Review Reports - Digital Competence in the Master’s Degree in Training for Teachers: The Influence of Academic and Emotional Factors on Its Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your work. In terms of research questions, methodology, research population and use of relevant software, you have solid, decent work. In terms of the display of the results, the design of tables are explanatory and illuminating. However, I would like offer some amendments regarding the discussion and results sections. In my opinion, you have enough data to explore more and offer some recommendations rather than maintaining relevance of your work with the related previous works. Therefore, it might be a good idea to take a step further and offer a framework, a supplementary course design, extracurricular activities to bridge the gap/gaps in the present situation. Especially, the conclusion sections is more like a limitations part than a actual conclusion. It would be good idea to insert actual solutions to this section rather than mentioning future research. I completely agree that possible future work could be mentioned in the paper, however, it is not the essence of a conclusion part. In addition, it might be good idea to back the methodology with some more references.

Best.

Author Response

REVIEW 1

Dear Authors,

However, I would like offer some amendments regarding the discussion and results sections. In my opinion, you have enough data to explore more and offer some recommendations rather than maintaining relevance of your work with the related previous works. Therefore, it might be a good idea to take a step further and offer a framework, a supplementary course design, extracurricular activities to bridge the gap/gaps in the present situation. Especially, the conclusion sections is more like a limitations part than a actual conclusion. It would be good idea to insert actual solutions to this section rather than mentioning future research. I completely agree that possible future work could be mentioned in the paper, however, it is not the essence of a conclusion part. In addition, it might be good idea to back the methodology with some more references.

Best.

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions. We appreciate the recommendation to further explore the implications of our findings and to incorporate more concrete proposals. Following the comments of all reviewers, we have chosen to maintain the structure of the Results section, as it reflects the data obtained and cannot be expanded beyond the empirical evidence collected.

However, we fully agree that the manuscript could benefit from a deeper consideration of practical recommendations. For this reason, we have revised the Conclusions section, where we now integrate proposals aligned with the identified gaps, including pedagogical, methodological and institutional implications. We consider this the most appropriate place to incorporate such contributions without altering the analytical nature of the Results. We also acknowledge the value of developing a more extensive framework or detailed course design; nevertheless, doing so would exceed the scope of this study. We believe this line of work could constitute a meaningful extension for a future publication.

Best,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript addresses a topic of notable relevance and timeliness in the field of teacher education and educational innovation: the study of digital competence (DC) among students enrolled in the Master’s Degree in Teacher Training, considering both academic and emotional factors that influence its development. It is an empirically grounded and well-structured piece of research, with a solid quantitative approach and a topic aligned with the priorities of higher education in digitalized contexts. Overall, the study contributes to understanding the gaps and potentialities of future teachers in facing contemporary technological demands, offering findings of both academic and practical interest.

Regarding the Introduction, this section provides an appropriate theoretical contextualization of the problem and demonstrates an up-to-date command of national and international literature on digital competence, ICT, and teacher education. The conceptual framework is supported by relevant references (such as DigCompEdu or ISTE), which reinforce the theoretical validity of the study. Furthermore, the text successfully articulates the regulatory and educational evolution of the topic within the Spanish and European contexts. However, it is suggested to improve the delimitation of the research problem, as the section is somewhat lengthy and could benefit from a more concise synthesis that highlights more clearly the training gap that the study seeks to address.

With respect to the Materials and Methods, the manuscript provides a detailed description of the research design, sample, instruments, and statistical analysis procedures. The choice of a non-experimental, cross-sectional, and correlational quantitative design is appropriate for the study’s objectives. Moreover, the use of validated scales and the verification of reliability through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient represent an important methodological strength. Nevertheless, it would be advisable to expand on the justification of the sample size and briefly discuss the implications of using a non-probabilistic sampling method, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. It would also be beneficial to clarify some technical aspects, such as the data cleaning process and the inclusion/exclusion criteria for participants, in order to strengthen the transparency and replicability of the study.

In the Results section, the manuscript presents the main findings in an organized and comprehensible manner. The description of digital competence levels, differentiated by dimensions and indicators, is well developed and supported by appropriate statistical analyses. There is a good balance between descriptive results and inferential analyses (Student’s t-test, ANOVA, and multiple linear regression). The finding that creative self-efficacy and motivation significantly predict digital competence represents a relevant contribution.

Regarding the Discussion, this section stands out as one of the strongest parts of the manuscript. The interpretation of the results is well-argued, contextualized, and supported by recent literature. The text coherently integrates the empirical evidence obtained with previous studies and offers a critical reflection on the role of emotional and academic factors in the development of digital competence. Nonetheless, the discussion could be strengthened by delving more deeply into the pedagogical implications of the findings—for example, which strategies or training models could be implemented in teacher education programs to enhance motivation and digital self-efficacy. It would also be advisable to include a more specific reflection on potential cultural or institutional differences that may influence the results.

As for the Conclusions, these are consistent with the study’s objectives and findings and adequately synthesize their educational implications. However, they could be reinforced with a final sentence summarizing the practical contribution of the work, emphasizing how the results can inform the design of training programs tailored to the emotional and academic needs of future teachers. Additionally, it is recommended to avoid repeating limitations already discussed previously and instead emphasize potential future research directions or concrete applications of the findings in university education policies.

In summary, the manuscript presents a relevant topic, a coherent methodological design, and results that add value to the field of digital education and teacher training. Its main strengths lie in its clarity of exposition, statistical rigor, and the solid connection between theory and practice. As areas for improvement, it is suggested to adjust the length of the introduction and to develop a discussion more oriented toward educational application. With these refinements, the article could represent a valuable scientific contribution to the study of digital competence in teacher edu

cation.

Author Response

REVIEW 2

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these positive and encouraging comments. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the relevance of the topic, the methodological rigor, and the contribution of the study. Your thoughtful assessment reinforces the value of the work and supports its pertinence within current discussions on teacher training and digital competence.

We agree that the introduction is relatively long (slightly over two pages), and we have made efforts to figure out how to shorten it. However, since in our study the introduction also fulfils the function of the theoretical framework, further summarisation is challenging without compromising the conceptual foundations required to contextualise the research.

Regarding the delimitation of the research problem and synthesis to highlight clearly the training gap that the study seeks to address, we stand that having placed the research objectives in the last paragraph of the introduction helps the reader to understand it.

We have followed the suggestion and expanded the justification of the sample size while discussing the use of a non-probabilistic sampling method. We also added clarification regarding the cleaning process.

Thank you for this positive assessment of the results section.

In response to your suggestion, we have added a new paragraph in the Discussion that elaborates on the pedagogical implications of the findings and integrates concrete training proposals, including references to recent studies.

Thank you for your helpful comments. In line with your suggestion, we have revised the Conclusions section to reinforce its practical contribution. Specifically, we have incorporated concrete recommendations on how the results can inform the design of training programmes tailored to the emotional and academic needs of future teachers, we have removed redundant references to limitations, and we now emphasise potential applications of the findings for university policies. We believe these additions strengthen the practical relevance and clarity of the section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the study. I think studies like this highlight the importance of Institutions of Higher Education’s responsibility to ensure that students receive the relevant digital skills to function in today's digital society. The study is well-presented, but minor corrections are needed to enhance its readability and presentability. For example, references are made to concepts that are not familiar to the international reader, such as LOE and LOMLOE.

Lastly, some clarifications are needed in the Methodology and Results section. For example, what does the term “proposed” mean in the context of your chosen study? Also, rethink the use of “predictive” as your study is descriptive. More information is needed with regard to the sample and population and how the sample size was determined. Also, was the questionnaire piloted?

In conclusion, if the suggested changes can be addressed, the paper can be accepted for publication.

Below is a detailed list with row references of the minor changes that could improve the paper.

Row 54 – please explain the meaning of LOE

Row 55 – LOMLOE, 2020 is not found in the reference list

Row 83 – I am not sure what framework you are referring to, maybe you can mention the name of the framework.

Row 85 – This is a technical aspect. We usually don’t have only 1 sub-heading. So I suggest you remove the heading 1.1 and just continue with the text.

Row 93 - …not take full advantage of their technology’s potential, neglecting tasks that require…

Row 106 – I suggest you change it to …. a recent study …. as your source only refers to one study.

Row 112 – In this sentence, it is not clear who the “they” are that the authors are referring to: ….added that they are predictive factors…

Please replace “they” with something like “cognitive strategies”

Row 116 – please remove “with another emerging line on the topic” This is not good academic language.

Row 139 – what does the term “proposed” mean in this context. This was an analytical cross-sectional study with random sampling.

Row 140 – The scope is “descriptive, correlational, comparative and predictive.” While cross-sectional studies can be descriptive and show some correlation/association between factors and compare groups, they are not predictive.

Row 143 – If the sample was 137, what was the population size? There is no sample size calculation. How was the sample determined?

Row 149 – Please remove and replace with an appropriate title: “This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited”

Questions from four existing questionnaires were combined to create a self-administered survey that includes the following scales to measure variables as derived from the literature:

Was this combined questionnaire piloted?

Row 157 – please indicate where you get the scales from. It can be as simple as adding “variables as derived from the literature”

Row 231- I suggest you add the figure references: with gender (Figure 1) and speciality (Figure 2).

Row 246 – Table 1 title is above the table and Table 2’s title is below the table. Please be consistent and either have them all above or all below.

Row 256 – Please remove “it” What it appears unquestionable

Row 298 – Are there supposed to be a ”%” at 66.5%

Row 327 – If the results relate to both previous studies, I suggest you change the “or” to an “and”.

Row 330; 336 – Be careful with using “they” it might not be that obvious to the reader who or what you are referring to. I suggest, replace “they” in row 330 with “Master’s students”, just to remind the user who you are referring to.

Row 403 – it is not clear what you mean with “grades”. Do you mean different grades of teacher training?

Reference

I checked the first few and these were missing. I suggest a thorough check of all the references and citations is needed. For example,

430 – not used in text

438 – not used in text

440 - not used in text

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is not bad, but there are a few careless mistakes that could be corrected.

Author Response

REVIEW 3

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer. The detailed comments and suggestions have been extremely helpful and have significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the paper.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the study. I think studies like this highlight the importance of Institutions of Higher Education’s responsibility to ensure that students receive the relevant digital skills to function in today's digital society. The study is well-presented, but minor corrections are needed to enhance its readability and presentability. For example, references are made to concepts that are not familiar to the international reader, such as LOE and LOMLOE. As explained above, we added some clarifications when referring the Spanish law.

The use of the undefined “they” needs to be addressed, while technical issues such as the placement of headings and subheadings also require attention. The references need to be checked because some sources are not cited. All these suggestions have been thoroughly revised, aided by the reviewer’s detailed list, and they have now all been addressed.

In conclusion, if the suggested changes can be addressed, the paper can be accepted for publication.

Below is a detailed list with row references of the minor changes that could improve the paper.

Row 54 – please explain the meaning of LOE. We added a reference to the Spanish legislation to introduce the LOE.

Row 55 – LOMLOE, 2020 is not found in the reference list. The legislation was wrongly cited, now we have updated the cites for the three references to the Spanish law.

Row 83 – I am not sure what framework you are referring to, maybe you can mention the name of the framework. We added “each area of the digital competence framework” to make it clear.

Row 85 – This is a technical aspect. We usually don’t have only 1 sub-heading. So I suggest you remove the heading 1.1 and just continue with the text. This is a good point. We agree and have deleted the sub-heading, integrating it into the text.

Row 93 - …not take full advantage of their technology’s potential, neglecting tasks that require… Done!

Row 106 – I suggest you change it to …. a recent study …. as your source only refers to one study. Done!

Row 112 – In this sentence, it is not clear who the “they” are that the authors are referring to: ….added that they are predictive factors… Please replace “they” with something like “cognitive strategies” We extended the explanation linking it better to the previous phrase.

Row 116 – please remove “with another emerging line on the topic” This is not good academic language. Done!

Row 139 – what does the term “proposed” mean in this context. This was an analytical cross-sectional study with random sampling. We have replaced proposed with followed to describe more accurately the methodological approach adopted in the study.

Row 143 – If the sample was 137, what was the population size? There is no sample size calculation. How was the sample determined? The sample consisted of 137 students drawn from an accessible population of 168 enrolled in the four participating specialties, as shown in Table 1. No formal sample size calculation was performed; the sample corresponds to the number of students who agreed to participate during the data collection period.

Row 149 – Please remove and replace with an appropriate title: “This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited”. Sorry about this error! The title of the table has been updated.

Row 154 – you say that “A self-administered questionnaire prepared ad hoc and distributed” but when I look at the questions used, they come from existing questionnaires. If this is what you did, I was wondering if you could rather say something like: Questions from four existing questionnaires were combined to create a self-administered survey that includes the following scales to measure variables as derived from the literature: Was this combined questionnaire piloted? Thank you for this suggestion; we have slightly adapted it and incorporated it into the paper. Regarding the piloting of the questionnaire, the results are definitive, so no pilot study was conducted prior to the final data collection.

Row 157 – please indicate where you get the scales from. It can be as simple as adding “variables as derived from the literature” Following the previous comment, it is now clear that variable derived from the literature.

Row 231- I suggest you add the figure references: with gender (Figure 1) and speciality (Figure 2). We added “with gender (figure 1) and speciality (figure 2)” if this was the suggestion.

Row 246 – Table 1 title is above the table and Table 2’s title is below the table. Please be consistent and either have them all above or all below. This was a clear error. We modified it and now all tables have the title above.

Row 256 – Please remove “it” What it appears unquestionable Done!

Row 298 – Are there supposed to be a ”%” at 66.5% Definitely. We added it.

Row 327 – If the results relate to both previous studies, I suggest you change the “or” to an “and”. Done!

Row 403 – it is not clear what you mean with “grades”. Do you mean different grades of teacher training? We modified it to “at each academic level”.

Reference

I checked the first few and these were missing. I suggest a thorough check of all the references and citations is needed. For example,

430 – not used in text

438 – not used in text

440 - not used in text We have revised all the references and deleted those uncited, or cited them in the discussion section to guarantee consistency in the cite-reference relationship..

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. We tried to improve the English language expression.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As I did not complete the review, I have not comments here.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs editing for clarity and word choice. It is difficult to follow in several instances with incorrect grammar.