Bridging Disciplines: Exploring Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development in STEM Teacher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this article which promises to be a useful addition to the literature on STEM Teacher Education, the richness of qualitative insight is useful for helping to understand the barriers STEM Teachers face.
The article could be further enhanced by:
- Conducting a thorough check of spelling, for example Abstract is currently 'Aabstract'
- The introduction discusses large global challenges, here, to enhance theoretical grounding utilising literature related to 'Wicked Problems' would be useful
- The article discusses that STEM teachers are often on accelerated programmes, I wonder if this framing is correct. Is it that due to the shortage of STEM teachers, newer teachers have more opportunities for leadership/given more responsibilities?
- It would be useful in the discussion on CPD for teachers to discuss the impact of changes from the 1 year NQT to the 2 year ECT programme, and the value that this might (or not) be having in supporting the development of STEM teachers.
- There are some large claims made from having undertaken this research, but it would be useful to provide more context about the sample demographic and the limitations based on having small sample of 8 participants.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We would like to express our sincere thanks for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your comments and believe your insights have significantly strengthened the clarity and quality of our paper. Please find below our detailed responses to your comments:
Comment 1: Spelling check (e.g., ‘Aabstract’)
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. All spelling errors, including the erroneous abstract heading, have been corrected throughout the manuscript.
Comment 2: Introduce 'Wicked Problems' in the Introduction
Response:
We have revised the Introduction to include a discussion of “Wicked Problems” as a theoretical lens for framing global educational challenges. This addition strengthens the conceptual grounding of the paper.
See Page 1:
"However, the ability to lead curricular processes that align with this principle poses significant challenges, both for experienced educators and especially for novice teachers. The concept of wicked problems in education (Sork, 2019; Hawkey et al., 2019) provides a useful lens through which to frame global challenges. Such problems are complex, interconnected, and resistant to straightforward solutions, thereby underscoring the value of interdisciplinary education."
Comment 3: Questioned framing of 'accelerated programmes'
Response:
We have reframed our discussion to clarify that second-career STEM teachers are often placed in positions of responsibility early due to systemic shortages, rather than through formal accelerated certification programs.
See Pages 2–3:
"Although the term 'accelerated programmes' appears in the literature, this often reflects emergent leadership pressure due to global STEM teacher shortages rather than formal fast-track certification..."
(Additional examples and references provided in the revised manuscript highlight this distinction.)
Comment 4: Include discussion on CPD and shift from NQT to ECT
Response:
We have added a new section discussing the implications of the transition from a one-year NQT induction to the two-year ECT framework in England, and its relevance for early-career STEM teachers.
See Page 3:
"While this emergent 'fast-tracking' can enhance professional identity and self-efficacy, it requires robust mentoring, professional development, and reflection... the shift from a one-year Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) induction to a two-year Early Career Teacher (ECT) programme has further institutionalized this extended support structure..."
This addition also addresses CPD needs, mentorship quality, and the importance of subject-specific professional development in STEM.
Comment 5: Large claims with small sample
Response:
We have expanded the Methodology section to include detailed participant demographics and a thorough Limitations section. These additions reflect critically on the sample size and its implications for generalizability.
See Page 8:
"While this study offers valuable insights into group dynamics and the development of interdisciplinary units, it is important to recognize the inherent limitations related to sample size and composition... Future research involving a broader, more diverse participant pool would help determine whether these themes are consistent across different contexts..."
This strengthens the transparency and credibility of the study's scope and limitations.
We are grateful for your careful review and hope these revisions address your concerns comprehensively. Your feedback has greatly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript.
Kind regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStrengths:
-
The document is well-structured (it includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and discussion);
-
The research questions are clearly presented;
-
The references used are relevant to the subject of study proposed by the authors (although some could be more up to date);
-
The methodology is clearly presented, identifying both the method and the participants;
-
The data is presented and discussed in light of the references used;
-
The discussion of the results is appropriate, given the issues addressed.
Weaknesses:
-
The subject of the study is uncommon, or even rare, when viewed from an Anglo-Saxon perspective;
-
The participants also do not fit the general understanding of teacher training (it concerns a very specific situation);
-
The relevance of the study for the academic community is quite limited.
In this sense, my approval of the document was essentially based on the execution of a research project that is presented with strong coherence.
However, I consider the study to be of very limited relevance in terms of the advancement it may offer to scientific knowledge, as the conclusions reached do not go far beyond what is accessible through common sense.
I suggest that the authors do a thorough review of the references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank you for your constructive feedback and thoughtful engagement with our manuscript. We are especially grateful for your positive comments regarding the structure and clarity of the paper. Below, we outline our responses to each of your comments and the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript.
Strengths Acknowledged
Response:
We appreciate your kind recognition of the manuscript’s clear structure and coherence. Your positive evaluation affirms the clarity and organization we aimed to achieve.
Comment: Relevance limited from an Anglo-Saxon view
Response:
We have addressed this concern by adding a brief but focused discussion on the contextual particularity of the study and its contribution to global understandings of STEM teacher education. Although the primary case study is not situated within an Anglo-Saxon context, we have emphasized how its findings may resonate with, and contribute to, broader international discourse
See Page 3:
"Globally, initiatives such as Teach For All’s Erasmus+-funded NEST programme and other mentoring networks support rapid leadership assumption by early-career STEM teachers through structured induction and mentoring... While this emergent 'fast-tracking' can enhance professional identity and self-efficacy, it requires robust mentoring, professional development, and reflection... To maximize the advantages for STEM teachers, the two-year ECT framework should balance comprehensive induction with subject-specific mentoring and flexible CPD modules—such as those offered by specialist hubs in mathematics and science."
This revision positions the research case within a broader global narrative of teacher development, underscoring its wider significance and relevance
Comment: Revisit and update references
Response:
We thoroughly reviewed and updated all references to ensure accuracy, completeness, and compliance with current APA style. Missing entries were added, and all in-text citations were cross-checked with the reference list for consistency.
Thank you again for your insightful and constructive review. Your comments have been instrumental in refining the manuscript, and we hope the revisions meet your expectations.
Kind regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the article presents an interesting idea, as the promotion of interdisciplinary education in the STEM field is one of the highlights in the field of specific didactics knowledge. The approach is also appropriate, as an in-depth analysis of the perceptions of trainee teachers is always an interesting factor when evaluating new trends and efficient practices in the development of innovations in the classroom. Likewise, the writing is adequate, and the ideas and conclusions provided are valuable.
However, there are errors and shortcomings that cannot be ignored. Firstly, the treatment of the results is sparse. The methodology is not presented with the necessary clarity to ensure scientific rigor in drawing the conclusions and consequent assertions. There are no details of how the interviews were conducted, the questions asked, or a detailed sample type. Nor are the reasons for choosing this sample and not another sufficiently explained or justified. The treatment of the results obtained is arbitrary, with conclusions and discussions based on very little data, or at least very little data presented in the manuscript. There is no adequate qualitative treatment with a detailed selection of the coding carried out, nor a quantitative justification within the qualitative treatment (no use of tools such as CAQDAS as NVivo, ATLAS.ti or QDA Miner). In short, the results are not consistently supported by what is presented in the experimental part. A case study needs more triangulation of results to have adequate validity.
In addition, there are numerous errors in the citations, an error that can be rectified but which denotes deficiencies in the care taken in the elaboration. Specifically, the following citations do not appear in the references list:
- van Heijst, Volman, and Cornelissen, 2025
- Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 2022
- Flores, 2016
- van den Berg & du Plessis, 2023
- Luke, 2008
- Chrysostomou, 2004
- Bakker, Cai, & Zenger, 2021
- Bobbitt, 1918
- Pinar, 2004
- Novis-Deutch et al., 2023
- Kim et al., 2019
- Rosikhoh et al., 2019
- Kang, 2019
- Kartini & Widodo, 2020
- Boice et al., 2021
- Williams & Roth, 2019
- Hughes et al., 2022
- Leijon, Gudmundsson, Staaf & Christersson, 2022
- Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000
- Creswell & Poth, 2016
- Poth, 2016
- Yin, 2014
Something similar happens in reverse, but only with a few citations. Likewise, the way of citing sometimes does not correspond to current APA standards (three or more authors should be cited as et al.).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate the time you took to engage with our manuscript and your suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve its clarity, methodological rigor, and overall presentation. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below:
Comment 1: Sparse treatment of results
Response:
We have expanded the Findings section to provide a more detailed and textured account of the data. This includes additional descriptive narrative and illustrative participant quotes that highlight key themes, challenges, and collaborative processes in greater depth. These revisions enrich the reader’s understanding of the participants’ experiences and the group’s development of the interdisciplinary unit.
See Pages 10-13
The revisions to the findings chapter also include the addition of a summary analytical table:
Table 2 : Key Themes, Challenges, and Collaborative Processes in Interdisciplinary Unit Design
Theme |
Challenges Identified |
Collaborative Processes and Responses |
1. Emotional and Cognitive Readiness |
- Low self-efficacy and embarrassment around interdisciplinary teaching. |
- Instructor-mediated space for questioning and reflection. |
2. Preference for Multidisciplinary over Interdisciplinary Approaches |
- Tendency to retain disciplinary boundaries. |
- Facilitated discussions on integration vs. juxtaposition of content. |
3. Interdisciplinary Ambiguity: Disciplinary Hierarchies |
- Implicit conflict over which discipline should "lead" the unit (math vs. science). |
- Considering a shared goal for the unit - Reframing of mathematics as a language for scientific reasoning. |
4. Interdisciplinary Ambiguity: Language and Epistemology |
- Confusion over the term “ratio” (symbolic vs. functional meanings). |
- Collaborative inquiry into curriculum and literature (e.g., Freudenthal’s distinctions). |
5. Intra-disciplinary Ambiguity: Conceptual Foundations within Disciplines |
- Difficulty articulating key disciplinary concepts in pedagogical terms. |
- Expanding information sources through engagement with research literature and critical reading of the curriculum. |
6. Epistemological Tensions between Mathematics and Science |
- Differing views on what counts as valid knowledge: |
- Constructive conflict led to mutual accommodation. |
Comment 2: Methodology lacks clarity
Response:
We have revised the Methodology section substantially to include more comprehensive information on participant selection, interview structure, and guiding questions.
See Pages 6–7:
"The study involved eight second-career teacher trainees—seven males and one female—aged between 35 and 50. All participants had distinguished professional careers prior to entering education through a specialized training program designed to prepare mathematics and science experts for secondary school teaching... Discussions were conducted at three intervals—beginning, middle, and end of the academic year—and were recorded and transcribed with participant consent..."
This additional detail provides clearer insight into the study design and research context.
Comment 3: Lack of triangulation and coding detail
Response:
We clarified our approach to thematic analysis and data triangulation in the revised Methodology section. While we did not use software such as NVivo or ATLAS.ti, we employed manual thematic coding, iteratively developed by both researchers through independent review and cross-validation.
We also triangulated data sources by combining interview transcripts, observation notes from the facilitator, and written materials produced by participants. This multi-source approach supports the trustworthiness and validity of our interpretations.
Comment 4: Missing references and APA formatting issues
Response:
All previously missing references (e.g., Flores, 2016; Luke, 2008; van Heijst et al., 2025) have been added to the reference list. In addition, we conducted a comprehensive review to ensure all citations are accurately formatted according to current APA guidelines. This includes proper use of "et al." for sources with three or more authors, correct ordering, and consistent punctuation and styling.
We trust that these revisions have addressed your concerns and helped strengthen the manuscript's methodological transparency, analytical depth, and overall scholarly value. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work.
Sincerely,
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is a report of an empirical study that “focuses on eight high-achieving individuals transitioning to teaching as a second career through a STEM-focused (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) teacher preparation pro-gram. Employing a qualitative case study methodology, the study reveals a curricular process characterized by confusion and conflict as student-teachers navigate interdisciplinary integration” (from the abstract). The manuscript presents novel and potentially important findings related to the ambiguities and tensions teachers face when designing interdisciplinary STEM curricula. The study’s primary strength lies in its identification of the nuanced conceptual and practical challenges that arise in collaborative, cross-disciplinary teacher work. The delineation of both interdisciplinary and intra-disciplinary sources of ambiguity is particularly insightful. However, the article in its current form lacks cohesion and clarity in its research design and narrative structure. Most notably, the findings do not align well with the stated research questions; one of the research questions (RQ2) is not directly addressed in the findings, and seemingly most of the findings address a different, unstated research question. It is also unclear whether the recommendations provided are grounded in the data from this study or speculative suggestions for future work. These issues detract from the overall impact and usefulness of the manuscript and should be addressed in a thorough revision.
Introduction / Literature review:
Overall, the literature review is a somewhat general survey of the landscape of interdisciplinary curriculum, but lacks a strong narrative flow that would set up the need for a research study of specific research questions and related hypotheses. Also, substantial works in this area were not reviewed and should be incorporated, such as books on integrative STEM education for real-life learning. A few other minor observations:
The additional text in yellow highlight on the first page now renders the last sentence on the page repetitive.
In the second paragraph on page 2, who are “these students?”
Recommendations for practice currently in the literature review section like those on the bottom of p. 3. and the sentence starting, “Teachers must move away from traditional, direct methods…” in the fourth paragraph of p. 5, are better organized in the discussion section.
At the bottom of p. 5, the author(s) refer to mathematics teachers’ limited knowledge of science to help explain a leadership imbalance; is visa-versa not an equivalent issue?
When the authors explain the “Research Context” (section 2.4) on p. 6, it would be helpful to provide the subject that the “teacher trainees” taught. Some definition or description of “challenge-based learning” would also be helpful, especially as the term has various meanings and uses (e.g., as that used by Apple Educational Community).
The reader does not know to what “The challenge” starting the 3rd paragraph in the Research Context section on p. 6 refers.
Research Question:
The first research question is overly broad and lacks specificity, while the second question is not sufficiently elaborated to suggest how it is studied. Meanwhile, the findings that follow appear to address a research question not provided, related to teacher challenges when tasked with creating interdisciplinary curricula. The inclusion of such a research question would improve the manuscript’s coherence a great deal, enhancing the alignment between the research questions, methodology, and findings.
Methodology:
Several issues in the methodology raise concerns. First, It is unclear in the 2nd paragraph on p. 7 why there are separate teams of mathematics and science teachers if the goal is to create interdisciplinary curricula. Moreover, the second researcher’s dual role as both lecturer and pedagogical instructor to one of the teams presents a potential bias that is not adequately addressed. The first full sentence (first two lines) of page 8 was stated previously. Similarly, noting that the course instructor was also a researcher in the 2nd paragraph of p . 8 was previously said.
The data analysis approach—primarily described as categorization—requires further elaboration. Was this sufficient to address the research questions? Were any additional analytic strategies used?
Also, the placement of the limitations section within the methodology is unconventional; consider relocating it to the discussion section unless journal formatting requires otherwise. Finally, while the authors cite the limited sample as a limitation with respect to generalizability, but a more fundamental limitation of generalizability may stem from the single-case nature of the study itself.
Findings
Delineating interdisciplinary and intra-disciplinary sources of ambiguity in creating interdisciplinary STEM curricula was compelling and insightful. The example of divergent interpretations of “rate” between mathematics and science teachers is illustrative and thought-provoking. However, the manuscript should explicitly connect these findings to the (revised) research questions.
Table 2 is presented at the end of the findings section without any accompanying narrative. A walkthrough or summary of its contents would help readers better interpret the table and understand its relevance.
Discussion
The discussion section introduces themes—such as tensions in teacher professional identity—that are not clearly supported by the findings. Assertions about participants’ preferences for multidisciplinary vs. interdisciplinary models require clearer definitions of each and stronger evidentiary grounding. In several cases, it is unclear whether the authors are reporting observed findings or offering speculative insights. For example, did participants indeed demonstrate “cognitive dissonance” during the study, and if so, what is the evidence for this? In general, the challenges the teachers experienced is more clear than the extent to which they addressed them through the intervention (or whether the author(s)’ recommendations for ways that teachers can address them is for future work).
Similarly, the closing recommendations for professional development and teacher support would benefit from clarification: did such development occur in the present study, or is it suggested as a future need? For example, to what extent did educators interrogate and reimagine their professional roles in this study, versus something they should strive to do in the future. A clearer distinction between findings-based implications and forward-looking recommendations is needed.
One broader interpretive question that should be considered is whether the observed challenges are primarily reflective of limitations of the participating teachers (related to their disciplinary orientations, professional identities, etc.), or of the design and facilitation of the instructional intervention itself. These issues should be clarified in a revision.
Finally and importantly, what does the study imply about the importance of interdisciplinary teams working together to create interdisciplinary curricula, vs working in disciplinary teams separately? Wouldn’t such an approach be the name of the game towards the goal of interdisciplinary collaboration? This would appear to be a one logical recommendation of a study demonstrating the limitations of disciplinary teams collaborating independently of each other.
Overall, the paper may constitute interesting and worthwhile contribution, but the misalignment between research questions and findings, the ambiguity surrounding the evidentiary basis for discussion points, and the need for a clearer narrative structure, among other concerns, all merit attention.
Surface-level issues/errors:
-In the third paragraph under Section 2, “Conceptual Framework,” “and” appears needed where “pedagogical” is now crossed out.
-In the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph on p. 3, “instant” may be a typo for “instance.”
-In the first sentence of the Research participants section (p. 7), “teacher” should be plural (i.e., “eight teachers”).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comment:
We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and detailed feedback, which has helped us identify areas requiring clarification, revision, and deeper integration of scholarship. Below, we respond to each point and describe the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript:
Reviewer Comment |
Authors Response |
Relevant section in the manuscript |
The literature review is a somewhat general survey… lacks a strong narrative flow that would set up the need for a research study of specific research questions and related hypotheses |
we revised the structure of the literature review to better articulate the gap in the literature and to more clearly establish the rationale for our research questions. The revised version now ends with a focused synthesis that directly leads into the stated research aims. Additionally, we have explicitly stated how our study responds to the complexities and gaps identified in interdisciplinary curriculum development, particularly in STEM teacher preparation.
|
Section 1-introduction |
Substantial works in this area were not reviewed... such as books on integrative STEM education for real-life learning |
we have substantially expanded the conceptual grounding of the literature review to include both foundational and more recent scholarly contributions in the field of integrative STEM education. Specifically, we have incorporated:
These additions complement earlier sources we had already referenced (e.g., Vasquez, Comer, Gutierrez, J. (2020); Kelley & Knowles, 2016;) and together, they enhance the theoretical coherence and practical relevance of our study. The revised literature review now more clearly articulates the pedagogical tensions, instructional opportunities, and research gaps that underpin our research questions.
|
Sections: 2.2 2.3 |
In the second paragraph on page 2, who are ‘these students’?” |
The revised text now explicitly defines “these students” as “second-career teacher trainees enrolled in a STEM-focused teacher education program.” This clarification helps maintain continuity and reader understanding.
|
Section 2.4 |
Recommendations for practice… are better organized in the discussion section |
: We appreciate this organizational suggestion. The practical recommendations previously found in the literature review (e.g., bottom of p. 3 and p. 5) have now been removed from the review section and reworked into the Discussion section, where they are presented addressing our empirical findings and framed as implications for teacher education practice. |
Section 2 ., bottom of p. 3 and p. 5 |
At the bottom of p. 5… is the reverse not also an issue |
In the revised text, we now acknowledge that knowledge gaps can exist in both directions—i.e., mathematics teachers may have limited science knowledge and vice versa. This bi-directional issue is now briefly discussed to better reflect the mutual learning challenges in interdisciplinary curriculum development.
|
Section 2.3 |
When the authors explain the ‘Research Context’... provide the subject... definition of challenge-based learning…” |
We have also added a formal definition of Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) as drawn from educational literature (Leijon et al., 2022), distinguishing it from its use in commercial/technology contexts (e.g., Apple Education). This revised section provides greater clarity about both the course content and the pedagogical model applied |
Section 2.4 |
The reader does not know to what ‘The challenge’... refers ” (Page 6, Paragraph 3) |
We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. However, we respectfully note that the sentence in question follows a paragraph that explicitly outlines the challenges referenced—namely, the well-documented difficulties in the literature regarding the formation of professional identity among science and mathematics teacher candidates, alongside the specific pedagogical and structural complexities of designing interdisciplinary instruction. These challenges are detailed as both general (literature-based) and context-specific (the research group’s own experiences). To enhance clarity, we considered replacing “The challenge” with a more specific phrase("The dual challenge of identity formation and interdisciplinary design,”) to ensure readers can immediately connect the reference to the prior discussion. we have clarified and expanded the description of the research context in Section 2.4 in three key ways:
We hope these revisions enhance the clarity and coherence of the research context and appreciate the reviewer’s guidance in strengthening this section of the manuscript.
|
2.4. Research Context
|
The first research question is overly broad and lacks specificity, while the second question is not sufficiently elaborated to suggest how it is studied. Meanwhile, the findings that follow appear to address a research question not provided, related to teacher challenges when tasked with creating interdisciplinary curricula. The inclusion of such a research question would improve the manuscript’s coherence a great deal, enhancing the alignment between the research questions, methodology, and findings.
|
We have revised the research questions to provide greater specificity and better reflect the empirical focus of the study. In accordance with the cyclical and spiral nature of qualitative research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2015) research questions may be revisited and reformulated in response to emerging findings and the evolving character of the study.
Guided by this methodological rationale, and addressing the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the research questions accordingly. These revisions were made to (a) foreground the experiential dimension of curriculum design as it unfolded in the context of the study, and (b) directly link participants’ engagement with curriculum planning to identity development processes—both of which are central themes in our findings.
Furthermore, the revised first research question now explicitly reflects the core theme emerging from the data: the tensions, ambiguities, and learning processes that characterize novice teachers’ attempts to design interdisciplinary curricula. This better corresponds to the narrative of the findings and addresses the reviewer’s observation that the original questions did not fully capture the substance of what was empirically examined.
We believe these changes improve the manuscript’s internal alignment across the conceptual framework, research questions, methods, and findings, and we thank the reviewer for drawing attention to this important area for improvement.
|
research questions- bottom of section 2.3 |
Methodology- “It is unclear in the 2nd paragraph on p. 7 why there are separate teams of mathematics and science teachers if the goal is to create interdisciplinary curricula |
These subgroups were intentionally created during the early phase of the course to scaffold disciplinary grounding, before the participants moved into interdisciplinary collaboration. Ultimately, the eight participants formed a single interdisciplinary team. This clarifies that the subject-based grouping was a pedagogical scaffold, not a contradiction to the interdisciplinary goal |
Methodology- Research Participants
|
Methodology- The second researcher’s dual role as both lecturer and pedagogical instructor... presents a potential bias that is not adequately addressed
|
While the second researcher's dual role as both lecturer and pedagogical instructor presents a potential source of bias, this positionality was explicitly acknowledged and systematically addressed throughout the study. Several measures were implemented to mitigate its impact. These included maintaining transparency with participants regarding the researcher's dual role, engaging in regular peer debriefing within the research team to critically reflect on interpretations, and employing triangulation of data sources. In particular, the second researcher kept detailed field notes during all instructional and observational sessions, which served both as a reflexive tool and as an additional data source. These notes helped surface potential biases and contributed to a more nuanced interpretation of participants’ experiences by cross-validating emerging themes with observational insights. Together, these strategies enhanced the credibility and trustworthiness of the research process |
methodology |
Methodology- The first full sentence (first two lines) of page 8 was stated previously. Similarly... the course instructor was also a researcher... was previously said
|
Redundancies removed. All references to the researcher’s role appear once in a coherent and appropriate section.
|
methodology |
Methodology- The data analysis approach—primarily described as categorization—requires further elaboration
|
The data analysis followed a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017)... [with] four stages: initial immersion, open coding, theme development, and validation." → A much clearer, multi-step description of the analytic process, grounded in recognizable scholarly references. Shows how themes emerged systematically and how they relate to the research questions |
Methodology- data analysis |
Methodology- The placement of the limitations section within the methodology is unconventional...”
|
The Limitations section is now placed at the end, following the accepted structure of most empirical papers. |
|
The limited sample is noted, but a more fundamental limitation is the single-case nature of the study |
As a single-case qualitative study, the aim is not statistical generalizability but analytical generalizability (Flyvbjerg, 2006), offering in-depth insights into a specific educational context. This design is appropriate for exploring complex processes in depth, though we acknowledge its limited scope. Future research could expand on these findings through multi-case studies with more diverse participants. |
|
Findings - Delineating interdisciplinary and intra-disciplinary sources of ambiguity in creating interdisciplinary STEM curricula was compelling and insightful. The example of divergent interpretations of 'rate' between mathematics and science teachers is illustrative and thought-provoking. However, the manuscript should explicitly connect these findings to the (revised) research questions |
We appreciate your recognition of the contribution made by our analysis of interdisciplinary and intra-disciplinary ambiguity, and in particular your positive feedback on the example concerning divergent interpretations of rate. We agree that a more explicit alignment between these findings and the revised research questions strengthens the manuscript’s coherence and analytical depth. In response, we have made the following revisions:
|
Findings Section 4 |
Table 2 is presented at the end of the findings section without any accompanying narrative. A walkthrough or summary of its contents would help readers better interpret the table and understand its relevance |
We added a concluding synthesis paragraph at the end of the Findings section that reaffirms how each theme contributes to answering the research questions and advances the study’s overall aims. These additions make the analytic alignment between the findings and research questions more explicit and traceable for the reader.
|
|
The discussion section introduces themes—such as tensions in teacher professional identity—that are not clearly supported by the findings. Assertions about participants’ preferences for multidisciplinary vs. interdisciplinary models require clearer definitions of each and stronger evidentiary grounding.
In several cases, it is unclear whether the authors are reporting observed findings or offering speculative insights. For example, did participants indeed demonstrate “cognitive dissonance” during the study, and if so, what is the evidence for this? In general, the challenges the teachers experienced is more clear than the extent to which they addressed them through the intervention (or whether the author(s)’ recommendations for ways that teachers can address them is for future work).
Similarly, the closing recommendations for professional development and teacher support would benefit from clarification: did such development occur in the present study, or is it suggested as a future need? For example, to what extent did educators interrogate and reimagine their professional roles in this study, versus something they should strive to do in the future. A clearer distinction between findings-based implications and forward-looking recommendations is needed.
One broader interpretive question that should be considered is whether the observed challenges are primarily reflective of limitations of the participating teachers (related to their disciplinary orientations, professional identities, etc.), or of the design and facilitation of the instructional intervention itself. These issues should be clarified in a revision.
|
we fully revised Discussion section that:
We have revised the discussion to ensure that all interpretive claims—such as tensions in teacher professional identity—are explicitly grounded in the data. These tensions are now discussed only when directly supported by documented participant statements or collaborative interactions (as detailed in Table 2, Themes 1, 3, and 6). We also clarified that any references to evolving professional identity are interpretive insights tied to observed shifts in teacher discourse and behavior, particularly as they relate to interdisciplinary readiness and epistemological negotiation
In the revised discussion, we now define multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches early in the section, drawing on accepted literature (e.g., Jacobs, 1989; Beane, 1997). We also clarified the basis for identifying participants’ preferences, linking this directly to Theme 2 in Table 2, which captures participants’ initial inclination to juxtapose rather than integrate disciplinary content. This preference is now described as an observed tendency rather than a fixed stance, and is discussed as part of a learning trajectory facilitated by the design tasks.
To avoid overstatement, we frame our interpretations with appropriate caution. For example, we do not claim participants experienced cognitive dissonance without evidence; rather, we report observed confusion, hesitation, and shifts in pedagogical language and stance as indicators of epistemological discomfort (e.g., instructor notes and participant inquiries). Terms such as "identity tension" are only used when supported by such documentation and are framed as interpretive insights rather than direct self-reports
We have revised the recommendations to clearly delineate between the professional development that occurred within the scope of the current study (e.g., instructor-facilitated collaborative design, structured critical reflection) and recommendations for future support mechanisms. We now include a brief summary of the intervention components and the specific forms of professional learning observed. Forward-looking suggestions are now labeled explicitly as “Recommendations for future professional development
This is an important point, and we have revised the discussion to address it directly. We now reflect critically on the role of the instructional design and facilitation, acknowledging that certain challenges may have been exacerbated or constrained by the structure of the intervention (e.g., initial separation into disciplinary teams). This reflexive analysis strengthens the overall argument and acknowledges the shared responsibility between participants and facilitators in shaping the outcomes of interdisciplinary collaboration |
Discussion section |
Reviewer Comment (General):
|
We sincerely appreciate this thoughtful and constructive summary. In response, we have undertaken a careful revision of the manuscript to ensure alignment between the research questions, findings, and discussion. Each theme in the discussion is now directly tied to specific data points and to the revised research questions, and speculative or ambiguous language has been removed. We also streamlined the narrative structure to enhance clarity and flow, including clearer headings and transitions within the discussion section.
|
|
.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version is much approved. I appreciate the extensive and detailed cover letter outlining the revisions.
The revised research question one helps a lot. This relatively simple fix created much more coherence throughout, in addition to more focused research questions.
I still think that RQ2 on professional identity is not addressed quite as explicitly as it could be in the findings section. Perhaps there are places in the findings where it is obvious to the researchers that professional identity is implicated (because they were closer to it and have a strong internal sense of how the data relate to their hypotheses) that could be more explicit. Stronger still would be to put findings related to RQ1 and RQ2 in their own sections of the Findings/Results.
I appreciate putting the limitations section at the end of the discussion section. One last additional and simple revision I would like to see is to, however, is to move it before the final Conclusion section, perhaps in its own section. After all of the hard and thoughtful work, the article deserves to end with a bang (summary of the overall contribution) rather than with a whimper (weaknesses/limitations).
Author Response
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We understand the importance of making the analytic relationship between our findings and Research Question 2 (professional identity) more explicit and accessible to the reader.
In response, we revised the opening of the Findings section to clarify the rationale for presenting the themes in an integrated format. As we explain in the new introductory paragraph, the processes explored in RQ1 and RQ2 were deeply interwoven in the participants’ lived experiences. For this reason, we chose to organize the findings thematically rather than partition them by research question. However, to address your concern, we now explicitly signal which themes correspond more directly with RQ1 (e.g., epistemological ambiguity, pedagogical dissonance) and which align with RQ2 (e.g., role redefinition, ownership of interdisciplinary practice). We also highlight how certain identity shifts emerged through participants' engagement with epistemic and curricular tensions, emphasizing the entangled nature of identity and practice.
Additionally, within the themes most relevant to RQ2—particularly Theme 6—we have made the professional identity implications more explicit. We identify key indicators of identity development such as changes in language use, role negotiation, and evolving collaborative behaviors, and we connect these directly to relevant scholarship (e.g., Eteläpelto et al., 2015; Kneen et al., 2020) both in the Findings and Discussion sections.
We hope these clarifications strengthen the transparency of our analytic process and more directly address your insightful comment.
We also appreciate this thoughtful editorial suggestion. We have now moved the Limitations section to precede the Conclusion and placed it under a separate heading. This change allows the article to conclude with a clearer and more impactful summary of its overall contributions, as you rightly suggested. Thank you again for helping us enhance the structure and flow of the manuscript