Language Attitudes of Parents with Russian L1 in Tartu: Transition to Estonian-Medium Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a manuscript that can potentially be of interest to the scholars and policy makers who focus on the language policies and practices in former Soviet Bloc countries. However, some considerable revisions are needed to address the issues with the research design description and data presentation and discussion. My main concerns are as follows:

1) it would help to situate the research in the filed by explaining why it was Tartu that was selected for the study rather than the cities/ areas with predominantly Russin-speaking population;

2) it is not clear what is the real number of the participants: line 4 gives n=300 which contradicts the information about 200 participants provided in line 130;

Importantly, there is no information on how many of these 300/ 200 people really expressed their opinions during the discussions, i.e. what is the real number of the participants whose opinions have been analysed.

3) the manuscript does not describe the method that was used to analyse the data collected, e.g., discourse analysis? thematic coding?

In particular, the manuscript does not explain how the quotations were retrieved from the researchers’ notes: were they recorded verbatim? were they reconstructed from the notes?

4) It is not clear why some findings are supported with one quotation, some with two while others are not supported with any quotations at all. Further on, it is not clear why some quotations are numbered while others are not;

5) line 364 suddenly makes a comparison between the parents’ opinions and the kindergarten teachers’ opinions, however, such kind of comparison is not done for all the data;

6) lines 382-389 discuss parents’ approach to teaching their children at home rather than the approach that schools use – but this is not made clear in the way the data is described;

7) the Discussion section mentions the concept of parental language ideologies, however, this concept was not introduced before. If the authors would like to use it as an instrument, its interpretation should be provided much earlier in the Theoretical background section;

8) similarly, the concepts of symbolic and emotional belonging are mentioned in lines 516-517 without any prior discussion and they are not well grounded in the sufficient analysis of the data.

 

The remarks and suggestions made above have by no means been intended to discourage the authors, rather their aim has been to help the authors improve their manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Occasionally, the English grammar should be improved, as for example, in line 540 where the authors write “Despite concerns, parents offer during discussions constructive ideas”.

Some wording should be improved as well, as, for example, in line 213 “Below, we present the issues raised by parents during meetings with Tartu parents” it is not clear what parents met what parents.

Finally, the manuscript shows the signs of careless proofreading. In particular, line 58 reads “The transition is set to begin in September 2024” – this is the date that has already passed.

Quite shockingly, lines 498-500 keep the guidelines from the template: “Conclusions This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex”

It is highly advisable to subject the article to careful proofreading.

Besides, the punctuation should really be considered more carefully as the full stops in lines 156, 160, 164, 169, 179, 200, 203 are misleading.

Author Response

Thank you very much. We have prepared detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, which are included in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article present a very important qualitative research on language attitude in Estonian parents with Russian as their L1, with a particular emphasis on the educational system. This is a key interest in Estonia, at a governmental level, since the country was transitioning to Estonian-medium instruction (line 108-109).

The topic was explored through a huge data collection fieldwork research conducted by the authors in Tartu with different methodologies. The research was conducted in collaboration with Tartu City Government. However, it was not possible to conduct audio recordings.

Despite the fundamental interest of the topic under research, there are some flaws in the article that inhibit its full potential for research within language attitudes studies.

The paper is adequately referenced and the general context is carefully described to the reader. The research questions are clearly stated. However, it is not clear why the authors have chosen these specific questions, and what they did expect to find (as an overall research hypothesis). This could also be used as a justification for the selection of the methodology.

In the methodological section, I urge the authors to clarify the following points:

• whether the participants were aware that they are participating in a government-based or governement-founded research. In this respect, please argue on whether you think that this could have somehow influence your overall results.
• more importantly, please specify if the discussione were conducted in Estonian or in Russian (or a mix of both), and if the selection of the language was operated by the participant.

As for the results, I feel that the choice of the sub-title is guiding the interpretation of the results themselves. Ideally, the results should firstly be presented to the reader and then commented. I also recommend to re-organize the part concerning the language education, since it appears a bit confusing at the present stage.

Finally, although I am not opposed to qualitative results per se, I was left wondering why, giving the amount of participants, the authors did not offered also a quantitative overview of their findings. As said, I am perfectly fine with this, but please specify your reasons in the methodological section.

I also would have preferred the data to be properly discussed in a dedicated section (the Discussion, that’s to say), with reference to the previously mentioned literature. Possible limitations and research biases should also be mentioned in the discussion section.

A final section should otherwise be devoted to answering the research questions and offering further perspectives.

As for English, I am not a mother-speaker myself but I would recommend a stylistic revision.

Author Response

Thank you very much. We have prepared detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, which are included in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript discusses an important and topical issue. The study is of particular relevance in an Estonian context but could also be of potential interest to a wider audience, if the authors would put more emphasis on the generalizable and theoretical outcomes of the study. The reader is given adequate background information about the linguistic changes in process in the education system in Estonia. This gives the means to understand the context of the study and its relevance. However, to make the study more convincing and coherent, I would suggest central clarifications and refining regarding data and methodology, result presentation and connection to theoretical framing. Below, I will give some recommendations on how this could be done.

The study is based on field notes of parent discussion evenings at schools and kindergartens. The data appears to contain field notes from a total of five parent discussions with 300 participants, but based on parts of the manuscript, the current study departs from only four parent discussions including 200 participants. The data set is thus presented in partly contradictory ways, and here it would be important to be consistent and transparent (e.g. check lines 4, 107, 129-130). If one parent discussion has been left out, please motivate why and specify, whether this discussion is from a school or a kindergarten.

The method is only described as regards the data collection. It would be crucial to explicate how the analysis has been done. Based on the results section, the analysis seems to be based on some kind of content analysis, but whatever method has been used, it needs to be stated clearly.

The topics discussed in the theoretical framing are of clear relevance. I find the reasoning about parent’s concerns quite superficial, though, which gives a simplified picture of complex issues, such as the outcome of education given in an L2. Topics and possible concerns are mentioned, but the authors do not give clear explanations as to whether previous research supports these concerns and if so, under what circumstances. At times, allusions like discussing some concerns as “myths” indicate that the authors do not find them founded, but this kind of argumentation must be made much more explicit and transparent to be convincing.

The result section is strictly empirical and easy to follow. The reader is presented with a thematically organized summary of the discussions and some concrete examples, which are given as at times fairly long quotes. It remains unclear how these have been documented with this degree of precision, if no audio recording took place. I would also recommend adding the original Russian versions in an appendix or the like.

On a more general level I believe it would be relevant to refine the result section slightly. Some results appear to contradict each other, for example, and there are only few hints on how common a certain opinion was among the parents, and whether contradictory thoughts were expressed. Some specific details in the result section that I recommend the authors to clarify:

• l. 214 “These reflect both positive attitudes…”: This comes as new information. Based on the research questions and previous presentation of the data collection, positive attitudes have not been explicitly solicited.
• l. 221 “Parents in Tartu recognize several positive aspects”: According to the result section, there does not appear to be that many positive aspects in practice (also compare with l. 227-228). If the parent evenings have had a clearer focus on potential problems and problem solving, this might also be due to the data collection process. In the current version, the reader is not given enough information of the data to judge this.
• l. 227: Example 3 does not seem to support the argument. Also, please place the example in this section.
• Please compare sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2. They appear to present somewhat contradictory results. See, for example, “There is broad agreement among parents in Tartu on the necessity and value of mastering Estonian very well” (l. 250-251) and “Therefore, many people with another home language feel there is no real need to learn Estonian” (l. 344-346).
• It would be important to be transparent on which parts are based on the parent’s opinions, and which are common points of departure based on previous literature. Often, this is clear, but at times it is not. For example, is the reasoning presented on lines 360-361 based on research (if so, give references), or the parent discussions (if so, explicate this)?

The results are presented on a purely empirical basis, without entering a dialogue with theoretical starting points or previous research. This is of course a possible outline but would require a more thorough discussion at the end. In the current version, only quite mechanical links between the parent discussions and previous literature is made in the concluding section. As an example, the allusion on myths about learning in an L2 is too succinct to be convincing.

The paper is interesting and the reasoning is in general easy to comprehend. With some further clarifications I think the paper has the potential to be more coherent, convincing and have the possibility of contributing not just to developing the education in Estonia, but to the international research field on multilingualism in education.

Minor remarks:

• l. 4: At this point of the paper, it is not clear what (n=300) refers to. In the abstract, there is no description of the data.
• l. 13: Which survey studies are intended here? Please give references.
• l. 165-167: What data contradicts this fear? Is it only Pisa data from Estonia, or can you confirm the conclusion based on other research from different kinds of contexts? The example on Pisa does not in my view give enough backing for the argumentation, at least based on the narrow information given. Is language the only thing that differs between schools with Estonian or Russian as the language of instruction, for example, or can we detect other differences, when it comes to socioeconomic background, teacher education, pedagogy, or some other aspect of potential relevance for learning outcomes (also see hint in this direction in later sections, e.g. l. 461 ff.)?
• l. 98-99 and 124, 126-127: Repetition
• l. 498-500: There is some irrelevant text here.
• l. 540: Check word order
• Please avoid ending sections with examples and subheadings with full stops.
• In the result section, the subheading style changes after 4.2.3.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is quite comprehensible and easy to read, at least from the perspective of an L2-speaker of English. A few details suggest that a round of proof-reading could be a good idea.

Author Response

Thank you very much. We have prepared detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, which are included in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the careful improvements that the authors have made to their manuscript.

Author Response

Comment1: I appreciate the careful improvements that the authors have made to their manuscript.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for acknowledging the improvements made to the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the constructive feedback provided during the review process, which has helped us to strengthen the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering my previous comments on your manuscript. In my reading, the reasoning is now in many ways clearer and more convincing. I believe you have addressed the most central concerns I had with the earlier version in a sufficient manner.

I would still recommend that you read through your manuscript critically, in order to double-check the coherence and spot smaller details that could be clarified. For example, please consider these minor details (some of these observations might also be due to how the changes have been marked in the document I received):

• Please compare l. 108-109 and l. 152-153 and double-check if the data analyzed in this article are presented in a coherent way (4 or 10 meetings?).
• l. 186-187: and further translated into English for this article?
• l. 336: Example 1 is repeated here
• Headings 4.1 and 4.2: Is the first part necessary and describing ("Perspective of parents with other home languages")?
• l. 345-348 and l. 356-359 are the same

Besides these minor observations and an encouragement to read through your paper a couple of more times, I find the manuscript to be more or less ready in its current version.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive feedback. We have considered the points mentioned and implemented the necessary corrections in the manuscript (highlighted in yellow).

Comment 1:  Please compare l. 108-109 and l. 152-153 and double-check if the data analyzed in this article are presented in a coherent way (4 or 10 meetings?).

Response 1: The description of the dataset has been harmonized to consistently indicate the correct number of meetings.

Comment 2: l. 186-187: and further translated into English for this article?

Response 2: We added "and further translated into English for this article"

Comment 3: l. 336: Example 1 is repeated here

Response 3: The repeated “Example 1” has been removed.

Comment 4: Headings 4.1 and 4.2: Is the first part necessary and describing ("Perspective of parents with other home languages")?

Response 4: We have removed the first part of the headings for clarity.

Comment 5: l. 345-348 and l. 356-359 are the same

Response 5: The duplicated sentences have been deleted.