Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors study an important question, and the paper describes the context well for the readers. The authors could discuss the external validity of the results in terms of different age groups and different contexts (other than Brazil). Since there is usage of WhatsApp and Instagram in this study, for the study participants, it would be good to discuss how the intervention ensured the data protection policies and reduced harm through social media channels. It would also be interesting to know the extent to which the students used their own media and parents' media devices, and how that impacted the (extent of) engagement and hence, findings. Since the authors have access to meeting transcripts, they could identify teachers' engagement and participation. Since interviews were conducted only at the end, are there any baseline data to indicate teachers' perceptions at the beginning, perhaps by analysing their earlier plans and execution? This could help in understanding how this intervention worked in shaping teachers' experiences.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the time and expertise you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has helped us improve its clarity and overall quality.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments. All corresponding revisions are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

We appreciate your valuable suggestions and trust that these changes address your observations.

Sincerely

Comment 1: Since there is usage of WhatsApp and Instagram in this study, for the study participants, it would be good to discuss how the intervention ensured the data protection policies and reduced harm through social media channels. It would also be interesting to know the extent to which the students used their own media and parents' media devices, and how that impacted the (extent of) engagement and hence, findings.

Response 1: We appreciate this observation. Students did not use WhatsApp or Instagram in this study. Both platforms were created and managed exclusively by the teachers participating in the CoP for the purpose of communication, organization, and sharing of resources. To ensure clarity and address data protection concerns, we revised the manuscript to explicitly state that only teachers participated and that all procedures complied with the approved ethics protocol.

Change in the manuscript: Section 3.1, page 6, paragraph 1, lines 2–9:

“Teachers maintained ongoing communication through a WhatsApp group (which also included the researcher) for organizational purposes, while an Instagram page documented training sessions. These platforms were used exclusively by teachers, with no student participation. All participating teachers provided informed consent for data collection, which included access to their WhatsApp interactions and the use of anonymized excerpts for research purposes. No student data were published, and both platforms were used in compliance with the approved ethical protocol (Code 7.453.253/2025).”

 

Comment 2: Since the authors have access to meeting transcripts, they could identify teachers' engagement and participation. Since interviews were conducted only at the end, are there any baseline data to indicate teachers' perceptions at the beginning, perhaps by analysing their earlier plans and execution? This could help in understanding how this intervention worked in shaping teachers' experiences.

Response 2: Although no formal baseline interviews were conducted, the first meeting transcripts and early lesson-plan drafts served as indirect indicators of teachers’ initial perceptions of STEAM integration. We revised the Results and Discussion section to include examples that illustrate these starting points and the subsequent evolution of participants’ understanding.

Change in the manuscript: Section 3.1, page 17, paragraph 1-3, lines 3–22:

 

“Although no formal baseline interviews were conducted, the transcripts from the first meeting and early lesson plan drafts provided indirect indicators of teachers’ initial perceptions of STEAM integration. For example, during the first meeting, Teacher Frida described a project using Scratch as a STEAM experience: “I worked on a volunteer project in rural schools. The aim was to teach children to develop small games on this platform (Scratch). It was gratifying; the group was mixed, and despite different skill levels, they managed to create great games.” This illustrates the initial perception that any technology-based project could be considered STEAM, reflecting a limited understanding of integrated STEAM practices.

Similarly, Teachers Ada and Hedy initially developed pseudo-iSTEAM plans in small groups. Loosely connected disciplinary approaches characterized these early plans. After engaging in collaborative discussions and group planning, both teachers refined their proposals into individual, context-sensitive i-STEAM plans, demonstrating a more coherent integration across different disciplines and an increased attention to real-world contexts.

These examples provide concrete evidence of participants’ starting points and allow tracing the evolution of their understanding and planning. Overall, participation in the CoP facilitated conceptual shifts and improvements in didactic planning, highlighting the value of collaborative reflection, discussion, and iterative design in supporting teachers’ development of integrated i-STEAM practices.”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your paper "From Collaboration to Integration: How a Community of Practice Supports Public School Teachers' Understanding of Integrated STEAM Education" makes an essential contribution to the literature on integrated STEAM (i-STEAM) education and teacher professional learning. The emphasis on a Community of Practice (CoP) as a means of assisting teachers' conceptual and practical adoption of i-STEAM is both timely and relevant. The study is well-organized, makes good use of theoretical frameworks, and provides insights into how collaborative design processes might help with multidisciplinary integration in public school settings.

Strengths
• The study addresses the ambiguity of i-STEAM and challenges in teacher implementation.

• The use of Wenger's CoP dimensions and established analytical tools (e.g., Valois & Sasseron, Stroupe, Gresnigt et al.) provides methodological rigor.

• The context of diverse Brazilian schools, with attention to gender equity and cultural diversity, broadens the significance of the study.

Areas to Improve

1. Clear and concise writing

o Some portions, notably the theoretical background and outcomes, are thick and could use more concise language. For example, the examination of various meanings of "arts" under STEAM is informative but fairly repetitive. These parts might be streamlined for better readability.

2. Linking Oral and Written Outcomes 

o Oral talks showed greater integration than written lesson plans. This is an important finding, although it could be more thoroughly theorized.

How do you understand this disparity?

Does it indicate limitations in recording techniques, or deeper issues in instructors' conceptual appropriation of i-STEAM?

 3. Engineering Design and Evaluation

The instructional plans lack engineering design methods and evaluation strategies. The debate might be expanded to include suggestions for future CoPs or professional development programs to scaffold these components (for example, through iterative prototyping activities, peer feedback cycles, or embedded rubrics).

4. Conceptual vs. Practical Integration 

o The integration profiles (connected, nested, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary) are clearly described. However, the transition from these profiles to lesson plan classifications may be more thoroughly delineated. A simple comparative table (profile vs. plan outcome) could assist in clarifying this link.

5. Limitations & Transferability

The conclusion emphasizes that the findings are context-dependent. It may improve the work if it specifically states which features of this CoP model are most transferable (e.g., use of WhatsApp for sustained contact, teacher authorship of suggestions) and which are culturally distinctive.

6. Minor issues

Check for uniformity in terms (e.g., "i-STEAM," "STEAM").

Some references are incomplete (e.g., Author, 2013; Author et al., 2008). Before submitting the final version, please make sure that all placeholders are right.

Consider mild proofreading for grammar and syntax, particularly in the Results section where lengthy sentences might obfuscate meaning.

Conclusion
Overall, this is a useful and well-written book that presents empirical evidence for how CoPs might promote integrated STEAM practices among public school teachers. With updates to increase clarity, deepen theoretical links between findings, and expound on future approaches for engineering design and assessment, this study will make a significant addition to the discipline. I urge considerable revisions, primarily to improve clarity and deepen the interpretive analysis.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the time and expertise you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has helped us improve its clarity and overall quality.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments. All corresponding revisions are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

We appreciate your valuable suggestions and trust that these changes address your observations.

Sincerely

Comment 1: Some portions, notably the theoretical background and outcomes, are thick and could use more concise language. For example, the examination of various meanings of "arts" under STEAM is informative but fairly repetitive.

Response 1: We revised the Theoretical Background and Outcomes sections to streamline language and remove redundancies. In particular, the discussion of the “arts” component in STEAM was condensed to improve readability while preserving conceptual accuracy.

Comment 2: Oral talks showed greater integration than written lesson plans. This is an important finding, although it could be more thoroughly theorized. How do you understand this disparity? Does it indicate limitations in recording techniques, or deeper issues in instructors’ conceptual appropriation of i-STEAM?

Response 2: We clarified this point in the Results and Discussion section using Wenger’s (1998) concepts of participation and reification. Oral discussions reflected active participation, where teachers freely explored and refined their ideas. Lesson plans are reified artifacts that must fit fixed formats and, therefore, show less integration. The gap reflects this structural difference, not a lack of understanding, and aligns with studies on the transition from oral to written practice (Auby et al., 2024; Daele, 2010; Gómez-Blancarte & Miranda, 2021).

Change in the manuscript: Section 4.2, page 14, paragraph 3,  lines 12-20:

“The integration evident in oral accounts reflects the dynamics between participation and reification (Wenger, 1998). The recorded discussions during CoP meetings show the fluidity of participation, where ideas are negotiated and emerging understandings of i-STEAM are expressed without the structural constraints of formal documents. Lesson plans, as reified artifacts, formalize knowledge within prescribed formats, which explains why they lag behind oral discourse. This disparity suggests that the temporal and structural limits of reification are more significant than any weakness in teachers’ conceptual appropriation, consistent with studies on the interplay between oral meaning-making and written formalization (Auby et al., 2024; Daele, 2010; Gómez-Blancarte & Miranda, 2021).”

Comment 3: Project and engineering evaluation: instructional plans lack engineering-design methods and assessment strategies. The debate could be expanded to include suggestions for future CoPs or professional-development programs (e.g., iterative prototyping activities, peer-feedback cycles, or embedded rubrics).

Response 3: We expanded the Results and Discussion section to recommend strategies for strengthening both the engineering design and assessment dimensions in future CoPs and professional development programs. The new text emphasizes the importance of teacher preparation that explicitly develops engineering-design competencies, such as iterative prototyping, testing, and refinement (Capobianco et al., 2021; Radloff & Capobianco, 2019) and incorporates opportunities for students to practice these processes in authentic classroom contexts (Ojeogwu & Mumba, 2025). It also underscores the importance of structured training in classroom-based STEM assessment, including the co-development of context-specific criteria and rubrics (Harris et al., 2023).

Change in the manuscript: Section 4.2 – Results and Discussion, page 13, paragraph 5-6, lines 35-57:

“Strengthening teacher preparation in engineering design requires structured opportunities to work through the entire design cycle—problem scoping, prototyping, testing, and iterative refinement—within real classroom settings. Research shows that such experiences build both pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in guiding students through open-ended engineering challenges (Capobianco et al., 2021; Radloff & Capobianco, 2019; LoFaro & Webb, 2020). Effective programs also integrate engineering concepts into disciplinary coursework—for example, chemical engineering in chemistry or environmental engineering in earth sciences—to help transfer design practices to school environments (Pleasants et al., 2019, 2020). Combining explicit instruction on engineering design processes with mentored field practice enables teachers to integrate these skills into science teaching that responds to specific contexts, creating coherent, inquiry-based lessons aligned with i-STEAM goals (Ryu et al., 2019).

A structured approach to teacher preparation in assessment is also essential for i-STEAM implementation. Harris et al. (2023) emphasize that meaningful evaluation should accompany the whole learning process and document how students approach, test, and revise their ideas. Teacher education programs can address this need by engaging participants in the design and trial of assessment tools that capture intermediate stages of inquiry and design work. Key elements include the development of analytic rubrics aligned with engineering and scientific practices, analysis of student artifacts such as notebooks and prototypes, and discussion of evidence in collaborative workshops. Repeated cycles of planning, classroom application, and peer review strengthen teachers’ ability to integrate assessment with instruction and to use collected evidence to refine both teaching strategies and student learning pathways.”

Comment 4: The integration profiles (connected, nested, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary) are clearly described. However, the transition from these profiles to lesson-plan classifications may be more thoroughly delineated. A simple comparative table (profile vs. plan outcome) could assist in clarifying this link.

 Response 4: We expanded the Results and Discussion section to present a direct comparison between teachers’ conceptual profiles and the classifications of their lesson plans. A new table (Table 6) summarizes the triangulation of interview data and lesson-plan outcomes, allowing readers to see how each participant’s integration profile was—or was not—translated into practical i-STEAM designs. The accompanying text highlights three patterns: coherence between profile and practice, partial translation where plans remained at a pseudo-i-STEAM level, and progression from collective pseudo-i-STEAM planning to individual i-STEAM plans.

Change in the manuscript: Section 4.3, page 16, paragraph 3, lines 12-17:

“To further clarify how these conceptual profiles were reflected in practice, we triangulated interview data with the outcomes of the lesson plans developed by the participants. Table 6 presents a direct comparison of each participant’s integration profile, as identified in the interviews, with the corresponding classification of her lesson plan(s)… [full table and interpretive paragraph as provided].”

Comment 5: The conclusion emphasizes that the findings are context-dependent. It may improve the work if it specifically states which features of this CoP model are most transferable (e.g., use of WhatsApp for sustained contact, teacher authorship of suggestions) and which are culturally distinctive.

 Response 5: We revised the Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Perspectives section to distinguish transferable features—such as cross-disciplinary teacher collaboration, co-design of lesson plans, sustained low-cost digital communication, and strong teacher authorship—from context-specific aspects, including the collective aim of inspiring girls in science and the locally selected themes that necessarily vary by setting.

Change in the manuscript: Section 5, page 18, paragraphs 6-7, lines 32-43:

“While the findings reflect the sociocultural realities of Brazilian public schools, several design features of this Community of Practice (CoP) are broadly transferable to other contexts. Central is the intentional gathering of teachers from diverse disciplines and school contexts, with lesson plans co-designed around their own priorities rather than imposed curricula. Other adaptable elements include sustained, low-cost digital communication (e.g., WhatsApp) and strong teacher authorship, which together enhance both relevance and feasibility.

Context-dependent aspects include the collective aim of inspiring girls in science—highly appropriate where gender gaps are significant — but are readily replaced by other equity goals in different settings, and the locally selected themes, which naturally vary across contexts. Clearly distinguishing these transferable structures from context-specific purposes can guide adaptation of the CoP model to a wide range of educational systems.”

Comment 6: Check for uniformity in terms (e.g., "i-STEAM," "STEAM").

Response 6: We carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure consistent use of i-STEAM when referring to the integrated pedagogical model. The term STEAM is retained only when explicitly naming the component disciplines or when quoting teachers’ direct speech.

Comment 7: Some references are incomplete (e.g., Author, 2013; Author et al., 2008). Before submitting the final version, please make sure that all placeholders are right.

Response 7: We acknowledge that some references currently appear as placeholders (e.g., Author, 2013; Author et al., 2008). These have been intentionally left in this form to preserve anonymity during the review process. All placeholders will be replaced with complete bibliographic information in the final, camera-ready version of the manuscript.

Comment 8: Consider mild proofreading for grammar and syntax, particularly in the Results section, where lengthy sentences might obfuscate meaning.

Response 8: The entire manuscript—especially the Results section—underwent careful language editing to simplify lengthy sentences and improve grammar and syntax.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I only would like to suggest some minor changes:

• Introduction: While describing different models, add a reference to Yakman work defining STEAM education, and the holistic approach that is discussed in her work

• Introduction: While describing teachers difficulties, address studies that address how that impacts or relates to student difficulties with i-STEAM
• Introduction: The first reference of CoP does not come with the description of the acronym (that only exists in the abstract)
• Methodology: Indicate the student age interval associated to grades 6-9
• Metholology: Indicate that teacher participants authorized data collection, acess to Whatsapp conversations, etc

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the time and expertise you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has helped us improve its clarity and overall quality.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments. All corresponding revisions are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

We appreciate your valuable suggestions and trust that these changes address your observations.

Sincerely

Comment 1: Introduction: While describing different models, add a reference to Yakman work defining STEAM education, and the holistic approach that is discussed in her work.

 Response 1:  We have incorporated a reference to Yakman’s seminal work when introducing the evolution of STEAM education.

Change in the manuscript: Introduction, page 1, paragraph 2, lines 6–9:

“This holistic perspective aligns with Yakman’s (2008) definition of STEAM education as a dynamic system in which its constituent disciplines interact as mutually reinforcing domains, enabling learners to connect knowledge with personal, societal, and global challenges.”

Comment 2: Introduction: While describing teachers’ difficulties, address studies that show how that impacts or relates to student difficulties with i-STEAM.

Response 2: We agree and have revised the text to highlight the implications of teacher challenges for student learning.
Change in the manuscript: Section 2.2, page 3, paragraph 7, lines 41–49:

“Such teacher-related challenges have direct consequences for students. When teachers lack confidence or clear strategies for integrative instruction, students encounter fragmented learning and fewer opportunities for authentic inquiry, resulting in a limited interdisciplinary understanding and problem-solving (Dare et al., 2019; Kim & Bolger, 2017). Recent studies confirm that limited professional development and low teacher familiarity with STEAM reduce the depth and coherence of implementation and, consequently, student engagement and learning quality (Correia et al., 2024; Fields & Kafai, 2023; Kessler et al., 2024; Martins & Baptista, 2024; Silva-Hormazábal & Alsina, 2023).”

Comment 3: Introduction: The first reference of CoP does not come with the description of the acronym (that only exists in the abstract).

Response 3: We confirm that the first occurrence of the term appears on page 2, Introduction, paragraph 4, where it is introduced in full as “This perspective correlates with the idea of a Community of Practice (CoP) …”. Thus, the acronym is defined at its first mention in the main text.

Comment 4: Methodology: Indicate the student age interval associated to grades 6–9.

Response 4: We have clarified the grade–age equivalence.

Change in the manuscript: Section 3.1, page 6, paragraph 1, line 2:

“…grades 6–9 (students aged approximately 11–14 years)…”.

Comment 5: Methodology: Indicate that teacher participants authorized data collection, access to WhatsApp conversations, etc.

Response 5: We have added explicit information on informed consent.
Change in the manuscript: Section 3.1, page 6, paragraph 1, lines 6–9:

“All participating teachers provided informed consent for data collection, which included access to their WhatsApp interactions and the use of anonymized excerpts for research purposes. No student data were published, and both platforms were used in compliance with the approved ethical protocol (Code 7.453.253/2025).”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript, "From Collaboration to Integration: How a Community of Practice Supports Public School Teachers' Understanding of Integrated STEAM Education." Your efforts to respond to past review comments are excellent. The improvements considerably improved the study's clarity, depth, and structure.

The paper now contains more clear and coherent writing, particularly in the theoretical framework and discussion parts. Redundancies, particularly in the definition of "arts" under STEAM, have been significantly reduced, improving readability without compromising nuance.

Commendations

1. Enhanced Clarity and Writing Style: The paper now contains clearer and coherent writing, particularly in the theoretical framework and discussion parts. Redundancies, particularly in the definition of "arts" under STEAM, have been significantly reduced, improving readability without compromising nuance.
   
   
2. Theoretical Integration: You have expanded the theoretical foundations regarding oral versus written integration, making their connection to conceptual learning and representational practices more explicit. This provides a clearer perspective on the difference between oral collaboration and formal lesson planning.
   
   
3. Expanded Treatment of Engineering Design: The revised discussion section recognizes the absence of engineering design and assessment strategies and expands on future directions for CoP-supported professional development. This update fills an important gap in the original manuscript.
   
   
4. Improved Data Presentation: The integration profiles are more clearly aligned with lesson plan outcomes. Including a refined planning rubric and explanation of each integration level offers better transparency into your evaluation process.
   
   
5. Transferability and Limitations: You have clearly identified which aspects of the CoP (e.g., WhatsApp communication, local cultural adaptation, collaborative authorship) are potentially transferable and which are specific to the context, enhancing the broader relevance of your findings.
   
   
6. Minor Corrections Addressed: The inconsistent use of “i-STEAM” and placeholder citations has been corrected. The Results and Discussion sections now flow more logically and are improved with lighter but effective grammatical revisions.

Remaining Suggestions

2. While your revisions are strong, the following points could further improve the manuscript:
3. Deeper Engagement with Evaluation Strategies: Although the lack of process and result evaluations is acknowledged, the manuscript could be enhanced by suggesting specific frameworks or tools that future CoPs might utilize to address this gap. For example, brief descriptions of formative or embedded assessment tools could be helpful.
   
   
4. Visual Summary Table: Consider reintroducing a comparative visual, such as a table or figure, that connects integration profiles (e.g., interdisciplinary, nested) to specific lesson plan outcomes and corresponding rubric scores. This would help improve the reader's understanding and synthesis of the findings.
   
   
5. Oral vs. Written Disparities, Further Theorization: Your explanation of representational modes is promising. You could strengthen this section by citing relevant literature on teacher cognition or planning-as-practice frameworks to support the oral dominance in conceptual integration better.

Conclusion

Your updated article is a thorough and excellent contribution to the fields of STEAM education and teacher development. It offers a thoughtful assessment of how communities of practice can assist educators in engaging with integrated pedagogies, particularly in low-resource public school contexts. The changes made since the initial edition effectively address earlier concerns and increase the overall quality of the work.

Author Response

Dear Editor,
We thank you and the reviewers for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the comments that guided the revision process. All suggestions were considered, and the paper was modified accordingly. Below we present a point-by-point response to each comment, indicating the changes made in the manuscript.

Comment 1: Deeper Engagement with Evaluation Strategies
Although the lack of process and result evaluations is acknowledged, the manuscript could be enhanced by suggesting specific frameworks or tools that future CoPs might utilize to address this gap. For example, brief descriptions of formative or embedded assessment tools could be helpful.
Response 1: We expanded the section on evaluation strategies based on Harris et al. (2023) and included the Co-Measure rubric (Herro et al., 2017) as a concrete example of an assessment tool used to analyse collaboration in STEAM activities. We also incorporated Activity Theory (Author et al., 2008) to explain how assessment tools operate as mediating artifacts within a CoP, supporting collective reflection and instructional change.
Change in the manuscript: Section 4.2, page 14, paragraph 2-4, lines 8–40:
“While teacher preparation provides the foundation for integrating assessment and instruction, the practical enactment of these principles requires frameworks that sup-port teachers in capturing and interpreting evidence of student learning during implementation. Building on Harris et al. (2023), formative assessment can be understood as an ongoing process that connects learning goals, instructional practices, and evidence of students’ reasoning. Teachers can apply this perspective by designing assessment tasks that capture how students engage in inquiry, problem-solving, and reflection throughout their projects. The authors highlight three key components that can guide these practices: learning models that clarify expected progressions of under-standing, strategies for eliciting valid evidence of student thinking through observation and questioning, and tools for interpreting this evidence, such as analytic rubrics or learning journals. Applying these principles in the classroom enables teachers to identify intermediate stages of learning, discuss evidence collectively, and use these insights to refine instruction.
A concrete example that illustrates this approach is the Co-Measure rubric (Herro et al., 2017), developed to assess individual collaboration in STEAM activities. This as-assessment tool defines specific dimensions of collaborative work, including peer interaction, communication, inquiry depth, authenticity, and transdisciplinary thinking. When adapted within a CoP, the instrument can serve as a shared framework for teachers to observe and discuss how students collaborate and reason through problems, embedding assessment within instruction and fostering collective pedagogical reflection.
Building on this perspective, Activity Theory provides an analytical framework that can deepen the understanding of formative assessment by situating it within the broader system of teaching and learning. This theoretical lens conceptualizes learning as a socially mediated process embedded in activity systems and highlights the dialectical relationships among motives, actions, and operations. It enables evaluators to examine how pedagogical intentions are transformed into collective practices and how participants appropriate mediating tools in the process. Previous studies have shown that elements such as subject, object, tools, rules, division of labor, and outcomes can structure teachers' understanding of their professional development (Author et al., 2008). Drawing on this approach, future STEAM-oriented CoPs could design assess-ment protocols that integrate criteria related to collaboration, tool appropriation, and negotiation of meaning, expanding the understanding of formative processes without reducing assessment to individual results.”

Comment 2: Visual Summary Table
Consider reintroducing a comparative visual, such as a table or figure, that connects integration profiles (e.g., interdisciplinary, nested) to specific lesson plan outcomes and corresponding rubric scores. This would help improve the reader's understanding and synthesis of the findings. 
Response 2: Table 6 was revised to show the connections between teachers’ integration conceptions, their lesson plans, and the corresponding theoretical and practical rubric scores. The new version improves the synthesis of results and shows how each integration profile relates to the development of i-STEAM practices.
Change in the manuscript: Section 4.3, page 18-19, paragraph 1-2, lines 1–25:
 
Table 6. Connections between teachers’ integration conceptions, lesson plans, and corresponding rubric scores.

Teacher 
(Pseudonym) Integration Profile 
(Conception) Lesson Plan(s)  Lesson Plan Integration 
(Theoretical/Practical Classification) Theoretical Score 
(range: 0-9) Practical Score 
(range: 0-48)
Ada Interdisciplinary Plan 2 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition  2 14
 Plan 7 (Individual) i-STEAM/Basic 5 20
Adriana Connected Plan 3 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition  1 12
Bertha Multidisciplinary Plan 3 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition  1 12
Frida Interdisciplinary Plan 2 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition  2 14
 Plan 5 (Pair) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition  4 11
Gladys Connected * * * *
Hedy Interdisciplinary Plan 2 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition  2 14
 Plan 8 (individual) i-STEAM/ Basic 5 17
Katherine Connected Plan 2 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition  2 14
 Plan 4 (Pair) i-STEAM/ Basic 5 16

 

Teacher 
(Pseudonym) Integration Profile 
(Conception) Lesson Plan(s)  Lesson Plan Integration 
(Theoretical/Practical Classification) Theoretical Score 
(range: 0-9) Practical Score 
(range: 0-48)
Katemari Multidisciplinary Plan 1 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 2 12
 Plan 5 (Pair) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 4 11
Maria Laura Interdisciplinary Plan 4 (Pair) i-STEAM/ Basic 5 16
Marie Multidisciplinary Plan 3 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 1 12
Marta Multidisciplinary * * * *
Mary Nested Plan 1 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 2 12
Mileva Interdisciplinary Plan 1 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 2 12
 Plan 6 (individual) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 4 13
Rosalind * Plan 1 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 2 12
Valerie * Plan 3 (Group) Pseudo-i-STEAM/ In the process of acquisition 1 12
Note. * The teacher did not participate in that activity.
 

Comment 3: Oral vs. Written Disparities, Further Theorization
 Your explanation of representational modes is promising. You could strengthen this section by citing relevant literature on teacher cognition or planning-as-practice frameworks to support the oral dominance in conceptual integration better.
Response 3: We strengthened the theoretical grounding by adding classical and recent studies on teacher cognition (Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Borg, 2003, 2015; Contreras et al., 2020; Öztürk, 2021) and on planning-as-practice (Yinger, 1980; Wing-Mui So, 1997; Priestley et al., 2012). These additions support the analysis of how pedagogical reasoning develops through oral and written interactions within professional collaboration.
Change in the manuscript: Section 4.2, page 15 paragraph 3-4,  lines 19-44:
“The predominance of oral interaction in conceptual integration suggests that teachers’ pedagogical reasoning unfolds through situated cognitive activity. Scholarship on teacher cognition demonstrates that teachers think and act within the social and discursive contexts of their work rather than apart from them (Borg, 2003, 2015; Contreras et al, 2020; Öztürk, 2021; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Their judgments, decisions, and hypotheses take form through ongoing interaction with colleagues and through the use of artefacts that mediate professional reasoning. Speech is central to this process because it organizes and advances thought while simultaneously making it visible to others. Classic studies of lesson planning indicate that teachers rarely follow linear or prescriptive models; instead, planning develops as a cyclical process of formulating, testing, and revising ideas (Yinger, 1980; Wing-Mui So, 1997). These findings reveal that pedagogical reasoning is inherently dynamic and context-dependent, emerging most vividly in oral exchanges that allow teachers to negotiate meanings and explore multiple domains of thought before these are reified in written form.

Contemporary research further supports this view. Hutner and Markman (2016) argue that teachers’ cognition is socially distributed across individuals and departmental cultures, meaning that professional knowledge is shaped through shared representations rather than isolated reflection. Similarly, Adams and Krockover (1997) show that novice teachers rely heavily on dialogue with peers to articulate concerns and validate instructional decisions, emphasizing the reflective and collaborative nature of professional thinking. Through such interactions, oral communication functions as a collective cognitive space in which teachers co-construct, test, and refine pedagogical ideas. From a planning-as-practice perspective, this process illustrates the situated nature of teacher agency, as meaning is jointly constructed and only later stabilized in written documentation (Priestley et al., 2012). The difference between oral and written modes thus reflects a movement from open, generative reasoning to structured, finalized representation.”

We appreciate the reviewers’ comments, which helped refine the manuscript.
We believe that the revised version responds effectively to all points raised.

Sincerely,
All authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf