Use of Digital Technologies to Support Socioemotional Teacher Training: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review “Use of digital technologies to support socioemotional teacher training: A systematic review.” This manuscript provided a systematic review of the development of teacher social-emotional competencies using technology as a support.

Strengths:

• Educator well-being and supporting SEC development are incredibly timely and important.
• The manuscript is very well written with a well-documented PRISMA process
• I’m impressed to see that 57 articles were reviewed, which provides a robust foundation for synthesis
• The manuscript provides balanced results for both pre-service and in-service teachers with attention to limitations of each article reviewed
• Practical suggestions for integrating digital tools into teacher training add applied value.

Feedback:

• General - Ensure terms such as "socioemotional competencies," "SEC," and "social–emotional learning" are used consistently.
• Minor feedback – Under section 1.2, acronyms like DOMASEC and CASEL would benefit from being spelled out first with the acronym in parentheses. CASEL also needs to be capitalized.
• Additionally, in reference to theoretical models, beyond CASEL, several frameworks are mentioned (e.g., Prosocial Classroom, DOMASEC). The article could synthesize how these align or differ in guiding technology use (if relevant).
• Section 1.3 – The first sentence of this section appears to be a transition, but it’s unclear where it comes from. One of these changes of what?
• Section 1.3 – This section needs a stronger transition. It feels like an abrupt switch from discussing SEC to digital technology.
• Section 2.1 – Capitalize the “I” in identifying
• Section 2.2.2 – This section would benefit from describing inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, clarify how coding was conducted and how inter-rater reliability was ensured in the study selection and categorization process.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below you will find detailed responses. Additionally, in the attached file (manuscript), you can see the corresponding improvements/corrections highlighted in light blue.

Comments 1: Strengths. Educator well-being and supporting SEC development are incredibly timely and important. The manuscript is very well written with a well-documented PRISMA process. I’m impressed to see that 57 articles were reviewed, which provides a robust foundation for synthesis. The manuscript provides balanced results for both pre-service and in-service teachers with attention to limitations of each article reviewed. Practical suggestions for integrating digital tools into teacher training add applied value.

Response 1: We appreciate you highlighting the strengths of the study. This comment does not imply any changes to the manuscript.

Comments 2: General - Ensure terms such as "socioemotional competencies," "SEC," and "social–emotional learning" are used consistently.

Response 2: The concepts mentioned by the reviewer (“socioemotional competencies,” “SEC,” and “social–emotional learning”) were identified in the manuscript. These concepts were corrected throughout the manuscript and used consistently. 

Comments 3: Minor feedback – Under section 1.2, acronyms like DOMASEC and CASEL would benefit from being spelled out first with the acronym in parentheses. CASEL also needs to be capitalized.

Response 3: The improvements requested in section 1.2 have been incorporated. The meanings of the acronyms CASEL and DOMASEC have been added. The acronym CASEL has also been changed from lowercase to uppercase.  

Comments 4: Additionally, in reference to theoretical models, beyond CASEL, several frameworks are mentioned (e.g., Prosocial Classroom, DOMASEC). The article could synthesize how these align or differ in guiding technology use (if relevant).

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. We consider this comment to be very relevant and valuable given the focus of this paper, and therefore a paragraph has been added to section 1.2. Specifically, it now reads as follows:

“While the theoretical models reviewed present different emphases, together they offer a complementary vision that guides the potential use of digital technologies in socioemotional teacher training. The CASEL model is the most consolidated framework, defining five core competencies (self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making) [24]. Its structured and widely validated nature has facilitated the development of digital platforms, applications, and online training programs explicitly organized around these competencies, making it an operative reference framework for designing technopedagogical interventions. Meanwhile, DOMASEC expands this perspective by organizing competencies into domains (self, others, tasks/challenges) and manifestations (affective, cognitive, behavioral) [23], which is particularly useful in digital environments as it allows for precise mapping of which dimensions can be stimulated through simulations, interactive resources, or socioemotional learning analytics. The Prosocial Classroom Model emphasizes teacher well-being as a prerequisite for creating positive classroom climates [20], suggesting that technologies can mediate self-care and self-regulation processes. Complementarily, the emotional competencies framework highlights the intrapersonal dimension (emotional awareness and regulation) [21], which is central for the design of digital resources aimed at emotional training. Finally, the Social and Emotional Competency School Model [22], integrates the school perspective, emphasizing the interaction between individual and contextual competencies, which opens possibilities for technologies to support multi-level interventions at the school level. In short, although they differ in their level of analysis (individual, relational, or institutional) and in the way they organize competencies, all models offer promising potential when considering the integration of digital technologies, as they can improve both intrapersonal development and the creation of healthier and more effective social-emotional learning environments.”

Comments 5: Section 1.3 – The first sentence of this section appears to be a transition, but it’s unclear where it comes from. One of these changes of what? – This section needs a stronger transition. It feels like an abrupt switch from discussing SEC to digital technology.

Response 5: There is indeed an error in the wording. Therefore, the sentence was improved to communicate the idea accurately. The fluidity of the transition between sections 1.2 and 1.3 was also improved. The improvements to these observations can be seen in the first paragraph of section 1.3, which now reads as follows:

Considering that existing SEL models could maximize their benefits by incorporating the use of technology, it is essential to evaluate its inclusion in order to effectively promote SEL among teachers. In fact, in the current era, the value of technologies in promoting a more holistic approach to the teaching process is widely recognized [28] and, increasingly, incorporates the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) [29]..In this regard, SEL pro-motion and training have not been immune to these changes, and the importance of moving from traditional formats to formats that integrate the use of technology to provide and ensure greater efficiency, sustainability, and scalability has become evident [24,30].

Comments 6: Section 2.1 – Capitalize the “I” in identifying

Response 6: A capital letter was added to the word specified by the reviewer.

Comments 7: Section 2.2.2 – This section would benefit from describing inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Response 7: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in section 2.2.2. The paragraph was worded as follows. 

The second stage began with the analysis of 335 abstracts, which were assigned to two researchers via the Rayyan tool. Of these, 250 studies were excluded due to their limited relevance to the objective of the systematic review and the predefined categories designed to address the research question. Eighty-five studies were identified, to which the in-clusion criteria were applied: (a) empirical studies; (b) studies written in Spanish, English, or Portuguese; (c) studies focused on teachers; and (d) studies addressing the topic of SEC in conjunction with technologies. The following exclusion criteria were then applied: (a) studies that did not provide a detailed description of the technology used (7 studies ex-cluded); (b) studies that were highly similar to prior research by the same authors (8 studies excluded); and (c) studies with restricted access and/or high cost (over $30) (3 studies excluded). The remaining 67 articles were randomly assigned to two researchers for content evaluation, and two additional exclusion criteria were applied: (d) studies that did not explain how the technology contributes to enhancing teachers’ social-emotional support, i.e., due to “Impact” (9 studies excluded), and (e) studies written in languages other than those specified in the inclusion criteria, i.e., due to “Language” (1 study in Russian excluded).

Comments 8: Additionally, clarify how coding was conducted and how inter-rater reliability was ensured in the study selection and categorization process.

Response 8: Thank you for this valuable observation. A brief paragraph clarifying how the studies were coded has been added to Section 2.2.2. The revised paragraph reads as follows:

To ensure rigor in the study selection and categorization process, we implemented a systematic coding procedure. First, two independent reviewers coded the records based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as the categorization scheme developed for this review. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third independent reviewer, who acted as an adjudicator to reach consensus. This procedure strengthened the validity and transparency of the study selection and categorization process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed systematic review research is of great interest in the field of education, as it considers two areas of great importance: teachers' social-emotional skills and digital technologies in education. The study adds an element of originality by considering both variables and discussing how digital technologies are being used to influence the development of social-emotional skills in teachers.

The presentation of the study situation and introduction succeed in arousing the reader's interest. 

From a methodological point of view, it is clear, detailed, and precise, which facilitates a quick understanding of the approach of the study.

The results are presented in a clear and organized manner. The presentation of the tables aids in the easy understanding and visualization of the results. 

The discussion is sufficiently broad and very well structured. It highlights the noteworthy aspects in light of previous research and emphasizes the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

The references are current and the number is appropriate for a systematic review.

I consider the study suitable for publication. The structure of the information in each section of the contribution is quite appealing. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Comments 1: The proposed systematic review research is of great interest in the field of education, as it considers two areas of great importance: teachers' social-emotional skills and digital technologies in education. The study adds an element of originality by considering both variables and discussing how digital technologies are being used to influence the development of social-emotional skills in teachers.

The presentation of the study situation and introduction succeed in arousing the reader's interest.

From a methodological point of view, it is clear, detailed, and precise, which facilitates a quick understanding of the approach of the study.

The results are presented in a clear and organized manner. The presentation of the tables aids in the easy understanding and visualization of the results.

The discussion is sufficiently broad and very well structured. It highlights the noteworthy aspects in light of previous research and emphasizes the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

The references are current and the number is appropriate for a systematic review.

I consider the study suitable for publication. The structure of the information in each section of the contribution is quite appealing.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the strengths across the different sections of the study (introduction, method, results, discussion, and references), as well as the other positive aspects you highlighted (relevance of the topic, originality, ability to engage the reader, clarity, organization, and precision). We find this feedback very encouraging.This comment does not imply any changes to the manuscript.