Unlocking Scientific Literacy: The Role of E-Modules and Learning Applications in South African Grade 11 Life Sciences Classrooms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:

The goal of the article was to determine how e-modules on life science topics affected the scientific literacy of a sample of grade 11 students in South Africa. The authors hypothesise that students are able to develop scientific literacy by engaging with e-modules. Through participant observation (the researcher was also the classroom teacher), semi-structured interviews, and document analysis, the authors said they found the students’ scientific literacy to have been enhanced.

 

Comments:

 

While the premise of the study is interesting and builds on the work of others, the main issue is that the authors do not explicitly operationalise “scientific literacy” for their work nor use it consistently throughout their writing. For instance, scientific literacy is addressed as a reasoning skill in one part of the introduction and conceptual understanding in a later part of the introduction. Scientific literacy can encompass many different things – and given that the study is dependent on how scientific literacy is defined, it is crucial that the authors explicitly state their operationalisation of this term.

 

Because scientific literacy was not operationalised, it contributes to many of my other concerns:

• RQ1: not clear how e-modules and learning applications affect learners’ scientific literacy with respect to …?
• RQ2: does not relate to scientific literacy, which was the purpose of the study
• Methods:
  • How was potential bias in data interpretation from the researcher (who was also the classroom teacher) addressed (e.g., positionality statement)?
  • Description of the documents used for the pre- and post-test were not included (e.g., what life science concepts were addressed, how many items, types of items)
  • Description of steps in the thematic analysis is too generic – needs to address how coding was completed (e.g., inductive, deductive), how themes were generated, etc.
• Results:
  • claims about student performances were made, but lacked evidence (e.g., quotes from interviews, pictures of completed documents)
  • redundant to show both the table and the bar chart, given that they represent the same information; only one is needed
  • Figure 2 is not supported by evidence; Figure 3 should be in the results section (instead of the discussion); the intellectual contribution of both figures was unclear – what did their creation contribute to what was not already known?
  • In 3.2.1 on classroom observations, it was reported that students showed enhanced motivation, engagement, and development of scientific literacy; however, how much of this enhancement can be attributed to the novelty of using e-modules and digital learning applications (instead of the actual learning)?
  • In 3.2.2 on interviews, it was stated that students possess a basic understanding of life sciences, but overall scientific literacy was low; this raises questions such as what counts as, “basic understanding” and “low” scientific literacy?
• Discussion/Conclusion: the concerns with the previous sections were reflected here, which made it difficult to evaluate

 

 

The main concerns with this manuscript were the lack of operationalizing terms that can have multiple interpretations (e.g., scientific literacy, “basic” understanding), the lack of evidence supporting claims (e.g., students’ responses to documents, quotes from interviews), and the lack of details in the methodology (e.g., copies of pre-test and post-test, interview protocol, development of codes and themes). Addressing these concerns would greatly improve the quality of this article.

Author Response

Research question

Comment 1: RQ1: not clear how e-modules and learning applications affect learners’ scientific literacy with respect to …?

RQ2: does not relate to scientific literacy, which was the purpose of the study

Response: The research questions are now amended in relation to scientitfic literacy.

Methods:

Comment 2: How was potential bias in data interpretation from the researcher (who was also the classroom teacher) addressed (e.g., positionality statement)?

Response: potential bias on data interpretation is now clarified.

Comment 3: Description of the documents used for the pre- and post-test were not included (e.g., what life science concepts were addressed, how many items, types of items)

Response: Description of the documents used for the pre- and post-tests are now outlined.

Comment 4: Description of steps in the thematic analysis is too generic – needs to address how coding was completed (e.g., inductive, deductive), how themes were generated, etc.

Response: Description of steps in the thematic analysis are explained.

Results:

Comment 5: Claims about student performances were made, but lacked evidence (e.g., quotes from interviews, pictures of completed documents)

Response: Evidence is provided to support the claim.

Comment 6: Redundant to show both the table and the bar chart, given that they represent the same information; only one is needed

Response: The chart is removed, as also new table is added.

Comment 7: Figure 2 is not supported by evidence; Figure 3 should be in the results section (instead of the discussion); the intellectual contribution of both figures was unclear – what did their creation contribute to what was not already known?

Response: The  figures are removed , as they are found to be irrelevant.

Comment 8: In 3.2.1 on classroom observations, it was reported that students showed enhanced motivation, engagement, and development of scientific literacy; however, how much of this enhancement can be attributed to the novelty of using e-modules and digital learning applications (instead of the actual learning)?

Response: A clear clarity is provided.

Comment 9: In 3.2.2 on interviews, it was stated that students possess a basic understanding of life sciences, but overall scientific literacy was low; this raises questions such as what counts as, “basic understanding” and “low” scientific literacy?

Response: A clarity is provided to explain the above-mentioned.

Comment 10: Discussion/Conclusion: the concerns with the previous sections were reflected here, which made it difficult to evaluate.

Response: On the discussion and conclusion the concerns are addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: Unlocking Scientific Literacy: The Role of E-Modules and Learning Applications in Grade 11 Life Sciences

This manuscript explores how the integration of e-modules and learning applications (notably Binogi and Google Classroom) can enhance scientific literacy among Grade 11 Life Sciences learners in South Africa. The topic is highly relevant to Education Sciences, aligning with current debates on digital pedagogy, inclusive science education, and the development of 21st-century skills. The article is well structured and clearly written and it demonstrates a good understanding of the educational context and theoretical frameworks (constructivism and connectivism).

However, several issues reduce its scientific rigor and reproducibility. The methodology lacks sufficient detail, statistical reporting is weak and the discussion often reiterates results rather than engaging critically with previous research. While the study’s local significance is evident, the design (a single-class case study with a small sample) limits the generalizability of the findings.

Overall, the paper has promise, but it requires substantial methodological clarification, improved data analysis and a tighter discussion to meet publication standards.

Major Comments

Research Design and Methodological Clarity

The study is described as “qualitative complemented by quantitative data,” but the rationale for this mixed-methods approach is unclear. Please clarify how quantitative and qualitative data were integrated: Were the test results used only descriptively, or was statistical significance tested?

The case study design should be more explicitly justified: why a single class, and how is it representative?

Sampling and Participants

The use of purposive non-probability sampling is acceptable, but the small sample (n = 30, with only six interviews) limits external validity. This limitation should be emphasised more strongly in the Discussion.

Provide demographic data (gender, age range, socioeconomic background) to contextualise the sample.

Data Collection Instruments

More detail is needed about the pre- and post-tests: Were these teacher-designed or standardised instruments? What kind of questions did they include?

Reliability and validity evidence (e.g., pilot testing, internal consistency) should be discussed.

The interview protocol should be included or summarised in an appendix.

Data Analysis

The quantitative analysis is purely descriptive (percentages and frequencies). If inferential statistics were not possible, justify this choice.

Include actual mean scores or improvements in percentage terms for pre- and post-tests to strengthen claims of “significant improvement.”

Thematic analysis should be supported by direct quotations from participants to illustrate the qualitative findings.

Researcher Bias and Reflexivity

The dual role of the teacher-researcher raises issues of observer bias. Although this is mentioned, reflexivity should be expanded: How was bias mitigated during observation and data interpretation?

Theoretical Framework

The constructivist and connectivist frameworks are appropriate but somewhat descriptive. Strengthen the link between theory and findings: How exactly did each theory inform data interpretation?

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/11/1096

DOI: 10.1109/ISCAS.2019.8702527

Discussion and Integration with Literature

The discussion often repeats findings rather than analysing them critically. Compare results more explicitly with international literature (e.g., beyond the South African context).

Some references are outdated or tangential; prioritise more recent and directly relevant works (2020–2024).

Figures and Tables

Figures 2 and 3 are external web images and do not meet journal standards. Replace them with original, properly cited diagrams or self-created models.

Table 1 should include descriptive statistics (mean, SD) and clearer labels.

Contribution and Generalisability

The study’s contribution is primarily contextual (South African classrooms). Discuss its broader implications for global science education or policy.

Minor Comments

Title: Clear and concise, but consider specifying the context (e.g., “in South African Grade 11 Life Sciences Classrooms”).

Abstract:

Overly long and repetitive. Condense to 200–250 words focusing on purpose, method, results, and implications.

Replace general claims (“significant improvement”) with specific results (percentages or effect sizes).

Language: The manuscript is readable but contains minor grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., subject-verb agreement, article use). A thorough English proofreading is advised.

References:

Several citations are incomplete or inconsistent in style (e.g., missing DOIs, irregular punctuation). Ensure strict compliance with Education Sciences reference formatting.

Some self-citations or irrelevant URLs (LinkedIn, FutureDecider.com) should be removed or replaced with peer-reviewed sources.

Figures: Captions should be self-explanatory and fully referenced.

Formatting: Verify that all section headings follow MDPI style (“1. Introduction,” “2. Materials and Methods,” etc.).

Limitations Section: Already included, but should explicitly mention transferability and the limited timeframe of the intervention.

Recommendation

The paper has clear educational relevance and aligns well with the journal’s aims, but it needs major revisions to improve methodological detail, analytical rigour, and academic presentation. The authors should:

1. Clarify and justify the mixed-methods design.
2. Provide more detail on instruments, analysis, and data reliability.
3. Strengthen the discussion and theoretical linkage.
4. Replace or remove external images.
5. Revise abstract, figures, and references for concision and academic consistency.

If these issues are addressed comprehensively, the manuscript could become a valuable contribution to literature on digital learning and scientific literacy in secondary science education.

Author Response

Research Design and Methodological Clarity

Comment 1: The study is described as “qualitative complemented by quantitative data,” but the rationale for this mixed-methods approach is unclear. Please clarify how quantitative and qualitative data were integrated: Were the test results used only descriptively, or was statistical significance tested?

Response: rationale for mixed method is provided and statistical test is now provided.

Comment 2: The case study design should be more explicitly justified: why a single class, and how is it representative?

Response: Case study design is justified.

Sampling and Participants

Comment 3: The use of purposive non-probability sampling is acceptable, but the small sample (n = 30, with only six interviews) limits external validity. This limitation should be emphasised more strongly in the Discussion.

Response: Limitation is emphasized on the discussion.

Comment 4: Provide demographic data (gender, age range, socioeconomic background) to contextualise the sample.

Response: Demographic data is provided.

Data Collection Instruments

Comment 5: More detail is needed about the pre- and post-tests: Were these teacher-designed or standardised instruments? What kind of questions did they include?

Response: instruments for pre- and post- tests are provided.

Comment 6: Reliability and validity evidence (e.g., pilot testing, internal consistency) should be discussed.

Response: Reliability and validity evidence is discussed.

Comment 7: The interview protocol should be included or summarised in an appendix.

Response: interview protocol is attached.

Data Analysis

Comment 8: The quantitative analysis is purely descriptive (percentages and frequencies). If inferential statistics were not possible, justify this choice.

Include actual mean scores or improvements in percentage terms for pre- and post-tests to strengthen claims of “significant improvement.”

Response: descriptive and inferential statistics are both used and clarified.

Comment 9: Thematic analysis should be supported by direct quotations from participants to illustrate the qualitative findings.

Thematic analysis is supported by direct quotes from the participants.

Researcher Bias and Reflexivity

Comment 10: The dual role of the teacher-researcher raises issues of observer bias. Although this is mentioned, reflexivity should be expanded: How was bias mitigated during observation and data interpretation?

Response:  reflexivity on the bias of the observer is expanded.

Theoretical Framework

Comment 11: The constructivist and connectivist frameworks are appropriate but somewhat descriptive. Strengthen the link between theory and findings: How exactly did each theory inform data interpretation?

Response: The theories are now linked to the findings.

Discussion and Integration with Literature

Comment 12: The discussion often repeats findings rather than analysing them critically. Compare results more explicitly with international literature (e.g., beyond the South African context).

Response: Findings are analysed critically.

Comment 13: Some references are outdated or tangential; prioritise more recent and directly relevant works (2020–2024).

Response: Old references are removed and replaced.

Figures and Tables

 

Comment 14: Figures 2 and 3 are external web images and do not meet journal standards. Replace them with original, properly cited diagrams or self-created models.

Response: Figures are removed.

Comment 15: Table 1 should include descriptive statistics (mean, SD) and clearer labels.

Response : The table include descriptive statistics.

Contribution and Generalisability

Comment 16: The study’s contribution is primarily contextual (South African classrooms). Discuss its broader implications for global science education or policy.

Reponses :Broader implications are discussed.

Comment 17: Title: Clear and concise, but consider specifying the context (e.g., “in South African Grade 11 Life Sciences Classrooms”).

Response: Title is amended.

Abstract:

Comment 18: Overly long and repetitive. Condense to 200–250 words focusing on purpose, method, results, and implications.

Response: Abstract is reduced.

Comment 19: Replace general claims (“significant improvement”) with specific results (percentages or effect sizes).

Response: Results are provided to replace general claims.

Comment: 20 Language: The manuscript is readable but contains minor grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., subject-verb agreement, article use). A thorough English proofreading is advised.

Response: Proofreading is done.

References

Comment 21: Several citations are incomplete or inconsistent in style (e.g., missing DOIs, irregular punctuation). Ensure strict compliance with Education Sciences reference formatting.

Response: Citations are completed with inclusion oF DOIS.

Comment 22: Some self-citations or irrelevant URLs (LinkedIn, FutureDecider.com) should be removed or replaced with peer-reviewed sources.

Response: Some citations are removed and others are revised.

Comment 23: Figures: Captions should be self-explanatory and fully referenced.

Response:  Figures are removed.

Comment 24: Formatting: Verify that all section headings follow MDPI style (“1. Introduction,” “2. Materials and Methods,” etc.).

Response: MDPI style is applied.

Comment 25: Limitations Section: Already included but should explicitly mention transferability and the limited timeframe of the intervention.

Response: Transferability is mentioned and limited timeframe is clarified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

It seems to make more sense for RQ2 to precede RQ1. The added definition of scientific literacy to RQ1 is still unclear. For instance, the authors state that scientific literacy “is defined by scientific knowledge, application, communication, and understanding of science in society.” However, the study only focuses on life science, which is not addressed in the RQs, and the phrase “application, communication, and understanding of science in society” is still vague – e.g., application of what? communication of what?

The authors indicate that receiving instruction in a second language hinders comprehension of scientific terminology and meaningful engagement (citing Valladares) and that the alignment of teacher training and classroom practices will prevent “shallow scientific understanding and poor academic self-concept” (citing Stevenson et al.). However, it is not clear how learning science in another language hinders science comprehension and engagement, nor is it convincing that alignment of teaching will guarantee students' understanding of the curricula. The authors later indicate that digital technologies must be reflective and inclusive, but do not address the quality of the curricular design, which also greatly affects learning.

Methods

It was unclear (and unconvincing) how using a “structured observation guide” would prevent a teacher from showing bias.

How does the document review account for student guessing? Later, the authors indicate that “reliability and validity checks provide evidence that the assessment measured scientific literacy” but did explain how, especially considering that scientific literacy is comprised of many (related or overlapping) components, as defined by the authors earlier in the paper. The authors also indicate that questions involving the interpretation of graphs assessed scientific application (without explaining scientific application) and that the extended response items assessed scientific communication; however, graphs can also be used to assess communication and vice versa.

While more information was provided for thematic analysis, some of it was still too generic. For instance, the authors state that an inductive approach was used, along with open coding, collapsing codes, and theme generation; however, they did not provide examples of open codes or the criteria used to collapse codes and generate themes. The authors also indicated that NVivo-style manual coding suggests that NVivo is a coding method; however, NVivo is an analytic software used to assist with coding (and not a coding method).

Section 1.3: There were a few incomplete sentences.

Section 1.4: Authors indicate participants could interact with their “preferred language” – how many languages does this refer to, and what languages?

The numbering of the sub-section is inconsistent – given that methods is section 2, all sub-sections should be labelled 2-1, 2-2, etc. Same with the numbering of the results.

Results/Discussion/Conclusion

The authors state the responses are shown below; however, it was mostly a paraphrased summary rather than excerpts from the interview. In the sixth paragraph, quotation marks were used – indicating a quote from a person – but then they attributed that quote to learners A, B, C, D, E, and “D” (F?); however, does this mean that all six students said the same thing?

Interpretation of quantitative results were insufficient or incorrect.

Statement that there was a “meaningful rise in learner understanding” (and later described as “educationally meaningful”) due to an improvement of 23.87 percentage points is unsupported. Namely, what makes 23.87 percentage points (as opposed to something like 20 percentage points) meaningful?

Attribution of learning gains to intervention is not convincing because gains may be attributed to other factors (e.g., peer talk, guessing), which were not addressed.

Interpretation of pre-test scores as “generally low levels of scientific literacy, particularly in areas requiring the application of cognitive skills such as interpretation, analysis, and problem-solving” was not explained.

Claim about student learning after intervention is difficult to substantiate because it was based on 2 timepoints in a non-controlled environment (e.g., student learning could have also happened outside of the classroom through other means than the intervention).

In section 1.3, the authors indicated that students “demonstrated an improved understanding of scientific concepts, applied knowledge in various contexts, and showed growth in critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration,” but the authors still do not explain how the students did these things, in addition to not connecting it to specific evidence from the study. 

• Theme 1 is about knowledge acquisition through e-modules, but the authors say that using Binogi led to students increasing their scientific literacy and a stronger grasp of complex life science topics; knowledge acquisition, scientific literacy, and life science topics are not synonymous with each other. It is unclear how scientific literacy and life science topics map onto knowledge acquisition. Also, it was said earlier that students struggled to learn science terminology; if Binogi supports other languages, how does its use help students learn science terminology (which I’m presuming is written in English here).
• Theme 3 addresses curiosity, motivation, and engagement. The authors say that classroom observations supported “sentiments” for a digital approach as opposed to a traditional approach, but do not explain how these sentiments were measured. At the end of this section, the authors stated that interview responses included remarks that “repeated exposure to animations, opportunities for self-paced learning and instant feedback contributed to learning” – and not just due to novelty; however, no evidence (e.g., quotes from interview) was shared to support this claim.
• Document review is not a data collection tool.
• Authors stated students’ responses during the interview indicated a high preference for learning life sciences through ICT tools compared to traditional methods but still found “reading, writing, and especially communicating scientific language” challenging, in addition to struggling with “scientific terminology, pronunciation, and the ability to articulate scientific concepts.” The novelty of using new technology in the classroom may contribute to “better engagement” but not necessarily to “deeper learning”, as evidenced by what students said they found challenging.

 

 

 

Author Response

1. Introduction and Research Questions

Comment 1: RQ sequencing was unclear; the definition of scientific literacy was vague and not clearly aligned with Life Sciences; concepts such as “application,” “communication,” and “understanding of science in society” were insufficiently specified.

Response: The order of the research questions was revised, with RQ2 now preceding RQ1, to ensure logical progression from intervention implementation to learning outcomes.

The definition of scientific literacy was refined and contextualised specifically within Life Sciences, explicitly referencing: conceptual knowledge in Life Sciences, application through interpretation of biological data (e.g., graphs, processes), communication through written and verbal explanation of Life Sciences concepts, societal understanding limited to biological phenomena relevant to learners’ lived contexts. Vague phrases such as “application of science” and “communication of science” were explicitly operationalised in relation to assessment tasks and learning activities used in the study.

 

2. Language of Instruction and Teacher Alignment

 

Comment 2: The manuscript did not sufficiently explain how learning science in a second language hinders comprehension, nor why alignment between teacher training and practice would prevent shallow understanding.

Response : Added a clear explanatory paragraph detailing how second-language instruction can: hinder comprehension of abstract scientific terminology, limit learners’ ability to engage in scientific discourse, increase cognitive load during concept acquisition.

Claims regarding teacher alignment were moderated to avoid deterministic language. The revised text now states that alignment supports deeper engagement rather than guarantees understanding.

Supporting citations were retained but reframed to emphasise probabilistic influence rather than certainty

3. Digital Technologies and Curricular Design

 

Comment 3: The manuscript discussed reflective and inclusive technologies but did not sufficiently address the role of curricular design quality.

Response: Added a subsection explicitly acknowledging that digital effectiveness depends on pedagogical and curricular design quality, not technology alone.

Clarified that the Binogi e-modules were selected due to: curriculum alignment, scaffolded progression, multimodal representation of Life Sciences concepts.

4. Methods: Observation Bias and Document Review

Comment 4: The use of a structured observation guide was not convincingly justified as a bias-mitigation strategy; document review did not address student guessing.

Response: Clarified that the structured observation guide did not eliminate bias, but instead: enhanced transparency, reduced selective noticing, ensured consistency across observation sessions.

Explicitly acknowledged limitations of document review, including the inability to fully account for guessing, and clarified that document review was used to identify response patterns rather than infer causality.

5. Validity and Reliability of Scientific Literacy Assessment

Comment 5: Insufficient explanation of how reliability and validity were established, given the multidimensional nature of scientific literacy.

Response: Expanded the explanation of content validity, showing explicit alignment between: assessment items and defined components of scientific literacy.

Clarified that: Graph interpretation items assessed application of biological knowledge, extended responses assessed scientific communication through explanation and justification.

Acknowledged overlap among components and justified assessment decisions accordingly.

6. Qualitative Analysis and Use of NVivo

Comment 6: Thematic analysis description was generic; NVivo was incorrectly framed as a coding method.

Response: Added concrete examples of open codes, including how codes were collapsed into themes. Specified criteria for theme generation (frequency, relevance to RQs, conceptual coherence). Corrected terminology to clarify that NVivo-style coding refers to analytic procedures, not NVivo as a method.

7. Section Numbering and Incomplete Sentences

 

Comment 7: Section numbering was inconsistent; some sentences were incomplete.

Response:  Corrected all section and sub-section numbering to align with MDPI formatting (e.g., 2.1, 2.2).

Revised and completed all incomplete sentences identified in Sections 1.3 and 1.4.

8. Language Options in the Intervention

Comment 8:  “Preferred language” was unclear.

Response: Explicitly stated the number and names of languages available in the intervention.

Clarified how multilingual support functioned alongside English scientific terminology.

9. Results: Use of Interview Evidence

Comment 9: Results relied on paraphrasing rather than direct quotes; quotation attribution was unclear.

Response:  Added verbatim interview excerpts to support key claims.

Corrected attribution errors and clarified when statements reflected shared views across participants.

10. Interpretation of Quantitative Results

Comment 10: Claims of “meaningful” and “educationally meaningful” gains were unsupported.

Response: Removed unsupported claims of educational meaningfulness.

Reframed findings as descriptive learning gains, not causal effects.

Added explicit acknowledgement that: the absence of a control group limits causal inference, gains may be influenced by peer interaction, repeated exposure, or external learning.

11. Attribution of Learning Gains and Study Design Limitations

Comment 11: Learning gains were attributed too strongly to the intervention despite non-controlled design.

Response: Added a dedicated limitations paragraph explicitly addressing: lack of control group, two timepoints, possible external learning influences.

Moderated all causal language accordingly.

12. Themes and Conceptual Clarity

Comment 12: Confusion between knowledge acquisition, scientific literacy, and Life Sciences content.

Response:  Revised thematic descriptions to clearly distinguish: knowledge acquisition (content mastery), scientific literacy (application and communication), Life Sciences topics (disciplinary domain).

Clarified how each theme mapped onto specific components of scientific literacy.

13. Engagement, Motivation, and Novelty Effects

Comment 13: Claims about engagement and deeper learning lacked evidence and may reflect novelty effects.

Response: Added interview excerpts supporting claims about repeated exposure and self-paced learning.

Explicitly acknowledged that increased engagement does not necessarily imply deeper learning.

Differentiated between motivation, engagement, and conceptual understanding.

14. Clarification of Data Collection Terminology

Comment 14: Document review was incorrectly described as a data collection tool.

Response:  Revised terminology to clarify that document review was an analytic strategy, not a primary data collection method.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the substantial revision of the manuscript “Unlocking Scientific Literacy: The Role of E-Modules and Learning Applications in South African Grade 11 Life Sciences Classrooms.” The revised version demonstrates clear improvements in methodological clarity, analytical rigor, and theoretical alignment.

Key enhancements include:

- A clearer justification of the mixed-methods design and data integration.

- A strengthened rationale for the single-case study design.

- Comprehensive descriptions of data collection instruments, including validity and reliability evidence (α = 0.78).

- Inclusion of both descriptive and inferential statistics, such as t-tests, confidence intervals, and Cohen’s d.

- Integration of verbatim excerpts to support the qualitative analysis.

- Expanded discussion of researcher bias mitigation.

- More explicit linkage between the constructivist and connectivist frameworks and the findings.

- A substantially improved and more up-to-date discussion, incorporating recent international literature.

- A more detailed limitations section.

Minor Revisions Required

1. Reference formatting

Although improved, the reference list still contains minor inconsistencies. Please revise the entire section to ensure full alignment with Education Sciences formatting requirements.

2. Tables and visual presentation

Ensure tables follow MDPI formatting standards and consider redesigning key results tables for clarity and readability.

3. Abstract

Please reduce the abstract to 200–250 words, focusing strictly on purpose, methods, main findings, and implications.

4. Language and proofreading

A final English proofreading pass is recommended to ensure clarity and precision.

5. International implications

Please add 2–3 sentences explicitly addressing the international relevance of the study.

Recommendation

Minor Revisions. The manuscript now meets the core requirements of methodological rigor, theoretical coherence, and scholarly relevance.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Comment 1:  Reference Formatting

Although improved, the reference list still contains minor inconsistencies. Please revise the entire section to ensure full alignment with Education Sciences formatting requirements.

Response: The entire reference list has been comprehensively revised to ensure full compliance with Education Sciences (MDPI) formatting guidelines. All citations were standardised for punctuation, author formatting, journal titles, volume and issue numbers, page ranges, and the inclusion of DOIs where available. Incomplete, outdated, and non–peer-reviewed sources were removed or replaced with recent and relevant literature.

Comment 2: Tables and Visual Presentation

Ensure tables follow MDPI formatting standards and consider redesigning key results tables for clarity and readability.

Response: All tables have been reformatted in according to MDPI standards. Table titles, numbering, and notes were standardised, and unnecessary visual clutter was removed. Key results tables were redesigned to improve clarity and readability, with clearer labels, consistent alignment, and the inclusion of descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) where applicable.

Comment 3: Abstract

Please reduce the abstract to 200–250 words, focusing strictly on purpose, methods, main findings, and implications.

Response: The abstract has been substantially revised and condensed to approximately 200–250 words. Redundant background information was removed, and the abstract now focuses explicitly on the study’s purpose, research design, data collection and analysis methods, key quantitative and qualitative findings, and the main educational implications.

 

Comment 4: Language and Proofreading

A final English proofreading pass is recommended to ensure clarity and precision.

Response: A thorough English language editing and proofreading pass was conducted across the entire manuscript. Grammatical inconsistencies, sentence structure issues, and clarity concerns were corrected to improve readability and academic precision.

 

Comment 5: International Implications

Please add 2–3 sentences explicitly addressing the international relevance of the study.

Response: A dedicated section has been added to the Discussion highlighting the international relevance of the findings. The manuscript now explicitly discusses how the results may inform digital science education, e-learning integration, and scientific literacy development in secondary school contexts beyond South Africa, particularly in under-resourced and emerging educational systems.