Goal Setting for Teacher Development: Enhancing Culturally Responsive, Inclusive, and Social Justice Pedagogy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper does a nice job of addressing the knowledge gap of how to empower teachers to become agents of change in social justice education and equity promoting pedagogy. There is certainly rich data from multiple sources (goals set by teacher participants, reflections at mid-semester and the end of the semester, along with teacher educator reflections). The quotes provided throughout the findings clearly demonstrate the themes and sub-themes that emerged through this work. The implications are outlined and provide clear takeaways for readers moving forward.
Some suggestions for improvement.
- Consider ‘White’ a proper noun like ‘Black’ when referring to race/ethnicity. “…the detachment of “White” as a proper noun allows White people to sit out of conversations about race and removes accountability from White people’s and White institutions’ involvement in racism.” (Nquyễn & Pendleton, 2020)
- Research questions 1 and 3 specifically mention “in-service” teachers, leading me to wonder about RQ2. Are the teachers in that question also “in-service?”
- Issues in spacing throughout the manuscript were distracting. One space between words.
- Lines 99-100: in “a” course. But what course? Even adding “diversity” here before the word course would be helpful.
- The research questions are listed twice at the beginning of the paper close together. Not necessary. Pick one set to keep.
- Line 141 & 142 – says “research indicates” but no research is cited.
- Line 171 – CRT was already spelled out. Say CRT.
- Study context – Participants: what were the demographics of the participants? All we know about them is they are 12 in-service teachers. Was this the total number of students in the course or just the number who volunteered? How long have they been teaching? What are their races/ethnicities? What grade levels do they teach? Was this a required course for their program or an elective one?
- Study context – Researchers: more demographic information on the researchers would be helpful. What are their races/ethnicities? How long has the teacher educator been teaching this diversity course?
- Study context – Course: after reading the manuscript, it finally became clear that the course was taught online. However, this is not mentioned in the study context. With multiple modalities of courses now, the format of the course should be clearly stated.
- Study context – Goal setting: Was the goal setting an assignment of the course that was graded? It is described as a learning strategy, but did participants have to do it? Or was this where the 12 participants came from – they chose to participate in this course activity?
- Data analysis – Coding: more details on how themes and codes were developed. Was a qualitative data analysis program used? Where was coding done? Examples?
- Findings: Quotes from the goals are provided in the results, but perhaps an example of the entirety of a participants’ two goals would be helpful.
- Findings: The tables do a nice job to displaying the findings.
- Line 227 – revise sentence for clarity.
- Sentence in lines 255-256 is missing punctuation.
- Line 282 – sentence should be reworded so there is subject/noun agreement.
- Line 286 – what is meant by the research is made explicit and how is this research study explicit?
-
- Line 293 – capitalization of “inservice” is not necessary.
- Is it subtheme or sub-theme? It is written both ways. Pick one and stick to it.
- Is it in service or in-service? Written both ways.
- Line 310 – sentence starting with “Furthermore” needs to be reworded for clarity.
- Line 333 – It should be “researcher two” for both sentences beginning in this line.
- Line 335 – change to “researcher two”.
- Lines 340-341 – Revise sentence. Noun/verb disagreement.
-
- Line 343 – First theme does not have a verb. Revise.
- Line 356 – No need to spell out SRL again. CRT is not spelled out here, so SRL does not need to be.
- Line 373 – delete “and” at the end of the goal
- Line 434 – Citation Scott & Peter listed. Not needed in this format. Include citation number instead.
- Line 491 – “how people how” needs to be revised.
- Data presented in multiple ways – quotation marks, bullet points, paragraph, and indented paragraphs. Why paragraphs and indented paragraphs? Having multiple formats almost makes it harder to read.
- There is co-occurrence of quotes in the findings, meaning a couple of quotes show up in two themes/sub-themes. Is this due to little data or that quotes had multiple codes and exemplify multiple sub-themes? This should be addressed.
- Table 1 is missing a line between subthemes 3 and 4.
- Table 1 description should include “mid-semester” for clarity on where these subthemes derived from.
- Quote on lines 745-747 – who said this? Is that by the course instructor? Clarification needed.
- Line 979 – Reflection on-action vs reflection in-action. More information on this is needed. This seems like it should have mentioned in the literature review.
- Limitation section is brief and needs significant work. What about biases that may have been present? Goal setting, as shown, has favorable outcomes, but in a class about diversity, the potential for participant bias in goals to be set and reflections written could perhaps be skewed as students understand the nature of goal setting and wanting to “demonstrate” learning. What were other limitations to the study? What is the significance of the population of participants? Did their demographics influence the study?
