Break Barriers: Motivation and Obstacles in Secondary School Teacher Education

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

The authors are grateful for the valuable comments of the reviewer. They have worked diligently to incorporate them to the best of their ability.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

The research hypotheses have been revised for greater clarity.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

The tables have been redesigned, and their comments have been revised.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Must be improved

Additional references to recent publications have been included to ensure the research reflects current developments in the field.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·       The research gap has been more clearly articulated through expanded literature review, with greater emphasis on contemporary research and recent publications.

·       The manuscript has been enhanced with detailed explanation of questionnaire development and participant selection. It is clarified that no sampling was conducted, as the survey included all students from the particular field of study.

·       The manuscript structure has been revised to include a distinct Discussion section, combined with the Results section as permitted by the publisher's guidelines.

·       The Conclusion has been reformulated to address research implications more appropriately.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text was consulted with an English language expert to address language deficiencies.

5. Additional clarifications

The authors have carefully addressed all reviewer comments regarding formal deficiencies (e.g., abbreviations and table titles).

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

The authors are grateful for the valuable comments of the reviewer. They have worked diligently to incorporate them to the best of their ability.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Must be improved

The manuscript has been updated to better situate the research within existing literature

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

The research hypotheses have been revised for greater clarity.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

The discussion of findings has been enhanced for greater coherence.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Is the article adequately referenced?

Must be improved

Additional references to recent publications have been included to ensure the research reflects current developments in the field.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Must be improved

The findings have been contextualized within current literature.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·       The methodology section has been expanded to provide more detailed information about the survey conduct and ethical procedures (stated in the acknowledgement).

·       The sample description has been clarified (it is stated that no sampling was conducted, as the survey included all students from the particular field of study).

·       Sociodemographic variables were not included because they did not contribute to finding statistical dependencies.

·       The discussion section has been enhanced with current research findings.

·       The keywords were revised.

·       The abstract has been condensed to comply with the guidelines.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text was consulted with an English language expert to address language deficiencies.

5. Additional clarifications

Typographical errors, including joined words in the text, have been addressed, and careful attention has been paid to APA7 formatting standards.