use, as well as the professional learning and growth of practitioners.”
- This claim is unsupported with a reference.
L313 – 314 “Teachers are ill-prepared to deal with issues like cyberbullying, careless use of personal information, or information scepticism.”
- This claim is unsupported with a reference.
L390 – 392 Figure 2 is not supported with explanation or introduction in the text. The format of the figure could lead the reader to various conclusions about the nature of the perceptions (is it a herarchy? Are they nested and interdependent? Etc.).
L412 – 416 “The findings of this review also challenge the prevalent dichotomy view, which portrays younger pre-service teachers as “digital native teachers” who can ride the wave of new technologies’ potential for improving learning outcomes, while older, in-service colleagues are portrayed as being powerless and uneasy about using them.”
- This claim is unsupported with a reference – and is not consistent with current literature.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
While the authors have made some significant attempts to improve the paper in response to previous comments, I still have concerns. Many of the claims in the Introduction/background section rely on old references (2015), which in this field does not account for the research that has taken place since then or the impact of Covid. There are claims made about the nature of tertiary education which are not accurate globally, so it would be important to state where this evidence originates. In my faculty, there is extensive use of technology across learning and teaching and hybrid environments. The impact of these collective factors is that there is not a complete 'picture' painted of the field and therefore the claim of a gap in the literature is not well supported.
There are many places where the writing also lacks cohesion and this is difficult for the reader to follow. Some sections are needlessly long and therefore this paper would benefit from professional editing.
Author Response
While the authors have made some significant attempts to improve the paper in response to previous comments, I still have concerns. Many of the claims in the Introduction/background section rely on old references (2015), which in this field does not account for the research that has taken place since then or the impact of COVID. There are claims made about the nature of tertiary education which are not accurate globally, so it would be important to state where this evidence originates. In my faculty, there is extensive use of technology across learning and teaching and hybrid environments. The impact of these collective factors is that there is not a complete 'picture' painted of the field and therefore the claim of a gap in the literature is not well supported.
There are many places where the writing also lacks cohesion and this is difficult for the reader to follow. Some sections are needlessly long and therefore this paper would benefit from professional editing.
Response
Before responding to your comments, I would like to take this great opportunity to thank you for spending much of your time reading, identifying areas seemed to have challenges and needed some rectifications. With great gratitude I thank you personally and your colleagues for good job. I have learned, I continue to learn and I will continue to learn so that I can be like you. Thank you very much.
- The introduction and background sections were rectified by including current references as you suggested. Few of the old references in this paper remained relevant due to their theoretical nature.
- Paragraph from L37 -50 that was stating the impact of COVID-19 was omitted. After reading more than once, I discovered that there was no necessity to include in this paper. Thank you for your observation.
- The issue concerning tertiary education, I indicated the evidences by writing the references (see L193-207).
- Editing was done as you suggested to omitted some few errors.
