Attachment, Identity, and Character: An Integrative Pedagogical Model for Early Childhood Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript “Attachment, Identity, and Character: An Integrative Pedagogical Model for Early Childhood Education”. The authors have clearly engaged seriously with the previous round of comments, and the manuscript has improved substantially in terms of coherence, conceptual clarity, and critical balance. The revised version now presents a more persuasive and mature theoretical contribution.

The attempt to integrate attachment, identity, and character within a relational framework grounded in the Ethics of Care is original and relevant for contemporary debates in Early Childhood Education. In particular, the stronger articulation of the common-good dimension and the addition of the subsection on tensions and limits significantly strengthen the manuscript. By explicitly acknowledging risks such as paternalism, dependency, and power asymmetries, the argument becomes more nuanced and credible. The clarification that “attachment pedagogy” is proposed as an analytical concept rather than an established category is also welcome.

I only have a few minor suggestions before publication:

1. Theoretical transparency
   Although the manuscript is clearly theoretical, it would benefit from a brief statement at the end of the Introduction clarifying the mode of inquiry (e.g., conceptual synthesis, theoretical integration, interpretive analysis) and possibly one or two guiding questions.
2. Figure 1
   The figure is useful, but visually it still appears somewhat linear, whereas the text emphasizes dynamic interdependence. If possible, consider indicating recursive or bidirectional relationships more clearly.
3. Breadth of scholarship
   The literature base is solid, but still somewhat concentrated in Anglo-American and Hispanic traditions. A brief engagement with broader European or non-Western relational pedagogical traditions could further enrich the contribution.
4. Future empirical directions
   The limitations paragraph is appropriate. It may be useful to specify more concretely how future empirical research could operationalize key constructs such as relational climate, pedagogical attachment, identity recognition, or moral dispositions.
5. Minor editorial checks
   Please verify citation consistency (e.g., Ainsworth reference formatting) and ensure all references included in the list are cited in the main text.

Overall, this is now a strong and publishable manuscript that offers a thoughtful theoretical contribution to Early Childhood Education.

Thank you again for your work and for the opportunity to engage with it.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments provided. We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the theoretical contribution of this work and the suggestions offered, which have significantly contributed to strengthening the manuscript. In response to the reviewer’s observations, we have revised the manuscript to improve theoretical transparency, reinforce the conceptual framework, clarify the recursive nature of the proposed model, and further specify future empirical research directions. All modifications have been clearly highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Comment 1. Theoretical transparency

Reviewer’s comment:

“Although the manuscript is clearly theoretical, it would benefit from a brief statement at the end of the Introduction clarifying the mode of inquiry (e.g., conceptual synthesis, theoretical integration, interpretive analysis) and perhaps one or two guiding questions.”

Response:

In response to this valuable suggestion, we have incorporated a new paragraph at the end of the Introduction explicitly clarifying the theoretical nature of the study and its methodological orientation. More specifically, the manuscript now defines the study as a conceptual and interpretative integration aimed at systematically articulating attachment theory, identity development, and character education within a relational framework inspired by the Ethics of Care. In addition, we have incorporated two guiding questions in order to clarify both the analytical purpose and the pedagogical orientation of the study.

Modification in manuscript:

A new paragraph has been added at the end of the Introduction specifying the theoretical mode of inquiry and the guiding questions of the study.

 

 

 

Comment 2. Figure 1

Reviewer’s comment:

“The figure is useful, but visually it still appears somewhat linear, while the text emphasises dynamic interdependence. If possible, consider indicating recursive or bidirectional relationships more clearly.”

Response:

We agree that the previous representation of the model could be interpreted as overly linear and did not sufficiently reflect the recursive and interdependent dynamics emphasised throughout the manuscript. In response, Figure 1 has been redesigned to represent more explicitly the bidirectional and recursive relationships among the different dimensions of the model. Furthermore, the textual explanation accompanying the figure has been revised to clarify that attachment, identity, empathy, character, and citizenship operate through continuous reciprocal influences rather than through a strictly sequential progression.

