The Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development in Guided Role-Playing Simulations for Sustainable Pre-Service Teacher Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the paper is of interest and is generally well written. But there is a question that worries me, and that is the validity and reliability of the measuring instruments. I make some observations, among which I will address this issue.

1. In the research questions, the four phases of interest development are mentioned, and nothing had been said about them in the introduction.
2. The first paragraph of the Participants section should be extended to well describe participating teachers.
3. The second paragraph, everything related to the distinction of groups, should go in a later section of Analysis. The instruments should be described in the corresponding section of Measures. If there have been measures before and after, the instruments should be presented separately.
4. If the interest development instrument was adapted, it should have been validated. It is important to provide the validation of the multi-dimensional model they refer to. Each sub-element should also be described.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the research questions, the four phases of interest development are mentioned, and nothing had been said about them in the introduction.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the four phases of interest development should be explicitly introduced in the Introduction to provide conceptual continuity and clarity. In the revised manuscript (Section 1.2), we added a paragraph that introduces and defines the four phases of interest development based on Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) model: triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest. We also explain their relevance in simulation-based learning for preservice teachers. Furthermore, we refer back to these phases in Section 1.3 (Research Questions) to ensure consistency between the conceptual framework and the study's objectives.

Comments 2: The first paragraph of the Participants section should be extended to well describe participating teachers.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have expanded the first paragraph of the Participants section to include more detailed information about the participants’ academic year distribution, and recruitment process.

Comments 3: The second paragraph, everything related to the distinction of groups, should go in a later section of Analysis. The instruments should be described in the corresponding section of Measures. If there have been measures before and after, the instruments should be presented separately.

Response 3: We appreciate your guidance. All information related to participant classification into efficacy groups has been moved to the Data Analysis section. Similarly, details about the classroom management self-efficacy instrument are now located in the Measures section. Pre- and post-measures are presented separately in the Measures section.

Comments 4: If the interest development instrument was adapted, it should have been validated. It is important to provide the validation of the multi-dimensional model they refer to. Each sub-element should also be described.

Response 4: Thank you for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we clarified that the instrument was adapted from validated measures based on four-phase model of interest development. To ensure content and contextual validity, the items were translated into Korean and reviewed by two experts in educational technology. We also added brief descriptions of each sub-element (TSI, MSI, EII, WII) to improve clarity and alignment with the theoretical framework. Furthermore, we reported the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) of each subscale as found in the current study (TSI = .688, MSI = .688, EII = .805, WII = .776), and presented the corresponding reliability values from the original sources for reference.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. pre - service teachers at which level of education? It has to be clear from the abstract
2. Additionally it has to be clearer from the beginning how the present work is related with sustainability. While I was reading the abstract, the first time, I was wondering whether the manuscript has been submitted to the appropriate  journal. The last sentences are not convincing.  
3. I agree that the student behavior management and the classroom leadership is extremely important for both pre-service and in-service programs. 
4. Authors use relevant references.
5. Which was the population of the study (number) and how the 58 participants were selected?
6. The guided role playing simulation was well structured and well justified. 
7. excellent presentation of the results
8. While reading the study I had a feeling that almost all the findings were expectable. Authors have to highlight further the rationality of their work and the  practical implications. 
9. After reading and reviewing the whole manuscript I have a serious concern about its appropriateness for the specific journal. I cannot understand the relation with the sustainability and I have a concern that it is more suitable to educational journals such as "Education Sciences"

Author Response

Comments 1: pre - service teachers at which level of education? It has to be clear from the abstract

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. In response, we revised the abstract to clarify that the participants were undergraduate students enrolled in a secondary teacher certification track at a college of education.

Comments 2: Additionally it has to be clearer from the beginning how the present work is related with sustainability. While I was reading the abstract, the first time, I was wondering whether the manuscript has been submitted to the appropriate  journal. The last sentences are not convincing.  

Response 2: We revised the opening and closing of the abstract to better articulate the relevance of this study to sustainability in teacher education. Specifically, we highlight how guided simulations can serve as scalable and adaptive tools that promote enduring professional engagement, thereby contributing to sustainable teacher development. We hope this addresses your concerns and better aligns the manuscript with the journal’s scope.

Comments 3: Which was the population of the study (number) and how the 58 participants were selected?

