Reflections on Addressing Educational Inequalities Through the Co-Creation of a Rubric for Assessing Children’s Plurilingual and Intercultural Competence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject matter of the article is of worth. However, I feel that the author - perhaps authors, since there seems to be lack of linking between the various sections and may have been individually written - needs to move away from over-quoting from (yet admittedly very relevant) sources, and provide their own analysis of the field, or how those academic sources apply to this particular study. Often the author uses the words through quotes of academics, without making any critical comment of them, or applying them towards their own case study, unfortunately.
The English is not bad, but there are clear mistakes that have been made, of a basic nature - "a SJ", rather than "an", for example. Line 96 also is an example of the incorrect use of tenses. This is not consistent throughout, but in certain sections. Line 92 "can not", also. Line 86, Catalunya, whereas in English the preferred spelling is Catalonia.
Why is Social Justice capitalised, for the first letters, and if it is a theory, why is that not defined? Why does the author not explain why Catalan is provided as an example (l. 79)? It should be explained in terms of relevance to the authors.
Line 130 'several studies' - which exactly?
Line 134 - constant repetition of lens - perhaps a variety of vocabulary might be welcomed.
Line 138-154 - This reads like a list, perhaps the author could link to the relevant case under study in the article?
Line 155-167 - again, there is no link to the present study being made.
Line 180-189 - how does this apply to the present case?
Line 196 - what is the relevance here?
Line 226 - surely there are other reasons why this is the case, primarily? The author's "we propose" seems to suggest something innovative has been discovered?
Line 237-9 - Is it really necessary to provide a definition of 'equality' and 'equity' in an academic journal? Plus, the quote is not referenced with the relevant page number. What is NACE?
Lines 287-294 - Direct quotes abound, but there should be greater analysis of what is being put forward, or comment.
Lines 328-329 - No link is made to transition from one section to another. Here for example.
Lines 351-354 - the author is using the quotes directly from scholarly authors to replace their own words. Perhaps this needs to be addressed.
Line 363 - no explanation is provided. Why did Lukas et al use ChatGpT?
Lines 459-60 - Did the author show the link between language and culture?
Line 506 - None (apart from the title) of this is translated into English - is it understandable internationally by non-Catalan speakers?
Line 500 onwards - There is a lack of referencing back to certain elements previously mentioned in the introductory pages.
Line 573 - The images of the documents are all in Catalan. Relevance to non-Catalan speakers?
Line 589 - same comment.
Lines 615 - the images above this line are merely inserted, but they are not analysed. Relevance?
The same comment for lines 618 and 631. there needs to be an analysis.
Conclusion is rather expedited in a few lines.
The proposal for the article is of value since there is an interest in multi-lingual classrooms and how to improve learning or evaluation of those students. However, the article is lengthy and has a great number of quotes from academic literature on the subject. Yet, they are not adequately integrated into the body of the analysis, perhaps, and should, at least, not be used to replace the author's own wording on the topic.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I have made some comments above. Generally, the level of English is good, but there are great disparities and tense problems at times.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. Please see the attached file for each comment response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer Comments
The research creates a reflection tool to investigate what mismatches and/or educational inequalities exist for plurilingual children in a Catalan state school and how a rubric co-creation process and final use can mitigate these mismatches/inequalities?
The topic is original and relevant to the field of language assessment and to address mismatches between learners’ plurilingual and intercultural knowledge and skills compared to the existing Catalan school system. However, the research gap is not adequately specified.
The study is focused on plurilingual children in the regional context. It reflects on a participatory research approach involving teachers, parents and children in a primary school in Barcelona. Rubric co-creation can make heritage languages visible as compared to assessments single school languages. The article is well-grounded in other studies about educational assessments.
The conclusions are correctly interpreted and well-presented. They answer the research questions related to mismatches between plurilingual children’s knowledge and the competence assessed by the current school system.
Further comments:
References are sufficient and appropriate. The reference list is however incomplete in places.
The figures are difficult to understand for someone who does not understand the languages used. It would have been better if it was made clear what is being assessed.
The study does not identify any differences between children, teachers and parents’ preferences regarding the rubric format or languages.
Section no. 16 – line 682-689
What does it mean “However, the fact that the final rubric is only available to children in Catalan…”
Section No. 10 – line 628-637
If the teachers cannot assess language skills according to CEFR levels currently, how would the co-created rubric be used?
Under methodology, it is not made clear why children from 5th and 6th year were selected to participate in the study.
The article requires minor language editing because there are careless typing errors especially in the beginning of the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article requires minor language editing because there are careless typing errors especially in the beginning of the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. Please see the attached file for each comment response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would consider this to be much improved now and the authors seem to have followed the suggestions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis is fine.
Author Response
I would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your time, effort, and valuable insights for this review.