Modification in manuscript:

Figure 1 has been revised to represent a dynamic and recursive model with bidirectional influences. The corresponding explanation in Sections 5–6 has also been expanded to clarify explicitly the reciprocal nature of these developmental processes.

 

Comment 3. Scholarly breadth

Reviewer’s comment:

“The literature base is solid, but still somewhat concentrated in Anglo-American and Hispanic traditions. A brief engagement with broader European relational pedagogical traditions or non-Western perspectives could further enrich the contribution.”

Response:

In order to broaden the theoretical scope of the manuscript whilst maintaining conceptual coherence, we have incorporated a brief engagement with broader European relational traditions. Specifically, the revised manuscript now includes references to contemporary educational perspectives emphasising relationality, responsibility, and subject formation (Biesta, 2020), together with ethical traditions inspired by Levinas’ understanding of responsibility towards the Other (Levinas, 1969). These additions reinforce the relational understanding of moral development advanced in this study whilst preserving the central focus on the Ethics of Care.

Modification in manuscript:

A brief discussion of broader European relational pedagogical and ethical traditions has been incorporated into Section 2.1.

 

Comment 4. Future empirical directions

Reviewer’s comment:

“The limitations paragraph is appropriate. It may be helpful to specify more concretely how future empirical research might operationalise key constructs such as relational climate, pedagogical attachment, identity recognition, or moral dispositions.”

Response:

In response to this constructive suggestion, the limitations and future research section have been expanded to include more concrete indications regarding the empirical operationalisation of the model’s key constructs. Specifically, we now discuss the possibility of examining relational climate through classroom observations, pedagogical attachment through teacher–student relationship measures, identity recognition through indicators of belonging and self-perception, and moral dispositions through observations of prosocial behaviour and participation.

Modification in manuscript:

The limitations and future research section (Discussion, Section 8) have been expanded to include more specific guidance regarding the empirical validation and operationalisation of the proposed model.

 

Comment 5. Minor editorial checks

Reviewer’s comment:

“Please verify citation consistency (e.g., Ainsworth formatting) and ensure that all references listed are cited in the main text.”

Response:

A thorough revision of the manuscript has been undertaken to ensure consistency in citations and references throughout the text. Reference formatting has been reviewed and standardised, and all references included in the bibliography have been cross-checked to ensure their corresponding citation within the main body of the manuscript.

Modification in manuscript:

The reference list and in-text citations have been systematically reviewed and corrected to ensure consistency and completeness.

 

We would like to thank the reviewer once again for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided, which have contributed significantly to strengthening the clarity, coherence, and theoretical robustness of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author of the manuscript proposes an Integrated Pedagogical Model for Early Childhood Education, based on attachment theory, identity development, character education and framed within the context of Ethics of Care. This proposed model is of high importance for ECE as it focuses an under-researched perspective of child development and broaden the perspective to citizenship. The manuscript is well-structured. Addressing the following concerns would strengthen the foundation of the proposed theoretical model and clarify its limitations:

• Overall: Children’s development (as well as identity and character) is shaped by multiple contexts, including family, early childcare environments, schools, … (Ecological System Theory, Bronfenbrenner, 1979). While the family remains the primary context of socialization in early years, early childhood education settings increasingly contribute to the development of social norms, moral development, and identity. The model would benefit from a holistic understanding of children’s development in considering the family context in early years; if not, neglecting the family context should be discussed as a limitation.
• Section 1 – line 79: The author writes that “attachment constitutes the affective foundation that enables the construction of identity”. The word “enables” may be irritating for readers: it is not a question of “if”, but of “how stable” or “how positive” the identity will be, dependent on the attachment quality which children experiencing. Even children with attachment disorder who hadn’t significant others to attach to (see Bucharest Early Intervention Project by Zeanah and colleagues) develop an identity which is, however, instable, fragile, or fragmented.
• Section 1: The endpoint citizenship of the proposed model is not introduced here.
• Section 2.3 – line 197: Empathy is an ability but not an emotion.
• Section 3 – line 234-238: this is a very important argument to ground the model in ECE settings. The foundation of the model would benefit if current issues in ECE would be integrated and used for argumentation.
• Section 3 and 4: The arguments would benefit from being more firmly grounded in the existing literature.
• Section 6: in this section, the proposed model is grounded and explained. Empathy is not included here, but still an important part of the model (see figure).
• Section 6: The author proposes a dynamic model (see line 360-362). However, the figure seems to address a linear development. Are bidirectional influences possible? For instance, child’s expression of empathy for a significant attachment figure would strengthens the affective bond that would support the development of an identity as a capable, valuable subject.
• Section 7: The author suggests that the proposed model could form important pedagogical orientations in ECE that support identity and character development. If this is an additional aim of the model, it would be helpful to introduce this aim in earlier sections.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript, as well as for the positive assessment of the originality and relevance of the integrative pedagogical model proposed for Early Childhood Education. The reviewer’s insightful comments and recommendations have contributed significantly to strengthening the theoretical foundations of the manuscript, clarifying conceptual formulations, and further developing the pedagogical and relational implications of the proposed framework. In response to the observations raised, the manuscript has been revised to better integrate ecological perspectives on child development, clarify conceptual relationships, strengthen theoretical grounding, and further elaborate the pedagogical scope of the model. All modifications have been clearly highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Comment 1. Ecological systems perspective and family context

“Child development (as well as identity and character) is shaped by multiple contexts, including family, childcare settings, schools… (Ecological systems theory, Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Although family remains the primary socialisation context in the early years, ECE settings increasingly contribute to social norms, moral development and identity. The model would benefit from a holistic understanding of child development by considering family context in the early years; otherwise, neglecting family context should be addressed as a limitation.”

Response:

We agree that child development in early childhood should be understood within multiple interacting ecological systems and that family relationships remain foundational in shaping early developmental trajectories. In response, a clearer acknowledgement of the ecological nature of child development has been incorporated through the explicit integration of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and recognition of the foundational role of family relationships in both the Introduction and subsequent sections of the manuscript. Whilst the article maintains its primary focus on Early Childhood Education settings, the revised version now situates educational experiences within broader relational and social contexts, thereby strengthening the ecological framing underlying the proposed model.

 

Modification in manuscript:

Explicit reference to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and the foundational role of family relationships has been incorporated into the Introduction and Section 3. In addition, the ecological scope of the model is now more explicitly acknowledged in the discussion of identity development.

 

Comment 2. Clarification regarding attachment and identity

“The author writes that ‘attachment constitutes the affective foundation that enables the construction of identity’. The word ‘enables’ may irritate readers: it is not a matter of ‘if’, but rather ‘how stable’ or ‘how positive’ identity will be depending on attachment quality.”

Response:

The formulation has been revised to better reflect the idea that attachment quality significantly shapes the coherence, stability, and quality of identity development, rather than determining whether identity develops at all. This revision provides a more nuanced interpretation of the relationship between attachment and identity and is more consistent with the literature on attachment and developmental processes.

Modification in manuscript:

The relevant statement in the Introduction has been reformulated to clarify the relationship between attachment and identity development.

 

Comment 3. Citizenship not introduced in the Introduction

“Citizenship at the end of the proposed model is not introduced here.”

Response:

In response to this observation, the Introduction has been revised to address explicitly the civic and ethical dimension of the model from the outset. The revised manuscript now clarifies that the proposed framework extends towards the early development of ethical citizenship, emphasising how experiences of care, empathy, responsibility, and shared participation may contribute to children’s earliest forms of democratic coexistence and orientation towards the common good.

Modification in manuscript:

A new paragraph introducing the citizenship dimension of the model has been added to the Introduction.

 

Comment 4. Empathy as a skill rather than an emotion

“Empathy is a skill but not an emotion.”

Response:

This important conceptual distinction has been addressed through a revision of the theoretical framing of empathy. The manuscript now conceptualises empathy as a multidimensional socio-emotional competence involving affective sensitivity, perspective-taking, and responsiveness towards others, rather than treating it as a mere emotion. Related formulations throughout Section 2 have also been revised accordingly in order to ensure greater conceptual precision and theoretical coherence.

Modification in manuscript:

Section 2.3 has been revised to provide a clearer and theoretically more precise conceptualisation of empathy.

 

Comment 5. Integration of current issues in Early Childhood Education

“This is a very important argument for grounding the model in ECE settings. The basis of the model would benefit if current issues in ECE were integrated and used for argumentation.”

Response:

In response, the revised manuscript now incorporates references to contemporary debates and priorities in Early Childhood Education, including children’s emotional well-being, relational climate, inclusion, socio-emotional development, and the importance of belonging and emotional security within educational settings. These additions, supported by recent literature in the field, strengthen the grounding of the proposed model within current discussions and priorities in Early Childhood Education.

Modification in manuscript:

Section 3 has been expanded to include references to current issues and priorities in Early Childhood Education.

 

Comment 6. Stronger grounding in the existing literature (Sections 3 and 4)

“The arguments would benefit from being more firmly grounded in existing literature.”

Response:

Sections 3 and 4 have been strengthened through the incorporation of additional literature on identity development, socio-emotional learning, and character education. These revisions include further theoretical grounding regarding recognition, belonging, and socio-emotional competencies in educational contexts, thereby reinforcing the conceptual coherence and theoretical robustness of the proposed model.

Modification in manuscript:

Additional theoretical references and explanatory paragraphs have been incorporated into Sections 3 and 4.

 

Comment 7. Empathy not included in Section 6

“In this section, the proposed model is grounded and explained. Empathy is not included here, although it remains an important part of the model.”

Response:

This observation has been addressed through a more explicit integration of empathy into the explanatory structure of the proposed model. Section 6 has been revised to incorporate empathy as a mediating relational mechanism connecting identity construction and character formation. The revised explanation further clarifies its role in fostering social awareness, cooperation, responsibility, and openness towards others, thereby strengthening the internal coherence of the model.

Modification in manuscript:

Section 6 has been revised to explicitly incorporate empathy into the conceptual explanation of the model.

 

Comment 8. Dynamic model versus linear representation

“The author proposes a dynamic model; however, the figure seems to address a linear development. Are bidirectional influences possible?”

Response:

We agree that the previous visual representation of the model could be interpreted as overly linear and insufficiently reflective of the dynamic interdependence emphasised throughout the manuscript. In response, Figure 1 has been redesigned to represent more explicitly recursive and bidirectional influences among attachment, identity, empathy, character, and citizenship. Furthermore, the corresponding explanation in Sections 5 and 6 has been revised to clarify that these dimensions interact dynamically over time through reciprocal influences. The reviewer’s example has also been incorporated by explicitly recognising that children’s empathic responses may reinforce attachment relationships and relational security.

Modification in manuscript:

Figure 1 has been revised, and Sections 5–6 now explicitly describe reciprocal and recursive developmental influences.

 

Comment 9. Pedagogical implications introduced too late

 “If this is an additional goal of the model, it would be useful to introduce it in earlier sections.”

 

Response:

The pedagogical orientation of the model has now been introduced earlier in the manuscript, particularly in the Introduction, where the article explicitly states that the proposed framework aims not only to provide a theoretical contribution but also to offer pedagogical guidance for educational practice in Early Childhood Education.

Modification in manuscript:

The Introduction has been revised to introduce the pedagogical implications and practical orientation of the model from the outset.

 

We would like to thank the reviewer once again for the thoughtful, constructive, and encouraging comments provided. The observations and recommendations have contributed substantially to improving the conceptual clarity, theoretical robustness, and pedagogical relevance of the manuscript. We are sincerely grateful for the reviewer’s careful engagement with our work, which has significantly strengthened the overall quality and coherence of the revised version.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort the authors invested in revising the manuscript. The revised manuscript presents a more coherent rationale for the model. The redesigned figure supports the dynamic influences among attachment, identity, empathy, character, and citizenship. However, minor adjustments to alignment and spacing would improve its visual balance. A few minor formatting inconsistencies remain and should be corrected prior to publication:

• Change in font type on page 10; different font type for references (pp.15-16)
• Note in Figure 1: if there is more than one author, you may write “Authors’ own elaboration”

The following comment is provided merely as suggestion for the authors’ consideration and was inspired by the redesigned figure: the proposed model might also have a second “perspective” and may have relevance for ECE teachers themselves. Since they bring attachment-related experiences, identity, empathy, character, and citizenship shaped by their own developmental histories, these factors may influence how they serve as a secure base for the children in ECE settings (see arrow between citizenship and affective bond). The authors may wish to discuss whether the model could also serve as a reflective framework for teacher’s own relational behavior toward children in teacher’s education and professional development.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments have been made to the Editors.

This work has very little connection to the literature and makes many unsubstantiated claims. The reference list is limited and citations few.

Author Response

The reviewer points out that the manuscript shows limited engagement with the literature, includes unsupported claims, and contains a restricted number of references and citations.

Response:

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive comment. In response, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised to significantly strengthen its theoretical grounding and its connection with the relevant literature.

First, we have expanded the reference list and incorporated a broader and more representative selection of key contributions in the fields of attachment theory, identity development, character education, and the Ethics of Care. This includes both foundational authors (e.g., Bowlby, Ainsworth, Erikson, Bruner, Lickona, Noddings, Gilligan) and more recent and contemporary works (e.g., Biesta, Hammack, Hargreaves & Shirley, Westheimer, Corbella & Úcar, Kohlmeier & Sætra).

Second, we have revised the manuscript to ensure that the main theoretical claims are more consistently supported by relevant references. In particular, sections addressing identity construction, moral development, and relational pedagogy have been reinforced with additional citations, reducing the presence of unsupported assertions.

Third, we have improved the integration of the literature throughout the text, not only by increasing the number of citations but also by strengthening the conceptual dialogue between different theoretical perspectives. This has allowed us to better justify the proposed integrative model and to situate it more clearly within current academic debates.

As a result of these revisions, the manuscript now presents a more robust theoretical framework, with a clearer and more explicit connection to the existing literature.

We hope that these changes adequately address the reviewer’s concerns and contribute to improving the overall quality and rigor of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, “Attachment, Identity, and Character: An Integrative Pedagogical Model for Early Childhood Education.” The article presents a coherent and thoughtfully structured attempt to integrate attachment theory, identity development, and character education within a relational framework grounded in the Ethics of Care. The topic is timely and relevant for Early Childhood Education, and the effort to overcome conceptual fragmentation is commendable. The manuscript is clearly written and logically organized, and the proposed model is pedagogically meaningful.

However, several substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

First, the manuscript does not fully comply with the journal’s formatting guidelines. Please harmonize the styling according to the official template. In particular, remove extra spaces between paragraphs, ensure the abstract is presented as a single continuous paragraph, and verify consistency in headings, tables, references, and overall layout.

Second, the Introduction lacks citations. Several important claims regarding the fragmentation of attachment, identity, and character education are presented without scholarly support. Please include appropriate references to substantiate these foundational assertions and strengthen the academic grounding of the opening section.

Third, the manuscript would benefit from engagement with the educational commons literature, particularly in relation to care, affect, relationality, and collective responsibility. Integrating this perspective could enrich your relational argument and situate the model within broader contemporary pedagogical debates, especially concerning care as a shared and collective practice rather than solely a dyadic teacher–child relation.

Fourth, while the manuscript claims originality in integrating attachment, identity, and character, the specific contribution requires clearer articulation. Similar integrative efforts exist within social-emotional learning frameworks and relational character education. Please clarify precisely what distinguishes your model and how it advances beyond existing approaches.

Fifth, the theoretical framework would benefit from greater depth and engagement with potential tensions. The model is presented as normatively harmonious, but important questions remain unaddressed: the possibility of paternalistic or top-down care, the risk of dependency in attachment-based pedagogy, and the role of power asymmetries in caring relationships. Addressing such tensions would strengthen the theoretical rigor of the paper.

Sixth, some claims imply causal relationships that exceed the theoretical nature of the study. These should be moderated and framed as conceptual propositions rather than empirical conclusions.

Seventh, the manuscript relies heavily on classical sources. While foundational references are appropriate, the inclusion of more recent scholarship in identity theory, attachment research in educational contexts, and contemporary critiques of character education would enhance the manuscript’s scholarly currency.

