The study addresses an important topic, but a few concerns need clarification. The small sample size (n=13) raises questions about generalizability; could the authors elaborate on its representativeness? The reduction of computational thinking facets from six to four without explanation affects the analysis’ robustness; can this decision be clarified? Lastly, some conclusions, especially on professional development, seem to extend beyond the data; could the authors provide further substantiation? A response to these points would strengthen the study.
