Review Reports - Cultivating Expertise: The Impact of Lesson Study on the Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Grade 11 Life Sciences Educators in South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and timely theme in science education research. The integration of Lesson Study (LS) as a professional development strategy for enhancing Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TSPCK) is a significant topic, especially in contexts where educators face challenges in teaching complex biological concepts such as cellular respiration. Recent studies have shown growing interest in examining how collaborative professional development models like Lesson Study can contribute to developing teachers’ PCK and, more specifically, TSPCK. Thus, this manuscript sits within a relevant and evolving body of literature.

While the manuscript is clearly written and the authors demonstrate solid knowledge of the field, several major revisions are required before it could be considered for publication. The paper would benefit from streamlining the language, clarifying methodological details, and ensuring that its claims are adequately substantiated with data.

Below, I detail specific comments.

I suggest restructuring the abstract, as while the abstract provides a clear summary of the results and contributions of the study, it does not sufficiently describe the methodological approach used. For example, it omits details about the qualitative design, the use of lesson study cycles, the number of participants, and the context of data collection.
The text is overly verbose and at times excessively laudatory, with superlative language (“audacious research,” “wonderfully emphasized,” “life-changing event”) that detracts from its scientific objectivity. I recommend adopting a more concise, academic tone throughout.
While the paper effectively contextualizes the challenges in teaching cellular respiration and the promise of Lesson Study, it lacks sufficient critical reflection on its limitations, particularly regarding sample size, potential researcher influence, and transferability of findings.
Despite mentioning Lesson Study extensively in the results, the paper does not adequately discuss Lesson Study in the theoretical background, nor does it systematically relate prior research on LS specifically connected to PCK or TSPCK development. This gap should be addressed to better frame the study within existing literature.
The paper repeatedly mentions improvements in TSPCK, yet it is unclear how TSPCK was defined, operationalized, or measured. The discussion would benefit from a clearer articulation of the construct, its components, and how the data substantiate claims of its development.
Although Lesson Study and TSPCK are central to the paper, the theoretical background does not sufficiently review other studies that have specifically combined Lesson Study with PCK or TSPCK development. This connection should be explicitly integrated.
The authors state: “Data from open-ended questionnaires in lesson discussions were split into basic units and thematically categorized for a comprehensive summary.” However, it is not clear how themes were derived, whether coding was inductive or deductive, and whether software tools were used. I recommend providing greater transparency regarding the analytical process.
The section on trustworthiness is very well written and important for the study, providing a good overview of qualitative rigor. However, the discussion would be stronger if linked explicitly to concrete examples from the current study, rather than relying solely on generic references.
(p.5) Figure 1 – It seems there may be a misreference in the text. What is described as Figure 1 appears later as Figure 2. Additionally, Figure 1 should be described in the methodology section in the context of participants. It would also help to clarify the meaning of each qualification listed (e.g., Honours in Education), as readers from other regions may not be familiar with these terms.
Some acronyms are not defined in the text, for example “CASS and SBA” (p.6). All acronyms should be defined at first use for clarity.
Regarding the sentence: “the constant strain of stress and exhaustion creates a significant barrier against the successful use of the lesson study technique” (p.6) — On what data is this conclusion based? It would be important to indicate specific findings or quotes that substantiate this statement.
Similarly: “The obvious lack of time and resources is a barrier that prevents the adoption of critical reflective techniques that are necessary for ongoing professional development and teaching improvement” (p.6). This is a very relevant point, and likely applicable in other educational contexts beyond South Africa. Could the authors cite additional studies to support this assertion?
The statement “Boundaries are pushed in TSPCK by customizing development programs to fit the distinct demographics of educators.” lacks evidence. What data or references support this claim?
Lines 217-224 – There is a break in coherence in this paragraph. The discussion shifts abruptly from TSPCK to biological content. I suggest rewriting this section for better flow.
Although the paper discusses “Lesson Planning Cycle” in section 3.1, it would strengthen the manuscript to explore this topic in the theoretical framework, referencing prior studies that have used Lesson Study specifically for PCK development.
Lines 258-267 – What are these? Are these excerpts from educators? They seem disconnected in the text and would benefit from clearer integration.
Figures 20 and 21 (p.8) — Is this numbering correct? The figures appear out of sequence. For instance, Figure 2 is cited on line 286, yet the image is labeled Figure 1. I recommend carefully reviewing all figure numbering and references throughout the manuscript.
Line 257: “They also participated in deep reflection sessions as part of their usual academic schedule.” — How were these sessions conducted? More detail is needed about the structure, guiding questions, or protocols used in these reflections.
Line 258: “Building on the priceless knowledge gained from the first lesson planning cycle, participants made impressive strides in the second cycle.” — How was this determined? What specific data indicate this progress?
Line 291: “TSPCK's obvious shortcomings were made abundantly clear.” — Which specific shortcomings in TSPCK were observed? This needs clarification and evidence from data.
Lines 293-294: “the obvious lack of confidence on the part of others in this area caused serious worries and may have prevented productive conversations.” — How was this lack of confidence observed? The text does not present clear data to support this interpretation.
Lines 350-352: “T1 lacked understanding of inclusion and Language Across the Curriculum (LAC), affecting learners from diverse backgrounds. This gap may hinder engagement for non-dominant language speakers and limit culturally sensitive methods.” — How was T1’s lack of understanding of inclusion and LAC identified? More concrete evidence or quotes would strengthen this claim.
Lines 356-366: “Learners are expected to comprehend the following lesson objectives.” — Where do these objectives come from? Are they from national curricula, the researchers’ design, or teachers’ plans? This should be clarified.
Line 374: “the overall understanding was achieved.” — Again, this is a generalization without specific evidence. What indicators or data support this conclusion?

