Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was quite disappointed with the essay.  The first 6 pages set up a problem -- in an outstanding way!  I was intrigued and wanted to read further.  How indeed does a religious school honor and focus its own religious tradition and also teach in such a way to honor the diversity of the students?  An important problem.  

I agree with the author that the way truth, beauty, and goodness are addressed, and the way the liberal arts are constructed might in fact respond to this question.  However, the author did not clearly define for the reader or convince the reader how this is the case.  It moved from an excellent statement of a problem to a superficial response. 

I think the essay can be improved to be published, but it needs to define terms better and show directly how the teaching of the liberal arts honors and advances the context of a religious community and allows and encouraging diversity of thought and responses.  It is not enough to tell us that it does.  We need to be shown.  In other words, how?

The section on truth, beauty, and goodness spends some time on beauty but little defining truth and goodness as it relates to this essay.

Then the section on liberal arts does not connect at all to the four types of students identified nor how the particular teaching of the liberals arts through the curriculum cited does indeed address the issue.  

Please expand, clarify, and show how the response does in fact address the issue defined. This is essential for the essay to be convincing and helpful for readers.

Finally one smaller issue -- the abstract is much too long.  Readers will stop in the middle and not get a good sense of the author's argument.

Author Response

I have responded to the concerns raised, I believe, and my changes are marked in red in the manuscript. I am grateful for your feebdack. My changes have been incorporated into paragraphs of the article that are are in close proximity to the concerns that you have raised. 

I have not modified the abstract.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article shows a practice and a curriculum that provides an answer to the postmodernity developments. It advocates that a faith-based school as the Catholic schools needs to articulate its foundation. It would be even better when these developments and statements are underlined with more and more varied academic sources.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I have responded to the concerns raised, I believe, and my changes are marked in red in the manuscript. I am grateful for your feedback. At this stage, I have not provided further analysis of the religious typology of students, and examined the longitudinal data as i feel that this would take the essay in a different direction and currently it is the subject of another published article. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am sorry, I do not see much change in this revision.  The abstract talks about common good that is rarely mentioned in the paper.  The concepts of beauty, truth and goodness are highlighted, but only beauty is really discussed.  There must be a "Liberal Arts Approach" to Catholic schooling Australia to which the author is referring.  The article sets up an important argument and seeks to highlight that a "new" Liberal Arts approach better addresses this situation.  As such that is a fine argument and article.  Why then all the focus on "truth, beauty, and goodness" in the title and in little discussion in the essay.  

I would prefer the author were straight forward.  That is -- there is a problem in Catholic Education today, the church has suggested ways too address this, there are a variety of students with varying levels of interest, and there is this new "Liberal Arts" approach that elicit significant improvement.  The title of the article should be "Liberal Arts approach to Catholic Education."  

The article could be shortened, focus on this conclusion, and clear about its argument.  

I am afraid I must be mis-understanding something here.  The abstract, the title, and the article do not seem t cohere. If the educator of the volume is happy be the article and/ or my revision, I suggest you go with it.  As it presently is, I do not think it does what it promises in the abstract at all.  Where is the focus on the common good, how is that addressed?  If that is the topic the essay does not do it.  If the topic is introducing a new approach to curriculum that enhances teaching, then make it about that. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Again, I have made amendments to the article, and specifically, I have amended the abstract -specifically removing some of the references to the common good. Further, within the article - additional information has been provided on truth, beauty and goodness. I do not agree with you about the title. Truth, Beauty and Goodness are actually drawn from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and typically they are mentioned in the same way that Catholics speak of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in reference to the Trinity. If one is the dominant, it doesn't mean that the others don't exist. I was conscious about the length of the article and I was mindful of not putting in materials as padding on truth and goodness. I do believe that the article explains why beauty is the principal driver. 

While having a different perspective, I value your thoughts. 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This last revision is very clear. Now those outside the context can fully understand the impact of this curriculum.