Open and Hidden Voices of Teachers: Lived Experiences of Making Updates to Preschool Curriculum Provoked by the National Guidelines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments I have included in the review document in the attachment. There are no specific suggestions for autors regarding article improvement.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1"

• We are grateful for your expert insights. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. 

Overall, the article shares an interesting topic that will be of interest to others around the world.

There are comments written throughout the PDF attached. 

There was a tendency in some areas to have some very long sentences, and this made it hard to follow some sections. 

There were some introductory comments about the dualistic structure of the comments from participants that required further development earlier on.

I think restructuring of the quotes and commentary would support the findings more closely. 

I wish you well in refining and publishing your paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank the second reviewer for the comments, which have helped to improve our manuscript.

Comment 1

There was a tendency in some areas to have some very long sentences, and this made it hard to follow some sections. 

Response to comment 1

We have revised the text.

Comment 2

There were some introductory comments about the dualistic structure of the comments from participants that required further development earlier on.

Response to comment 2

We took your comment into account and corrected the text.

Comment 3

I think restructuring of the quotes and commentary would support the findings more closely. 

Response to comment 3

We have attempted to revise the results analysis according to your suggestion; however, we found the current version to be clearer, and would therefore prefer to retain it.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a valuable and relatively uncommon perspective on teachers’ views regarding preschool curriculum reforms. The rationale for the study is well-articulated, with the authors situating their work within the broader context of educational reforms in Lithuania.

In the Introduction, the advantages of decentralizing preschool curriculum development are clearly described. However, a discussion of the potential risks and challenges associated with decentralization is absent and would strengthen the argument.

The Literature Review section offers a comprehensive overview of relevant sources, effectively establishing the theoretical framework for the study. The detailed description of the study context is a strong point, as it facilitates interpretation of the findings. Nevertheless, the discussion of the “bio-centric” / “eco-centric” approach to curriculum development (lines 145–146) would benefit from further elaboration. Figure 1 should be redesigned to ensure academic appropriateness, avoiding expressions such as “Schock!!!” that may detract from the scholarly tone.

The Methodology section is well-structured and contains sufficient detail. Regarding Table 1, the inclusion of columns such as “Sex/gender of the participant” and “Job title” appears unnecessary; this information could be replaced with a statement in the text (e.g., “All study participants were female teachers”). For clarity and consistency, only horizontal lines should be used in table formatting.

In the Results section, participant identifiers are inconsistent: interview quotations use “Teacher A, B” while Table 1 lists “Teacher 1, 2.” This should be standardized. Furthermore, information about teachers’ age and work experience in the Results section is redundant, as it is already provided in Table 1.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We thank the third reviewer for the comments, which have helped to improve our manuscript.

Comment 1

However, a discussion of the potential risks and challenges associated with decentralization is absent and would strengthen the argument.

Response to comment 1

We have slightly expanded the discussion on the challenges of decentralization in the subsection Context of the Research

Comment 2

Nevertheless, the discussion of the “bio-centric” / “eco-centric” approach to curriculum development (lines 145–146) would benefit from further elaboration.

Response to comment 2

We have provided a more detailed explanation of the bio-centric and eco-centric approaches in the curricula.

Comment 3

Figure 1 should be redesigned to ensure academic appropriateness, avoiding expressions such as “Schock!!!” that may detract from the scholarly tone.

Response to comment 3

As this is a phenomenological study, we would prefer to retain the expression of the emotional experience as articulated in the words of the study participants.

Comment 4

Regarding Table 1, the inclusion of columns such as “Sex/gender of the participant” and “Job title” appears unnecessary; this information could be replaced with a statement in the text (e.g., “All study participants were female teachers”). For clarity and consistency, only horizontal lines should be used in table formatting. In the Results section, participant identifiers are inconsistent: interview quotations use “Teacher A, B” while Table 1 lists “Teacher 1, 2.” This should be standardized. Furthermore, information about teachers’ age and work experience in the Results section is redundant, as it is already provided in Table 1.

Response to comment 4

We have revised the table and the text according to your comments.