Overall, the discussion would benefit significantly from including excerpts from teachers’ statements. As it stands, the analysis is rather vague and lacks direct evidence from the data.

Line 442: “This life-changing event greatly strengthened their abilities and increased productivity.” — How was an increase in productivity measured or observed?
Lines 515-517: “It makes a significant academic contribution by highlighting the critical role that TSPCK plays in the dynamic and successful teaching of cellular respiration.” — This is too generic. Is this conclusion drawn from the data, or simply from theoretical discussion? It should be linked explicitly to findings.

A crucial issue concerns the construct of TSPCK. What evidence indicates its development? The manuscript should explicitly state what the authors define as TSPCK, its components, and how these components were observed or measured in the data. Currently, there are many claims about improvements in TSPCK, but few concrete examples demonstrating these changes. This is particularly important because, although I agree from other literature on the potential of Lesson Study to improve TSPCK, the current manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate this empirically.

Given the issues raised above, I recommend Major Revision. The study addresses an important topic and has potential to contribute meaningfully to the field, but it requires significant restructuring and clarification.

I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript accordingly, as the research topic is valuable and relevant for the science education community.

Author Response

1. I suggest restructuring the abstract, as while the abstract provides a clear summary of the results and contributions of the study, it does not sufficiently describe the methodological approach used. For example, it omits details about the qualitative design, the use of lesson study cycles, the number of participants, and the context of data collection

The abstract has been revised to provide a clear overview of the research methodology, including the qualitative approach, the use of lesson study cycles as the research design, the number of participants involved, and the context in which the data was collected.

2. The text is overly verbose and at times excessively laudatory, with superlative language (“audacious research,” “wonderfully emphasized,” “life-changing event”) that detracts from its scientific objectivity. I recommend adopting a more concise, academic tone throughout.

Manuscript revised to adopt a more concise and academic tone.

Removed superlative language and focused on presenting the research findings in a clear and objective manner
- Edited the text to improve clarity and concision, ensuring that the language is precise and free of unnecessary embellishments
- Ensured that the tone is consistent with academic writing standards, prioritizing scientific objectivity and rigor

3. While the paper effectively contextualizes the challenges in teaching cellular respiration and the promise of Lesson Study, it lacks sufficient critical reflection on its limitations, particularly regarding sample size, potential researcher influence, and transferability of findings.

We appreciate the feedback. In response to your comment, we have revised the paper to acknowledge and discuss the limitations of the Lesson Study approach used in our research, specifically with regards to:

- Sample size limitations
- Potential researcher influence
- Transferability of findings

These limitations are now explicitly addressed in the revised manuscript, providing a more nuanced and balanced discussion of the study's contributions and constraints.

4. Despite mentioning Lesson Study extensively in the results, the paper does not adequately discuss Lesson Study in the theoretical background, nor does it systematically relate prior research on LS specifically connected to PCK or TSPCK development. This gap should be addressed to better frame the study within existing literature.

We appreciate the feedback. In response to your comment, we have strengthened the theoretical background section to provide a more comprehensive discussion of Lesson Study, including its relevance to Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TSPCK) development. We have also systematically integrated prior research on Lesson Study about PCK and TSPCK to better contextualize our study within the existing literature. These revisions aim to enhance the paper's theoretical foundation and provide a clearer framework for our research.

5. The paper repeatedly mentions improvements in TSPCK, yet it is unclear how TSPCK was defined, operationalized, or measured. The discussion would benefit from a clearer articulation of the construct, its components, and how the data substantiate claims of its development.

We appreciate the feedback. In response to your comment, we have clarified the definition, operationalization, and measurement of Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TSPCK) in the paper. Specifically, we have:

- Provided a clear definition of TSPCK and its components
- Elaborated on how TSPCK was operationalized in the study
- Explained the methods used to measure TSPCK development
- Strengthened the discussion with evidence from the data to support claims of TSPCK development

These revisions aim to enhance the clarity and validity of our findings regarding TSPCK development.

6. Although Lesson Study and TSPCK are central to the paper, the theoretical background does not sufficiently review other studies that have specifically combined Lesson Study with PCK or TSPCK development. This connection should be explicitly integrated.

We have strengthened the theoretical background to include a more comprehensive review of existing studies that have integrated Lesson Study with Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TSPCK) development. This revised section explicitly explores the intersection of Lesson Study and PCK/TSPCK, providing a more robust foundation for our research and highlighting the gaps that our study aims to address.

7. The authors state: “Data from open-ended questionnaires in lesson discussions were split into basic units and thematically categorized for a comprehensive summary.” However, it is not clear how themes were derived, whether coding was inductive or deductive, and whether software tools were used. I recommend providing greater transparency regarding the analytical process.

We appreciate the feedback. To provide greater transparency regarding the analytical process, we have clarified the following in the revised manuscript:

- The themes were derived through an inductive coding process, allowing the data to guide the identification of patterns and themes.
- The coding process involved manually reviewing and categorizing the data into meaningful segments, without the use of software tools.
- We have provided more detailed information on the steps taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the thematic analysis, including the use of multiple coders and iterative refinement of the themes.

These additions aim to enhance the clarity and transparency of our analytical process, allowing readers to better understand how the themes were derived and the findings interpreted

8. The section on trustworthiness is very well written and important for the study, providing a good overview of qualitative rigor. However, the discussion would be stronger if linked explicitly to concrete examples from the current study, rather than relying solely on generic references.

The section on trustworthiness has been strengthened to include specific examples from the study. For instance, the triangulation of data from lesson discussions, observations, and educator reflections is illustrated through concrete instances where these multiple sources converged to validate findings. Additionally, examples of prolonged engagement and collaborative lesson planning are provided to demonstrate how these strategies enhanced credibility and dependability. By integrating these specific examples, the discussion on trustworthiness is now more robust and contextualized to the study's methodology and findings.

