Teachers’ Use of Knowledge in Curriculum Making: Implications for Social Justice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theme of the manuscript is pertinent, as it centres on the dimensions of teachers' professional knowledge. The text is organised around a clearly defined problem. In order to increase coherence between the different parts that organise the manuscript, the aim of the study and the methodological option adopted should be indicated in the abstract.

In the theoretical framework, the relationship between teachers' professional knowledge and the curriculum is discussed, but it is not clear what is meant by curriculum. What is the position of the author(s)? In methodological terms, the study would be more relevant if the interview with the teachers centred on issues that emerged from observing their teaching practice. As the data was obtained through interviews with 23 teachers, the way the information is presented doesn't help to understand whether the data presented concerns a single teacher or other teachers. To make the information more transversal to more than one teacher, where possible, the author(s) can draw up a table around the categories that emerged from the fragmentation of the data, according to the literature, and indicate the frequency of teachers who tend to point to each of these categories. Indicating frequencies does not detract from the qualitative nature of the study, since the aim is to understand the meaning teachers give to social justice issues when operationalising the school curriculum.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to review our article and for your feedback. We have made the following amendments:

• Details of the methodological approach have been added to the abstract and the methods section has been re-organised to add greater clarity.
• The curriculum has been defined in lines 54-57.
• As suggested a table has been added as an appendix to show the distribution of teachers who tended to each of the themes.
• Generally, the article has been tidied up.

We have not been able to complete the amendments to the referencing and formatting due to time pressure, if accepted we hope for the opportunity to do so. 

Many thanks for your feedback and guidance.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to express my appreciation to the authors for addressing such an important and timely topic in curriculum research. I have read it with great interest. The paper holds strong potential for publication, and I am suggesting the following revisions to facilitate this process.

• Begin with a definition of "curriculum." You can consider drawing from Priestley et al. 2021, as the authors cite important and relevant content from it elsewhere in the manuscript.

• Instead of using "curriculum work," I suggest that the authors consider using "curriculum making." This term is better aligned with current scholarship, which the authors also draw from. Title suggestion: "Teachers' Use of Knowledge in Curriculum Making: Implications for Social Justice."

• Fraser's framework was introduced at the beginning without providing some brief background information. It would be helpful for readers to have a sentence or two explaining that framework.

• The introduction could benefit from restructuring. After posing the research questions, authors may consider creating a section devoted to "Teachers' Knowledge in Curriculum Making."

• Line 116 - Perhaps cite a source about different 'funds of knowledge' as it appears to be an important concept for the manuscript, considering the focus on social justice.

• Line 139 - It would be good to provide a brief description of teacher agency and why it is important in curriculum making.

• In the "Scottish Context" section, authors should consider citing some research in Scotland regarding teachers' knowledge in curriculum making to provide further context.

• "Conceptual Framework" section - I find this section intellectually pleasing to read. It flows well and makes good use of other relevant sources.

• "Methods and Results":

• Authors could provide more information about the participant selection strategy and consider including a table presenting important characteristics (e.g., role, subject background, years of experience).
• An "Ethical Considerations" section should be added, taking into account issues like confidentiality, anonymity, traceability, data processing, and protection (following BERA guidelines can be helpful here).
• The "Data Collection" and "Analysis" sections could benefit from some strengthening. For example, specify the duration of the interviews, whether they were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and provide examples to illustrate how the themes were constructed. Clarify if one author conducted the interviews and analyzed the data, and explain how the trustworthiness of data analysis was ensured.
• Rename this section as "Methods" because it doesn't include "Results."
• Add an appendix with some example interview questions.

• "Analysis and Discussion":

• It's not necessary to repeat the research questions here.
• Pseudonyms: some teachers were called as ‘Head Teacher D’ emphasising their role while some teachers were called as ‘rural teacher D’ empasising their school area. If there isn’t any specific reason for that, my suggestion for creating a table with made up names with such information (e.g., role, school context, etc.) will be more appropriate.
• ‘This suggests that policy structures, at a national level, influence the way in which teachers draw on knowledge in their curriculum work’ – OR, is it perhaps at the discourse level? Policy language often influence how teachers ‘communicate’ their thinking and their choice of words. Authors would benefit from projecting a more critical perspective here.
• The "Whose Knowledge" section can benefit from quotations, similar to other sections.

• The "Conclusion" section could benefit from strengthening. Include reflections on limitations and expand on the findings with reference to empirical research in this area.

• Throughout the paper, especially in the conclusion, consider incorporating relevant research from Scotland because they are largely missing. You can search for articles in the Scottish Educational Review and the Curriculum Journal to enhance the contextual relevance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for taking the time to review our article and for your very helpful feedback. We have made the following amendments:

• Line 44-46 have a definition of ‘curriculum’
• The title has been changed and we have used the term ‘curriculum making’ throughout.
• An explanation has been added when Frasers framework is introduced in lines 52- 54
• The introduction has been re-structured a new section added; Teachers Knowledge in Curriculum Making
• A citation has been added for ‘funds of knowledge’
• An explanation of teacher agency has been added in lines 161-164
• The Scottish Context section has been expanded to include relevant research in the area
• The Methods section has been tidied up and ethical considerations added. We were unable to provide information about the individual teachers in the study as the data has been anonymised.
• Methods and Results has been renamed ‘Methods’
• On the advice of the other reviewer we have added a table which shows which themes participants attended to which hopefully meets, in a different way, the feedback about pseudonyms.
• All sections have been tidied and reviewed again and Scottish research has been added.
• We are afraid that we have run out of time to amend the references and formatting completely, please accept our apologies and we hope to be able to attend to this if the article is accepted.

Many thanks for your feedback and guidance, it is much appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks authors for addressing my previous comments. I think the quality of the paper is increased significantly. I would still suggest to make some minor edits in the conclusion section where authors should 'zoom out' from their data and make links to current literature on relevant topics, including the ones that are added in the revised version.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and the opportunity to continue to develop our article. We have added to the conclusion as suggested, added a limitations section, which was advised in the previous feedback and developed the clarity of the argument throughout the article. The referencing has also been completed. 

We hope that this is now sufficient and thank you for the feedback and constructive comments.