Experiential Civic Learning: When the Established Order Falters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, I would like to congratulate you on this work and the effort you have invested in it. I hope you will take the following comments in the spirit of constructive dialogue, with the aim of strengthening your manuscript. I wish you continued success in your academic and professional endeavors.

Introduction

As an initial observation, the article would benefit from a more immediate contextualization of the geographical setting of the study, as its comprehension is not entirely straightforward.

The article is well written and cohesively presented, with ideas and arguments articulated in a clear and logical sequence. Recognising the centrality of Dewey’s pivotal contribution, the article is theoretically well grounded. I suggest, however, that this theoretical reflection could be reinforced by also referencing Dewey’s concept of civic competence. This would further strengthen the theoretical framework. 

In addition, given the predominance of Dewey’s contribution in the analysis, the article would benefit from a clearer explanation of the rationale for privileging this theoretical lens. This is particularly relevant since more recent authors—some also inspired by Dewey, but also drawing from others such as Freire—have emphasised the experiential dimension of learning democracy. Engaging with these perspectives could enrich the manuscript, opening space for a broader theoretical conception of citizenship that might also be discussed.

Methods
The study provides details on the procedures and the context in which it was developed (lines 285–295). I believe the article would benefit from a clearer justification of the selection of this particular context (i.e., whether it was the result of specific selection criteria—why was this institution chosen?).

Regarding the participants, the article would also benefit from a more detailed explanation, particularly concerning the age groups represented. This information is especially relevant in higher education contexts, where there is greater diversity.

Concerning the questionnaire survey that grounds the qualitative analysis, it would be useful to highlight explicitly the qualitative nature of the responses (given the open-ended question). Furthermore, as the question appears to presuppose an affirmative or negative response, this could lead to different analytical pathways. It would be important to clarify what kinds of responses were generated (affirmative, negative, or both) and the rationale behind this design choice.

Results, discussion, conclusion

With regard to the presentation of results (particularly the first graphs), the article would benefit if these were reformulated to ensure full access to the textual content. Specifically, in the first graph, it would be helpful to present the values for each category to facilitate interpretation.

The results themselves are presented clearly and logically. The discussion is well substantiated, with a pertinent reflection on the study’s limitations, strengths, and potential for continuity. However, I find that the conclusions are somewhat succinct. While it is understandable that this is the final section, where much has already been stated, the manuscript would benefit from a more resonant conclusion—one that revisits the key questions and discussions with greater depth, and more explicitly articulates the study’s contribution to the scientific field and to civic education. A stronger emphasis on experiential dimensions of citizenship education and democratic education would add valuable weight to the closing arguments.

Finally, although no significant errors were identified, it is recommended that the article also undergo proofreading to ensure maximum clarity and fluency of the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an engaging article that brings hope and challenge to those who bemoan the political apathy of young people today. The study provides an original insight into the lived citizenship of young people at a time of social crises. The scope of the study is well framed and whilst the significance is not overstated, it makes an important contribution to understandings of the role of higher education in relation to citizenship and to voicing the experiences of young people.

There are a few very minor revisions that I would suggest but otherwise, this is ready for publication:

Please provide the context of the study in the introduction – the racial unrest in USA should also be explained a little here – some key headlines would suffice. Likewise, when you mention IRB, please write in full. Not all readers will be familiar with the American context.

In the description of the sample, it is not clear why indicators of sexuality (queer) are included in a list of gender identification options. I would suggest removing this.

The sentence beginning “Dewey 2.0 of 2020 was not a classroom exercise devised in an educational lab..” is not clear. Please rephrase (L531-533)

I suggest breaking down the sentence starting L575 for increased clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thoughtful revisions and the time you invested in improving your manuscript. I wish you all the best in your future academic and professional endeavors.