Queer, Trans, and/or Nonbinary French as a Second Language (FSL) Teachers’ Embodiment of Inclusivity in Their Teaching Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the author(s) for their work on this paper. It was very interesting to review and I think it will make a good contribution to the literature, however, there are some aspects that I would encourage the authors to attend to through a round of revisions. Please see as follows for some recommendations to further develop and strengthen. I would be happy to review a revised version if needed.

** in the Introduction, line 36: I recommend taking the time to define cisheteronormativity within your paper, even if quoting from Moore. This would be most helpful to those readers who may need to (re)familiarise with this concept.

** pg 2, lines 54-57: I recommend revisiting this sentence to enhance the clarity and flow. It currently comes across as disjointed and unclear.

** pg 2, line 57: I recommend rewriting "This study" to "The present study" in this instance

** pg 3, lines 60-66: I recommend revisiting this section. The writing needs tightening and as part of that, the bracketed "e.g.'s" need removing or revising - maybe it would be more appropriate to use "i.e." and list all relevant theories + methods. Either way I think this section needs to be looked at more closely, including the final sentence, which would benefit from some bridging wording - for example: "After detailing the methodology, I present the findings, which comprise four key themes which emerged through the study"

** lines 299-303: I think this section needs some development to make the writing clearer and more precise

** all of the methodological information is generally well presented and informative; I recommend some copy-editing to strengthen the writing and to ensure optimal clarity & flow

** while I understand that the semi-structured interviews were ultimately very conversational and strayed from the set questions, I think it would be helpful to include a sense of the set questions, even if only by providing a handful of examples. This is useful in understanding what was on the page to begin with, in terms of your plans, and it can be very helpful for other researchers in best understanding your work (and how they may undertake future similar research)

** the findings are really interesting to read through and are presented in a good amount of depth and detail. I wonder if the block quotes need to be in italics, or perhaps set apart via line breaks to help with readability. Other than that I very much enjoyed reading through the findings, it was an insightful exploration by the author of the data they gathered, congratulations.

** lines 653-656: this is beautifully put, I just want to acknowledge that as it is a highlight of the paper (and a good example of the kind of writing that may help with the point below). Very well said and very well done.

** While I think that the conclusions are thoroughly supported by the findings and the literature, I think the conclusion needs further development to really round out the contribution of this study and the recommended future directions for learners, practitioners/teachers of FSL, and researchers. I recommend adding a further few sentences and perhaps come up with a statement at the end to truly "tie a bow" on the paper (perhaps with something kindred to the statement appearing on lines 653-656).

Overall a really interesting and insightful piece. I wish the authors all the best with this paper and their research. 

Author Response

Comments 1: 

** in the Introduction, line 36: I recommend taking the time to define cisheteronormativity within your paper, even if quoting from Moore. This would be most helpful to those readers who may need to (re)familiarise with this concept.

Response 1: Added definition.

Comment 2:** pg 2, lines 54-57: I recommend revisiting this sentence to enhance the clarity and flow. It currently comes across as disjointed and unclear.

Response 2: I changed the sentence to enhance clarity.

Comment 3: * pg 2, line 57: I recommend rewriting "This study" to "The present study" in this instance.

Response 3: I added "this present study".

Comment 4: * pg 3, lines 60-66: I recommend revisiting this section. The writing needs tightening and as part of that, the bracketed "e.g.'s" need removing or revising - maybe it would be more appropriate to use "i.e." and list all relevant theories + methods. Either way I think this section needs to be looked at more closely, including the final sentence, which would benefit from some bridging wording - for example: "After detailing the methodology, I present the findings, which comprise four key themes which emerged through the study"

Response 4: I removed bracketing for clarity.

Comment 5:  lines 299-303: I think this section needs some development to make the writing clearer and more precise.

Response 5: This comment was a little difficult to discern. Please clarify which development of the writing you would like to be improved.

Comment 6: All of the methodological information is generally well presented and informative; I recommend some copy-editing to strengthen the writing and to ensure optimal clarity & flow

Response 6: I completed the copy-editing to strengthen the writing. 

Comment 7: While I understand that the semi-structured interviews were ultimately very conversational and strayed from the set questions, I think it would be helpful to include a sense of the set questions, even if only by providing a handful of examples. This is useful in understanding what was on the page to begin with, in terms of your plans, and it can be very helpful for other researchers in best understanding your work (and how they may undertake future similar research)

Response 7: I included questions from the interviews to help offer a holistic understanding of what the interviews resembled. 

Comment 8: the findings are really interesting to read through and are presented in a good amount of depth and detail. I wonder if the block quotes need to be in italics, or perhaps set apart via line breaks to help with readability. Other than that I very much enjoyed reading through the findings, it was an insightful exploration by the author of the data they gathered, congratulations.

Response 8: Thank you!

Comment 9: While I think that the conclusions are thoroughly supported by the findings and the literature, I think the conclusion needs further development to really round out the contribution of this study and the recommended future directions for learners, practitioners/teachers of FSL, and researchers. I recommend adding a further few sentences and perhaps come up with a statement at the end to truly "tie a bow" on the paper (perhaps with something kindred to the statement appearing on lines 653-656).

Response 9: Thank you! I added these implications into the conclusion. 

Thank you! 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very strong article that addresses an important educational context. I would support this paper moving forward to publication with some minor revisions, which are mostly related to reference style and formatting. The article offers a strong justification for the study and has an original approach. I appreciated the photos from the educators as well that were integrated into the text. The article needs to be formatted in the MDPI formatting style, as it is currently in APA format. As well, some of the subheadings were unclear, especially in the results section where the subheadings seemed to almost mesh with the text of the results. I would recommend the authors clear-up the results section in presentation. As well, the description of gender performativity needs to be clarified as Butler did not argue that one can freely perform a gender of their choice, but that the very gendered acts themselves produce what we take for granted as gender norms. Similarly, the following section that references Foucault needs more detail. I would further encourage the authors to engage with queer theory to a richer degree in their analysis throughout the discussion. What are the implications of applying a queer theory analysis to these data? Once these notes are addressed, I feel the article will be ready for publication. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The article needs to be formatted in the MDPI formatting style, as it is currently in APA format.

Response 1: I thought this paper needed to be in APA. I have formatted the original in MDPI formatting based on the template.

Comment 2: Some of the subheadings were unclear, especially in the results section where the subheadings seemed to almost mesh with the text of the results. I would recommend the authors clear-up the results section in presentation.

Comment 3: I disagree about the lack of clarity. Could the reviewer provide more details and rationales about why the subheadings were unclear? 

Comment 4:   As well, the description of gender performativity needs to be clarified as Butler did not argue that one can freely perform a gender of their choice, but that the very gendered acts themselves produce what we take for granted as gender norms. 

Response 4: I agree. I've nuanced the definition of gender performativity within my paper. It is worth noting that I drew on work of Brett (2024a, b) in this revised piece. 

Comment 5: the following section that references Foucault needs more detail. I would further encourage the authors to engage with queer theory to a richer degree in their analysis throughout the discussion. What are the implications of applying a queer theory analysis to these data

Response 5: I agree that greater depth could be richer. I was wondering if it was possible to outline where you'd like to see these pieces?