The Critical Role of Science Teachers’ Readiness in Harnessing Digital Technology Benefits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims to cover a wide range of digital technologies in science education, which would require a slightly different theoretical background. There are more studies on digital technologies in science education, and many of them offer a well-developed structure for designing such research.

The research seems to be done in a particular educational system, in one country. More about science education and the use of digital technologies in science education in this country would raise the article's readiness. Was there an investment in particular digital technologies in the near past? Are digital technologies explicitly mentioned in the science curriculum? Info on such questions would give a better possibility to apply the results in countries with a similar situation.

A better structure would improve the coherence of the article. It is probably not necessary to teach readers what digital literacy is. This article seems not to be focused on the definition of digital competence, so most of lines 26-93 could probably be shortened or removed. Lines 103-105 seem to be crucial, but the article is not about science teachers in general – it seems to be about science teachers in a particular educational system, in a specific country.  In the theoretical background, it would be beneficial to write about which theoretical background, and which structure of digital competencies and the digital tools the authors use.  Is this article written in the immediate context of the pandemic (line 130)? Are some of the teachers using augmented reality (line 132)?

In Part 2.3, are digital technologies limited to three types: simulations, videos, and quizzes? Do the students use quantitative data processing and presentation tools, such as working with data tables and graphs?

We generally agree with ideas such as “digital tools enhance student engagement,” but is this research about student engagement?

The research presented is important and can bring new knowledge to the education sciences. However, a deep re-writing of the article could significantly raise the quality of the presentation of this new knowledge.

Some ideas for improvement could be found in comparing past and present situations https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389247983. Some ideas could be found in the structures of digital technologies /digital competences https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376747059.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comments

Comment 1: The article covers a wide range of digital technologies; this needs a stronger theoretical background and context in the specific country. More about science education and the use of digital tech in Estonia would raise the article’s readiness.

Response 1: Added a detailed new section on Estonia’s digital context, including Tiger Leap, national digital infrastructure (eKool, Moodle, e-Schoolbag), competence-based testing, and the DigCompEdu policy framework. This gives clear local context.

Comment 2: Too long on definitions

Not necessary to teach readers what digital literacy is. Lines 26–93 could probably be shortened.

Response 2: Kept one concise definition of digital literacy; replaced repetitive lines with the new Estonia overview, so the theoretical background is now relevant and streamlined.

Comment 3: Focus on a specific country

Lines 103–105 crucial: the article is not about science teachers in general but about science teachers in a particular country.

Response 3: Clearly specified “Estonian secondary school science teachers” throughout abstract, introduction, research questions, and methods.

Comment 4: Add specific theoretical framework

In theoretical background: write about which structure of digital competencies and digital tools the authors use.

Response 4: Added explicit mention of the European DigCompEdu framework, Estonia’s national digital policy, and real examples of digital tools used in Estonian science education (Labster, MoleculAR, CBSeT – are not used in Estonian schools, data analytics).

 Comment 5: Clarify pandemic context

Is this article written in the immediate context of the pandemic?

Response 5:  Yes, study explicitly states that Estonia’s digital tool usage accelerated during COVID-19 and this context shaped the findings.

Comment 6: Clarify Part 2.3 vs. 2.2

Are digital technologies limited to three types? Do students use quantitative data processing?

Response 6:  Sections 2.2 and 2.3 were combined; clarified that Estonian science students also use quantitative data tools, spreadsheets, graphs.

Comment 7: Is the research about student engagement?

If so, clarify scope.

Response 7: No,  ocus is kept on teachers’ digital competence, tool use, and perceived benefits/challenges (that while engagement is a benefit, it’s not the main focus).

Comment 8: More structure

A better structure would improve coherence.

Response 8: Improved flow:

• Shortened overlong theory
• Added Estonian context up front
• Merged overlapping sections
• Added clear research questions

Practical Comments & Fixes

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates the use of digital tools in science classrooms. This is an important topic especially considering the advances in technology and educational applications and technological tools available to teachers. The uptake of these tools is of interest along with reasons why they might not be being used. The strengths of the article lie in the results section and the discussion. The section on the theoretical background requires restructuring. Themes are repeated in subsections. Please see the following comments for more detail.

line 5. which national curriculum? The country should be specified in the abstract.

Line 12-14 " The article explores digital literacy advancements in secondary science education, research methodologies used to assess digital tool usage, and key findings from recent studies." This sentence needs clarity as the article also specifically presents the findings from the conducted research. Perhaps something similar to lines 105-110 that clearly outline the study. Line 33-34 - This sentence uses too strong modality - preferred statement is that they should develop concurrently. Line 56 - is this a sub-heading? Use full name and if needed, followed by the acronym and link - Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu)(https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcompedu_en)   The importance of teacher developing their digital competencies in clearly outlined. Key difficulties are stated. On line 84, the author highlights an area of particular importance "his indicates a gap between general digital knowledge and specific digital pedagogical skills".  

