Digital Skills, ICTs and Students’ Needs: A Case Study in Social Work Degree, University of Zaragoza (Aragón-Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with studying the use of digital technology in higher education. The research was conducted at universities in Spain in social work departments.

The research is comprehensive, in-depth, and, undoubtedly, its results are of interest. The methodology of the study is well described. The competencies investigated and the relationships between them are also convincing. Therefore, on the whole, the article leaves a good impression. 

Regarding the weaknesses of the paper, I would note the following.

The authors assume a widespread and well-known perception of digital technologies in education, which is the instrumental concept based on the perception of the technologies as innovative tools. Therefore, the focus of their study is on digital competencies and skills. Of course, these competencies and skills are of clear interest, and their formation is important. However, if we limit ourselves to such an instrumental perception, the picture is incomplete. 

The digital transformation of the society in which we live is much more fundamental than changes in how we interact, store, transmit or process information. Today there is evidence that the digital transformation is not just about changing the media around us. It is a revolution in our consciousness, in the way we think about the world (Floridi, 2014). Such digital transformations as the virtualization of reality, the moving to informational abundance, and the blurring of boundaries between nature and artifacts are manifested in the beliefs of today's teachers. (Tsibulsky and Levin, 2017). 

I would recommend that the authors supplement the paper with references to transformations in teachers' worldviews in the introduction and provide the corresponding information related to their study in the discussion and conclusions section. 

References: 
Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. OUP Oxford.

Tsybulsky, D., & Levin, I. (2019). Science teachers' worldviews in the age of the digital revolution: Structural and content analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102921.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

The paper deals with studying the use of digital technology in higher education. The research was conducted at universities in Spain in social work departments.

The research is comprehensive, in-depth, and, undoubtedly, its results are of interest. The methodology of the study is well described. The competencies investigated and the relationships between them are also convincing. Therefore, on the whole, the article leaves a good impression. 

Thank you so much

 

Regarding the weaknesses of the paper, I would note the following.

The authors assume a widespread and well-known perception of digital technologies in education, which is the instrumental concept based on the perception of the technologies as innovative tools. Therefore, the focus of their study is on digital competencies and skills. Of course, these competencies and skills are of clear interest, and their formation is important. However, if we limit ourselves to such an instrumental perception, the picture is incomplete. 

The digital transformation of the society in which we live is much more fundamental than changes in how we interact, store, transmit or process information. Today there is evidence that the digital transformation is not just about changing the media around us. It is a revolution in our consciousness, in the way we think about the world (Floridi, 2014). Such digital transformations as the virtualization of reality, the moving to informational abundance, and the blurring of boundaries between nature and artifacts are manifested in the beliefs of today's teachers. (Tsibulsky and Levin, 2017). 

I would recommend that the authors supplement the paper with references to transformations in teachers' worldviews in the introduction and provide the corresponding information related to their study in the discussion and conclusions section. 

 

Thanks for your kind reminders. We have incorporated the references, and added several ideas in the text (introduction and conclusions) as you recommend. You can find them highlighted in yellow: Pg 3, Ln 86-95; Pg 5, Ln 164-166; Pg 19, Ln 770-771; 775-778.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to revise this paper titled: “Digital skills, ICTs and students' needs. A case study in Social Work degree, University of Zaragoza (Aragón-Spain)”

 

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for an interesting paper, which seems generally well crafter and written, dealing with an important topic.

 

I have, however, a few suggestions for the authors:

 

First of all, I would recommend that they clearly, and early in the paper, state the research question (and if possible in the form of a question), that is the main goal of the paper. This should be done based on what has been done in the literature but especially on what has not been (the gap they are trying to fill), so the readers know soon what is the overall aim.

 

Second, at the end of section 1 the authors state their “working hypothesis”. But then they claim they just compare the levels of competences of students and teachers. This is technically not a hypothesis, as they do not show what they expect in terms of sign, and previously there is no discussion on what could be expected and why. It seems this is more an aim of the paper, not a hypothesis. Besides, the fact there is not much discussion on what it could be expected and why, gives the paper an overall exploratory nature that should be acknowledged in the paper.

 

Did you check for potential common method bias?

 

Also, did you check if there were any systematic differences between early and late respondents?

 

Were there differences by gender?

 

In the discussion section, it would be important to put the results obtained in context, and linked to, previous research (with specific references to the literature). How does the current study results contribute to ongoing debates in the literature, or to specific theories or streams of publications? How do they confirm, extend, or contradict previous results?

 

Similarly, it would be important to include a paragraph(s) about the limitations of the study, as well as the potential areas for future research that arise from this study.

 

 

I wish the author(s) good luck!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Thank you for the opportunity to revise this paper titled: “Digital skills, ICTs and students' needs. A case study in Social Work degree, University of Zaragoza (Aragón-Spain)”

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for an interesting paper, which seems generally well crafter and written, dealing with an important topic.

Thank you very much

I have, however, a few suggestions for the authors:

Thanks, for your time and suggestions. We have incorporated the references, and added several ideas thorough text as you recommend. You can find them highlighted in yellow

First of all, I would recommend that they clearly, and early in the paper, state the research question (and if possible, in the form of a question), that is the main goal of the paper. This should be done based on what has been done in the literature but especially on what has not been (the gap they are trying to fill), so the readers know soon what is the overall aim.

Thank you. We added it, please see Pg 3, Ln 86-95

Second, at the end of section 1 the authors state their “working hypothesis”. But then they claim they just compare the levels of competences of students and teachers. This is technically not a hypothesis, as they do not show what they expect in terms of sign, and previously there is no discussion on what could be expected and why. It seems this is more an aim of the paper, not a hypothesis. Besides, the fact there is not much discussion on what it could be expected and why, gives the paper an overall exploratory nature that should be acknowledged in the paper.

Thank you very much for your previous comments that helped us improve this manuscript. We have changed it, please see Pg 10, Ln 362-370.

Did you check for potential common method bias?

 

Thanks for your suggestion. We conducted a pretest with the online questionnaire and it was endorsed by several experts, as we publish here part of a larger research.

Also, did you check if there were any systematic differences between early and late respondents?

Thank you for your comment. In fact, there was not a large time difference in the answers, since they were obtained in half an academic semester.

Were there differences by gender?

Thanks for your comment. We don’t think so, since almost 100% were female, male responses were not significant.

In the discussion section, it would be important to put the results obtained in context, and linked to, previous research (with specific references to the literature). How does the current study results contribute to ongoing debates in the literature, or to specific theories or streams of publications? How do they confirm, extend, or contradict previous results?

 

Thank you very much for your suggesitions and ideas. We added it in some paragraphs in the "discussion section", and several references, as you recommend us. Please see Pg 17, Ln 687-701

 

Similarly, it would be important to include a paragraph(s) about the limitations of the study, as well as the potential areas for future research that arise from this study.

Thank you. We added these contents, please see Pg 19, Ln 789-797.

I wish the author(s) good luck!

 

Thank you very much for your good wishes and your time.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments