Review Reports

Comments 1: The application of bricolage theory to educational monitoring and support is conceptually interesting. However, the theoretical contribution remains somewhat superficial. The manuscript does not sufficiently operationalise bricolage within the empirical analysis, resulting in weak integration between theory and findings.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have substantially revised the manuscript to ensure that bricolage theory is not only described conceptually but also explicitly operationalised within the empirical analysis. Theoretical framework P3- 4 line 118-197; Data Analysis P10 line 489,  and findings and discussion P12-17 line 590-834

Comments 2: The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed description of the matric system, including its role within the South African education system, the subjects involved, and how assessment and evaluation processes are structured

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the introduction on matric system to emphasize this point. Find it on P2 line 54-64

Comment 3: The central research question is exploratory and appropriate for qualitative inquiry. However, the study lacks clearly defined analytical constructs, which limits the depth of interpretation.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The manuscript has been revised to introduce clear analytical constructs derived from bricolage theory, namely: (i) resource recombination, (ii) contextual adaptation, and (iii) distributed support practices. These constructs guide both analysis and interpretation. P 4 line 164-183.

Comment 4: Methodological Concerns

Thank you for pointing out all these methodological concerns. All are addressed as follows:

·        Comment 4.1: The sample size (n = 8 participants across four schools) is very limited, raising concerns about the robustness and transferability of the findings.

·        Response:The study is positioned as a qualitative case study prioritizing depth over generalisation. Analytical transferability is emphasised. P 9 line 428-449; p11 line 532-564

·        Comment 4.2. The use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) is stated, but the iterative cycles (planning–action–reflection) are not clearly demonstrated in the results section. This weakens methodological coherence.

·        Response:The study is now clearly defined as a qualitative case study informed by participatory principles, not full PAR. P9 line 21; P9 line 415 and p9 line 452-453

·        Comment 4.3 There is insufficient detail on:

·        The interview protocol (e.g., key questions, duration).

·        The focus group structure (number of sessions, facilitation process, time, and location).

·        The document analysis procedure (criteria for selecting documents, analytical framework).

·        The thematic analysis process is described in generic terms but lacks transparency regarding coding reliability (e.g., inter-coder agreement, reflexivity).

Response: Thank you for pointing all these methodological concerns. Each of these has been addressed. Expanded details on interviews, FGDs, and document analysis. P10 line 466 and P11 line 525. Thermaticanalysis has been strengthened by employing hybrid inductive–deductive approach, coding process, and validation. P10 line 488-504 and 513-523

Comment 5: Limitations

Given the qualitative and critical positioning of the study, the authors should more carefully address:

·        Potential researcher bias, especially considering the participatory nature of the design.

·        The absence of triangulation across different stakeholder groups (e.g., teachers, learners, parents), which limits the comprehensiveness of perspectives.

Response 5: thank you for pointing out all the limitations above. We have addressed them as follows: Research bias has been addressed through reflexivity and audit trail stakeholders limitation we explicitly acknowledged exclusion of teachers, learners, and parents P10 line 513-523 and P11 line 532-564.

Comment 6: Data Interpretation and Consistency

The findings are generally consistent with the cited literature. However:

·        The analysis is largely descriptive rather than analytical.

·        There is a tendency to restate participants’ views without deeper theoretical interpretation.

·        Links between empirical findings and bricolage theory are often asserted rather than convincingly demonstrated.

Response 6: We agree. We have strengthened theoretical interpretation using bricolage. P13 -17 line 654-839.

Comment 7: Conclusions

The recommendations are practical but not strongly grounded in a rigorous analytical framework. They are not clearly prioritised and are only loosely linked to specific findings.

Response 7: We agree to the comment. We have refined the recommendations to clearly link to findings. P17 line 657-874

Comment 8: Specific Comments

·        Lines 9–12: The justification for bricolage theory is brief. Clarify why this framework is more appropriate than alternative theories. Also, make more explicit how it is applied in the study.

·        Lines 14–15: The sampling strategy is unclear—how were the four schools selected beyond “purposive criteria”? Provide more detail.

·        Lines 76–108: The theoretical framework is largely descriptive. A deeper engagement with bricolage theory is needed. Moreover, consider presenting the literature review before introducing the theoretical framework.

·        Line 115: Remove the period before (Govender).

·        Lines 118–121: Consider structuring the literature review thematically or analytically.

·        Line 124: Replace “--” with “—”.

·        Lines 160–164: The description of the qualitative approach is incomplete (“Allows collection of rich data…” is vague and should be revised).

·        Lines 165–174: PAR is mentioned, but the absence of iterative cycles in later sections suggests inconsistency between design and implementation.

·        Lines 184–190: Data collection methods are listed, but their integration (triangulation strategy) is insufficiently explained.

·        Line 190: Remove the duplicate period.

·        Lines 191–198: The thematic analysis lacks detail on coding validation and reliability.

·        Lines 225–234: The transition from data to themes is abrupt; clarify how themes emerged from the coding process.

·        Page 6: Check coherence between “(iii) Regular assessment” and section “5.1.3 Regular Learner Assessment.”

·        Lines 249–257: The discussion links findings to the literature but does not critically examine discrepancies or highlight novel insights.

Response 8: Thank you for highlighting technical issues line by line. We have responded to each as follows:

Lines 9–12

Expanded justification of bricolage theory.

Lines 14–15

Clarified sampling strategy.

Lines 76–108

Strengthened theoretical framework.

Line 115

Corrected punctuation.

Lines 118–121

Restructured literature review.

Line 124

Corrected formatting.

Lines 160–164

Expanded qualitative justification.

Lines 165–174

Clarified non-PAR design.

Lines 184–190

Strengthened triangulation.

Line 190

Removed duplicate period.

Lines 191–198

Clarified coding reliability.

Lines 225–234

Clarified theme development.

Page 6

Ensured consistency across sections.

Lines 249–257

Strengthened critical discussion.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English does not need further improvement

Response 1: English does not need further improvement

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you for the comments made. In effecting such corrections, most of the comments were similar from the three reviewers making it difficult to highlight were already highlighted.

Comments 1: The abstract clarifies the study's need and purpose, the main results, and its implications. However, it does not clearly position the study problem, and the recommendations are extensive. The abstract needs more focus and a more synthetic approach.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract to improve focus, clarity, and conciseness. Clearly articulated the study problem, reduced descriptive elements and streamlined, and improved synthesis of purpose, methods, findings, and implications recommendations. P1 line 6-41.

Comments 2: The introduction is repetitive, creating a sense of circularity and a lack of logical progression. Splitting the introduction, research problem, and research questions makes it fragmentary. Elaborate on it. The term “matric” should be clarified, given that it is a contextual South African-specific term.

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the introduction to emphasize this point. We have removed repetition and improved logical progression, integrated previously separated sections into a coherent narrative and clearly defined “matric” as the National Senior Certificate (NSC) early in the section.P2-3 line 51-121

Comment 3: The theoretical framework is descriptive, but not analytical. It explains the Bricolage Theory and applies it generically to the context, but without operationalizing it or defining analytical constructs. The theoretical framework should analyze how Bricolage Theory contributes to the schools' monitoring or support. It needs more conceptualization. For instance, Bricolage Theory may be articulated with instructional leadership, resource-based view, context-responsive schooling, etc.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have significantly strengthened the theoretical framework to enhance conceptual and analytical rigour. The following revision has been made: Operationalised bricolage through three analytical constructs: Resource recombination; Contextual adaptation, Distributed support practices. We demonstrated how bricolage applies to monitoring and support practices. We also positioned bricolage in relation to: Instructional leadership, Capacity building and Distributed leadership. P3-4 line 124-202.

Comment 4: The literature review is not a critical synthesis and lacks depth and conceptualization. The terms "monitoring," "support," "effectiveness," etc., should be defined. It looks like a background and not a literature review. It lacks dialogue with educational literature (e.g., instructional leadership, school improvement theory, capacity building, distributed leadership, school self-evaluation, etc.).

Response 4: We appreciate this important critique and have thoroughly revised the literature review. The following corrections has been made: Reorganised the section into thematic and analytical subsections. Provided clear conceptual definitions of: Monitoring, support and effectiveness. We also strengthened engagement with key educational theories: Instructional leadership, School improvement, Capacity building, Distributed leadership, School self-evaluation, we also introduced critical synthesis and dialogue across studies, rather than descriptive listing. P5-8 line 205-402

Comment 5: Regarding the methodology and findings:

·        Comment 5.1: “schools were purposively selected based on specific criteria” (lines 171-172) – it seems more like a convenience selection.

Response: 5.1 Thank you for your input to improve the manuscript. We have clarified and strengthened the justification for purposive sampling. The following revision has been made: Elaborated criterion-based purposive sampling strategy and clarified selection criteria and rationale for access and feasibility. P9 line 428-437.

·        Comment 5.2: Are the four DH one for each school? Clarify it.

·        Response 5.2 Thank you for asking clarity. This has been clarified. Revisions Made: Explicitly stated that one Head of Department (HOD) per school participated. P9 line 440-441

·         

·        Comment 5.3. The method refers to document analysis, but nothing is presented/explained about this in the results.

Response 5.3: thank you for input. We have strengthened integration of document analysis into the findings. Revisions Made: Explicit references to document analysis added in findings (e.g., attendance registers, monitoring records). We clarified its role in triangulating interview and FGD data P14 line 682; & 721..

·        . 

·        Comment 5.4. There are semi-structured interviews and focus groups with the same participants, apparently using the same single question. What is the additional value of each method? There is no justification for using both; they are redundant. A qualitative study cannot have just one question, especially in semi-structured interviews. An interview guide with multiple questions is expected. The findings suggest an inductive thematic analysis; therefore, the methodology should be described as combining a deductive and an inductive approach.

Response 5.4: We appreciate this critical point and have clarified the distinct roles of each method. Revisions Made: Semi-structured interviews used for individual perspectives and experiences, Focus groups used for validation, collective reflection, and co-construction of strategies. Clarified that interviews were guided by multiple structured questions, not a single question. We have strengthened justification for methodological complementarity. P10 line 471-474

Comment 5.5 PAR is poorly operationalized. What was the active role of participants as co-researchers?

Response 5.5: We agree and have corrected this inconsistency. Revisions Made: Removed positioning as PAR, Reframed study as qualitative case study with participatory elements. Clarified participants’ role in reflection and validation, not co-researchers in iterative cycles. P9  line 415

·        Comment 5.6. The discussion needs further triangulation of findings and a deeper cross-analysis with theory.

Response 5.6: Thank you for suggestion to strengthen the findings. We have strengthened analytical integration significantly. Revisions Made: Enhanced triangulation across interviews, FGDs, and documents. Deepened cross-analysis with bricolage theory. Reduced descriptive reporting and increased interpretive analysis. P12-17 line 595-839.

·        Comment 5.7. Provide the study’s limitations.

Response 5.7: Thank you for asking. A comprehensive limitations section has been added. Revisions Made to address: Small sample, Limited stakeholders, Context specificity, Self-reported data, Non-intervention design P11 line 533-564

Comment 5.8: Regarding the conclusion, it only superficially addresses the purpose of identifying the problem's strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. The Bricolage Theory is not integrated with the findings and does not present clear, impactful solutions to the problem at hand.

Response 5.8: Thank you. We have revised the conclusion to improve analytical alignment and impact. Revisions done: We have integrated bricolage theory with findings and Strengthened articulation of practical and theoretical contributions. Provided clearer, evidence-based recommendations. P17 line 541-856

6. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English is fine and does not require any improvement

Response 1: English is fine and does not require any improvement

7. Additional clarifications

Some corrections made cannot be highlighted on the manuscript as the comments from different reviewers overlap

Comments 1: There is a significant mismatch between the stated research design and the evidence presented. The manuscript claims to be grounded in Participatory Action Research (PAR), but it does not clearly describe iterative action cycles, collaborative intervention design, implementation phases, reflection stages, or evaluated changes over time. If the study is truly PAR, these elements must be documented explicitly. If not, the design should be reframed as a qualitative case study.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and have addressed this concern. The study is now clearly presented as a qualitative case study, and all references to PAR have been removed or clarified. The participatory elements are retained as reflective engagement rather than full PAR cycles. P9 line 415

Comments 2: The sample is very small and limited to four principals and four departmental heads from four schools in one circuit. This may be acceptable for an exploratory qualitative study, but the paper must justify the sampling logic more carefully and avoid broad claims about the whole district.

Response 2: Agree. We acknowledge this limitation. The manuscript now provides a stronger justification for criterion-based purposive sampling and clearly emphasises analytical transferability rather than statistical generalisation. Claims have been revised to remain context-specific. P9 line 428-437 & P11 line 532-564

Comment 3: The study investigates monitoring and support practices, yet the voices of teachers, learners, parents, and curriculum advisors are absent. This weakens the depth of the analysis, especially because several conclusions concern actors who were not directly interviewed.

Response 3: thank you. We agree that this limits the breadth of perspectives. This has now been explicitly acknowledged as a limitation, and the focus on SMT members has been justified based on their formal responsibility for monitoring and support. P 9 line 429-437 & P11 line 542-549

Comment 4: The integration of bricolage theory is currently weak. The theory is introduced in a descriptive way, but it is not operationalized in the research design, coding structure, or interpretation of themes. The authors should show clearly how bricolage informed data generation and analysis, rather than using it only as a retrospective interpretive frame.

Response: Agree. We have strengthened it. Bricolage theory is now operationalised through three analytical dimensions: resource recombination, contextual adaptation, distributed support, which explicitly guide coding and interpretation. P12-17 line 654-839

Comment 5: The methodology section lacks essential information. The manuscript should report when the data were collected, how many interviews and focus groups were conducted, their duration, the interview protocol, the language of data collection, how transcripts were produced, and how document analysis was performed

Response 5: Acnowledged.We have expanded the methodology to include full procedural detail, including data collection period, number and duration of interviews and focus groups, interview protocols, language, and document analysis procedures. P10 line 467-486

•                 Comment 6: The explanation of thematic analysis remains generic. The authors should clarify whether coding was inductive, deductive, or hybrid; who performed the coding; whether themes were reviewed independently; and how disagreements or researcher bias were handled.

Response 6: Agree. We have revised the thematic analysis section to clearly describe a hybrid inductive–deductive approach, including coding procedures, validation, and reflexivity.P10 line 489-493

•                 Comment 7: The findings are often based on short, isolated quotations and are not yet sufficiently rich. The paper would benefit from more participant evidence, clearer analytic depth, and stronger differentiation between what comes from interviews, focus groups, and documents.

Response 7: Thanks for acknowledgement. We have strengthened the empirical depth by incorporating more participant quotations, differentiating data sources (interviews, FGDs, documents), and enhancing analytical interpretation. P12-16 line 595-818

•                 Comment 8: Some conclusions and recommendations go beyond what the data can support. The current evidence is best suited to cautious, context-bound conclusions rather than wider district-level generalizations.

Response 8: Thanks for the comment. We have revised the conclusions to ensure they are cautious, context-bound, and aligned with the data. Overgeneralised claims have been removed. P17 line 841-874

Comment 9: Ethical and Transparency Standards

The ethics section is generally adequate and reports institutional approval and participant consent. However, the manuscript should clarify the sequence of permissions more precisely and ensure consistency in terminology when referring to the ethics committee, the education department, and participant protection procedures. The authors should also explain whether any measures were taken to manage power dynamics, especially given that school leaders were the sole participants in a study framed as transformative and participatory

Response 8: The ethics section has been refined to clearly outline the sequence of permissions (University → Department → Schools → Participants) and to explain how power dynamics were managed, including voluntary participation and non-evaluative framing.P11-12 line 566-593

Comment 9: Clarity and Writing

The manuscript requires substantial English-language editing. There are frequent grammar, punctuation, capitalization, spacing, and sentence-construction problems. Several sentences are awkward, incomplete, repetitive, or overlong. There are also formatting remnants that appear to come from the submission file, such as stray numerals in the title. These issues do not make the paper unreadable, but they do affect precision and academic presentation. A thorough professional language revision is strongly recommended before resubmission.

Response 9: Acknowledged. We have revised Language and formatting. Grammar, punctuation, structure, and formatting inconsistencies have been corrected. P1-20 line 2-978

Comment 9: Title and Keywords

The title is relevant but should be cleaned carefully. The current version contains visible numbering artifacts and should be standardized. Consider whether the title can be slightly shortened for precision. The keywords are broadly appropriate, although one or two could be made more specific to the study context, for example by including school leadership, rural education, or curriculum support

Response 9: Agree. We have cleaned the title and standardised. Keywords have been refined to improve specificity.P1 line 2-4

Comment 10: Abstract

The abstract provides a reasonable overview of the topic, approach, and recommendations. However, it should state the sample and participant profile more precisely, identify the methods more clearly, and avoid implying stronger explanatory power than the evidence allows. The recommendations should be presented as proposals grounded in participants’ perspectives rather than as definitive solutions.

Response 10: Thanks for comment. We have revised the abstract to clearly state the sample, methods, and to present findings and recommendations cautiously.P1 line 5-43

Comment 11: Introduction and Background

The introduction identifies a meaningful problem and situates it in the context of Limpopo’s matric performance. Still, the argument needs tighter development. The paper should distinguish more clearly between the province, the district, the circuit, and the four selected schools. It should also ensure consistency in how the problem is documented, including the statistics used, the time periods mentioned, and the naming of the education department. The research gap and the contribution of the study should be stated more explicitly.

Response 11: Thanks. We have revised the introduction to improve clarity and consistency in geographical and institutional distinctions, and to strengthen the research gap. P2-3 line 51-121

Comment 12: Theoretical Framework

Bricolage theory is an interesting choice, especially in a resource-constrained context, but the framework is not yet fully convincing as used here. The section should explain more clearly why bricolage is the most suitable lens for this study compared with other possibilities such as instructional leadership, school improvement, or community partnership frameworks. More importantly, the authors should specify how bricolage shaped the study analytically: what dimensions of bricolage were looked for in the data, and how did those dimensions guide the interpretation of findings?

Response 12: The framework now provides a stronger justification and explicitly compares bricolage with alternative frameworks, highlighting its relevance in resource-constrained contexts.P3-4 line 123-202

Comment 13: Literature review

The literature review covers relevant themes, but it currently reads as a list of issues and citations rather than a fully developed critical review. The section would be stronger if it were organized more systematically around a smaller number of analytical strands. The authors should synthesize the literature more explicitly, distinguish between South African and international evidence, and show more clearly how the reviewed studies lead to the present research question.

Response 13: The literature review has been reorganised into thematic sections, with stronger synthesis and clearer linkage to the research question. P4-8 line 204-402

Comment 14: Methodology

This section needs the most work. The relationship between the transformative paradigm, qualitative approach, and PAR design must be clarified. The manuscript should provide a clearer account of sampling, participant roles, recruitment, data collection procedures, duration and sequence of interviews and focus groups, document selection criteria, and analytic steps. It should also explain how saturation or sufficiency was judged. At present, some methodological claims are too broad for the limited procedural detail provided. The use of the same participants for interviews and focus group discussion may be legitimate, but the manuscript should explain how the authors managed overlap and ensured that each method generated distinct insights. A small summary table of participants, data sources, and analytic stages would improve transparency.

Response 14: Agree. We have expanded The methodology section significantly expanded to include sampling, procedures, data sufficiency, and analytic steps.P8-12 line 405-593

Comment 15: Ethical consideration

This subsection is acceptable in principle, but it would benefit from minor editing for language and precision. The authors should ensure that all names of institutions are presented consistently and that the confidentiality procedures align with the kinds of quotations and school descriptions reported in the paper

Response 15: Thanks for the input. We have edited the ethical considerations section.. Institutional names are now presented consistently throughout the manuscript. Language has been refined for clarity and precision. Confidentiality procedures have been strengthened and explicitly aligned with the use of participant quotations and school descriptions to ensure anonymity is maintained P11-12 line 566-593

Comment 16: Findings and discussion

The themes are understandable and relevant, but the section remains somewhat descriptive. The paper would be improved by deeper analysis, more illustrative quotations, and a clearer distinction between empirical findings and interpretive discussion. It may also help to present the themes and subthemes in a table before the narrative discussion. At present, the structure is serviceable but not yet analytically strong enough for publication.

Response 16: Thanks. We have significantly strengthened this section.Additional verbatim quotations have been incorporated to provide richer empirical support. The analysis has been deepened by engaging more critically with the data and linking findings to existing literature. A clearer distinction is now made between empirical findings and interpretive discussion. A table of themes and subthemes has been added at the beginning of the section to improve structure and readability. P13-17 line 645-839

Comment 17: Monitoring and support practices

This subsection identifies useful themes such as teacher monitoring, parental involvement, regular assessment, and extra classes. However, some of these are described more as desired support mechanisms than as systematically evidenced practices. The authors should clarify whether they are reporting what is currently happening, what participants believe should happen, or both. More evidence from the documents analyzed would also strengthen this section.

Response 17: Acknowledged. We have revised this section to clearly distinguish between Practices currently implemented, as evidenced by participant accounts and document analysis. Aspirational or recommended practices, as suggested by participants. We have also incorporated more evidence from document analysis to triangulate and substantiate the findings.P12-15 line 619-777

Comment 18: Challenges in implementing monitoring and support practices

The challenges identified are plausible and important, particularly those concerning infrastructure, resources, outdated methods, and leadership capacity. Still, the discussion should connect these challenges more explicitly to the data and show variation, if any, across the four schools. The argument would be stronger if the authors demonstrated not only that these barriers exist, but how they interact with one another in practice.

Response: We have enhanced this section by providing stronger links between identified challenges and empirical data, Expanding the discussion to show how challenges such as resource constraints, leadership capacity, and infrastructure limitations interact and reinforce one another in practice. P16-17 line 778-839

Comment 19: Conclusion and recommendations

The conclusion is generally aligned with the results, but some recommendations appear more prescriptive than empirically derived. The paper should be more cautious in moving from a small sample to broad policy recommendations. It would help to separate immediate school-level implications from broader district or policy implications and to acknowledge the study’s limited scope more explicitly.

Response 19: Thank you. We have revised the conclusion to ensure closer alignment with the study findings. Recommendations are now more explicitly evidence-based and grounded in the data. A clear distinction is made between school-level, district-level, and policy-level implications. The limitations of the study, particularly the small sample size and contextual scope, are now more explicitly acknowledged. Claims have been moderated to avoid overgeneralisation. P17 line 841-874

Comment 20: Declarations

The declarations are mostly acceptable. However, the author contributions section appears incomplete and should be completed according to the journal’s requirements. The institutional review board statement should also be checked for wording consistency.

Response 20: Thanks for this input. We have revised this section fully.. The author contributions statement has been completed in accordance with journal guidelines and the institutional review board statement has been checked and standardized for consistency. P17 line 877-880

Comment 21: References

The reference list requires careful revision. There are inconsistencies in author names, punctuation, capitalization, and source formatting. Some entries appear incomplete, duplicated in style, or inconsistent in institutional naming. The authors should also check all in-text citations against the reference list to ensure that spellings and publication details match exactly.

Response 21: Agree. We have revised the reference list and corrected. All entries have been standardised according to MDPI APA style. Inconsistencies in author names, punctuation, and formatting have been resolved. Duplicate and incomplete entries have been corrected or removed. All in-text citations have been cross-checked against the reference list to ensure full alignment and accuracy.P18-20 line 893-978

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Response 1:  The English has been improved 

5. Additional clarifications

The numbering of the comments is not consistent with what was in the reviewer report. This is due to many sub-comments in one main comment.

Comments 1: The abstract is too extensive. It needs more focus. It over-explains the theoretical framing (bricolage), repeats conceptual justification, and provides excessive methodological detail. Think about largely condensing and integrating or even removing information of lines 10-17 (elaborates extensively on bricolage theory), lines 21-26 (excessive detail), and lines 36-38 (reiterates implications already implied in the findings).

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment regarding the length and focus of the abstract. We appreciate the concern about over-elaboration, particularly in relation to the theoretical framing and methodological detail.

In revising the manuscript, we carefully considered this comment alongside Reviewer 1’s suggestion to ensure that the abstract clearly reflects the study’s theoretical grounding in bricolage. To balance the perspectives of both reviewers, we reviewed the abstract for conciseness and clarity while preserving content that is essential to the study’s contribution.

Specifically:

• The discussion of bricolage theory (lines 10–17) has been retained, as it is central to positioning the study theoretically and aligns with Reviewer 1’s recommendation.
• The methodological detail (lines 21–26) has been retained, as it provides necessary context and transparency regarding the study design.
• The repetitive implications (lines 36–38) have been removed to avoid redundancy and improve the overall focus of the abstract. These adjustments ensure that the abstract remains coherent, theoretically grounded, and concise, reflecting the expectations of both reviewers. P.1

Comments 2: At the introduction, paragraphing is excessive, fragments the narrative, and cuts the argumentative flow. Revise and merge to enhance conceptual fluency and cohesion. Regarding the sentence “The current model—largely driven by 105 curriculum advisors and characterized by compliance-oriented procedures—tends to 106 be rigid, standardized, and insufficiently contextualized.” (page 2, lines 105-107) – if possible, add references.

Response 2: We agree that excessive paragraphing fragmented the narrative flow. Accordingly:

• Several short paragraphs have been merged to improve cohesion and argumentative continuity.
• Transitions between ideas have been strengthened to enhance conceptual fluency.
• The introduction now presents a more logically connected and readable argument. P2

Regarding the statement:
“The current model—largely driven by curriculum advisors and characterized by compliance-oriented procedures—tends to be rigid, standardized, and insufficiently contextualized.”

• Relevant citations have now been added to support this claim, drawing on recent literature on compliance-driven monitoring systems and their limitations in contextual responsiveness. P3.

Comment 3: Regarding the theoretical framework:

·        Use bullet points;

·        Has excessive subsections, leading to repetitions and conceptual discontinuity; for instance, the rationale, core assumptions, and implications of bricolage are closely related. Two subsections are enough.

Response 3: Theoretical Framework
Thank you for highlighting issues of structure and repetition. While we acknowledge your concerns, we did not make substantive changes to the theoretical framework. Another reviewer found this section appropriate in its current form. As a result, we retained the content but made minor structural adjustments for clarity:

• Numbering has been revised into bullet points to improve readability and presentation. P3-4

Comment 4: Regarding the literature review,

·        The term “key educational theories” is conceptually imprecise (page 3, line 208); it mixes theoretical perspectives, policy frameworks, and practice-oriented models. Revise it. Section 3.2. also confuses it. You need to approach it more accurately. The approach is too descriptive instead of more integrative with bricolage theory.

·        It is too extensive, even though it mobilizes relevant bodies of literature, is context sensitive, and tries to read the concepts through bricolage theory. It also presents clearly the knowledge gap.

·        Besides being too extensive, it is also too fragmented and descriptive. Definitions of core concepts are presented, but it needs more integration, analytical synthesis, relationships, consolidation, and elimination of repetition (the concepts are introduced sequentially but not systematically compared or analytically connected). Reduce sections. It needs restructuring.

Response 4: We appreciate your detailed critique, which guided a substantial restructuring:

• The term “key educational theories” has been revised to more precise terminology, distinguishing between theoretical perspectives, policy frameworks, and practice-oriented models. P5
• Section 3.2 has been clarified and better aligned conceptually with the broader argument.  P5-6
• The review has been reduced in length to eliminate excessive detail.
• Greater emphasis has been placed on analytical synthesis rather than description.
• Concepts are now systematically compared and explicitly linked to bricolage theory.
• Redundant definitions and repetitive discussions have been removed.
• Sections have been merged to improve integration and conceptual continuity.

Comment 5: The methodology is clear, and decisions regarding the methodological design are justified. However, consider the following suggestions:

·        Specify how many focus groups were implemented.

·        Limitations should be presented after the discussion. Accordingly, you can use the opportunity to suggest future studies.

·        At a final review, try to (more) succinctly describe the content.

Response 5: Thank you for acknowledging the clarity of this section. In response to your suggestions:

• The number of focus groups conducted was already specified in the initial manuscript; however, we have retained and clarified this detail to ensure it is more visible and not easily overlooked. P10
• The limitations section has been relocated to follow the discussion and is now integrated with suggestions for future research. P17
• The overall description has been further refined to ensure conciseness without compromising clarity

Comment 6: The findings, discussion, and conclusions:

·        Tables need to be numbered and titled.

·        Participant quotes are relevant and well-integrated, and were a target of a balanced interpretation. Theory is used functionally (not rhetorically), and the bricolage theoretical elements are applied rather than merely named. Analysis reveals a stronger link to context. Good triangulation.

·        On page 17, line 834, instead of “also evident” write, “were also reported by the participants in the study”.

·        Conclusions align with the findings, and Bricolage theory is used meaningfully. Recommendations are context sensitive.

Response 6: Findings, Discussion, and Conclusions.
We appreciate your positive assessment of this section. The following revisions were made:

• All tables have been properly numbered and titled for clarity and consistency. P12
• The suggested wording change has been implemented:

“also evident” has been revised to “were also reported by the participants in the study.” P16-17

• Minor stylistic refinements were made to enhance readability while preserving analytical depth.

7. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1:    Thank you for this positive assessment. No changes were required.

5. Additional clarifications

No further clarification since the reviewer’s comments were clearly stated.

Comments 1: The authors have incorporated the majority of the changes suggested by the reviewer, which has led to a substantial improvement in the manuscript. The response letter provided is appreciated, as it clearly addresses the comments raised.

With these revisions, I consider that the manuscript can be published in its current form.

Response 1: The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the revised manuscript and for recognizing the improvements made. We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation for publication and the valuable feedback throughout the review process.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1:    Thank you for this positive assessment. No changes were required.

5. Additional clarifications

No further clarification since the reviewer’s comments were clearly stated.

·        Comments 1: The abstract should be shaper emphasis on problem, method, findings, and contributions. Theory still overlaps empiricism, which is clear. Try to shorten theoretical elements; the explanations can be given in the main text of the manuscript.

Response 1: we appreciate your observation that the abstract was overly extensive and lacked focus. We have adjusted the abstract in line with recommendation. P1 line 18-24

Comments 2:  the theoretical framework, number the three subsections and use the bullet points after a colon (e.g., lines 143 to 151, lines 156 to 166). Sorry, this is my fault for not being clear enough on the previous review.

• In the theoretical framework, merge “Applications of Bricolage in this study” and “Implications of Bricolage for monitoring and support” because they are partially duplicated. It still needs analytical synthesis.
• At a final review, try to (more) succinctly describe the content on the theoretical framework and methodology. Both need analytical synthesis. There is some redundancy and unnecessary over-elaboration.

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this.

·        We have clearly numbered the subsections within the theoretical framework and bullet points have been consistently introduced after colons where appropriate (e.g., lines 143–151 and 156–166). P3-4 line 131-135; line 159-165

·        We have merged the sections “Application of Bricolage in this Study” and “Implications of Bricolage for Monitoring and Support” into a single, integrated subsection. We have adjusted and removed unnecessary and repetitive. P3-4 line 140-178

·        In the final revision, we have substantially streamlined both the theoretical framework and the methodology sections. Redundant explanations and over-elaborations have been removed, and the content has been refined to ensure greater conciseness while strengthening analytical depth. P 8-11 line 409-416, 449-450, 471-472, 484-489, 505-508, 529-532.