Section 2.2. The benefits of using digital tools in science are listed with examples provided that are useful for the reader. However, they are the general benefits for any subject. It would be useful to gear the examples towards science education, as this is the topic of focus. For example, the use of virtual laboratories such as Labster (https://www.labster.com/) which allow  Safe, low-cost exploration of scientific principles that might be too dangerous, expensive, or inaccessible in real labs;  Students participate in real-world research through platforms like Zooniverse  that promotes teamwork and scientific literacy. Also, the use of augmented and virtual reality with platforms such as MoleculAR that assists in visualizing and manipulating molecular structures in 3D using AR.

Section 2.3 then mentions virtual labs and the benefits for students. Section 2.3 would be better incorporated into section 2.2. For example, Line 180 and Line 209 are providing similar information. 

The section 2.4 could be strengthened with more references to research.

Line 242 to 251 appears more suitable to section 2.2 

The method is mostly clearly explained except again the country where the research was conducted is not indicated. The research questions should be included here.  Proper names of subjects should begin with a capital letter. 
Line 299 mentions "(National Curriculum for Basic Schools, 2011)", with no reference in the reference list, it is difficult to ascertain who's national curriculum this is. 

Data collection
Line 306 University of XXX?
Line 302 - 306 should be connected with the creation of the questionnaire instrument. With the section on data collection beginning with Linke 307. Line 310 "he questionnaire was created using Google Forms, a freely accessible platform that offers convenience for respondents. " would also suit the discussion of the creation of the questionnaire. 

Line 313 is repeating the information in line 302 - 303. 

The steps used in the content data analysis are well described.

The results are interesting and clearly describe. Identified discrepancies are explained.
Line 515 " A study investigated these obstacles…" Please reference which study.  Or should this be 'The study …"

Again in line 653 and 654, the proper names of subjects need to begin with a capital. 

The recommendations are based well on the results and useful. 

The references are appropriate but could be extended if the section on 'Areas of research' is extended.

Author Response

Reviewer 2’s Comments

Comment 1: Specify the country
Response 1: Added Estonia in the abstract, introduction, and methods.

Comment 2: Clarify national curriculum
Response 2: Now says “National curriculum for upper secondary schools (2023)” with full reference.

Comment 3: Clearer focus in Abstract
Response 3: rewritten to clarify

Comment 4: Avoid strong modality
Response 4: reworded

Comment 5: Use full names for frameworks
Response 5: Full name “Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu)” is now included with the EU link.

Comment 6: Condense definitions; add Estonia context instead
Response 6: Kept one clear definition of digital literacy → replaced extra theory with the Estonian digitalization overview (Tiger Leap, eKool,  AI, data literacy, DigCompEdu).

Comment 7: Combine repetitive sections (2.2 and 2.3)
Response Comment 12: 7:  Merged overlapping examples under Benefits and Challenges, emphasizing science-specific digital tools.

Comment 8: Add research questions clearly
Response 8: Included four clear research questions up front.

Comment 9: Capitalize proper names for subjects
Response 9: Checked and fixed Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography, General Science throughout.

Comment 10: Clarify references like “A study”
Response 10: Changed to “This study…” for consistency.

Comment 11: Add missing references for national frameworks and tools
Response 11: Added relevant references for DigCompEdu, and Estonian policy.

Comment 12: Explain the context of COVID-19
Response 12: Mentioned that the study took place during Estonia’s rapid digital adaptation post-pandemic.

Method section improvements:
Country now specified; University of Tartu included; research questions explicit.

Results clarifications:
Clear notes about discrepancies and barriers with full subject name capitalization.

Recommendations clearly tied to results:
Kept the part about the importance of equitable infrastructure, ongoing professional development, and advanced digital pedagogical practices.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was significantly improved. 

Author Response

Comment 1 – add partnership and collaboration to introduction

Response 1 - The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for rethinking educational practices, particularly highlighting the urgent need for digital competence among teachers. This transformation was not undertaken in isolation; it was often driven by dynamic partnerships between schools, and technology providers, as well as collaborations among science teachers themselves. These joint efforts were crucial in accelerating digital adaptation and fostering professional development under unprecedented circumstances.

Comment 2 - add partnership and collaboration to conclusions

Respons 2 -  In reflecting on the development of science teachers' digital competence during the pandemic, it is evident that sustained growth relied heavily on collaborative networks and cross-sector partnerships. The shared challenges of COVID-19 created a foundation for more integrated approaches to digital professional learning – approaches that should be sustained and deepened beyond the crisis period.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has contextualised the work well in the revised version and provided clearer structure to the initial sections of the article. This research contributes to understanding the readiness and use of digital tools in science education in Estonia. It provides a basis for replica studies as well as further research including applied research to focus on developing effective methods to improve digital readiness. 

Author Response

Comment 1 – add partnership and collaboration to introduction

Response 1 - The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for rethinking educational practices, particularly highlighting the urgent need for digital competence among teachers. This transformation was not undertaken in isolation; it was often driven by dynamic partnerships between schools, and technology providers, as well as collaborations among science teachers themselves. These joint efforts were crucial in accelerating digital adaptation and fostering professional development under unprecedented circumstances.

Comment 2 - add partnership and collaboration to conclusions

Respons 2 -  In reflecting on the development of science teachers' digital competence during the pandemic, it is evident that sustained growth relied heavily on collaborative networks and cross-sector partnerships. The shared challenges of COVID-19 created a foundation for more integrated approaches to digital professional learning – approaches that should be sustained and deepened beyond the crisis period.