“What Kind of Physical Education Lesson Do I Envision?”: A Theoretically Grounded Analysis Based on Teacher and Student Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting and relevant topic, as it addresses the conception of the Physical Education class from the perspective of different generations of students and teachers. The dialogue between generational theory and curricular theory is timely and necessary in the current educational context, so the theoretical contribution of the manuscript is valuable.

However, the qualitative methodology presents several limitations that must be addressed before considering the acceptance of the manuscript.

First, there are aspects that require a thorough review to ensure the internal consistency of the study. The authors claim to have reached theoretical saturation with only 16 interviews per group, but they do not provide a solid justification explaining why this number is sufficient in relation to the breadth of the theoretical framework used. I recommend explicitly justifying how it was determined that saturation had been achieved.

Likewise, on (lines 177-187), the sample selection based on “success indicators” from the Ministry of Education is ambiguous and requires more precise wording. It would be advisable to expand the description of these criteria, provide examples of how they were applied in practice, and explain how the final sample ensures transferability in qualitative terms.

The method combines directed content analysis, open thematic analysis, and a deductive framework based on Strauss-Howe + TYMM. This methodological simultaneity, if not presented in greater detail, may generate a clear risk of confirmatory bias, given that the deductive codes appear to precede the data and there is a possibility that the theoretical categories condition the interpretation of the testimonies.

My recommendation is clear: Include a table showing how genuinely inductive codes emerged, clearly differentiating them from the deductive ones.

Clarify the procedure used to avoid theoretical oversaturation or the overimposition of the Strauss-Howe/TYMM framework on the field data.

Structurally, the manuscript shows a marked imbalance between the length of the theoretical framework and the depth of the results. The conceptual analysis takes up almost half of the article, whereas the results section is relatively weak and underdeveloped. To strengthen the empirical contribution of the work, I recommend expanding the results section, incorporating more textual quotations, detailing emerging subthemes, and deepening the contrast between generational perspectives.

In the discussion section, I find the absence of a relevant aspect: the public/private imbalance in the sample, which has direct implications for the perceptions and experiences presented. This point should be explicitly incorporated as a limitation of the study, along with reflection on its possible impact on the findings.

The article also presents several noteworthy elements. In particular: it has organizational clarity and a coherent structure.

There is an interesting alignment between the results and the practical recommendations, especially regarding gamification, use of technology, and process-oriented assessment.

The topic is pertinent, and the theoretical approach has potential if the empirical foundation is strengthened.

In my opinion, if the authors adequately address the methodological refinements mentioned, especially the justification of saturation, transparency in the construction of the coding system, and the strengthening of the results, the article has potential to be published.

I request that the authors submit a revised version of the manuscript. Once the proposed improvements have been incorporated, I will be in a position to issue the final report.

Author Response

FEEDBACK REGARDING THE ACTIONS TAKEN

COMMENT 1
There are aspects that require a thorough review to ensure internal consistency. The authors claim to have reached theoretical saturation with only 16 interviews per group, but they provide no solid justification. I recommend explicitly justifying how saturation was determined.

RESPONSE
We revised the Methods section to provide a full justification for saturation. We clarified that saturation was assessed at two levels (code and meaning saturation), applied through an a priori stopping rule, and reached empirically at interview 16 in both groups. This rationale is now supported with methodological references demonstrating that meaning saturation typically stabilises around this number for focused research designs.

COMMENT 2
The sample selection based on “success indicators” from the Ministry of Education is ambiguous and needs more precise wording, examples of application, and explanation of qualitative transferability.

RESPONSE
We expanded the Study Group section to operationalise these indicators. We described how school performance was documented over three years, how verification was conducted through administrative records, and how these criteria functioned as purposive sampling logic. We also clarified how selecting high-exposure cases enhances narrative richness and transferability in qualitative inquiry.

COMMENT 3
The combination of directed content analysis, open thematic analysis, and deductive Strauss–Howe + TYMM framework may generate confirmation bias unless presented in greater detail.

RESPONSE
We inserted a new paragraph in the Data Analysis section explaining safeguards taken to minimise confirmatory bias. We stated that inductive open coding preceded theoretical application, deductive categories were treated as analytical probes rather than filters, negative
case analysis ensured retention of contradictory data, and dual coding strengthened reflexivity. This addresses the reviewer’s concern directly.

COMMENT 4
Include a table showing how genuinely inductive codes emerged, clearly distinguishing them from deductive ones.

RESPONSE
We created and inserted a new table entitled “Mapping of Inductive and Deductive Coding Processes” at the beginning of the Results section. The table visually separates emergent inductive codes from deductive theoretical categories and includes a negative case row. A brief bridging note was also added under the table to guide interpretation.

COMMENT 5
Clarify the procedure used to avoid theoretical oversaturation or overimposition of the Strauss–Howe/TYMM framework on field data.

RESPONSE
We added a dedicated methodological paragraph titled “Preventing Theoretical Over-Saturation” immediately below the bias mitigation explanation. It clarifies that theoretical models were bracketed during initial coding, reintroduced only after inductive stabilisation, applied as interrogative hypotheses, monitored through reflexive memoing, and checked via negative case retention. This demonstrates that theory informed analysis but did not predetermine it.

COMMENT 6
The manuscript shows imbalance between a long theoretical framework and a relatively weak results section. Results should be expanded with quotations, deeper subthemes, and stronger intergenerational contrast.

RESPONSE
We substantially revised and expanded the Results section. We added additional quotations from participants, elaborated sub-themes within each major theme, strengthened generational divergence narratives, and enhanced the Comparative Analysis subsection. These changes increase empirical depth and align the structure more evenly with the theoretical framing.

COMMENT 7
The discussion omits the public/private imbalance in the sample, which has implications for perceptions and experiences. This should be explicitly incorporated as a limitation, reflecting on its influence on findings.

RESPONSE
We added a new paragraph in the Discussion section immediately before the Limitations heading. It acknowledges the public/private imbalance, explains how institutional ecology may influence interpretations, and proposes future studies using more balanced or comparative sampling designs. This addresses the reviewer’s observation transparently.

CLOSING STATEMENT TO THE REVIEWER
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and detailed feedback. The revisions have directly addressed all concerns raised including saturation justification, sampling transparency, analytic safeguards, code-system clarity, empirical expansion, and contextual limitation reporting. These improvements have strengthened the methodological rigour and empirical contribution of the manuscript, and we appreciate the reviewer’s guidance in enhancing the overall quality and publishability of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important topic—the future-oriented design of physical education through a generational and curriculum-based lens. The integration of Strauss–Howe generational theory, recent curriculum reforms, and qualitative field evidence is original, relevant, and highly suitable for Sustainability, particularly given the journal’s interest in educational transformation, youth development, and sustainable pedagogical ecosystems. The manuscript is well organized and empirically rich; however, several points require clarification, refinement, and minor restructuring to strengthen academic rigour, transparency, and alignment with the journal’s standards.

Below are detailed comments and recommendations, organized by sections.

 

1. Title, Abstract, and Keywords

1.1 Journal mismatch
The manuscript still uses the Children template (page header, formatting, disclaimer). Please fully adapt to the Sustainability template.

1.2 Abstract is strong but long
The abstract reads well but is dense. Consider shortening the theoretical explanation and emphasizing key findings + implications more concisely.

1.3 Keywords
Add 1–2 sustainability-relevant terms (e.g., “educational sustainability,” “school ecosystems”) to better align with the journal's scope.

 

2. Introduction

2.1 International context gap
The introduction situates the research well within Turkey’s curricular evolution but lacks a brief international comparison to support global relevance.

2.2 Generational theory limitations
Strauss–Howe theory is widely used but also debated. Add a short paragraph clarifying known limitations and why the framework is still useful here.

2.3 Clarify research gap
The research gap should be more explicitly articulated at the end of the Introduction—specifically, the lack of studies connecting generational theory, curriculum reform, and physical education design.

 

3. Materials and Methods

3.1 Interview guide transparency
The manuscript mentions item development and piloting but provides no sample items. Include 2–3 example questions or move the full guide to Supplementary Materials.

3.2 Sampling and “success indicators”
The use of “success indicators” for school/participant selection may create selection bias. Add a justification or a limitation acknowledging this.

3.3 Coding process
The coding process is sound (MaxQDA, Kappa = 0.85), but consider briefly clarifying how disagreements were resolved (consensus meeting, arbitration, etc.).

3.4 Ethics
Add one sentence on future data storage (duration, conditions) to comply with standard MDPI expectations.

 

4. Results

4.1 Duplicated text on page 9
The paragraph containing STU-2 and STU-3 quotes appears twice. Please remove duplication.

4.2 Figures 1–2
State clearly that the figures are original designs created by the authors.
Add a short descriptive caption for clearer interpretation (e.g., “Thematic map of student/teacher perspectives”).

4.3 Comparative analysis section
The comparative analysis is strong, but some parts overlap with the Discussion. Consider shifting interpretive sentences into the Discussion for cleaner separation.

 

5. Discussion

5.1 Length and repetition
The Discussion is rich but occasionally repeats descriptive results. Condense by ~10–15%.

5.2 Connection to Sustainable Education
Since the submission is to Sustainability, strengthen the link between:

• sustainable pedagogical environments,
• long-term educational equity,
• intergenerational adaptability.
  A short conceptual bridge would significantly enhance relevance.

5.3 Generational theory and applicability
Include a brief critical reflection on applying generational theory in non-Western contexts (acknowledging cultural specificity).

 

6. Conclusions

6.1 Sharper contribution statement
The Conclusions section is solid; however, highlight more explicitly what specific contribution the study makes to sustainable physical education design.

6.2 Avoid new information
A few sentences introduce new details (e.g., school-level planning). Such elements should appear earlier or be removed.

 

7. Formatting and Technical Issues

Table 1 and Table 2 can be made more compact and visually balanced.

 

Overall Recommendation

The manuscript is strong and highly suitable for Sustainability, especially after aligning more clearly with the journal’s thematic focus and resolving several structural and methodological issues.

Author Response

FEEDBACK REGARDING THE ACTIONS TAKENCOMMENT 1

Abstract is strong but long   
The abstract reads well but is dense. Consider shortening the theoretical explanation and emphasizing key findings + implications more concisely.

RESPONSE

This study explores how teachers (Generations X–Y) and students (Generation Z) conceptualize effective physical education within the context of contemporary curricular reforms. Using theory-informed qualitative design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 32 participants and analyzed via inductivedeductive thematic triangulation. Findings indicate that students emphasise enjoyment, autonomy, pace, and technology integration, whereas teachers frame quality instruction in terms of feasibility, institutional support, and behavioural management. While both groups value engagement and fair assessment, their meanings differ structurally across generations. The study offers a generationally informed lens for redesigning learning environments and underscores implications for teacher education, school policy, and curriculum adaptation.

COMMENT 2 – Keywords

Add 1–2 sustainability-relevant terms (e.g., “educational sustainability,” “school ecosystems”) to better align with the journal’s scope.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this observation. The keywords section has been revised to ensure stronger alignment with the journal’s sustainability focus. Two terms consistent with the study’s conceptual boundaries were incorporated: “educational sustainability” and “pedagogical adaptation.” These terms more accurately reflect how the manuscript contributes to sustaining instructional design and curriculum responsiveness across generations, thereby improving thematic compatibility with the journal’s scope.

COMMENT 3 – International context gap

The introduction situates the research well within Turkey’s curricular evolution but lacks a brief international comparison to support global relevance.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate this constructive suggestion. To enhance international relevance, a brief comparative section was added to the end of the Introduction, positioning Türkiye’s curriculum reform and generational discourse alongside developments in other educational systems. This addition situates the study within broader global shifts toward learner-centred pedagogies, competency-based design, and generational responsiveness.

COMMENT 4 – Generational theory limitations

Strauss–Howe theory is widely used but also debated. Add a short paragraph clarifying known limitations and why the framework is still useful here.

 

RESPONSE:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. To acknowledge the contested nature of Strauss–Howe theory, a short reflexive paragraph was added in the Theoretical Framework section. It briefly highlights common criticisms (determinism, Western bias, cohort variability) and clarifies why the framework remains analytically valuable for structuring perceptual contrasts between generations in physical education.

COMMENT 5 – Clarify research gap

The research gap should be more explicitly articulated at the end of the Introduction—specifically, the lack of studies connecting generational theory, curriculum reform, and physical education design.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this valuable remark. A clearer research gap statement has now been inserted at the end of the Introduction. This paragraph explicitly identifies the absence of studies integrating generational theory, curriculum reform, and instructional design in physical education and emphasises how the present study addresses this gap.

COMMENT 6 – Interview guide transparency (Expanded)

The manuscript mentions piloting but provides no sample questions. Include 2–3 example teacher and student items.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this recommendation. To increase methodological transparency, separate example questions from both interview protocols (teacher and student versions) have been inserted into the Materials & Methods section. These reflect the core analytical dimensions of design, implementation, and assessment in physical education.

COMMENT 7 – Sampling and “success indicators”

The use of “success indicators” for school/participant selection may create selection bias. Add a justification or a limitation acknowledging this.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for raising this point. A clarifying statement has been added in the Study Group section explaining how “success indicators” were used as purposive sampling criteria grounded in information power logic rather than as a claim of representativeness. Additionally, the possible selection bias associated with this criterion has been explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations subsection.

COMMENT 8 – Coding process clarification

The coding process is sound (MaxQDA, Kappa = 0.85), but consider briefly clarifying how disagreements were resolved (consensus meeting, arbitration, etc.).

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this constructive comment. To improve analytic transparency, a clarification sentence was added in the Data Analysis section. This revision specifies that coding disagreements were resolved through consensus meetings, followed by adjudication by a third researcher when necessary.

COMMENT 9 – Ethics (Data Storage Clarity)

Add one sentence on future data storage (duration, conditions) to comply with MDPI expectations.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this important observation. A clarifying sentence has been added to the Ethics subsection indicating the duration, conditions, and access control procedures governing storage of anonymised interview data.

COMMENT 10 – Figures 1–2 attribution and clarity

State clearly that the figures are original designs created by the authors. Add a short descriptive caption for clearer interpretation (e.g., “Thematic map of student/teacher perspectives”).

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this suggestion. Statements confirming authorship were added beneath Figures 1 and 2, and descriptive captions were expanded to communicate interpretive meaning. These revisions clarify originality and enhance the readability of the visual representations.

COMMENT 11 – Comparative analysis section

The comparative analysis is strong, but some parts overlap with the Discussion. Consider shifting interpretive sentences into the Discussion for cleaner separation.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for this valuable observation. To ensure clearer structural separation between empirical reporting and interpretive discussion, interpretive statements embedded in the Comparative Analysis section have been relocated to the Discussion. The revised Comparative Analysis section now focuses primarily on descriptive contrasts, while meaning-making and theoretical implications are addressed in the Discussion.

COMMENT 12 — Length and repetition in Discussion
“The Discussion is rich but occasionally repeats descriptive results. Condense by ~10–15%.”

RESPONSE
Thank you for this observation. The Discussion section was reviewed sentence-by-sentence, and descriptive result statements that duplicated content already presented in the Results section were removed or rewritten into analytical commentary. Reducing redundancy yielded a cleaner separation between empirical reporting and interpretive meaning-making, resulting in approximately a 12% reduction in length.

COMMENT 13 — Connection to Sustainable Education

Since the submission is to Sustainability, strengthen the link between your generational analysis and concepts such as educational sustainability, school improvement, and long-term system adaptability.

RESPONSE

Thank you for this observation. We expanded the manuscript’s conceptual articulation of sustainable education. A bridging paragraph was added to both the Introduction and the Discussion, emphasising how intergenerational alignment in instructional design contributes to educational sustainability through equitable participation, learner motivation continuity, teacher adaptability, and curriculum implementation resilience.

COMMENT 14 — Sharper contribution statement + remove new information

RESPONSE

Thank you for this constructive feedback. The Conclusions section has been revised to articulate more explicitly the study’s contribution to sustainable physical education design. Additionally, sentences introducing new organisational-level information were removed to maintain alignment with journal conventions and ensure that the conclusion synthesises rather than expands upon earlier sections.

COMMENT 15

 

Tables 1 and 2 can be made more compact and visually balanced.

Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Tables 1 and 2 were redesigned in line with MDPI visual standards by:

• reducing row density
• consolidating overlapping descriptors
• increasing column symmetry
• shortening explanatory text
• and adding clearer sub-headings

This revision improved visual balance and readability.
The updated tables have been inserted in the manuscript (Table 1: p. 6; Table 2: p. 7).

REFEREE RESPONSE

Reviewer Comment 16 – Overall Recommendation

“The manuscript is strong and highly suitable for Sustainability, especially after aligning more clearly with the journal’s thematic focus and resolving several structural and methodological issues.”

Author's Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and appreciation of the article's contribution. The revisions, particularly strengthening the link to sustainability in education, clarifying analytical procedures, restructuring the Results and Discussion sections, and increasing methodological transparency, were made in line with your valuable feedback. We believe these improvements significantly enhance the conceptual consistency, empirical depth, and suitability of the article for the journal. Thank you for your constructive guidance and for recognizing the publication potential of this work.

Additionally, corrections made within the research are indicated in yellow and red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial effort and clear improvement in response to the first round of review. The integration of generational theory with curriculum reform has been strengthened, the methodological section is now considerably more transparent, and the overall analytical depth has increased. The study remains original, relevant, and well aligned with contemporary debates on physical education and generationally responsive pedagogy.

However, several important issues from the first review have not yet been fully addressed, and a number of technical and structural concerns remain, which prevent the manuscript from being acceptable in its current form.

Major Points

1. Abstract Length and Focus
   While the abstract is well written and informative, it remains overly dense and lengthy. Please reduce theoretical exposition and place stronger emphasis on key findings and practical implications. A more concise abstract would improve clarity and accessibility.
2. Keywords and Sustainability Alignment
   The keywords do not yet explicitly reflect the sustainability focus of the journal. Please add one or two sustainability-oriented terms (e.g., educational sustainability, school ecosystems, sustainable pedagogy) to strengthen alignment with Sustainability’s scope.
3. Sampling Strategy and Potential Bias
   The justification for selecting participants based on “success indicators” is well explained; however, the potential for selection bias is not explicitly acknowledged as a limitation. A brief critical reflection on this issue should be included in the Limitations section.
4. Duplicated Text in Results
   A paragraph containing student quotations (STU-2 and STU-3) appears twice in the Results section. This duplication should be removed.
5. Figures 1 and 2
   Please explicitly state in the captions that Figures 1 and 2 are original figures prepared by the authors. Additionally, slightly more descriptive captions would improve interpretability for readers.
6. Separation of Results and Discussion
   Some interpretive and theoretical statements remain in the Results section. For clearer structure, these should be moved to the Discussion section, reserving Results for descriptive and comparative reporting of findings.
7. Discussion Length and Redundancy
   The Discussion is conceptually strong but somewhat repetitive in places. A reduction of approximately 10–15% is recommended, focusing on synthesis rather than restating results.
8. Generational Theory in Non-Western Contexts
   Although limitations of Strauss–Howe theory are mentioned, a short explicit reflection on its application beyond Western contexts (including cultural specificity) would further strengthen theoretical rigor.
9. Conclusions Section
   The Conclusions are clear, but a few sentences introduce new elements (e.g., school-level planning implications). These should either be moved earlier in the manuscript or removed to avoid introducing new content at this stage.

Overall Assessment for Authors

The manuscript has strong potential and shows meaningful progress since the first review. Addressing the above technical, structural, and conceptual refinements should significantly improve its suitability for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

FEEDBACK REGARDİNG REFEREE DECİSİONS

1.Abstract Length and Focus

While the abstract is well written and informative, it remains overly dense and lengthy. Please reduce theoretical exposition and place stronger emphasis on key findings and practical implications. A more concise abstract would improve clarity and accessibility.

1.RESPONSE:

The prevıous abstract was over 200 words, but after edıtıng, ıt has been reduced to 182 words. the fınal versıon has been attached to the artıcle.

Abstract

Physical Education (PE) is envisioned differently across generations, yet these perspectives can be aligned with contemporary curriculum reform. Guided by Strauss–Howe generational theory and Turkey’s 2025 Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Model, this qualitative study examines lesson design preferences among teachers (Generations X and Y) and students (Generation Z). Thirty-two purposively selected participants from provinces identified by Ministry success indicators completed semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed through directed content analysis alongside thematic analysis. Findings indicate convergence on gamified, technology-supported, and individualized PE with process-oriented, fair assessment. Teachers endorse this vision while foregrounding constraints associated with infrastructure, time, space, and class size. The emergent profile mirrors the 2025 curriculum’s virtue–value–action orientation and its literacy and socio-emotional competencies. Four priorities translate the framework into implementable design: (i) multi-evidence assessment that captures performance and growth, (ii) systematic differentiation via station-based and modular activity designs, (iii) short feedback cycles coupled with structured student-voice mechanisms, and (iv) strengthened school digital infrastructure with targeted professional learning to build digital pedagogical competence. Overall, the study articulates a generationally informed, feasible architecture for PE that bears implications for curriculum development, teacher education, and school improvement.

 

2 Keywords and Sustainability Alignment    
The keywords do not yet explicitly reflect the sustainability focus of the journal. Please add one or two sustainability-oriented terms (e.g., educational sustainability, school ecosystems, sustainable pedagogy) to strengthen alignment with Sustainability’s scope.

2.RESPONSE:

Thank you for this observation. The keywords section has been revised to ensure stronger alignment with the journal’s sustainability focus. Two terms consistent with the study’s conceptual boundaries were incorporated: “educational sustainability” and “pedagogical adaptation.” These terms more accurately reflect how the manuscript contributes to sustaining instructional design and curriculum responsiveness across generations, thereby improving thematic compatibility with the journal’s scope.

Keywords: physical education; generational perspectives; pedagogy; student voice; curriculum reform; educational sustainability; pedagogical adaptation

3. Sampling Strategy and Potential Bias
   The justification for selecting participants based on “success indicators” is well explained; however, the potential for selection bias is not explicitly acknowledged as a limitation. A brief critical reflection on this issue should be included in the Limitations section.

3.RESPONSE:

Thank you for raising this point. A clarifying statement has been added in the Study Group section explaining how “success indicators” were used as purposive sampling criteria grounded in information power logic rather than as a claim of representativeness. Additionally, the possible selection bias associated with this criterion has been explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations subsection.

4. Duplicated Text in Results
   A paragraph containing student quotations (STU-2 and STU-3) appears twice in the Results section. This duplication should be removed

4.RESPONSE:

The duplication you noted has been addressed. The repeated paragraph with student quotations in the Results section has been removed, and the quotations are now presented once in the most contextually appropriate location. This resolves the redundancy and strengthens the section’s coherence.

The entire paragraph that has been changed in the section is as follows. “Students foregrounded fairness as a precondition for meaningful participation and stated that assessment should consider not only end results but also effort and developmental progress. Participant remarks illustrated this expectation: “Rather than scoring everyone by a single yardstick, a system that grades growth is more just” (STU-5) and “Being the fastest alone is not sufficient; effort should also be recognized” (STU-8). This emphasis signals a demand for performance assessment to reflect individual trajectories of development rather than uniform criteria [40]. This differentiation also makes visible how generations position their educational priorities.

5. Figures 1 and 2
   Please explicitly state in the captions that Figures 1 and 2 are original figures prepared by the authors. Additionally, slightly more descriptive captions would improve interpretability for readers.

5.RESPONSE:

In line with your suggestion, the captions for Figures 1 and 2 have been revised. Each caption now explicitly states that the figure is an original work prepared by the authors, and brief descriptive phrases have been added to enhance interpretability. The updated captions are as follows:

Figure 1. Thematic map of student perspectives in physical education: Generation Z expectations (Original figure, created by the authors).

Figure 2. Thematic map of teacher perspectives: instructional orientations of Generations X/Y (Original figure, created by the authors).

6. Separation of Results and Discussion

Some interpretive and theoretical statements remain in the Results section. For clearer structure, these should be moved to the Discussion section, reserving Results for descriptive and comparative reporting of findings."

6.RESPONSE:

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. Because our study employs a qualitative design with directed–thematic analysis, presenting data excerpts alongside concise interpretive statements is essential to maintain analytic coherence and to make the claim–evidence link transparent. For this reason, the limited interpretive sentences retained in the Results serve only to anchor themes in their immediate evidentiary context.

That said, we fully appreciate the need for structural clarity. We have relocated all higher-order theoretical generalizations and practice implications to the Discussion, while streamlining the Results to prioritize descriptive and comparative reporting. Minimal, evidence-bound commentary remains in the Results solely to justify each theme, whereas broader theoretical interpretation and implications are now consolidated under the Discussion. We believe this revision improves readability and sharpens the functional distinction between sections.

7. Discussion Length and Redundancy

The Discussion is conceptually strong but somewhat repetitive in places. A reduction of approximately 10–15% is recommended, focusing on synthesis rather than restating results.

7.RESPONSE:

In line with your suggestion, the Discussion has been revised to reduce redundancy and its overall length has been decreased by approximately 12%. The section now privileges synthesis over restatement of results; linkages between findings and the theoretical framework have been tightened, and implications for practice and policy are presented more concisely. Overlapping paragraphs were consolidated and in-text citations streamlined. We believe these changes improve readability and sharpen the analytic focus of the Discussion.

8. Generational Theory in Non-Western Contexts

Although limitations of Strauss–Howe theory are mentioned, a short explicit reflection on its application beyond Western contexts (including cultural specificity) would further strengthen theoretical rigor.

8.RESPONSE:

In response to your suggestion, we added a concise and explicit reflection on applying Strauss–Howe’s framework beyond Western contexts. We reiterate its limitations regarding cyclical determinism and Western-centric sampling. In this study the framework is used not as a predictive model but as a sensitizing lens to structure comparisons between teacher cohorts and students. Interpretive claims are anchored in inductive patterns from the data rather than imposed theoretical deduction. We foreground cultural specificity by situating findings within Turkey’s policy–curricular landscape and triangulating with the Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Model, national curriculum history, and field context. These additions clarify transferability boundaries and strengthen theoretical rigor.

9.Conclusions Section           
The Conclusions are clear, but a few sentences introduce new elements (e.g., school-level planning implications). These should either be moved earlier in the manuscript or removed to avoid introducing new content at this stage.

9.RESPONSE:

In line with your suggestion, the school-level planning implications that introduced new content at the end of the paper have been removed from the Conclusions, preserving the section’s integrity. The Conclusions now focus on synthesizing the findings and providing concise lesson- and assessment-level recommendations.

Conclusion and Concrete Recommendation Set     

The demands of Generation Z students and the pedagogical orientations of Generations X/Y converge on technology gamification differentiation and process-oriented fairness. The 2025 TYMM PE framework provides a basis to address this convergence through virtue–value–action literacy and socio-emotional components and these elements are detailed in the manuscript. To avoid introducing new material at this stage the recommendations are limited to lesson- and assessment-level actions that directly synthesize the findings.

Assessment ecosystem (lesson level): use of rubrics self/peer assessment portfolios and observation forms with short feedback cycles [40].

Lesson architecture: station-based organization modular activity banks and micro-cycles adapted to large classes and space constraints [6].

Digital integration (classroom use): in-class device sharing and curated QR/video libraries supported by targeted micro-learning for teachers this approach is discussed in the manuscript [8,41].

Communication and climate: student participation contracts structured student-voice mechanisms empathy-based feedback and clear conflict-resolution routines [48].

Dear Reviewer,         
We sincerely thank you for the positive evaluation and constructive guidance. In line with your feedback, we strengthened the link to sustainability in education, clarified the analytic procedures for transparency and traceability, reorganized the Results and Discussion to enhance structural coherence, and further improved methodological transparency. We believe these revisions substantially advance the paper’s conceptual integrity, empirical depth, and fit with the journal’s scope. In addition, repetitive passages were reduced, school-level planning implications were removed from the Conclusions and integrated into the Discussion, figure captions were updated to clarify originality and interpretability, and a concise reflection on the use of Strauss–Howe generational theory in non-Western contexts was added.