9. (p.5) Figure 1 – It seems there may be a misreference in the text. What is described as Figure 1 appears later as Figure 2. Additionally, Figure 1 should be described in the methodology section in the context of participants. It would also help to clarify the meaning of each qualification listed (e.g., Honours in Education), as readers from other regions may not be familiar with these terms.

The misreference in the text has been corrected, and Figure 1 is now properly labelled and described. Additionally, Figure 1 has been described in the methodology section, where it is contextualized about the participants.

To clarify the meaning of each qualification listed, Back Matter has been added to provide context for readers who may be unfamiliar with these terms. Specifically, the qualifications are defined as follows:

- Honours in Education: usually calls for a bachelor's degree. It typically includes a research component, frequently during the last year. Students who wish to work in education or a similar sector and may like to pursue postgraduate courses are the target audience.
- Other qualifications (e.g., Master's, Bachelor's, Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma) are also briefly defined to ensure clarity for international readers.

These revisions aim to enhance the accuracy, clarity, and accessibility of the manuscript.

10. Some acronyms are not defined in the text, for example, “CASS and SBA” (p.6). All acronyms should be defined at first use for clarity.

The manuscript has been revised to define all acronyms at first use. Specifically, "CASS" and "SBA" are now defined as follows:

- CASS: Continuous Assessment
- SBA: School-Based Assessment

These definitions are provided at the first mention of the acronyms in the text to ensure clarity for readers who may not be familiar with these terms. This revision aims to enhance the readability and understanding of the manuscript.

11. Regarding the sentence: “the constant strain of stress and exhaustion creates a significant barrier against the successful use of the lesson study technique” (p.6) — On what data is this conclusion based? It would be important to indicate specific findings or quotes that substantiate this statement.

The manuscript has been revised to provide more explicit connections to the data that support the conclusion about the impact of stress and exhaustion on the use of the lesson study technique.

12. Similarly: “The obvious lack of time and resources is a barrier that prevents the adoption of critical reflective techniques that are necessary for ongoing professional development and teaching improvement” (p.6). This is a very relevant point, and likely applicable in other educational contexts beyond South Africa. Could the authors cite additional studies to support this assertion?

The manuscript has been revised to include additional studies that support the assertion that lack of time and resources is a significant barrier to adopting critical reflective techniques for ongoing professional development and teaching improvement.

13. The statement “Boundaries are pushed in TSPCK by customizing development programs to fit the distinct demographics of educators.” lacks evidence. What data or references support this claim?

The manuscript has been revised to provide more evidence to support the claim that boundaries are pushed in TSPCK by customizing development programs to fit the distinct demographics of educators. Specifically:

- Additional data from the study's findings are included to illustrate how customized development programs led to improvements in TSPCK among educators from diverse demographic backgrounds.
- References to existing literature on TSPCK and teacher professional development are added to support the argument that tailored approaches can enhance educator effectiveness.

14. Lines 217-224 – There is a break in coherence in this paragraph. The discussion shifts abruptly from TSPCK to biological content. I suggest rewriting this section for better flow.

The paragraph has been rewritten to improve coherence and flow. The discussion now transitions smoothly between the concepts of TSPCK and biological content, ensuring a logical and cohesive narrative.

15. Although the paper discusses “Lesson Planning Cycle” in section 3.1, it would strengthen the manuscript to explore this topic in the theoretical framework, referencing prior studies that have used Lesson Study specifically for PCK development.

The manuscript has been revised to include a more in-depth exploration of the Lesson Planning Cycle and Lesson Study in the theoretical framework section. Prior studies that have utilized Lesson Study for PCK development are now referenced, providing a stronger foundation for the research.

16. Lines 258-267 – What are these? Are these excerpts from educators? They seem disconnected in the text and would benefit from clearer integration.

The excerpts are indeed quotes from educators participating in the study. To improve clarity and integration, the manuscript has been revised to:

- Clarify the excerpts
- Provide context for each quote, such as the specific question or prompt that elicited the response
- Use transitional phrases to connect the quotes to the surrounding text and ensure a smooth flow of ideas

17. Figures 20 and 21 (p.8) — Is this numbering correct? The figures appear out of sequence. For instance, Figure 2 is cited on line 286, yet the image is labeled Figure 1. I recommend carefully reviewing all figure numbering and references throughout the manuscript.

The figure numbering has been carefully reviewed and corrected throughout the manuscript. All figures are now properly labeled and referenced in the correct sequence.

18. Line 257: “They also participated in deep reflection sessions as part of their usual academic schedule.” — How were these sessions conducted? More detail is needed about the structure, guiding questions, or protocols used in these reflections.

The manuscript has been revised to provide more detail about the structure, guiding questions, and protocols used in the deep reflection sessions.

19. Line 258: “Building on the priceless knowledge gained from the first lesson planning cycle, participants made impressive strides in the second cycle.” — How was this determined? What specific data indicate this progress?

The manuscript has been revised to provide more detail on how the progress was determined and what specific data indicate the strides made by participants in the second cycle.

20. Line 291: “TSPCK's obvious shortcomings were made abundantly clear.” — Which specific shortcomings in TSPCK were observed? This needs clarification and evidence from data.

The manuscript has been revised to specify the shortcomings in TSPCK and provide evidence from the data.

21. Lines 293-294: “the obvious lack of confidence on the part of others in this area caused serious worries and may have prevented productive conversations.” — How was this lack of confidence observed? The text does not present clear data to support this interpretation.

The manuscript has been revised to provide more detail on how the lack of confidence was observed and to present clear data to support this interpretation.

22. Lines 350-352: “T1 lacked understanding of inclusion and Language Across the Curriculum (LAC), affecting learners from diverse backgrounds. This gap may hinder engagement for non-dominant language speakers and limit culturally sensitive methods.” — How was T1’s lack of understanding of inclusion and LAC identified? More concrete evidence or quotes would strengthen this claim.

The manuscript has been revised to provide more concrete evidence and quotes to support the claim about T1's lack of understanding of inclusion and Language Across the Curriculum (LAC)

23. Lines 356-366: “Learners are expected to comprehend the following lesson objectives.” — Where do these objectives come from? Are they from national curricula, the researchers’ design, or teachers’ plans? This should be clarified.

The manuscript has been revised to clarify the origin of the lesson objectives

24. Line 374: “the overall understanding was achieved.” — Again, this is a generalization without specific evidence. What indicators or data support this conclusion?

The manuscript has been revised to provide specific evidence and indicators to support the conclusion that the overall understanding was achieved.

25. Overall, the discussion would benefit significantly from including excerpts from teachers’ statements. As it stands, the analysis is rather vague and lacks direct evidence from the data.

The manuscript has been revised to incorporate excerpts from teachers' statements to strengthen the analysis and provide direct evidence from the data.

26. Line 442: “This life-changing event greatly strengthened their abilities and increased productivity.” — How was an increase in productivity measured or observed?

The manuscript has been revised to clarify how the increase in productivity was measured or observed

27. Lines 515-517: “It makes a significant academic contribution by highlighting the critical role that TSPCK plays in the dynamic and successful teaching of cellular respiration.” — This is too generic. Is this conclusion drawn from the data, or simply from theoretical discussion? It should be linked explicitly to findings.

The manuscript has been revised to link the conclusion more explicitly to the findings

28. A crucial issue concerns the construct of TSPCK. What evidence indicates its development? The manuscript should explicitly state what the authors define as TSPCK, its components, and how these components were observed or measured in the data. Currently, there are many claims about improvements in TSPCK, but few concrete examples demonstrating these changes. This is particularly important because, although I agree from other literature on the potential of Lesson Study to improve TSPCK, the current manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate this empirically.

The manuscript has been revised to address the crucial issue concerning the construct of TSPCK.

29. Given the issues raised above, I recommend Major Revision. The study addresses an important topic and has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the field, but it requires significant restructuring and clarification.

Thank you for the recommendation. Based on the feedback provided, we undertook a major revision of the manuscript to address the issues raised.

30. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript accordingly, as the research topic is valuable and relevant for the science education community.

Thank you for the encouragement. We appreciate the recognition of the value and relevance of our research topic and we take the feedback to heart. We revised the manuscript thoroughly to address the concerns and suggestions raised, ensuring that our study's contributions to the science education community are clear and impactful. We're committed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a relevant contribution to TSPCK in South African Life Sciences education. While original in focus and context, it requires a more transparent structure, stronger methodological detail, and language editing.

Methodology

The methodology section includes several positive aspects (e.g., triangulation, adherence to ethical standards), but lacks explicit research questions and detailed descriptions of the data instruments. The sampling strategy, while valid for qualitative work, should include a justification and a discussion of its limitations. More detail on the data analysis process (e.g., coding strategies, themes) is essential.

Results

Results are described in narrative form, capturing nuances of educator development and collaborative learning. However, the absence of direct quotes from participants weakens the qualitative foundation. Including verbatim excerpts and organising results around clear thematic headings would improve clarity and rigour. Visuals referenced in the text should be embedded, numbered, and captioned properly.

Please note that in line 190, the reference to "Figure 1" appears to be incorrect and should be updated to "Figure 2".

Discussion

The discussion effectively connects findings to the literature but should clearly distinguish between confirmed insights and new contributions. Overly assertive claims (e.g., 'transformational power') should be moderated, and the discussion of the South African context should be deepened by reflecting more on policy and systemic constraints.

Conclusion

The conclusion successfully summarises the potential of lesson study in professional development. Recommendations for future research are appropriate but would benefit from being more detailed and specific. Limitations should be more explicitly acknowledged, including the small sample size, context-bound scope, and constraints on generalizability.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our manuscript's relevance and potential contribution to TSPCK in South African Life Sciences education. We revised the manuscript to address the areas mentioned

Methodology

The manuscript has been revised to address the concerns regarding the methodology section

Results

Please note that in line 190, the reference to "Figure 1" appears to be incorrect and should be updated to "Figure 2".

The manuscript has been revised to address the concerns regarding the results section. Specifically:

- Direct quotes from participants have been incorporated to strengthen the qualitative foundation and provide more nuanced insights into educator development and collaborative learning.
- Results have been organized around clear thematic headings to improve clarity and structure.
- Visuals referenced in the text have been embedded, numbered, and captioned properly to enhance clarity and readability.
- The reference to "Figure 1" has been reviewed and updated accordingly.

Discussion

The manuscript has been revised to address the concerns regarding the discussion section. Specifically:

- The discussion now clearly distinguishes between confirmed insights from existing literature and new contributions emerging from this study.
- Overly assertive claims have been moderated to ensure that the language accurately reflects the findings and avoids exaggeration.
- The discussion of the South African context has been deepened by incorporating more nuanced reflections on policy and systemic constraints that impact educator development and the implementation of TSPCK in Life Sciences education.

Conclusion

The manuscript has been revised to enhance the conclusion. Specifically:

- The recommendations for future research have been made more detailed and specific, highlighting potential areas of investigation, such as:
- Exploring the impact of lesson study on learner learning outcomes in diverse contexts.
- Investigating the role of teacher collaboration in sustaining professional development.
- Examining the scalability and sustainability of lesson study initiatives.
- The limitations of the study have been more explicitly acknowledged, including:
- The small sample size and its implications for generalizability.
- The context-bound scope of the study and potential variations in different educational settings.
- Constraints on generalizability due to the qualitative nature of the research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I congratulate the authors for the effort devoted to revising the manuscript. The modifications made demonstrate a clear commitment to carefully addressing the previously raised observations, resulting in a more consistent and clearer text. The main issues highlighted in the previous evaluation have been duly addressed.

However, one important point still requires attention: the construct of TSPCK. The framework is only mentioned in the discussion section (lines 597–598). In my view, it is essential that this framework appear earlier in the manuscript. Did its components influence the thematic analysis? If so, this should be explicitly described in the Methodology. Alternatively, the Introduction would be an appropriate place to define TSPCK and its components more clearly. Moreover, it would strengthen the manuscript if the authors could explain how these components are reflected in their data.

Regarding the development of TSPCK, it is not entirely clear which methods were used to measure this aspect. For instance, in lines 563–564 the manuscript states “with Koehler, Mishira & Cain’s (2013) framework for PCK development.” Was this framework effectively employed in the study? If so, this should be more explicitly described in the Methodology. In addition, please check whether the framework proposed by Koehler, Mishira & Cain (2013) indeed refers to PCK development, as indicated, or if a more precise reference would be appropriate. Furthermore, this reference does not appear in the reference list and should be included.

Given the above considerations, I recommend Accept after minor revision.

Author Response

1. I congratulate the authors for the effort devoted to revising the manuscript. The modifications made demonstrate a clear commitment to carefully addressing the previously raised observations, resulting in a more consistent and clearer text. The main issues highlighted in the previous evaluation have been duly addressed.

Thank you

2. However, one important point still requires attention: the construct of TSPCK. The framework is only mentioned in the discussion section (lines 597–598). In my view, it is essential that this framework appear earlier in the manuscript. Did its components influence the thematic analysis? If so, this should be explicitly described in the Methodology. Alternatively, the Introduction would be an appropriate place to define TSPCK and its components more clearly. Moreover, it would strengthen the manuscript if the authors could explain how these components are reflected in their data.

We appreciate the feedback on the TSPCK construct. To address this, the TSPCK framework is introduced earlier in the manuscript, where its components are clearly defined.
Also, what informed our thematic analysis has been elaborated in the Methodology section.
Furthermore, an explicit connection between the TSPCK framework and our data is made in the Results and Discussion section, highlighting how the framework's components are reflected in our findings. This should enhance the manuscript's clarity and coherence.

3. Regarding the development of TSPCK, it is not entirely clear which methods were used to measure this aspect. For instance, in lines 563–564 the manuscript states “with Koehler, Mishira & Cain’s (2013) framework for PCK development.” Was this framework effectively employed in the study? If so, this should be more explicitly described in the Methodology. In addition, please check whether the framework proposed by Koehler, Mishira & Cain (2013) indeed refers to PCK development, as indicated, or if a more precise reference would be appropriate. Furthermore, this reference does not appear in the reference list and should be included.

To clarify TSPCK development, we elaborated on the methods in the Methodology section, correcting and updating the misplaced reference of Koehler to ensure accurate attribution

4. Given the above considerations, I recommend Accept after minor revision.

Thank you for the thorough and positive review

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been substantially improved. The research questions are now clearly stated, the methodology is adequately detailed, and the use of verbatim excerpts strengthens the qualitative foundation.

Results are clearly organised under thematic headings, with figures and tables correctly embedded. The discussion distinguishes confirmed insights from new contributions and situates the findings appropriately in the South African context.

The conclusion is clear, acknowledges limitations, and provides specific recommendations for future research and practice.

The article is coherent, well referenced, and written in clear English. It offers a relevant and original contribution to the study of TSPCK in Life Sciences education.

The article is ready for publication.

Author Response

1. The manuscript has been substantially improved. The research questions are now clearly stated, the methodology is adequately detailed, and the use of verbatim excerpts strengthens the qualitative foundation.

The conclusion is clear, acknowledges limitations, and provides specific recommendations for future research and practice.

The article is coherent, well referenced, and written in clear English. It offers a relevant and original contribution to the study of TSPCK in Life Sciences education.

The article is ready for publication.

Thank you for the thorough and positive review.