Digital Competence for Pedagogical Integration: A Study with Elementary School Teachers in the Azores

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article meets the requirements of a research work. The study is reduced to frequencies and percentages. The proposal is somewhat limited. It would be interesting to have carried out a correlational study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, the authors would like to express their utmost gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions and for the effort and time spent in attempting to improve the quality of this article throughout the review process.

Comments 1: The article meets the requirements of a research work. The study is reduced to frequencies and percentages. The proposal is somewhat limited. It would be interesting to have carried out a correlational study.

Response 1: the proposal is interesting and very pertinent. However, we would have to have a more representative sample that would allow us to establish correlations, for example, between the respondents' group of residence, age or educational stage.

We'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that we've done an overall reading of the manuscript, correcting some of the typos and errors that had been identified.

We hope we have met your expectations.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1.6 "Faced with the need" = too popular. Please revise. 

p.1.8/9 I am wondering if your research goal is to examine if an existing model fit the Azores' context. Based on p.1.11, this seems your research goal? I am wondering why you describe it as categorising. Because this isn't what you are doing; you want to verify an existing framework/categorisation. Regardless, this has to be clarified because I am not sure what you are doing.

p.1.13/14 What does this mean: they also seem to show some effect of the accredited training provided. 

p.1.15 The evolution of these skills: not justified as you do not conduct longitudinal research. Outline future projects is relevant. 

You need to conceptualize concepts such as digital, technological. Moreover, you switch between teachers and students in your manuscript. Please check if you assign the relevant information to the correct context (thus information about teachers discussed in the context of teaching). On the first page, this is something not the case. 

p.1.40/41 See previous comment about this. 

p.2.93/94 "in a complete way" = This is default as a replication study shouuld be possible.

p.3.103/104 I would advise against starting your TF with this. Make sure you distinguish competences and skills. If you are using these terms interchangably, please mention this. 

p.3 You often start new paragraphs with the word "this" It is unclear to what this is referring to. I would suggest to check the rest of your manuscript as well. 

p.3.114 "and to invest in their training" = Who is going to invest? This is unclear.

p.3.123 Set of focus areas: the issue is often time rather than initiatives. 

p.3.129 Exhaustively as possible? I disagree. Relevance is a better indicator, because teachers will have to make choices in what to pursue (and what not). It feels like this aspect is overlooked (and that is a concern). 

p.3.138 Why is the origin of the model relevant? 

Figures are of insufficient quality. Please take another look at them. 

p.4.182 What justifies a dated framework? Especially if you mention that alternatives are avaible on the next page. 

p.4.211 These are instructions for the participant. You can write it down like that. 

p.4 Are you using APA 7? If so, please go over your manuscript. Not everything is according to its guidelines. 

Combine the tables to provide a better and more concise overview. Make sure that the information is complete. The age is in years (mention this). 

Write "per cent" as %. This is easier to read. 

Check your manuscript for additional (redundant) spaces. 

Table 10: What does the boldface text mean.

What is figure 4 doing in the conclusions? You need to present the conclusion from your research; not present new results. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, the authors would like to express their utmost gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions and for the effort and time spent in attempting to improve the quality of this article throughout the review process.

Comments 1: p.1.6 "Faced with the need" = too popular. Please revise. 

Response 1: The text has been changed to: “In order to”

Comments 2: p.1.8/9 I am wondering if your research goal is to examine if an existing model fit the Azores' context. Based on p.1.11, this seems your research goal? I am wondering why you describe it as categorising. Because this isn't what you are doing; you want to verify an existing framework/categorisation. Regardless, this has to be clarified because I am not sure what you are doing.

Response 2: The text has been changed to: “identify their levels of digital competence”

Comments 3: p.1.13/14 What does this mean: they also seem to show some effect of the accredited training provided.

Response 3: It was removed because it was considered to be part of the analysis of the results and not really a result of the research.

 

Comments 4: p.1.15 The evolution of these skills: not justified as you do not conduct longitudinal research. Outline future projects is relevant. 

Response 4: We agree with the idea. The text has been adjusted to: “This global mapping of digital competences will make it possible to get to know these skills…”

Comments 5: You need to conceptualize concepts such as digital, technological. Moreover, you switch between teachers and students in your manuscript. Please check if you assign the relevant information to the correct context (thus information about teachers discussed in the context of teaching). On the first page, this is something not the case. p.1.40/41 See previous comment about this. 

Response 5: The text deals with the concept of teacher digital competence, a topic discussed by international organisations such as the European Commission, UNESCO and the OECD, among others.  We don't think it makes much sense to keep defining what technology is, what digital is these days, because it's not relevant to the text and its understanding.

We talk about ‘student teachers’ to emphasise the relevance of initial teacher training in the area of digital skills.

Comments 6: p.2.93/94 "in a complete way" = This is default as a replication study shouuld be possible.

Response 6: The instrument has already been validated for the general population, allowing the study to be replicated. In this case, it was necessary to include only a few questions related to characterizing the geographical distribution of the population in an archipelagic context.

Comments 7: p.3.103/104 I would advise against starting your TF with this. Make sure you distinguish competences and skills. If you are using these terms interchangably, please mention this. 

Response 7: The terminology used has been revised and the word ‘skills’ has been changed to ‘competences’ where appropriate.

Comments 8: p.3 You often start new paragraphs with the word "this" It is unclear to what this is referring to. I would suggest to check the rest of your manuscript as well. 

Response 8: The text has been verified.

Comments 9: p.3.114 "and to invest in their training" = Who is going to invest? This is unclear.

Response 9: The text has been improved: “In order to gain a better understanding of the skills that teachers need to develop and to encourage educational organisations and government officials to invest in their training”

Comments 10: p.3.123 Set of focus areas: the issue is often time rather than initiatives. 

Response 10: We agree with the idea. The following information has been added: “These competences, which will deepen and enrich over time, as the authors point out [23], will help to better prepare teachers personally and professionally.”

Comments 11: p.3.129 Exhaustively as possible? I disagree. Relevance is a better indicator, because teachers will have to make choices in what to pursue (and what not). It feels like this aspect is overlooked (and that is a concern). 

Response 11: The text has been changed to: “From the work of Benali and Mak [23] and Loureiro et al. [26], we can see the need and relevance of this type of tool, which, on the one hand, makes it possible to list identify, as exhaustively as possible, the competences that teachers should develop as a “part of what teachers need to develop to improve their teaching practice and for their continuous professional development” [23, p. 135], both in their initial training and in their ongoing training, and, on the other hand, to serve as a tool for self-reflection and monitoring of their own practices, evaluating their evolution and impact.”

Comments 12: p.3.138 Why is the origin of the model relevant? 

Response 12: The origin of the model is not the main focus of the point, so the text has been revised.

Comments 13: Figures are of insufficient quality. Please take another look at them. 

Response 13: The figures have been changed

Comments 14: p.4.182 What justifies a dated framework? Especially if you mention that alternatives are avaible on the next page. 

Response 14: We agree with the idea. The text has been revised to read as follows: Finaly, it is important to point out that there are already complementary contributions to the framework, such as the proposal to define the skills and competences of educators, teachers and trainers in terms of AI [28] or the additional competences identified by Benali and Mak [23].

Comments 15: p.4.211 These are instructions for the participant. You can write it down like that. 

Response 15: The following information has been included: “It was explicitly stated: “questions will be presented for which there are no right or wrong answers, so we ask that you read the questions carefully and tick, in a reliable, conscious and rigorous way, the alternative that best corresponds to your experience or mastery of the competences listed”.

Comments 16: p.4 Are you using APA 7? If so, please go over your manuscript. Not everything is according to its guidelines. 

Response 16: The text has been checked according to APA style 7th edition.

Comments 17: Combine the tables to provide a better and more concise overview. Make sure that the information is complete. The age is in years (mention this). 

Write "per cent" as %. This is easier to read. 

Check your manuscript for additional (redundant) spaces. 

Response 17: The paper has been completely revised and new figures have been included in place of some tables.

Comments 18: Table 10: What does the boldface text mean.

Response 18: The following information has been included: “The information shown in bold represents the highest number of responses obtained for each descriptor”.

Comments 19: What is figure 4 doing in the conclusions? You need to present the conclusion from your research; not present new results. 

Response 19: Figure 4 and the information relating to its analysis has been moved to point 4. Presentation and analysis of results.

We'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that we've done an overall reading of the manuscript, correcting some of the typos and errors that had been identified.

We hope we have met your expectations.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The descriptive statistics resulting from the survey data (measures of centrality and variability) are clearly reported. I would have also liked to see some visual displays of these descriptive data (e.g., bar graphs). I would also try to add to recommendations both for practical application and future related research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, the authors would like to express their utmost gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions and for the effort and time spent in attempting to improve the quality of this article throughout the review process.

Comments 1: The descriptive statistics resulting from the survey data (measures of centrality and variability) are clearly reported. I would have also liked to see some visual displays of these descriptive data (e.g., bar graphs). I would also try to add to recommendations both for practical application and future related research.

Response 1:

In point 5 - Limitations and suggestions for future research - the following information has been added:

In the 3rd paragraph: “In this sense, our recommendation for future work of this nature is to use alternative ways of contacting teachers, making them realize the relevance of the work to their professional practice and future training. However, geographical dispersion is a limitation to collecting data as exhaustively as we would like.”

In the last paragraph: “Finally, in terms of its practical application, it would be important, on the one hand, for educational institutions, as well as government entities, to realize the importance of a survey of this nature as a starting point for defining training models that can meet the training needs of teachers in the Region. On the other hand, greater dissemination among educational communities could represent new ways for teachers to look at their own competences, particularly their digital competences, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and envisaging ways to leverage their competences”.

We'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that we've done an overall reading of the manuscript, correcting some of the typos and errors that had been identified.

We hope we have met your expectations.

Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on your work! The only comment I could make would be that you could maybe move some of the conclusions in the section Presentation and analysis of results (since you actually discuss the results here and usually the concluding section is more succinct). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, the authors would like to express their utmost gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions and for the effort and time spent in attempting to improve the quality of this article throughout the review process.

Comments 1: Congratulations on your work! The only comment I could make would be that you could maybe move some of the conclusions in the section Presentation and analysis of results (since you actually discuss the results here and usually the concluding section is more succinct).

Response 1: We thank you for your appreciation and agree with your suggestion. Some of the information contained in the conclusions has been moved to the presentation and analysis of the results.

We'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that we've done an overall reading of the manuscript, correcting some of the typos and errors that had been identified.

We hope we have met your expectations.

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1.8/9 Why verify compentences if you also identiy the levels? Isn't this the same thing?

p.1.14 "to get to know these" = This isn't an argument. What is your take-home message? 

p.1.43 The revision is grammatically incorrect. 

p.2.61 Revised signalling is not fitting. Can you look for an alternative? 

p.2.93 The aim is never to incompletely gather data. This is such an odd thing to say.

p.3.130-136 This is one sentence. Split this is several. In addition, a paragraph is at least three sentences. This means that you need to merg this paragraph with the previous or the following paragraph.

p.3.148 "aimed at empowering all citizens to face the..." = This is phrased in a rather popular way. In addition, this is not very informative. What does it mean?

Figure 1: The text in the figure is rather small (barely readable). 

p.5.205/206 What are the additional competences? The added text evokes more questions. 

p.5.214 The argument of "a common language and logic" is not compelling.

Sometimes you use the abbreviation ARA and sometimes you completely write what it means. Keep this consistent. 

p.6.259/260 Why do you write percent? Why not use %? Moreover, avoid back to back brackets such as "38.6 percent) (Table 1) = (38.6 percent; Table 1).

The figures on this page do not add much to your manuscript. These are redundant. 

p.7.268 The N needs to be placed in italics. Also apply this to the remainder of your work. 

p.8.295 And here you use the % instead of the word "percent". Keep this consistent. 

Overall, I am still not convinced of this research, partly because feedback hasn't been implemented sufficiently.

p.14.434 "is still some way to go" = Please rephrase. What does "way to go" mean? What does this entail? 

p.14.439 I would suggest to select a different signalling word than "In this sense". Select one that is more appropriate for the academic context. 

p.16.467 "These results may be the result" = Please rephrase. Furthermore, that sentence is difficult to read. You are--again--putting too much in one sentence. I am a bit surprised that you add this new piece of information (i.e., CPD) to the results. 

Even in the revision you use both competencies and compentences. This is a bit sloppy, especially after the feedback provided about this. 

p.17.556 How does the "alternative ways of contacting teachers" be relevant? Do you mean the verb "to reach out"? What is the take-home message here?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would strongly suggest to contact a Native English speaker. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, the authors would like to express their utmost gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions and for the effort and time spent in attempting to improve the quality of this article throughout the review process.

 

Comment 1: p.1.8/9 Why verify compentences if you also identiy the levels? Isn't this the same thing?

Response 1: Dear reviewer, the study presented is based on the European reference "DigCompEdu" (Redecker, 2017), which proposes a model for the assessment and development of pedagogical digital competences, providing a common basis for these competences in EU countries. To this end, it distinguishes six different areas, representing a total of 22 digital competences, which focus on different aspects of educators' professional activities, and are organized in a progression model that aims to help educators assess and develop their digital competences. DigCompEdu describes six different levels through which digital competence generally develops. This was the theoretical framework used in our study and therefore competences and levels are not the same thing.

 

Comment 2: p.1.14 "to get to know these" = This isn't an argument. What is your take-home message? 

Response 2: the text has been revised to read as follows - “The global mapping of digital competences will make it possible to verify these competences, attitudes and abilities, and the integration of ICT into teaching practice, as well as helping to outline future projects and guidelines in the area of teacher training in the ARA in particular.”

 

Comment 3: p.1.43 The revision is grammatically incorrect. 

Response 3: the text has been revised to read as follows  - “The innovative potential of digital technologies can play an important role in the evolutionary process of school education, promoting the transformation and enrichment of pedagogy, which has led to a considerable effort in teacher training centered on the development of digital competences, with the aim to ensuring innovation in pedagogical practices”.

 

Comment 4: p.2.61 Revised signalling is not fitting. Can you look for an alternative? 

Response 4: The authors do not understand what is intended as there was no comment on this in the previous evaluation and no change has been made.

 

Comment 5: p.2.93 The aim is never to incompletely gather data. This is such an odd thing to say.

Response 5: The text has been revised to read as follows - “In this study, we present the data collected in this research and share the analysis carried out, bearing in mind the need to analyze the Azorean reality. We ultimately seek to define better training and professional updating strategies in this field.”

 

Comment 6: p.3.130-136 This is one sentence. Split this is several. In addition, a paragraph is at least three sentences. This means that you need to merg this paragraph with the previous or the following paragraph.

Response 6:  The authors have added this paragraph to the previous one, agreeing with the suggestion.

 

Comment 7: p.3.148 "aimed at empowering all citizens to face the..." = This is phrased in a rather popular way. In addition, this is not very informative. What does it mean?

Response 7: This sentence is part of the theoretical framework of the study and is a paraphrase of the European document DigCompEdu. The article falls under this theoretical framework.

 

Comment 8: Figure 1: The text in the figure is rather small (barely readable).

Response 8: the image has been edited;

 

Comment 9: p.5.205/206 What are the additional competences? The added text evokes more questions. 

Response 9: the following information was added - “…such as Computational Thinking, Gamification, Micro-Credentialisation, Distance and blended learning, among others.”

 

Comment 10: p.5.214 The argument of "a common language and logic" is not compelling.

Response 10: the text has been revised to read as follows  - “…because it has a common cientific language and logic”

 

Comment 11: Sometimes you use the abbreviation ARA and sometimes you completely write what it means. Keep this consistent. 

Response 11: the text has been revised.

 

Comment 12: p.6.259/260 Why do you write percent? Why not use %? Moreover, avoid back to back brackets such as "38.6 percent) (Table 1) = (38.6 percent; Table 1).

Response 12: the manuscript has been revised.

 

Comment 13: The figures on this page do not add much to your manuscript. These are redundant. 

Response 13: The inclusion of the figures was suggested by one of the evaluators in the previous evaluation; the original version did not have these figures, but tables with the information.

 

Comment 14: p.7.268 The N needs to be placed in italics. Also apply this to the remainder of your work. 

Response 14: reviewed and corrected

 

Comment 15: p.8.295 And here you use the % instead of the word "percent". Keep this consistent. 

Response 15: the manuscript has been revised.

 

Comment 16: Overall, I am still not convinced of this research, partly because feedback hasn't been implemented sufficiently.

Response 16: For the second time, the authors are trying to respond to the reviewer's suggestions, in the hope that this time they will be successful.

 

Comment 17: p.14.434 "is still some way to go" = Please rephrase. What does "way to go" mean? What does this entail?

Response 17: the text has been revised to read as follows  - “The results also show that there is still some way to gowork to be done in developing teachers' digital competences…”

The answer to this question can be found in the next sentence of the text: “While the competences of selecting and managing, protecting and sharing are mostly highly rated by the respondents, the same is not true of the competences related to creating and modifying digital resources, where most responses are at lower levels in the teachers' self-perception.”

 

Comment 18: p.14.439 I would suggest to select a different signalling word than "In this sense". Select one that is more appropriate for the academic context. 

Response 18: the text has been revised to read as follows  - “Therefore, and in agreement with what Costa states in his study,…”

 

Comment 19: p.16.467 "These results may be the result" = Please rephrase. Furthermore, that sentence is difficult to read. You are--again--putting too much in one sentence. I am a bit surprised that you add this new piece of information (i.e., CPD) to the results. 

Response 19: the text has been revised to read as follows  - “These results may be the result of may indicate the need for teachers to become more digitally competent…”.

 

Comment 20: Even in the revision you use both competencies and compentences. This is a bit sloppy, especially after the feedback provided about this. 

Response 20: the term “competencies” appeared only once in the manuscript and has been corrected.

 

Comment 21: p.17.556 How does the "alternative ways of contacting teachers" be relevant? Do you mean the verb "to reach out"? What is the take-home message here?

Response 21: the text has been improved - “Simply sending an email to ask teachers to collaborate, in a more impersonal way, can contribute to a reduction in the number of responses. However, geographic dispersion is a limitation to more personal and comprehensive data collection.”

 

We hope we have met your expectations.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf