Parents’ Assumptions and Beliefs about the Impact of Cultural Diversity on Children: A Preliminary Study in Italy, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, and Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an introduction the the REACT Project but it never is quite clear what the project is exactly. Is this an approach to teaching, a tool (not sure what the authors mean by that) or some kind of program?
The parts seem to be there, but it is not clear how they all connect. How is the Reciprocal Maieutic both internal, intuitive and called out for discussion by teachers? Who is Danilo Dolci? When did parent involvement become a subject of research? (line 53). There is some mis generalizations of concepts. For example, multiculturalism, criticality, and antiracism and collaboration are elided in a way that makes little sense, is not grounded in current theory, and lack relevant citations. Furthermore there is a circular reasoning where antiracism and criticality are necessarily ingredients to the REACT project working, and it works to eradicate racism and build tolerance for various cultures and diversity, etc.
It is hard to figure out the timeline, and how the REACT Project has influenced the survey and the people who are selected to participate in it. Overall, it seems like it would be an interesting study, but lacks coherence and theoretical grounding. I suggest the authors try to explain the project initially, and then provide evidence that it works as intended, and how its design was built using a robust theory that is thoroughly investigated and developed.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is good.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback. Please find a more detailed explanation in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an exemplary paper, which addresses an important topic, the role of parents in facilitating the development of their children’s intercultural competences and critical thinking. It is well written, structured and argued. It makes use of an suitable methodology and presents the results appropriately. The survey size is not huge but given that it is described as a ‘preliminary study’ I think this is fine. I think it can be published almost exactly as it is. I spotted two minor typos – section 4 discussion is actually section 5 as the results section is section 4 and this means the conclusion is section 6. Also, on p.15 line 527, ‘Again. The…’ should be changed to ‘Again, the…’ Other than this, I think the paper is ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback. Please find a more detailed explanation in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