- Conclusion section is missing from the manuscript and should be added.
Author Response
Comment 1: This paper does a nice job of addressing the knowledge gap of how to empower teachers to become agents of change in social justice education and equity promoting pedagogy. There is certainly rich data from multiple sources (goals set by teacher participants, reflections at mid-semester and the end of the semester, along with teacher educator reflections). The quotes provided throughout the findings clearly demonstrate the themes and sub-themes that emerged through this work. The implications are outlined and provide clear takeaways for readers moving forward.
Response 1: Thank you for this valuable feedback. You will observe that your comments have been responded to; the revised manuscript is much improved.
Comment 2: Consider ‘White’ a proper noun like ‘Black’ when referring to race/ethnicity. “…the detachment of “White” as a proper noun allows White people to sit out of conversations about race and removes accountability from White people’s and White institutions’ involvement in racism.” (Nquyễn & Pendleton, 2020)
Response 2: Edits were made to a proper noun, “White”.
Comment 3: Research questions 1 and 3 specifically mention “in-service” teachers, leading me to wonder about RQ2. Are the teachers in that question also “in-service?”
Response 3: You are correct. RQ2 targets the same in-service teacher population. Edits were made to clarify.
Comment 4: Issues in spacing throughout the manuscript were distracting. One space between words.
Response 4: We apologize for this mistake. The document has now been proofread to eliminate these spacing errors.
Comment 5: Lines 99-100: in “a” course. But what course? Even adding “diversity” here before the word course would be helpful.
Response 5: Thank you for this feedback. Edits have been made for additional clarity .
Comment 6: - The research questions are listed twice at the beginning of the paper close together. Not necessary. Pick one set to keep.
Response 6: The questions are now listed only on lines 126-131; the second set beginning at line 275 has been deleted.
Comment 7: Line 141 & 142 – says “research indicates” but no research is cited.
Response 8: A couple references were added to section 2.2 from Zimmerman and Schunk’s work on self-regulated learning.
Comment 9: Line 171 – CRT was already spelled out. Say CRT.
Response 9: CRT is now used. Thank you.
Comment 10: - Study context – Participants: what were the demographics of the participants? All we know about them is they are 12 in-service teachers. Was this the total number of students in the course or just the number who volunteered? How long have they been teaching? What are their races/ethnicities? What grade levels do they teach? Was this a required course for their program or an elective one?
Response 10: Edits have been made with additional information See lines 205 – 216:
Comment 11: How long has the teacher educator been teaching this diversity course?
Response 11: This is now included under section 3.5 positionality -lines 312-335.
Comment 12: - Study context – Course: after reading the manuscript, it finally became clear that the course was taught online. However, this is not mentioned in the study context. With multiple modalities of courses now, the format of the course should be clearly stated.
Response 12: Edits have been made. “online was added line. Section 4.1. participants.
Comment 13: - Study context – Goal setting: Was the goal setting an assignment of the course that was graded? It is described as a learning strategy, but did participants have to do it? Or was this where the 12 participants came from – they chose to participate in this course activity?
Response 13: Revisions were made to clarify that participant goals were voluntary and ungraded. See section 3.4.
Comment 14: - Data analysis – Coding: more details on how themes and codes were developed. Was a qualitative data analysis program used? Where was coding done? Examples?
Response 14: Section 4.3 Data Analysis was revised for increased specificity.
Comment 15: - Findings: Quotes from the goals are provided in the results, but perhaps an example of the entirety of a participants’ two goals would be helpful.
Response 15: Because the data was independently coded it was not possible to do this.
Comment 16: - Line 227 – revise sentence for clarity.
Response 16: Edits made. See revised sentence, section 3.1.
Comment 17: - Sentence in lines 255-256 is missing punctuation.
Response 17: Thank you. Edits made. Please see revised paragraph for increased clarity and grammar (section 3.4)
Comment 18: Line 282 – sentence should be reworded so there is subject/noun agreement.
Response 18: Thank you. The sentence is revised.
Comment 19: Line 286 – what is meant by the research is made explicit and how is this research study explicit?
Response 19: Sentence is fixed. Van Manen [52] concluded that phenomenological research makes lived experience explicit.
Comment 20: - Line 293 – capitalization of “inservice” is not necessary.
Response 20: Thank you. Edit made.
Comment 21: - Is it subtheme or sub-theme? It is written both ways. Pick one and stick to it.
Response 21: Thank you. Corrections made
Comment 22: - Is it in service or in-service? Written both ways.
Response 22: Thank you . Corrections made through out document.
Comment 23: - Line 310 – sentence starting with “Furthermore” needs to be reworded for clarity.
Response 23: Thank you. Corrections made
Comments 23-26: Line 333 – It should be “researcher two” for both sentences beginning in this line; Line 335 – change to “researcher two”; Lines 340-341 – Revise sentence. Noun/verb disagreement; and Line 343 – First theme does not have a verb. Revise.
Response 23-26: Thank you for this feedback. The section 4.3. Data Analysis (lines 391-411) is revised for increased clarity, addressing your comments.
Comment 27: Line 356 – No need to spell out SRL again. CRT is not spelled out here, so SRL does not need to be.
Response 27: Corrections made
Comment 28: - Line 373 – delete “and” at the end of the goal
Response 28: Corrections made
Comment 29: - Line 434 – Citation Scott & Peter listed. Not needed in this format. Include citation number instead.
Response 29: Corrections made
Comment 30: - Line 491 – “how people how” needs to be revised.
Response 30: Corrections made
Comment 31: - Data presented in multiple ways – quotation marks, bullet points, paragraph, and indented paragraphs. Why paragraphs and indented paragraphs? Having multiple formats almost makes it harder to read.
Response 31: Corrections made
Comment 32: - There is co-occurrence of quotes in the findings, meaning a couple of quotes show up in two themes/sub-themes. Is this due to little data or that quotes had multiple codes and exemplify multiple sub-themes? This should be addressed.
Response 32: This was addressed. To avoid confusion, each quote are utilized only once. However, we would also like to note that some of the quotes fitted in more than one place in themes.
Comment 33: - Table 1 is missing a line between subthemes 3 and 4.
Response 33: Thank you. Table 1 has been edited and now includes a line between subthemes 3 and 4.
Comment 34: Table 1 description should include “mid-semester” for clarity on where these subthemes derived from.
Response 33: Mid-semester was added. Table was revised for clarity.
Comment 34: Quote on lines 745-747 – who said this? Is that by the course instructor? Clarification needed.
Response 34: The reflections are from Researcher One. Sentence is now revised.
Comment 35: - Line 979 – Reflection on-action vs reflection in-action. More information on this is needed. This seems like it should have been mentioned in the literature review.
Response 35: More information was provided in section 1. Introduction - lines 106-125, section 3.3- lines 274-289, section 4.3, lines 408-410. Additional references were also added.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Comment 36: - Limitation section is brief and needs significant work.
What about biases that may have been present? Goal setting, as shown, has favorable outcomes, but in a class about diversity, the potential for participant bias in goals to be set and reflections written could perhaps be skewed as students understand the nature of goal setting and wanting to “demonstrate” learning. What were other limitations to the study? What is the significance of the population of participants? Did their demographics influence the study?
Response 36: The limitation section is improved. See lines 1110-1135
Comment 37: Conclusion section is missing from the manuscript and should be added.
Response 38: Conclusions are now added. See section 9. Lines 1136-1155.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for working on the paper to present the findings of your research. I think your paper can be improved in a couple of areas. First, I recommend a more through description of the data analysis process. Was this open coding or a priori coding? When coding, how many codes did you begin with? Do you have interrater reliability metrics you can share?
Secondly, in the findings section 5.1.3 I suggest sharing how the teachers' goals align with principles of CRT. You did this in a later section with a table, and it was very effective. I don't think a table is needed here, but a few sentences would be helpful.
Third, some type of positionality statement would be helpful for the reader.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please see comments in attached file. Grammatical errors are highlighted with no comment.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Comment 1: Thank you for working on the paper to present the findings of your research. I think your paper can be improved in a couple of areas. First, I recommend a more through description of the data analysis process.
Response 1: Data analysis processes was improved. See lines 356-377.
Comment 2: Was this open coding or a priori coding? When coding, how many codes did you begin with? Do you have interrater reliability metrics you can share?
Response 2: We have provided more depth in data analysis. See lines 356-377. We did not do interrater reliability metrics as this was not our focus.
Comment 3: Secondly, in the findings section 5.1.3 I suggest sharing how the teachers' goals align with principles of CRT. You did this in a later section with a table, and it was very effective. I don't think a table is needed here, but a few sentences would be helpful.
Response 3: This section was improved.
Comment 4: Third, some type of positionality statement would be helpful for the reader.
Response 4: A positionality section was added discussing all three researchers.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is evident the authors have spent the time to revise the manuscript according to the feedback. It is now clearer and more robust.
I have no major concerns about it at this time.
