Are Teachers Ready to Adopt Deep Learning Pedagogy? The Role of Technology and 21st-Century Competencies Amid Educational Policy Reform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Abstract

Abstract is good and comprehansive. Pls arrange key words in alphabetical order

 

Introduction

 

Please divide the introduction section into subheadings and arrange it in logical order.

Literature Review

Define and discuss what deep learning is as the first heading of the section and then move forward.

Please remove the background picture in the conceptual framework.

 

3.1. Quantitative Phase

 

Mention the population and sample collection method, including confidence level, margin of error, and population proportion. Need to be more transparent in sample calculation.

Include limitataions and future research section

 

Follow the APA 7th guideline for citation and referencing.

 

 

Author Response

Summary
We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments, constructive suggestions, and careful evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has significantly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of this article.

Below, we provide our detailed responses to each comment. All suggested revisions and clarifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Specific changes are highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted version to facilitate identification by the Reviewer and the Editor.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments

Comment 1       : Abstract is good and comprehensive. Please arrange keywords in alphabetical order.

Response 1        : Thank you for this comment. We have revised the keywords and arranged them in alphabetical order (line 25–26).

Comment 2       : Please divide the introduction section into subheadings and arrange it in logical order.

Response 2        : We agree with this comment. The Introduction has been restructured into subheadings for clarity:

1.1 Background (line 29)

1.2 Problem Statement (line 69)

1.3 Research Gap (line 99)

1.4 Objectives (line 126)

Comment 3       : Define and discuss what deep learning is as the first heading of the section and then move forward.

Response 3        : We have revised the Literature Review and strengthened the theoretical grounding:

• Added explanation of deep learning as the opening section (line 145–155).
• Added further generalizations at line 177–188, 206–210, and 218–222.
• Removed Figure 1 (Conceptual framework) as suggested (line 229).

Comment 4       : Separate research questions from hypotheses.

Response 4        : We have revised Section 2.4. to present Research Questions and Hypotheses separately (line 233–244).

Comment 5       : Mention the population and sample collection method, including confidence level, margin of error, and population proportion. Need to be more transparent in sample calculation.

Response 5        : We agree. In Section 3.1, we now explicitly mention that the teacher population is approximately 4.21 million. The minimum sample size was calculated using Cochran’s formula (Cochran, 1977) with a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and an assumed population proportion of p = 0.5, yielding a minimum of 385 respondents. Our final sample of 802 teachers therefore exceeded this threshold (lines 270–276).

Comment 6       : Include limitations and future research section.

Response 6        : We have added a subsection Limitations and Future Research (lines 581–599), addressing sampling constraints, cross-sectional design, limited qualitative scope, and future directions such as employing longitudinal designs, grounded theory, and stronger focus on school leadership in adopting AI-based pedagogy.

Comment 7       : Follow the APA 7th guideline for citation and referencing.

Response 7        : We carefully revised all references to conform with APA 7th edition style.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting, well structured and well written. In my opinion, it does not need any corrections or additions.
1) The research questions are listed in a comprehensive and detailed manner in paragraph 2.4 and represented by an image. The main question concerns the methods and speed with which teachers in Indonesia, in the climate of reform, have implemented deep learning practices.
2) The study is extremely relevant both nationally, given the changes affecting the Indonesian education system, and internationally. The transition to skills-based teaching is a topic that has been extensively researched and monitored in all countries. It does not fill gaps, but enriches an important supranational debate. Maybe the authors could provide more detail on the concept of “21st century skills”.
3) The paper presents both qualitative and quantitative data. The sample size does not allow for generalisations, but it offers a good description of a state of affairs comparable to other studies in the field, which are listed and discussed in detail in the background section.
4) The methodology is generally solid, but there remains some doubt about the use of convenience sampling, which may be a weakness because it carries the risk of selection bias (e.g., over-representation of teachers who are already more tech-savvy or involved in professional networks). However, the authors make this clear. With regard to the qualitative analysis, for which the method proposed by Braun & Clarke is used, a table of the final codebook with themes, sub-themes and examples of codes could be provided. This would improve the transparency and reliability of the qualitative results.
5) The conclusions are directly derived from and effectively synthesize both the quantitative and qualitative findings.
6) The bibliography is up to date, encompassing the most recent literature and organized around several key areas of study: deep learning pedagogy (Fullan et al., Tang & Biggs), TPACK (Mishra & Koehler), 21st-century skills (Trilling & Fadel), and educational policy reform and methodology (Creswell & Clark). The inclusion of studies conducted in Indonesia and other contexts in the Southern Hemisphere is particularly commendable.
7) No comments on figures and tables. 

Author Response

Summary
We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments, constructive suggestions, and careful evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has significantly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of this article.

Below, we provide our detailed responses to each comment. All suggested revisions and clarifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Specific changes are highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted version to facilitate identification by the Reviewer and the Editor.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments

General comment:

The article is interesting, well structured and well written. In my opinion, it does not need any corrections or additions.

Comment 1       : Provide more detail on the concept of “21st century skills.”

Response 1        : Thank you. We have expanded the description of 21st-century skills in the Literature Review section (lines 177–188, 206–210).

 

Comment 2       : Provide a table of the final codebook with themes, sub-themes, and examples of codes to improve transparency and reliability.

Response 2        : We agree. We have added Table 5. Codebook of Themes, Sub-themes, and Illustrative Quotes (lines 463–470), summarizing the results of Braun & Clarke’s thematic analysis. This strengthens the transparency and reliability of the qualitative findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The thorough review of the literature background of the research is based on sufficiently deep, authentic literature. The authors reviewed the first two decades of the century in question, and the 73 items from the sources are sufficiently representative. The theoretical presentation is thorough and well-structured. A critical remark is that during the presentation of the models, a brief one-sentence presentation of the models that are known but not necessarily evident to the reader (RDL, TRACK, SAMR) would definitely be helpful. Some technical comments on the final version of the manuscript: • Figure 1 is visually extremely simplistic; the message of the figure has no content and is ambiguous. • In the case of 2.4., the internal decimal division is confusing; a graphical solution is recommended (bull) • Tables 1-3 are sufficiently informative, but I recommend reviewing the following tables again: The content of Table 4 is not particularly relevant for those who are less familiar with the regional characteristics of the given country. In this case, a textual description would be appropriate. A similar solution is recommended for Tables 6-9. Due to their modest information content, building the content into the text is necessary. The content is relevant, can be communicated in the text, and can be considered valuable communications embedded in context. The authors have structured the Discussion (5) chapter of the study in an exemplary manner, in which they also respond to the latest significant publications of recent years. However, the few-sentence Conclusions (6) chapter is disproportionately short and general. I suggest expanding this section to present ideas and suggestions for further research and development tasks.

Author Response

Summary
We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments, constructive suggestions, and careful evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has significantly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of this article.

Below, we provide our detailed responses to each comment. All suggested revisions and clarifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Specific changes are highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted version to facilitate identification by the Reviewer and the Editor.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments

Comment 1       : Provide short explanations of models (RDL, TPACK, SAMR).

Response 1        : Thank you. We have added brief explanatory sentences when first mentioning these models to ensure clarity for readers (lines 145–155).

Comment 2       : Remove Figure 1 as it is simplistic.

Response 2        : Done. Figure 1 has been removed (line 229).

Comment 3       : Internal decimal division in 2.4 is confusing; a graphical solution is recommended.

Response 3        : We revised Section 2.4 to present Research Questions and Hypotheses more clearly and avoided the confusing internal decimal notation (lines 233–244).

Comment 4       : Tables 4, 6–9 should be embedded into text.

Response 4        : We followed this suggestion.

• Representative profiles of informants are now narrated in text (lines 335–351).
• Regression outputs are described narratively in sections 4.1 and 4.2 (lines 396–427).

Comment 5       : Conclusions are too short.

Response 5        : We expanded the Conclusions (lines 562–580) and added a new subsection Limitations and Future Research (lines 581–599).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have mentioned arranging keywords in alphabetic order, but I think authors misunderstood this and added new keywords; 'educational policy reforms' is included twice.

Please take the limitations and future research part as a separate subheading before the conclusion. The conclusion is the last part of the paper.

Author Response

Summary
We would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments, constructive suggestions, and careful evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has significantly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of this article.

Below, we provide our detailed responses to each comment. All suggested revisions and clarifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript for the Reviewer’s and Editor’s consideration.

Point-by-point response to Comments

Comment 1       : The Reviewer mentioned that keywords should be arranged in alphabetical order. However, there was a misunderstanding, and additional keywords were added. The keyword “educational policy reforms” was also included twice.

 Response 1       : We appreciate the Reviewer’s clarification. We have carefully revised the keywords section. The final list of keywords is now corrected and alphabetically arranged as follows: deep learning pedagogy; educational policy reform; teacher readiness; technological knowledge; 21st-century competencies. The duplication of “educational policy reforms” has been removed. This correction can be found in the keywords section of the revised manuscript.

Comment 2       : The Reviewer requested that the Limitations and Future Research part be presented as a separate subheading before the Conclusion, with the Conclusion as the final part of the paper.

 Response 2       : We fully agree with this suggestion. We have revised the structure of the manuscript by creating a separate subheading titled Limitations and Future Research, which now appears immediately before the Conclusion. The Conclusion section remains as the final part of the paper, as recommended. This revision can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 567–585, where the new subheading and content are clearly indicated.