Are Pre-Service Teachers Receiving Quality Mentoring in Rural Schools? A Synopsis from Research in South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this work. Please see attached for detailed feedback.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See comments on the attached file.

Author Response

The revisions are in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments

This was an incredibly interesting and very pertinent article. It addresses an important question in teacher education and offers many excellent insights and considerations throughout. The focus on mentoring in rural contexts feels both timely and necessary, and the introduction of PCK-M gives the paper a strong and coherent conceptual frame.

Overall, this is a strong manuscript that makes a valuable contribution. My suggestions are relatively minor and mainly aimed at strengthening a promising paper.

Abstract

The abstract was easy to follow and clearly set out what was intended. It outlines the purpose, approach, and key findings in a way that is accessible and coherent. I would not suggest any changes here.

Introduction

The introduction sets up the context well and clearly frames the importance of the topic. I particularly liked the discussion around context-based learning; the points made about the rural context were, in my opinion, excellent.

There are a couple of areas where I would have liked to see perhaps developed more:

• The point about limited guidance for mentoring in the rural context would benefit from being backed up a little more strongly. This is an important claim, and adding either more references or further explanation would strengthen it.
• Similarly, the reference to the chronic shortage of curriculum materials could be unpacked further. What type of materials are short? Are we talking about textbooks, laboratory equipment, specialist subject resources, or ICT devices? Clarifying this would help the reader. At the same time, rural contexts often have rich place-based materials and funds of knowledge in abundance, which was actually mentioned later in the paper. A short acknowledgement of this contrast could strengthen the argument and link nicely to the later discussion on culturally responsive teaching.

The section on issues with policy implementation is particularly pertinent and very well placed.

Teaching Practice and Mentoring

I really liked the terminology of learning in practice, learning from practice, and learning with practice. This was clearly explained and helped the paper flow logically. The way definitions are used throughout the paper makes it easy to follow the argument.

The discussion around the assumption that experience equals expertise is especially strong and an important point. The section on mentoring as a structured relational process is also very clearly written, and the definitions in that section are particularly helpful.

In terms of bringing in additional ideas, I felt that some aspects, for example, e-mentoring, did not feel quite as pertinent to the central argument of the paper. If this section is retained, perhaps more detail and comparison would be needed to show why it is especially relevant in the rural South African context.

Mentoring and Professional Identity

The section on mentoring and the development of pre-service teacher professional identity raises very important issues. However, I would have liked to see more references to back up the points made about multiple and conflicting identities. The ideas are strong, but further support would make the argument more robust.

There are also a few moments where similar points are repeated from earlier sections. Removing some of this repetition could free up words to expand particularly interesting areas, such as identity or culturally responsive mentoring.

Conceptual Framework and Methodology

The conceptual framing through PCK-M is a strong element of the paper. The argument that mentoring is a specialised practice is convincing and clearly articulated.

In the section linking the conceptual framework to the methodology, the argument that mentoring is specialised because of the specific challenges of rural schools made me pause slightly. The reasoning given could arguably apply anywhere. Is the argument that mentoring is more heightened or more essential in rural contexts? Clarifying this would help sharpen the conceptual claim.

Section 2 on Materials and Methods was really clear and logical. The use of PRISMA and the appraisal process is transparent and well-explained.

Results and Themes

Theme 1 contained excellent points around improvisation of materials and identifying available resources. I particularly appreciated the shift from deficit framing toward thinking about what is available.

Theme 2 was also strong, especially the discussion around the pedagogy of compliance.

Theme 3 on digital integration is where I felt slightly less clear on the relevance of all the points to the study. At times, it seemed to move away from mentoring and more into a broader plea for digital reform. Given how fast-paced the world of technology is, there is also a risk that some references may date quickly. Strengthening the explicit link back to mentoring practices would improve this section.

Theme 4 was very interesting, and the small insight into South African practices was compelling. However, I really wanted to read more. This section could be unpacked further, particularly around how mentors actively support culturally and linguistically responsive teaching.

Overall, my main feedback in relation to the themes is that on occasion, they felt like they were moving into other issues, though clearly relevant,  rather than staying tightly focused on mentoring. Tightening this focus slightly would strengthen the coherence of the paper.

Discussion and Future Research

The discussion brings the strands together well and returns clearly to PCK-M. The practical implications are thoughtful and grounded.

In the section on implications for future research, there are some really sound ideas. I would have liked this section to be expanded slightly to explain why these particular research directions are especially needed and what specific gaps they address.

Final Recommendation

This is an engaging, thoughtful, and relevant paper with many excellent insights and considerations. The revisions suggested are minor and mainly relate to strengthening evidence in a few places, clarifying conceptual claims, reducing some repetition, and expanding particularly promising sections.

Author Response

The revisions are in the document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revised submission.

This read a great deal better throughout.

I would suggest a complete ‘close read’ through one more time. Please note the following:

Various typos in terms of citations - - spaces needed between bracket and previous word. Initials of author included in citations too, this needs to be revised.

L 95 - (Agyeman & Aphena, 2023). Does ‘Learning practice’ need a page number? Also, in this paragraph, there are single and double quotation marks – stick to one.

L 142-144 – reference for this online mentoring?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See comments on the attached file.

Author Response

Comments on the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf