Perspective of Supervising Teachers and Tertiary Supervisors on Professional Learning for Professional Experience

Reviewer 1:

Thank you for preparing and submitting this clearly written article on supports for those supervising preservice teachers in the field. I appreciate the level of detail in the literature review to provide context for the support offered in the local context, but I wondered if it could be streamlined in any way. Perhaps breaking up section 1.4 would help; the research objectives and questions are at the end of that portion, and if the authors delineate where the review of “Tertiary Supervisor Perspectives on Professional Learning” and the overall questions and goals are, it could be helpful.

Thank you for providing valuable feedback. The authors have taken all three reviewer comments into consideration and have adjusted the transcript.

The introduction and literature review are now streamlined and organised into 5 clear sections. Some sections also have new titles.

In the introduction, there were many acronyms. I wondered if authors could use fewer to support reader comprehension, especially from an international perspective in which the common acronyms and programs vary.

The authors acknowledge that there are many acronyms. We have kept the acronym for Professional Experience as PEX. We have removed all other acronyms throughout the document.

In the methods, I recommend utilizing a table to describe demographic data rather than listing it all in narrative. At the same time, I don’t think Table 1 is necessary – those are just four codes of participant types.

A new ‘Table 1’ has been included to capture demographic information for Supervising Teacher participants.

The original Table 1 is removed, and text is added to 2.4.1 which explains data coding.

In the section on measures, I wondered if the survey was developed for this study only or if questions were adapted from anywhere else; I recommend clarifying by stating that it was a researcher-generated tool created specifically for this study, if that is the case.

This has been clarified in the text.

In the Results, I think the first header was absorbed into the text – line 381. I might also move that section (Supervising Teacher and Tertiary Supervisor Support Mechanisms) to the end of the section. Authors noted the order in which they would report findings and then supplant the plan with this interjection.

Thank you for identifying this. This is now fixed, and the numbering system thereafter is updated.

It seems as though the results section is table- and figure-heavy while being text-light. I recommend narrativizing more and unpacking what the tables and figures say, or removing some tables and figures if the information they include can quickly be stated in text. For example, Figures 1, 2, and 3 are redundant to the text and don’t add to the results in a meaningful way. At the same time, Table 2 likely contains more interesting information, but as a reader, I don’t feel equipped to unpack some of the support types based on their quotes, especially with an international reader base; that is, we don’t use “going” in the same way as is used in the first and last rows of Table 2—I would more likely hear if the PSTs are DOING okay. I recommend walking the reader through the table instead of simply pointing them to it.

Figure 1 has been removed.

Figure 2 has been removed.

Additional information has been added to Table 2, unpacking the types of support and providing additional context for readers in understanding the participant quotes/examples.

We acknowledge the issue with the term ‘going’, and have made that change.

Similar to Table 2, I’d like an unpacking of Table 3 – if the types of support are important enough to include in the table, please describe them in narrative.

Additional information has been added to Table 3, unpacking the types of support and providing additional context for readers in understanding the participant quotes/examples.

I believe Figure 4 should be kept, but additional narrative should be added.

Additional narrative has been added to unpack Figure 4 (now Figure 1). A revised title has also been added.

Nearing the end of the results section, the subsections become short and choppy; I recommend writing in more complete paragraphs, because right now, the structure feels as though I am just marching through the bits of information that might be described in a presentation or bullet points that would be discussed between a research team. This applies to sections 3.3.1 – 3.3.6 specifically. Please expand the sections.

The authors acknowledge this. The entire section is rewritten to flow.

Lines 521-522 are confusing: “Although not an alarming [consider word choice—surprising?] finding, our data revealed that obstacles to effective PST support stem [remove word?] do not stem from deficiencies in supervising teachers’ [should this be ST?] confidence or competence, but rather from systemic inconsistencies nationally.” I input questions in brackets.

We have changed alarming, to surprising.

The typo is now fixed.

The shortness of narrative in the results complicates the discussion. For example, authors noted in lines 573-574 that “Our findings reveal a significant gap in current practice: the absence of a shared language and conceptual framework around supervision across institutions.” However, I don’t readily see where that comes from within the results – in section 3.3.4, challenges in communication strategies were listed, but only 19% of respondents reported these challenges. To make claims like this, I would anticipate that it be better highlighted in the results. Likewise, in section 4.1, there is a discussion about professional learning that can be traced back to Figure 4, but without additional detail in the results, it puts the onus on the reader to find that relation and does not adequately support the discussion point.

The authors have taken all three reviewer comments into consideration and reworked the results and discussion.

Authors should temper claims about the significance of the study’s findings unless the results can be significantly built out.

Thank you. We hope the updated text provides further insight into the findings.

Reviewer 2

This paper focuses on an important feature of teacher pre-service training—the opportunity to practice teaching in a real classroom. This feature is known as “professional experience” in the Australian setting, but has other names elsewhere, like “students teaching.” Moreover, the paper further focuses in on how the other adults involved—the teachers who host and supervise trainees during their professional experience rounds, and the university staff who support the supervisors—come to understand their work and the supports they would like to have.

Thank you for providing valuable feedback. The authors have taken all three reviewer comments into consideration and have adjusted the transcript.

We acknowledge the reviewers point about the various names used internationally and have added paragraphs in the introduction to explain this. We appreciate this feedback to further strengthen the paper.

“Professional experience” or “student teaching” is understudied generally; plenty of opportunities for contributions to the literature. And in particular, the supervisors and other staff involved are even less the object to study. Bottom line, the focus of the paper is an important strength.

Thank you, the authors agree!

The paper has two main components: a review of related literature and an empirical section with new data collected in Australian schools and universities. The new data are both survey data and in-depth interviews. Collecting survey data, these days, is no easy task with everyone’s inbox stuffed with survey invitations. The authors’ investment in collecting new data should be commended.

Thank you for this positive feedback.

I have some comments and questions for the authors, which I hope will be helpful in revising the paper.

We appreciate these comments.

1. As a reader, I wanted to know more about selection into the samples (both survey and interview). The paper provides some basic demographics of the samples, and some limited comparison to the relevant population. But the sample may well be selected on dimensions other than basic demographics; perhaps selected on the very opinions the paper is studying. I noted that the survey sample was a convenience sample with some snowball sample like features. How might a potential respondent’s opinions on this topic have influenced whether they chose to respond to the survey, or influenced whether they were made aware of the survey? There will not be data to answer this question. But the paper should acknowledge the potential selection, sketch out the ways in which the sample might be selected (not a random sample), and discuss the ways in which the potential selection should temper or influence our interpretation of the data and results.

Additional information about the participants and instrument are now included.

1. I think Tables 2 and 3 would be much more informative if there was a column indicating how many respondents gave each category. In this draft we only know that, for example, “phone call” was said by at least one respondent. How many said “phone call” versus “email”? Simply knowing that one respondent gave a specific answer is not very informative.

The authors do have additional information, and have reviewed the data against this feedback. The review of data does not show any new information or support the numeral claims.

1. To my reading, Section 4.2 is a highlight of the paper. It lays out a clear narrative with actionable ideas. And, importantly, 4.2 seems reasonably well supported by the results in Section 3. Though in 4.2 the paper is not very explicit about the authors’ logical reasoning that starts with the results and ends with the conclusions in 4.2. By contrast, section 4.1 does not seems supported by the results. These conclusions are on topic, and maybe supported by prior research, but the current paper is not advancing our understanding. Though, again, the authors’ logic is not explicit. Perhaps there is a great argument in support of 4.1’s conclusions. If that is true, then please make it explicit.

The other two reviewers also provided feedback for sections 4.1 and 4.2, and these sections are now rewritten.

1. After reading the abstract, I was expecting a paper that was mainly new empirical data and analysis. However, as mentioned above, the paper really has two parts: new data and analysis but also a reasonably lengthy literature review. The literature review section does feel like (a) a literature review for the sake of literature review, and not, by contrast, (b) a focused literature review that directly sets up the new data and analysis. If the authors’ goal was (b), then these sections should be substantially rewritten with clear connections to the new data and analysis. If the authors’ goal was (a), then perhaps the abstract and introduction could make that goal clearer from the start.

A comprehensive breakdown, framed through an Australian lens is provided. We have reduced the length of the literature review and have made it clearer that we aimed to critically assess the current support mechanisms in place to address various challenges mentioned. We position the previous and current research on the forms of PD/PL and collaboration needed to enhance quality and sustainability of PEX.  

1. The literature review is mainly focused on Australia, I believe. I understand the practical need to limit the scope of the review, or simply the desire to limit the scope. I think the paper should be clearer about how and why the authors’ limited the scope of the literature review.

We thank the reviewers for their insight. We have a strong Australian focus in the literature review given the current manuscripts work was in response to various Australian reports, initiatives and advisory group recommendations.

As such, these would be very difficult to note in the scope of works and given the word limit provided. These challenges can and will be addressed in future iterations of the work conducted for another paper.

Reviewer 3

The article addresses a highly important issue, particularly in the context of the global shortage of teachers, and I was impressed by the authors’ motivation to engage with such a significant topic. However, there are substantial limitations in structure, presentation, and transparency that require improvement.

Thank you for providing valuable feedback. The authors have taken all three reviewer comments into consideration and have adjusted the transcript.

Abstract
 The abstract lacks a clearly formulated research question or objective and does not provide a theoretical framework, research approach, or description of the analysis method (see general and abstract-specific comments).

The authors have reworked the abstract.

Introduction

·       Lines 25–28: The opening statements make substantial claims without clear references.

The authors have reworked the introduction entirely.

·       Throughout the introduction: Excessive use of acronyms (PEX, ITE, PST, etc.) hinders readability, especially for readers unfamiliar with the field.

The authors acknowledge that there are many acronyms. We have kept the acronym for Professional Experience as PEX. We have removed all other acronyms throughout the document.

·       Line 58: The term TSs is unexplained.

This is now fixed. Section 1.5 has included Tertiary Supervisor’s (TS).

·       Line 69: The phrase “inherent tensions” is unclear. While education researchers may understand the concept, readers without prior knowledge of mentoring dynamics in teacher education will find it insufficiently explicit. For example, the sentence “This demanding responsibility creates inherent tensions” notes the existence of tension but does not specify what makes it “inherent.”

We have removed the word inherent to reduce any confusion.

·       The repeated reference to “tensions” (line 109) reflects a lack of coherence and clarity.

This section is now reworked.

·       Lines 112–113: It is unclear why maintaining positive professional relationships while providing consistent feedback is considered difficult.

Having positive professional relationships while providing consistent and constructive feedback is often difficult because it requires balancing honesty with empathy, and many people fear that giving feedback (especially critical feedback that could potentially damage a relationship or create tension.

·       Sections 1.1 and 1.2 contain unnecessary repetitions that should be reduced.

This section is now reworked.

·       Line 161: The author mentions “current research” but relies on outdated references, with the most recent from 2018.

Replace with existing research.

·       Lines 164–168: Most literature is very old, and the training model presented from 2009 does not reflect developments up to 2025.

We acknowledge that some literature is not contemporary. The authors have included literature where possible, however, at times, it is scarce and the authors hope this paper will support more recent research in the area.

·       Line 168: Referring to teacher training models in 2025 on the basis of a 2009 source undermines credibility. It is difficult to believe that no progress has been made in Australia over the past 16 years.

We acknowledge this, and it has been changed.

·       Overall, the introduction is far too long (covering pages 1–6, nearly 30% of the article). It is repetitive, acronym-heavy, and places the research questions after an extended literature review, which reduces reader focus.

The authors acknowledge that there are many acronyms. We have kept the acronym for Professional Experience as PEX. We have removed all other acronyms throughout the document. Additionally, we have reduced the word count and removed instances of repetition.

Methods

·       Line 293: The claim that a credential is “typically obtained after several years of teaching experience” requires a source.

The text in this section is now converted to a table as per Reviewer 1’s advice. The sentence related to obtaining accreditation is removed.

·       There is insufficient detail regarding data analysis (e.g., line 325: “triangulation” is stated but not substantiated). It is unclear how analyses were performed, how coding was conducted, and who was involved.

This has been expanded in text.

·       There is no description of how missing data were handled.

As we did not undertake an in-depth statistical analysis that required complete responses, we included all responses that had at least one question after demographic questions answered. This was part of enabling flexibility and anonymity for participants, to ensure they were able to participate in the research.

·       Section 2.4: The thematic analysis process is underdeveloped. The coding procedure, coders involved, and reliability checks need to be clarified and expanded.

This project used reflexive thematic analysis – where reliability checks are not as relevant. This has been clarified in text.

Results

·       Presentation is weak: results are given as one sentence after another without coherence, making it hard to follow.

The results section is reworked.

·       Line 381: Needs a clear heading.

Thank you, this is now fixed and formatted as a heading.

·       Lines 378–380 introduce the discussion by linking to research questions, but line 382 shifts abruptly to self-efficacy without a clear mechanism. This lack of order complicates understanding.

We have removed the reference to self-efficacy and reworked the text in 3.1 and removed Figure 1.

·       Line 388 repeats earlier material.

Line 388 and the paragraph that follows is removed.

·       Figure 1: Caption is vague and insufficiently descriptive. It should allow readers to understand the figure independently. Titles within figures should be avoided.

Based on feedback from reviewer 1, we have removed Figure 1.

·       Lines 389–391: Repetition of earlier statements (line 381).

Line 388 - 391 and the paragraph that follows is removed.

·       Figures 2–4: Same issues as Figure 1. Titles are either vague or presented as questions rather than informative captions.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 are now removed and text has been included to provide additional context. Figure 4 has been reworked (and is now Figure 1) and text is included to support the explanation of the figure.

·       Line 402: The section starts with a quotation without any introduction—this is confusing. The entire qualitative section requires thorough rewriting.

A lead in sentence is now included.

·       Line 406: The word risk is not supported.

Further text is included about at-risk in this section and in Table 2.

·       Line 419: Transition from Section 3.2 to 3.3 occurs without summary, creating structural confusion.

Synthesis of section 3.1 is now included as well as a lead in sentence for section 3.2.

·       Table 2: The example quotations do not support the category “Support during ‘at risk’ process.” It is unclear why these specific support types were chosen. Table 2 is also not followed by a synthesis of key findings.

Synthesis of section 3.1 is now included as well as a lead in sentence for section 3.2.

·       Lines 428–433: Two consecutive quotations appear without introduction or interpretation, making it almost impossible to follow the meaning. Standard qualitative reporting conventions (introduction → quote → interpretation) are not followed.

This is now addressed in all sections that include qualitative comments.

·       Overall, the entire results section requires substantial reorganization and rewriting for clarity and coherence.

We acknowledge this and the entire section is reworked.

Discussion and Literature

·       Line 521: The phrase “Although not an alarming finding” seems inappropriate.

We have changed alarming, to surprising.

·       Line 533: Very old source.

We acknowledge that the source was from 2010. We have changed the text to highlight that this is not a new finding. We have also added a 2025 reference to support this statement.

·       Line 538: COVID-19 is mentioned only once in the entire paper, yet a 2013 reference is used in that context. This risks confusing readers unfamiliar with the chronology; clarification is needed.

This section is also rewritten.

·       Line 544: Requires a scholarly reference.

This section is now rewritten to situate the idea of technology. A citation is also included. Chilton, H., & McCracken, W. (2017). New technology, changing pedagogies? Exploring the concept of remote teaching placement supervision. Higher Education Pedagogies, 2(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2017.1366276

·       Line 545: The statement spanning lines 545–578 requires stronger support from the literature. Relying on a single study is insufficient.

Thank you for this comment. We have reworked this section and included an additional reference.

·       Line 551: Repetition of results—unnecessary.

We have reworked the results to reduce any repetition.

·       Lines 549–565: Redundant repetition of results; nascent discussion themes are not developed in relation to existing literature. Sources are largely Australian; broader international perspectives are missing.

The discussion is now rewritten to allow for this section to not be repetitive.

·       Lines 566–572 and 572–577: Further repetition.

We acknowledge that section 4.2 required rework to avoid repetition. This has been conducted.

Overall Evaluation
 Despite addressing an important and timely issue, the article requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Specifically, it needs:

·       A more concise introduction, updated theoretical framework, and clearer research questions.

We reduced the acronyms, word count and positioned the research questions more clearly.

·       A thorough reorganization of the methods and results sections with transparent description of procedures, coding, and analysis.

The methods and results sections are now reorganised.

·       Proper presentation of qualitative findings (with introduction, quotation, and interpretation).

The qualitative data is now reworked.

·       Stronger international literature base and up-to-date references.

We appreciate this feedback and have added international problems such as teacher shortage statistics, COVID-19 potential effects, synonyms for the terminology used for roles and descriptions of activities.

·       Clear articulation of the study’s limitations and its contribution to the field.

Limitations are now added to the methodology and conclusion.

Only after careful and substantial revision could this paper reach the standard required for publication in a scholarly journal.

Thank you for your feedback on our paper.

Reviewer Comments

Authors Response

Authors significantly updated the paper through this review process, creating a much stronger contribution to the field's literature.

Thank you for this feedback.

With those updates, a new theoretical framework was inserted that I consider a conceptual framework rather than theoretical. That is, I consider communities of practice as conceptual frameworks through which to institute situated learning theory; communities of practice are not in and of themselves theoretical. 

Wenger describes CoPs as groups of people https://www.ohr.wisc.edu/cop/articles/communities_practice_intro_wenger.pdf

If authors might consider situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), it would be an appropriate way to continue utilizing CoPs as the form through which to conceptualize the group of individuals. 

Thank you for this feedback. The authors have reflection the reviewer's feedback about positioning situated learning theory as the primary theoretical lens and have adjusted throughout – abstract, 1.5.1 and the discussion.

I appreciate the updates to the introduction, methods, and findings specifically. All notes were attended to.

Thank you for this feedback.

Reviewer Comments

Authors Response

 As a reader, I wanted to know more about selection into the samples (both survey and interview). The paper provides some basic demographics of the samples, and some limited comparison to the relevant population. But the sample may well be selected on dimensions other than basic demographics; perhaps selected on the very opinions the paper is studying.

I noted that the survey sample was a convenience sample with some snowball sample like features. How might a potential respondent’s opinions on this topic have influenced whether they chose to respond to the survey, or influenced whether they were made aware of the survey? There will not be data to answer this question. But the paper should acknowledge the potential selection, sketch out the ways in which the sample might be selected (not a random sample), and discuss the ways in which the potential selection should temper or influence our interpretation of the data and results.

The authors acknowledge this bias.

The below text is inserted into the research design, section 2.1 Participants:

Initial recruitment used convenience sampling through university partnership contacts and networks. While Table 1 demonstrates that our sample reflects certain demographic characteristics of the broader population of supervising teachers and university staff, we acknowledge potential selection bias that cannot be assessed through demographic comparisons alone.

The recruitment approach may have introduced opinion-based selection effects, where individuals' existing views about teacher supervision, university partnerships, or preservice teacher preparation may have influenced their likelihood of participating when invited. Such selection could mean our sample over-represents educators with stronger opinions (positive or negative) about these topics, or those more engaged with professional development discussions.

While these potential selection effects limit generalisability to the broader population, the insights from this engaged sample of supervising teachers and university staff provide valuable perspectives on current practices in teacher preparation.

Authors’ Response: Additional information about the participants and instrument are now included.

Thank you for this feedback.

My Response: The revised manuscript includes additional *observable* characteristics of the sample. My question is about *unobservable* characteristics, and how those should influence our interpretation of the results.

(2) My Original Comment: I think Tables 2 and 3 would be much more informative if there was a column indicating how many respondents gave each category. In this draft we only know that, for example, “phone call” was said by at least one respondent. How many said “phone call” versus “email”? Simply knowing that one respondent gave a specific answer is not very informative.

Tables 2 and 3 now include the frequency of responses within each category.

Authors’ Response: The authors do have additional information, and have reviewed the data against this feedback. The review of data does not show any new information or support the numeral claims.

 My Response: I do not understand what claims the authors are referring to in “…support the numeral claims.” Is it the case that an equal (or roughly equal) number of respondents said each category? Or is the number of respondents different across categories, but the authors feel there is nothing useful in knowing those numbers? For myself, as a reader, I do think there would be use in knowing the numbers. In the end, I will leave it to the editor to decide whether this is important to the journal’s publication decision.

The number of responses is now included in both Tables to support the descriptive analysis.