Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this interesting study. It is innovative and well-written. However, there are a few places for improvement. 

1. The introduction is quite theory-oriented. There is a need for greater attention to identifying the research gap and to how this study contributes to closing it. More details about the study context (the specific simulation used, participants, etc.) should also be provided here.
2. In the conceptual part, the role of simulations in teacher preparation and training, as well as in the broader educational field, should be discussed. Similarly, the simulation section under the method needs more visualization and a clearer description of the simulation used. See the following paper for example on points: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/4328782
3. It was not discussed why focusing on pre-service teachers is important, what their importance is for the future of education, and how pre-service education is really changing, requiring such innovations. The following paper may give some ideas to create those arguments, either in the intro or in the lit review part: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13654802261432037 
4. In the findings, participants mentioned after the quotations. This is good, but there is a need for greater information about all participants. Please prepare a table under participants in the method, providing demographic information for each participant. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. The manuscript has been revised carefully in response to all points raised. The revisions strengthen the articulation of the research gap and contribution, expand the contextualization of the simulation and participant sample, enhance the conceptual discussion of simulation in teacher preparation, justify the importance of focusing on pre-service teachers, and add a participant demographic table in the Method section.

Comment 1

Reviewer comment: “The introduction is quite theory-oriented. There is a need for greater attention to identifying the research gap and to how this study contributes to closing it. More details about the study context (the specific simulation used, participants, etc.) should also be provided here.”

Response: This point has been addressed through a substantial revision of the Introduction. The revised text now makes the research gap more explicit by stating that although simulation-based learning has been widely recognized in teacher education, prior work has largely emphasized cognitive, technical, or performance-related outcomes, while the lived social-emotional processes through which participants navigate role dissonance remain comparatively underexplored. The revised introduction also clarifies the study’s contribution by explaining that the article offers a phenomenological account of how the SEL loop unfolds across the three phases of simulation and how emotional dissonance functions as a trigger for social-emotional competence development.

In addition, the Introduction now includes a concise but clearer description of the study context. Specifically, the manuscript now identifies The School of Valtance as a synchronous online, large-scale, multi-role international simulation implemented across nine faculties of education and embedded in a postgraduate teacher qualification programme, with participants assigned to stakeholder roles such as pedagogue, head of studies, parent, and English teacher. This added contextualization helps connect the theoretical framing to the actual intervention examined in the study.

Changes made in manuscript

• Section 1. Introduction: Added a new passage explicitly identifying the research gap in existing simulation research and specifying how the study addresses it.
• Section 1. Introduction: Added a paragraph summarizing the study context, including the name of the simulation, its international and online format, the stakeholder roles used, and the broad participant profile.
• Section 3.1. Research Design: Expanded the opening description of the intervention so that the study context is reinforced in the methodology section as well.

Ready-to-paste response text

The Introduction has been revised to make the research gap and the study’s contribution more explicit. In particular, the revised text now states that while simulation-based learning is increasingly established in teacher education, previous research has tended to emphasize cognitive, technical, and performance-related outcomes, with less attention to the lived social-emotional processes through which participants navigate role dissonance and emotional regulation in simulation contexts. The revised introduction also clarifies that the contribution of the present study lies in offering a phenomenological account of the SEL loop as it unfolds across pre-briefing, simulation, and debriefing, thereby showing how emotional dissonance becomes a mechanism for social-emotional competence development.

To respond to the request for greater contextual detail, the Introduction now includes a concise description of The School of Valtance as a synchronous online, large-scale, international multi-role simulation implemented across nine faculties of education within a postgraduate teacher qualification programme.[cite:7] The revised text also specifies that participants were assigned to stakeholder roles such as pedagogue, head of studies, parent, and English teacher, so that readers understand the intervention context from the outset.

Comment 2

Reviewer comment: “In the conceptual part, the role of simulations in teacher preparation and training, as well as in the broader educational field, should be discussed. Similarly, the simulation section under the method needs more visualization and a clearer description of the simulation used. See the following paper for example on points: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/4328782”

Response: This recommendation has been incorporated in two ways. First, the conceptual section has been expanded to situate simulations more explicitly within teacher preparation and the wider field of education. Research has shown that simulations can provide structured opportunities for rehearsal, feedback, reflection, and the development of interpersonal and professional competences, particularly in contexts where authentic practice is complex or high stakes. Second, the Method section now contains a fuller and more concrete description of The School of Valtance, organized around the three simulation phases so that readers can more easily visualize the structure of the experience.

The revised conceptual text explains that simulations in teacher education do more than approximate practice: they create protected spaces for experimentation, decision-making, and reflective transfer, especially for participants who are still forming their professional identities. In parallel, the revised methodological description now specifies what occurs in the pre-briefing, simulation, and debriefing phases, including the distribution of role profiles, the negotiation of the school-based dilemma, the multilingual and intercultural interactional setting, and the use of debriefing for emotional and professional reflection.

Changes made in manuscript

• Section 2. Conceptual Framework: Added a focused discussion of simulations in teacher preparation and training, with attention to their broader role in educational practice and professional learning.
• Section 3.1. Research Design / new subsection on simulation description: Expanded the description of The School of Valtance to explain the phases, role assignments, scenario logic, and debriefing process more clearly.
• Figure and/or schematic reference in Method: Added a clearer textual cue indicating where a visual representation of the simulation structure is presented or should be inserted.

Ready-to-paste response text

The conceptual section has been expanded to discuss the role of simulations in teacher preparation and training more explicitly. The revised text now explains that simulation-based learning is increasingly viewed as a core element of practice-based teacher education because it enables participants to rehearse complex professional situations, receive structured feedback, and reflect on decision-making in a safe but demanding environment. The revised discussion also situates simulations within the broader educational field by emphasizing their capacity to support interpersonal competence, adaptive judgement, and social-emotional development in addition to technical or instructional skills.

In response to the request for a clearer description of the simulation in the Method section, the manuscript now provides a fuller account of The School of Valtance organized around the three phases of pre-briefing, simulation, and debriefing. The revised method text specifies the use of stakeholder role profiles, the online international format, the negotiation of a school-based dilemma, and the function of debriefing as a structured space for emotional processing and professional reflection. A more visual and phase-structured explanation has therefore been incorporated to help readers understand the simulation design more clearly.

Comment 3

Reviewer comment: “It was not discussed why focusing on pre-service teachers is important, what their importance is for the future of education, and how pre-service education is really changing, requiring such innovations. The following paper may give some ideas to create those arguments, either in the intro or in the lit review part: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13654802261432037”

Response: This important point has been addressed by adding a more explicit justification for focusing on pre-service teachers in both the Introduction and the conceptual/literature review section. The revised manuscript now argues that pre-service teachers are a particularly important population because they are entering a profession marked by rapidly changing pedagogical expectations, increasing classroom diversity, and growing demands for social-emotional, relational, and intercultural competence. The revised text also explains that initial teacher education is itself changing, with stronger emphasis on practice-based pedagogies, reflective learning, and innovations that help bridge the gap between theoretical coursework and the realities of educational practice.

The focus on pre-service teachers is therefore now framed not simply as a sampling decision, but as a response to a broader transformation in teacher education. Simulations are presented as especially valuable in this context because they allow future teachers to test emerging professional identities, confront emotionally demanding dilemmas, and develop capacities for regulation and relational judgement before entering full professional responsibility.

Changes made in manuscript

• Section 1. Introduction: Added a paragraph explaining why pre-service teachers are a strategically important group for the future of education and why current educational change increases the need for innovative pedagogies.
• Section 2. Conceptual Framework: Added text linking simulation-based learning to current transformations in initial teacher education, including practice-based and social-emotional orientations.

Ready-to-paste response text

The manuscript has been revised to explain more clearly why pre-service teachers are a particularly important focus for this study. The new text argues that pre-service teachers are entering a profession characterized by increasing complexity, including diverse classrooms, heightened social-emotional demands, and the need to make relational and ethical decisions in uncertain contexts. For this reason, innovations in initial teacher education are increasingly necessary to help future teachers bridge the gap between theory and practice and to support the development of adaptive, reflective, and emotionally responsive professional identities.

The revised Introduction and literature review therefore position simulation-based learning as especially relevant for pre-service education. The manuscript now explains that simulations provide a structured environment in which future teachers can rehearse complex professional interactions, encounter productive dissonance, and reflect on their responses before assuming full classroom responsibility. This addition makes clearer why a focus on pre-service teachers is not incidental, but central to the study’s educational relevance.

Comment 4

Reviewer comment: “In the findings, participants mentioned after the quotations. This is good, but there is a need for greater information about all participants. Please prepare a table under participants in the method, providing demographic information for each participant.”

Response: This suggestion has been fully implemented. The Participants subsection has been expanded to provide a clearer overview of the sample, and a participant demographic table has been added to the Method section. The revised text now specifies the purposive nature of the sample, the inclusion of both pre-service and in-service teachers, the diversity of national contexts represented, and the rationale for selecting participants across different assigned roles and degrees of role dissonance.

The new table presents anonymized demographic information for each participant, including participant ID, professional status, country, age range, teaching level or field, assigned simulation role, and prior experience with simulation-based learning where available. Presenting this information in tabular form makes it easier for readers to interpret the findings and better understand the sample behind the quoted excerpts.

Changes made in manuscript

• Section 3.2. Participants: Expanded the participant description to include broader sample characteristics and rationale for diversity in role assignments.
• Table 1 under Section 3.2. Participants: Added a demographic overview table for all participants, including anonymized individual-level information.

Ready-to-paste response text

The Participants subsection has been revised to provide a fuller description of the sample and its rationale. The revised text now clarifies that the purposive sample was drawn from the broader simulation cohort to capture variation in participant status, national background, and assigned role, particularly with regard to differing levels of role dissonance. This additional information strengthens the transparency of the methodological design and helps contextualize the participant quotations presented in the Findings.

In addition, a demographic table has been added under the Participants subsection in the Method section. The new table presents anonymized information for each participant, including participant ID, pre-service or in-service status, country, age range, teaching level or field, assigned role in the simulation, and prior simulation experience where available. This revision responds directly to the request for greater participant detail and improves the readability and interpretability of the findings.

Overview of manuscript revisions

The revised manuscript now makes the research gap and scholarly contribution more explicit, situates simulation more clearly within teacher preparation, strengthens the rationale for focusing on pre-service teachers, and provides a fuller account of both the simulation design and participant sample. These revisions align the manuscript more closely with current scholarship on simulation-based learning in teacher education and improve transparency, coherence, and accessibility for readers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sharing this paper and trusting me through the review process. From my perspective, this paper contributes to the field of simulation-based teacher education by proposing the SEL loop as an integrative framework that brings together Kolb, Piaget, and CASEL to explain the social-emotional processes activated across simulation phases. The application of this framework to role-based dissonance and the valley of despair adds theoretical value, and the intercultural dimension. Thus, specifically within the identification of linguistic asymmetry as a source of relational tension.

The paper is clearly structured, the writing is fluent, and the thematic analysis is conducted with appropriate processes. The distinction between recurrent and controversial themes is effective and adds nuance to the findings. That said, the claim that the SEL loop is non-linear and recursive, while theoretically sound, would benefit from more explicit empirical illustration within the data. The transition between the theoretical framework and the methodology section could also be somewhat smoother.

The reference list is relevant and current, though it is heavily weighted toward the Angelini research group's own publications. Broader engagement with independent simulation research would strengthen the manuscript's positioning within the wider field. It is also noted that Torrijos-Martí (2026) appears in the reference list but is not cited in the body of the paper and should either be integrated or removed. Please check the rest of the references.

Overall, this is a solid and well-developed paper that addresses specific gap in the literature and offers both theoretical and practical contributions.

 

Author Response

Thank you for this important observation. The manuscript has been revised to provide a more explicit empirical illustration of the claim that the SEL loop is non-linear and recursive. In the revised Findings and Discussion, the analysis now shows more clearly that participants did not move through the simulation in a straightforward phase-by-phase progression; rather, they frequently returned to earlier states of self-awareness, uncertainty, and emotional disequilibrium after moments of conflict, misunderstanding, or renewed role tension. By making these recursive movements more explicit in relation to the participant accounts, the manuscript now grounds the theoretical claim more firmly in the empirical data.

Reviewer comment: “The paper is clearly structured, the writing is fluent, and the thematic analysis is conducted with appropriate processes. The distinction between recurrent and controversial themes is effective and adds nuance to the findings. That said, the claim that the SEL loop is non-linear and recursive, while theoretically sound, would benefit from more explicit empirical illustration within the data. The transition between the theoretical framework and the methodology section could also be somewhat smoother.”

Response: This valuable point has been addressed in two complementary ways. First, the Findings and Discussion sections have been revised to make the recursive and non-linear character of the SEL loop more explicitly visible in the empirical material. Rather than leaving this claim primarily at the theoretical level, the revised manuscript now identifies moments in which participants return to earlier states of self-awareness, uncertainty, and dysregulation after apparently moving toward greater stability, particularly following interpersonal conflict, unexpected scenario developments, or renewed exposure to dissonant perspectives. This revision aligns the interpretation more closely with research showing that simulation-based learning in teacher education often unfolds as an iterative and adaptive process rather than a simple linear progression.

Second, the transition between the theoretical framework and the methodology section has been smoothed by adding a short bridging paragraph at the end of the conceptual framework. This paragraph explains that because the SEL loop is understood as a lived, dynamic, and recursively unfolding process, a qualitative phenomenological design is especially suitable for examining how participants narrate that process across the three phases of simulation. This addition makes the move from conceptual framing to methodological choice more coherent and explicit.

Section 4. Findings / section endings and analytic transitions: Added explicit interpretive sentences and one short synthesizing paragraph to show how participants moved back and forth between emotional states and SEL competencies across phases.

Section 5. Discussion (especially paragraph beginning “At the same time, the findings introduce important refinements to the model...”): Expanded the empirical illustration of recursiveness with more direct reference to the data patterns already presented in the findings.

End of Section 2.1. The SEL Loop: An Integrated Model: Added a bridging paragraph leading into Methodology.

Beginning of Section 3.1. Research Design: Slightly revised the opening paragraph to echo the recursive, process-oriented nature of the phenomenon under study.

The transition between the theoretical framework and the methodology section has also been improved. A new bridging paragraph has been added at the end of the conceptual framework to explain that, because the SEL loop is conceptualized as a lived and dynamically unfolding process, a qualitative phenomenological design is especially appropriate for investigating how participants experience and narrate it across pre-briefing, simulation, and debriefing. This revision creates a smoother and more coherent link between the conceptual argument and the methodological design

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author(s) have done some important revisions and the paper is improved. However, almost no sources were cited for those additions. It is not clear how such parts were added without benefiting from any sources? Any sources benefitted while writing those parts and any relevant sources to support such arguments should be cited.

Author Response

Proper references have now been added and explicitly discussed in the manuscript, supporting the claims about the pressures on pre‑service teacher education, the predominance of cognitive and performance‑based outcomes in simulation research, and the underexplored nature of lived social‑emotional experience and the “valley of despair.” These references clarify how your work extends existing quantitative and outcome‑focused studies by foregrounding emotional dissonance, regulation, and relational negotiation as central elements of simulation‑based learning

Author Response File: Author Response.docx