After the Pandemic: Teacher Professional Development for the Digital Educational Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article "After the Pandemic: Teacher Professional Development for the Digital Educational Innovation" submitted for review is part of the current research on emergency remote education, focusing on the person of the teacher and selected aspects of his/her work (overcoming barriers, received support, as well as opportunities for self-development by building a support network) during the Covid-19 pandemic. Many articles highlight the problems faced by teachers, students and parents. The author/authors also discuss this topic in the presented article. However, they notice not only the difficulties that teachers had to face during this difficult time, but also try to see the opportunities and possibilities brought by this change, forcing teachers to reorganize their work, improve their own competences, use innovations, build a support network and professional development. The presented research contributes to the theory and practice of teacher professional development.

When analysing the structure and content of the article, I noticed the following elements that, in my opinion, require rethinking and clarification:

·       The title emphasizes the post-pandemic situation, while the article focuses on the situation of teachers during the pandemic and does not sufficiently emphasize the conclusions drawn from this experience and development prospects for the future (after the pandemic).

·       I propose to provide information on group selection. The research group is small and very diverse in terms of educational level as well as the subjects taught. Researchers asked about experience in work, digital education, remote teaching, and the issues of digital competences enabling, among others, during crisis remote education, were omitted for better adaptation of the workplace to current needs.

·       There is no reference to the research problems in the results, discussions and conclusions.

·       Is the aim of the project important for the entire presented article? Consideration should be given to the legitimacy of such a broad description of the project's purpose. In this case, the aim and subject of research formulated for the purpose of the article, which are only a part of the whole, is more important.

·       It is worth considering the designation of respondents, e.g. Teacher 1, Teacher 2. In the current structure it is not known whether the quoted statements come from one respondent or from many.

·       With such a small sample of respondents, one should be careful with generalizing the results obtained and relating them to the population.

·       No references in the article to bibliographic item No. 36.

Referring to the technical side of the article, it is worth following:

·       Abbreviations: the abbreviation PD appears in line 57 of the text, is it a spelling mistake or a newly introduced abbreviation that needs to be expanded? It also appears in lines 84 and 87.

·       Parentheses: in line 66 there is an open parenthesis, its closure is missing in the paragraph, it seems that it ends only in the next paragraph in line 88 - it becomes hard to read. In my opinion, the brackets should be one block per paragraph, which increases its readability. On line 164, the closing parenthesis appears and the opening parenthesis is missing. On line 197 (before the number 5) there is an opener and the closing parenthesis is missing.

·       On line 211, c) should appear instead of d) (it looks like one block fell out).

·       On line 237, instead of the ellipsis (...), 4 dots appear (“…. we did the course with…).

The author/authors of the article are part of the research on education during the Covid-19 pandemic and its implications for the post-pandemic period. The author/authors not only show that, based on the experiences of emergency remote education, we can build strategies not only for the professional development of teachers based on cooperation networks, but also encourage reflection on what we can permanently incorporate from these experiences into educational practice.

I recommend the article for publication after corrections.

Author Response

Please see the response in the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Everything is done properly. I would just suggest to analyse potential differences between three countries and to discuss them. 

Author Response

No changes were required

Reviewer 3 Report

The study was conducted on an unrepresentative group, i.e. too few people, considering the fact that the study was conducted in 3 countries - and only 15 people were considered. There is no information on the basis on which these people were selected, what was the decisive factor, were they chosen at random? Another puzzling factor is why countries with such different cultures and approaches to the use of modern methods in educational practice are included?

 The results of the study presented, despite their readability, cannot be used as a reference point for the entire population of teachers in the countries where the study was conducted, and can only be referred to as a pilot study verifying the actual state of affairs. 

Paying attention to the problems arising from remote education, are presented in various types of report, including those of the EU, so the issues presented do not contribute much to pedeutology in the context of the use of modern methods and means of teaching which are modern technological solutions in the field of education.

The style and language in some places need minor revisions for greater readability and understanding of the issues presented.

The literature consists of 48 items, which are current items. 

To sum up: the article presented for review presents a pilot study rather than a study referring to a wide population of academic teachers in the context of application, use of activities, good practices related to TPD and the needs resulting from ERT. Reading the article submitted for review, one gets the impression that another article by the author(s) of this study should have been read before it. The lack of explanations, the small number of questionnaire interviews conducted, the lack of in-depth analysis (although there is a qualitative aftermath) do not give grounds for continuing the publishing procedure after a re-review.

Author Response

Please see the response in the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. I find it very interesting and timely. Practical implications are considerable, both for educational practice and for future research. However, several revisions may make it more suitable for publication.

 

Introduction

• The authors claim "As a continuation of previous studies on self-initiated teacher communities and re-organization of teaching and learning during covid (...)". I would ask the authors to indicate which previous studies they refer to and to reference them appropriately.
• From lines 33 to 49, the authors state the aim of the study. I would recommend reducing this part and being clearer. The sentences are redundant and do not allow the problem to be focused on.
• What do the authors mean by 'abductive approaches'?
• The title of section 2.2 is unclear
• It is not clear to me how the mesosystem discussion fits in. I would ask the authors to link the sections more clearly. The sections seem disconnected from each other. 

 

Study context, methodology and methods

• I think it is interesting to define the 3 study contexts (why they were chosen, and what characteristics they have). Then the aims and hypotheses of the study. 
• Line 199: "The main foci of data were based on the theorising provided in previous research as already underlined in chapter 2.". I believe there is a typo.
• The authors report 3 questions that they believe summarise the entire protocol (in the appendix). I think it may be more appropriate to define only the areas of investigation.
• Line 222 "As already mentioned, the paper is based on several notions described in chapter 2 (...)". I do not understand the reference to Chapter 2. I would ask the authors to pay attention to this which is often repeated in the manuscript. Also, if this article is also linked to the publication of a book (to which the cross-reference refers), it is important to specify this.
• Lines 224-228 "Of course, the experiences of the countries are not identical (for instance, in Spain, there is more emphasis on innovation and pedagogy and a lack of macro-level support, in Turkey – lack of infrastructure and devices, in Italy – the divide caused by distance and related interaction issues)". This is evidence from the analysis of the interviews or from a previous context analysis that the authors did? If it comes from a context analysis I would ask the authors to specify this important information in the "study context". While if they refer to the interview results, it should be clarified how they are related to a previous context analysis the authors have done.

 

Discussion

In the discussion, it is also necessary to discuss the results of the interviews in light of the 3 survey contexts. The theoretical framework that the authors then propose is interesting. I would also ask them to include that it can be implemented within educational policies (in various EU contexts). 

 

Finally, I think the paper is interesting but needs to be carefully re-read. The framework needs to be better linked, the model leading up to the interview better specified and the discussions reasoned in the light of the interview results (and not just the proposed new framework). 

I would also ask for a careful re-reading because the paper has too many typos and a constant reference to chapter 2.

Author Response

Please see the response in the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for making the article available again for review. The changes made allow the article to be accepted for further publishing procedure.

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept in present form.