Eighth, please clarify whether “attachment pedagogy” is an established term or a conceptual contribution of your own. If the latter, it should be explicitly defined and justified.

Ninth, there is some repetition between Sections 5 and 6 regarding integration claims. The argument would benefit from tightening and reducing redundancy.

Tenth, consider moderating prescriptive language in the practical implications section to maintain an analytical tone consistent with theoretical scholarship.

Overall, the manuscript presents a promising integrative proposal with strong pedagogical relevance. With substantial revisions addressing theoretical positioning, critical depth, literature expansion, and formatting compliance, it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to relational approaches in Early Childhood Education.

I encourage you to revise and resubmit.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the relevance, coherence, and pedagogical value of the proposed model. In response, we have undertaken a substantial revision of the manuscript. Below, we address each comment in detail.

 

Comment 1: Formatting and journal guidelines

Response:

The manuscript has been carefully revised to comply with the journal’s formatting requirements. We have removed unnecessary spacing between paragraphs, ensured that the abstract is presented as a single continuous paragraph, and verified consistency in headings, tables, references, and overall layout.

Comment 2: Lack of citations in the Introduction

Response:

We have strengthened the Introduction by incorporating additional references to support key claims, particularly those related to the fragmentation of attachment, identity, and character education. Foundational and contemporary sources have been added to ensure that all major assertions are now adequately grounded in the literature.

Comment 3: Engagement with the literature on the common good

Response:

In response to this suggestion, we have expanded the theoretical framework to incorporate perspectives on the common good in education. Specifically, references to Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) and Westheimer (2015) have been included, emphasizing care not only as an interpersonal relationship but also as a shared social practice linked to participation, responsibility, and community building. This perspective is now developed in both the Introduction and Section 5.

Comment 4: Clarification of the originality of the model

Response:

We have clarified the specific contribution of the proposed model by explicitly distinguishing it from existing approaches in socio-emotional learning and relational character education. The manuscript now emphasizes that the model is not competency-based but relationally grounded, positioning attachment as a structural foundation, identity as a mediating process, and character as an emergent moral orientation. This clarification has been incorporated in the final part of the Introduction and in the presentation of the model.

Comment 5: Need for greater theoretical depth and engagement with tensions

Response:

We have strengthened the theoretical framework by explicitly addressing potential tensions inherent in relational approaches. A new subsection in the Discussion examines key issues such as the risk of paternalistic care, the possibility of dependency in attachment-based pedagogies, and the role of power asymmetries in educational relationships. This addition enhances the critical depth and theoretical rigor of the manuscript.

Comment 6: Moderation of causal claims

Response:

The manuscript has been revised to avoid causal language that exceeds the theoretical nature of the study. Statements have been reformulated to reflect conceptual and interpretative relationships rather than empirical causality.

Comment 7: Inclusion of more recent literature

Response:

The reference list has been expanded to include more recent contributions in identity theory, relational pedagogy, and Ethics of Care approaches in education. This includes both contemporary theoretical works and recent empirical studies, thereby improving the academic currency of the manuscript.

Comment 8: Clarification of the term “attachment pedagogy”

Response:

We have clarified that “attachment pedagogy” is introduced as a conceptual contribution rather than as an established term. This is now explicitly defined and justified in the section where the concept is presented, highlighting its analytical and heuristic value.

Comment 9: Repetition between Sections 5 and 6

Response:

We have revised Sections 5 and 6 to reduce redundancy and improve coherence. Section 5 now focuses on the relational theoretical framework, while Section 6 presents the integrative pedagogical model in a more concise and structured manner.

Comment 10: Moderation of prescriptive language

Response:

The section on practical implications has been revised to reduce prescriptive language and adopt a more analytical tone. The proposals are now presented as interpretative orientations derived from the theoretical model rather than as fixed pedagogical prescriptions.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful and constructive feedback. The revisions made in response to these comments have significantly enhanced the clarity, coherence, and theoretical rigor of the manuscript. We hope that the revised version satisfactorily addresses all the concerns raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx