Transnational Lessons from Mexican-Origin Border Crossing Future Teachers: Decolonizing Teacher Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is very interesting. The title and the abstract are correct. The introduction and the theoretical framework are adequate too. However, I would have done more research on bicultural children and how teachers need to be trained in intercultural education. The concept “Third Culture Kids” could also be somehow applied here. This focus will give more depth to the research presented in this article. s

Under the methodology part, there is no description of qualitative methodology and why it is the most adequate methodology for this research. Also, definitions of narrative method is needed.

The main research question should be stated at the beginning of the methodology part. And then a better description of the two tools used to collect the data. The authors mention the use of triangulation. I suggest they clarify which is the third tool they used for this triangulation.

Under the findings part an introduction naming the categories will be needed. When citing participants it would be good to know from which tool this is, specified if it is from the interview or the autobiography.

I think that more references to Gloria Anzaldua are needed since she is great reference of these transcultural experiences. I mean during the theoretical framework as well.

In the conclusions a more systemic changes are needed. The authors need to explain what needs to be changed in the educational system to attend these children better, the educational background of all teachers need to be modified in order to have these situations into account.

Author Response

Transnational Lessons from Mexican-Origin Border Crossing Future Teachers: Decolonizing Teacher Practices

 

Dear editor and reviewers,

 

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and the invaluable feedback that you have provided to us. We have taken the time to carefully go through your comments and suggestions. In response to these, we have made several changes throughout the manuscript, which, we believe, is now stronger and clearer. These changes are described below and have been incorporated into the manuscript, marked now in color red.

 

 

Reviewer Comment/Concern	Author's Response and Action Taken
1. Introduction & Theoretical Framework: Please add to the introduction and the theoretical framework additional research on bicultural children and how teachers need to be trained in intercultural education. The concept “Third Culture Kids” could also be somehow applied here. This focus will give more depth to the research presented in this article.	While this is a thoughtful possible addition, the suggestion is well beyond the generally accepted scholarship related to transnationalism. Indeed, as scholars who have contributed to this work for 25+ years combined, we have never included such scholarship in our books or 20+ articles and book chapters related to transnationalism.
2. Methodology Description: Under the methodology, there is no description of qualitative methodology and why it is the most adequate methodology for this research. Also, definitions of narrative method are needed.	A description of qualitative methodology has been added. Also, we have added a definition of narrative method and included more details related to autobiography and semi-structured interviews. We have added: Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.
3. Methodology Clarity: The main research question should be stated at the beginning of the methodology. And then a better description of the two tools used to collect the data should also be included. The authors mention the use of triangulation. Clarify which is the third tool they used for this triangulation.	We have moved the main research question at the beginning of the methodology. We have deleted the word “triangulation” to avoid confusion.
4. Findings Presentation: Under the findings, an introduction naming the categories is needed. When citing participants it would be good to know from which tool these data come, specified if it is from the interview or the autobiography.	We have added the introduction naming the categories. Also, we have specified the extracts and the tools the data come from.
5. Additional References: Consider adding additional references to Gloria Anzaldúa as she is great reference of these transcultural experiences. Include that information in the theoretical framework as well.	Thank you for this suggestion. We have added reference to Anzaldúa’s conceptualizations of the borderlands and hybrid identities.
6. Conclusions on Systemic Change: In the conclusions, some systemic changes are needed. The authors need to explain what needs to be changed in the educational system to attend these children better. For example, expand the discussion on how the educational background of all teachers could be modified to address the needs of these children.	We enhanced the conclusion section arguing for greater allocation of resources for teachers and teacher education. We also argue educators need training on the social factors related to transnational youth and a decolonial approach to education, such as culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2017).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s report of manuscript

 

Transnational Lessons from Mexican-Origin Border Crossing  Future Teachers: Decolonizing Teacher Practices

 

This article seeks to address the process of decolonizing teacher education by promoting the construction of transcultural identities in the context of English language teaching. Its focus is on transnational Mexican/English speaking pre-service teachers returning to Mexico.

In this paper, a key element put forward by the authors is the use of lived experiences of student teachers. This, which they call “funds of knowledge”, should lead to a ‘cross-pollination’ in teaching methods across national borders between Mexico and the US. Student-teachers’ reflections on their cross-border experiences should inform their teaching practice whereby students are enriched by these insights (L 69-71). It is argued that such practices have the potential to produce “culturally responsive pedagogies”. Its aim is to transform educational practice and policy calling into question “colonial matrix of power” (L142-43) to “reflect local realities and environments in which students and teachers operate” (L156-57).

 

To this end, evidence is provided from data collected over a period of 7 years, asking 28 cross-national participants to write down their autobiography. These were followed by interviews with the researchers and analysed into themes. The analysis of the data follows a narrative framework approach.

Overall results indicate that participants praised their US educational experience and the greater support they received from their teachers. They also valued the personal as well as professional skills they acquired in the US. This positively motivated them to become English teachers in Mexico. An interesting finding is the candid acknowledgement by the participants of the economic advantage gained through the mastery English language skills in Mexico, such as the benefits of finding constant work. This should however raise challenging questions with regards to the stated aim of decolonizing pedagogies research and practices. Some critical reflections would enhance this paper here.

 

Below are some reflections on how to address the weakness identified in this paper.

 

According to the authors, this self-reflection and skills acquired through the participants’ transnational experience should inform a more inclusive pedagogy. They claim that it aligns with the call for decolonizing teacher education (L479). Yet, the impact of such an approach can effectively be assessed once put into educational practice. As the paper stands, there seems to be a big jump between the results of the narrative study and the conclusion, which remains at the level of wishful thinking. Given the time length of this study, it would be more fruitful to supplement the teachers’ interviews with some actual teaching practice such as provided, for example, by Frausto Hernandez 2019 (1).

Therefore, one should expect a follow-up to this paper, focusing on practice and questioning how easy it is to assess its efficacity in fostering more inclusive learning environments.

 

However, the paper has merit as it stands in giving due attention to the imbalance of power in language education practices across the US and Mexico national borders. It can be published in its present form as it certainly contributes to a refocusing on the issue of deferring to the authority of native Anglo-speaker’s knowledge in TESOL classes. It has potentially a wide readership and is well-written in a clear and logical way. Decolonizing pedagogies is not new but has gathered traction in the last decade and seems to be ‘a fashionable way to promote justice’ or combat racism and white privilege in academia (2). It seems that this paper is following this trend but would benefit from some tangible results.

 

Finally, conclusions are somewhat slight, e.g. it is quite a truism to say that “current programs often fail to provide adequate training…” (L. 534-38). Think about strengthening the conclusion. Such a conclusion would include suggestions for how to adapt or further this research in redressing this failure. Based on the teachers’ transnational experiences as recounted in their autobiographies and interviews, teachers should demonstrate confidence in the relevance of their own situated knowledge and be able to incorporate their perspectives in creative ways in the language classrooms.

 

Best wishes

 

Note 1: Open Journal for Educational Research, 2019, 3(2), 95-108. ISSN (Online) 2560-5313 ▪ https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojer.0302.05095h

Note 2: See for example, Moosavi, L. (2020). The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology, 30(2), 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919

Author Response

Transnational Lessons from Mexican-Origin Border Crossing Future Teachers: Decolonizing Teacher Practices

 

Dear editor and reviewers,

 

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and the invaluable feedback that you have provided to us. We have taken the time to carefully go through your comments and suggestions. In response to these, we have made several changes throughout the manuscript, which, we believe, is now stronger and clearer. These changes are described below and have been incorporated into the manuscript, marked now in color red.

 

Limitations (The "Leap" from Results to Conclusion): According to the authors, this self-reflection and skills acquired through the participants’ transnational experience should inform a more inclusive pedagogy. The authors claim that it aligns with the call for decolonizing teacher education (L479). Yet, the impact of such an approach can effectively be assessed once put into educational practice. As the paper stands, there appears to be a big leap between the results of the narrative study and the conclusion, which remains aspirational. Given the time length of this study, please discuss a limitation of not supplementing the teachers’ interviews with actual teaching practice such as provided, for example, by Frausto Hernandez 2019 (1).

Thank you for your observation. We have added a transition paragraph explaining the limitation of not supplementing the teachers’ interviews with actual teaching practice. It says now: This study offers comprehensive narrative insights into the construction of pedagogical identities and the envisioning of inclusive practices by transnational instructors; nevertheless, it lacks direct observation or analysis of their actual classroom practices as done in other studies (see Frausto Hernández, 2019). Consequently, our results are interpretive, reflecting the participants' self-perceptions rather than being substantiated by actual teaching practices. This signifies a limitation of the present study and a significant direction for future investigation, as discussed in the following section.

Augmenting the Conclusion: Augment the discussion in the conclusions. For example, it is accurate to say that “current programs often fail to provide adequate training…” (L. 534-38). Think about strengthening the conclusion. Such a conclusion would include suggestions for how to adapt or further this research in redressing this failure. Based on the teachers’ transnational experiences as recounted in their autobiographies and interviews, teachers should demonstrate confidence in the relevance of their own situated knowledge and be able to incorporate their perspectives in creative ways in the language classrooms.

We have addressed some of this in Point 6. Thus, including culturally sustaining pedagogy would include the lived experiences of transnational youth as valid, something we also include explicitly now in the conclusion.