Response 3: Thank you for the clarification request. Participants (n=58) were recruited through paid advertisements posted on the university website and social media, targeting education majors in the College of Education.

Comments 4: While reading the study I had a feeling that almost all the findings were expectable. Authors have to highlight further the rationality of their work and the practical implications. 

Response 4: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We understand the importance of emphasizing the theoretical rationale and the practical significance of the study, especially given that some of the findings may appear intuitive. In the revised conclusion, we have strengthened our articulation of the study’s rationale—specifically the need to empirically examine how individual differences in classroom management efficacy shape simulation-based learning outcomes. Furthermore, we have expanded the discussion of practical implications by highlighting how adaptive simulation design can inform teacher training programs and promote sustainable professional development. We hope these revisions better communicate the value of the study and its relevance to both researchers and practitioners.

Comments 5: After reading and reviewing the whole manuscript I have a serious concern about its appropriateness for the specific journal. I cannot understand the relation with the sustainability and I have a concern that it is more suitable to educational journals such as "Education Sciences"

Response 5: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We have clarified the connection to sustainability in the revised abstract and conclusion. This study contributes to educational sustainability by addressing teacher retention and instructional quality—key challenges linked to classroom management. It also highlights simulation-based training as a sustainable and scalable approach to pre-service teacher development, offering repeated, low-cost practice opportunities without relying solely on field placements. We hope this explanation clarifies the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review The Effects of Classroom Management Efficacy on Interest Development in Guided Role-Playing Simulations for Sustainable 3 Pre-service Teacher Training. Addressing pre-service classroom management (CM) development is an area worthy of study. Addressing how simulations can assist in that development adds novelty to the literature.

Introduction:

Authors do a good job of reviewing the literature regarding the need for CM specifically for preservice teachers and the gaps they have compared to in-service teachers. Authors do a nice job of explaining how simulations can be part of that CM development.

 

• Need for Teacher Simulation – Justify why simulation is a viable option in training preservice teachers in CM compared to in-person? What are some draw backs to only having field based options and/or the benefits of how simulations complement the classroom portion and field based components?

 

The authors discuss the “interest in simulations” throughout the study. The literature on this could be a bit more robust. Are there studies of preservice teachers that have examined this that you could use as examples to validate this? page 3/18

 

Literature Review

2.1 – not sure the title is appropriate for the content in this section. This section mostly discusses simulations.

 

2.4 – This seems to be the model you are using. Be very explicit that this is the model that frames your study and how you analyze the data.

 

Methods

 

Participants:

The participants varied by classification. How did this factor into the findings? Were these students enrolled in a CM course? Were they all pursing teaching?

-CM self-efficacy scores – explain this and maybe include them so it is clear how the categorization was done.

 

Instruments: Authors mention a 5-items item Likert  scale to determine their classroom management efficacy score. More detail is needed on this. What are the 5 items? Include this as a table or as an appendix item.

-Why was this instrument used? Was it validated or created by the authors? Be more specific as to how it was selected, why it was selected, and why it was an appropriate tool.

 

How did the authors pick the platform they used for this study? It says it was developed by the  by the authors? How do you ensure this simulation is credible and valid for measuring your research objectives? More should be discussed on how it was developed and the research to support the development as you designed it.

 

Procedures:

Authors should explain why this was done in groups of six instead of individually. Was this discussed among the group? How did that play into the choices made during the simulation? This could be a limitation that needs addressed.

 

Findings

Charts are helpful to complement the findings narrative.

 

Rigorous methods used with the analysis.

 

Authors do not factor in that the participants are from a variety of classifications (freshmen, sophomore, etc). More info is needed on who these people were and their educational backgrounds before the discussion can adequately be examined by this reviewer.

Author Response

Comments 1: Need for Teacher Simulation – Justify why simulation is a viable option in training preservice teachers in CM compared to in-person? What are some draw backs to only having field based options and/or the benefits of how simulations complement the classroom portion and field based components?

Response 1: We appreciate this insightful comment. In the revised Introduction (Section 1.1), we have expanded our explanation to clarify why simulation-based training is an important complement to field experiences. Specifically, we emphasize the pedagogical benefits of simulations—such as repeated, feedback-rich practice and scenario control—as well as the practical constraints of field-based training. We also highlight how simulations can bridge the gap between theory learned in coursework and the realities of classroom management.

Comments 2: The authors discuss the “interest in simulations” throughout the study. The literature on this could be a bit more robust. Are there studies of preservice teachers that have examined this that you could use as examples to validate this?

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In response, we expanded Section 1.2 to include recent literature specifically focusing on preservice teachers’ interest in simulation-based training. We cite recent studies (e.g., Lin et al., 2024; Martindale et al., 2025) that examine how preservice teachers’ interest is influenced by the perceived authenticity, relevance, and manageability of simulation tasks. We also link this literature to the engagement process and explain its importance for simulation outcomes in teacher education. 

Comments 3: Literature Review 2.1 – not sure the title is appropriate for the content in this section. This section mostly discusses simulations.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that the original title "Classroom Management Efficacy" did not adequately reflect the primary focus of this section. In response, we have revised the section title to "Simulating Classroom Management" to better represent the emphasis on simulation-based approaches for developing classroom management skills.

Comments 4: 2.4 – This seems to be the model you are using. Be very explicit that this is the model that frames your study and how you analyze the data.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We agree that the four-phase model of interest development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006) is central to our study. To clarify its role, we have explicitly stated that this model serves as both the theoretical framework for designing the simulation and the basis for analyzing participants’ responses. This clarification has been added at the beginning and end of the section.

Comments 5: Methods Participants: The participants varied by classification. How did this factor into the findings? Were these students enrolled in a CM course? Were they all pursing teaching?

-CM self-efficacy scores – explain this and maybe include them so it is clear how the categorization was done.

 Response 5: Thank you for this important point. We have clarified that all participants were pre-service teachers in the College of Education. We have also addressed the distribution of participants by academic classification and reported in the Results section that classification (freshman–senior) did not significantly affect the outcomes.

 Comments 6: Instruments: Authors mention a 5-items item Likert scale to determine their classroom management efficacy score. More detail is needed on this. What are the 5 items? Include this as a table or as an appendix item. -Why was this instrument used? Was it validated or created by the authors? Be more specific as to how it was selected, why it was selected, and why it was an appropriate tool.

 Response 6: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. In response, we have added a detailed explanation of the classroom management efficacy instrument to the Measures section. The instrument was adapted from Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (OSTES), a widely used and validated measure of teacher self-efficacy. We selected five items specifically related to classroom management from the original long form to suit the context and time constraints of the simulation-based task.

To ensure content validity, the selected items were reviewed by two experts in teacher education and translated into Korean using a translation-back translation procedure. The five items were also included in the main text.

Comments 7: How did the authors pick the platform they used for this study? It says it was developed by the  by the authors? How do you ensure this simulation is credible and valid for measuring your research objectives? More should be discussed on how it was developed and the research to support the development as you designed it.

Response 7:  Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We clarify that the simulation used in this study was developed by the authors as part of an instructional design-based research project. The simulation was designed specifically to support the development of classroom management skills in pre-service teachers, guided by relevant research and expert consultation. To ensure its credibility and validity, the simulation was reviewed and evaluated by in-service teachers with classroom experience, who confirmed its effectiveness in reflecting realistic classroom challenges and its applicability to classroom management training. We have added further explanation in the revised Methods section.

 Comments 8:

Procedures: Authors should explain why this was done in groups of six instead of individually. Was this discussed among the group? How did that play into the choices made during the simulation? This could be a limitation that needs addressed.

Response 8:  Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We clarify that the simulation was conducted in groups of six. Each participant independently selected a preferred response option, and the simulation proceeded based on the majority vote within the group.
This group-based format was chosen to simulate a realistic classroom decision-making context and to maintain experimental efficiency. However, we acknowledge that this format may have influenced individual responses, and this limitation is now noted in the revised manuscript.

Comments 9: Authors do not factor in that the participants are from a variety of classifications (freshmen, sophomore, etc). More info is needed on who these people were and their educational backgrounds before the discussion can adequately be examined by this reviewer.

Response 9:  Thank you for your comment. We have clarified the academic classification of participants (freshman through senior) in the Participants section. While participants came from different year levels, they were all enrolled in secondary teacher education programs, and their classification did not significantly affect the outcomes. We regret that no additional demographic information beyond gender and academic classification was collected. We acknowledge this as a limitation of the study and will explicitly include it in the Limitations section of the manuscript.