Pre-Service Teachers’ Visual Narratives of Teaching Practice Experiences: Insights from a Rural University

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I've attached my comments to this message. My intention was to be as specific as possible. I apologize if there are any vague areas.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

My responses are on the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important topic in higher education and offers a promising exploration of collage as a reflective practice in teacher education. The study is clearly structured and empirically grounded. However, the theoretical framing requires stronger coherence, particularly regarding constructivism and claims about decolonisation. Greater methodological transparency and reflexivity are needed, especially concerning data integration and researcher positionality. The findings would benefit from deeper analytical synthesis and stronger engagement with the rural context.

Please see the attached report for detailed feedback.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally clear and readable, and the argument can be followed without difficulty. However, the English would benefit from careful editing to improve precision and concision. There are instances of repetition, lengthy sentences, and occasionally dense or rhetorical phrasing, particularly in the discussion and conclusion sections. Some metaphors and strong claims would benefit from more restrained academic expression. A thorough language edit would enhance clarity, strengthen the scholarly tone, and ensure that key arguments are communicated more sharply.

     

Author Response

My comments are on the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has addressed the reviewers’ comments thoroughly and with due care. The authors have responded systematically to each suggestion and have made appropriate revisions that enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall rigour of the paper.

In its current form, the manuscript meets the journal’s standards and is suitable for acceptance.