STEM Teachers’ Digital Competence: Different Subjects, Different Proficiencies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled "Digital competence of STEM teachers: are Portuguese teachers prepared?" is relevant to the mission of the journal. The article is important because it is a study that proposes to measure the digital competence of a sample of Portuguese teachers and to examine the differences between different STEM subjects.

Consistency is maintained between the title and the content of the article, as well as in the abstract, which clearly presents the research work carried out. This coherence results in a deeper understanding of the problem analysed in the article, giving readers the opportunity to engage with the research in a smooth and transparent way.

The theoretical basis is built around the objective of the study. The background to the topic is contemporary and relevant, providing readers with a solid theoretical foundation. Both the general objectives and the research questions are precisely defined in relation to the topic explored. The structure of the work is effective, facilitating a smooth understanding of the study.

It is interesting to note the robustness of the methodology employed in this study. The selection and application of appropriate methodological approaches have enabled a thorough and rigorous exploration of the issues investigated. The clarity in the description of the methods employed and the justification of methodological choices contribute to the reliability of the results obtained.

The results are presented in a clear manner, which allows for easy comprehension by the reader. At the same time, the results are relevant to the topic presented. It would be necessary to state at the end of the conclusions what limitations were encountered in carrying out the study.

Author Response

We thank you for your careful analysis and your complimentary comments on the article. Regarding the article and suggestions for improvement, we inform you that we have included the limitations at the end (in red).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has an original topic, and it presents an important aspect of STEM teachers’ professional competence, namely their digital competences, according to the DigCompEdu. The abstract of the paper correctly reflects its content. The keywords are appropriate and represent the key concepts in the paper, maybe except for ‘digital technologies’ which are not explicitly addressed in the paper (I recommend these to be omitted). The introduction highlights the gap in current knowledge and grounds the relevance of the study demonstrating that the STEM teachers’ digital competence is not well studied and defined. The literature review includes 30 previous studies which is a good basis for such a huge empirical study. The design and procedures of the study are well explained, and following its main goals, they have the potential to derive answers to the research questions. The study method is a survey, and the sample consists of 20 935 Portugal teachers. The data collection and process are clear and well described although some restructuring of their explanations should be considered. The study results are presented robustly but deeper discussion would be beneficial.

In my opinion, the paper has scientific value, but it needs some revisions. My recommendations are as follows:

-         The title needs a revision – it is not clear what teachers are or are not ready for. Is it for teaching digital competences or STEM? Probably this question is redundant.

-         The first 3 paragraphs of the Introduction are very far from the essence of the study, and I suggest shortening and summarizing them.

-         The RQs are not clearly stated. The first one should include the word digital (digital proficiency scores), because now it implies that teachers’ proficiency in teaching STEM is explored. The second one implies that differences are sought between digital competence areas and STEM subjects, but the subjects are not investigated in the study, but the teachers who teach different STEM subjects.  

-         The sample and procedures, the instrument and the data analysis are part of the design of the study and should be included as parts of one section “Methodology” or “Design of the study”. In my opinion, the procedure and sampling should be first explained and then the demographic characteristics of the respondents to be presented. I would recommend rows 162 to 173 to be moved before row 146.

-         The paper needs an extension of the discussion section. There are many results which are not explicitly discussed in the relevant section. The first sentence of the discussion section should be explained. What are the differences? It should be clarified one more time here and then explained by the authors through their suggestions. Also, there is a lack of discussion about the different areas from DigCompEdu and the differences between the teachers’ competences in them. What about the 6^th area of DigCompEdu? Do teachers define themselves as capable of facilitating learners’ digital competences? Is this necessary for teaching STEM?

-         Row 36: I really think that “the proper use and effectiveness of technology require different competences and literacies, such as digital and …” pedagogic, not scientific. I suggest authors reconsider this.

Author Response

We analyzed the comments and suggestions and highlighted:

• New Title: STEM teachers' digital competence: different subjects, different proficiencies
• we removed the keywords “Digital technologies”;
• The first 3 paragraphs of the Introduction have been shortened.
• we sought to add another dimension to the discussion of the results, given the scarcity of studies in Portugal on different paths in teacher educating courses in these areas (highlighted in red in the discussion);
• Upon submission a title was mistakenly deleted. Before the Sample and procedure section, the title Methodology is missing.
• We agree with suggestion about RQs.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

It is a pleasure for me to review and collaborate with you in improving the publication of this paper. 

 

Your sample is widely surprising. And it catches my attention very much, for which I congratulate you.

 

However, it is not all good news...

 

We need you to describe more fully the instruments and methodological procedures used. You need to justify the origin of the data. It is also desirable that the data have been protected in accordance with the data protection regulations of your institution and that the participants were informed.

 

In general, the methodology needs to be improved and expanded. 

 

 

The study of the results is more extensive. And I value positively the graphic descriptions they make. Check that they are all correctly entered following the MDPI template.

 

The paper does not conform to the template and standards of the journal. You should review this section before continuing. I advise you to reread other publications. 

 

In particular, you should check the MPDI citation, which works with numbers, and establish a relationship between this numbering and the final citations. You can use a citation manager such as Zotero, to which you should add the specific MDPI model.

 

In their citations it is even visible that some of the previous citations have been copied from another document and carry a background mark or underline.

 

The distribution of the work should be identified according to the sections indicated in the template and in the MPDI publications. Use initials for this purpose. 

Author Response

We analyzed the comments and suggestions and highlighted:

• described more fully the instruments and methodological procedures used.
• carried out all other specific suggestions identified, as you can see in the full article attached (highlighted in red). For example, it is already stated in the article that "The purposes of the survey were fully disclosed and teachers gave their consent before starting it".
• try to make changes according to the template and standards of the journal and distribution of the work was identified according to the sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

 

After making the indicated modifications. I accept the article.

 

Only the new appearance of the contributions caught my attention. However, I understand that it cannot be improved now because it would show the authors. Remember to use for it the MDPI format with initials and tasks performed. You can see it in other articles.

 

Best regards