Deaf and Indigenous Curricula and Eco-Pedagogies: Hybridizing Languacultures and Biocultures for Sustainable STEAM Education Founded on Collaboration, Mutualism, and Symbiosis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a critical perspective on STEM education and its impact on deaf and indigenous communities. It presents a critical approach to mainstream STEM ideologies where it claims that it reinforces capitalist and colonialist structures and introduces a transformative framework based on eco-pedagogies.
Although the paper is theoretically rich and presents an original approach, it has major weaknesses in rigor, clarity and academic structure.

The introduction, despite having sufficient references, presents a very high focus on ideological components about STEAM, misleading the reader. This type of narrative complicates the interpretation of the specific objective of this article. Regarding the methodology section, this article presents a critical reflection of the current literature; presumably for this reason no specific research method is proposed, nor have the criteria for the selection of the bibliographic sample or the analysis strategy been presented, to the point that there are sections in which the presence of secondary sources outweighs the primary ones. The DICE framework is a theoretical contribution that may generate interest, but to be considered it requires some kind of empirical reinforcement that explains how the model has been constructed beyond references, something that is not perceived in the reading of the document.

This contribution should find a balance between its critical approach and an objective academic analysis to be presented in an academic research journal.

 

Some suggestions:

1. Clarify the research design and methodology. To do so, you could explain how the DICE was developed, the methods used to analyze the references used and whether previous empirical studies or data collection have been carried out in the current study with respect to DICE.
2. Reduce theoretical excess and ideological assertions. Examples are when you quote literally from a blog phrases such as “capitalism must die” or when you interpret phrases such as “capitalism is the engine of disabilities”. Academic writing requires a more neutral narrative framework.
3. Improve coherence and structure. The flow of arguments should be more logical, some sections jump between topics abrutptly.
4. Provide concrete examples and aplications of DICE. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing in English is too complex at times, making comprehension unnecessarily difficult; as an example, attempts should be made to reduce the use of metaphors and literal expressions to improve clarity. The tone is very rhetorical and ideological, highly passionate at the expense of scientific objectivity.  

Author Response

Comment 1 - Clarify the research design and methodology. To do so, you could explain how the DICE was developed, the methods used to analyze the references used and whether previous empirical studies or data collection have been carried out in the current study with respect to DICE.

Response 1 - We have updated and expanded the methodology, including a discussion of the literature review design, rationale, procedures, and analysis of our positionalities. We added substantive examples from a pilot study and devised a range of other examples by inference and abduction. 

Comment 2 - Reduce theoretical excess and ideological assertions. Examples are when you quote literally from a blog phrases such as “capitalism must die” or when you interpret phrases such as “capitalism is the engine of disabilities”. Academic writing requires a more neutral narrative framework.

Response 2 - We strongly disagree that academic writing requires a neutral narration. We have cited methodological literature refuting this comment and have expanded our treatment of the discussion. We are not neutral nor disinterested. We have also done selective rewriting to cite more research that supports the ideological claims.

 

Comment 3 - Improve coherence and structure. The flow of arguments should be more logical, some sections jump between topics abrutptly.

Response 3 - We have increased metatext, plans of development, and have revised all aspects of the paper to maximize thematic and theoretical clarity. Many sections were re-written, moved, or combined to add explanatory power. 

 

Comment 4 - Provide concrete examples and aplications of DICE. 

Response 4 - We have added substantial new sections in the discussion and in the methodology section to add clarity with respect to implementation. We also added a new research question expressly about this subject. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript regarding Deaf and Indigenous Curricula and Eco-pedagogies.

It is clear that you are very passionate about this topic and I commend the level of effort in writing this paper.  However, as a reader and researcher, I was unable to identify any solid contributions to the field of Deaf education at this time.  Although the literature review was extremely thorough, the sheer number, and rapid changing of, topics covered made it difficult to make sense of the overarching aims. At this point, the paper seems largely opinionated and theoretical without a clear contribution nor any tangible next steps.

Overarchingly, there were also components of the paper that appeared too emotional and/or politicized for potential publication in a scholarly journal for the field of education.  It’s likely that your viewpoints will be better received in a more appropriate space, and I wish you the best of luck on those endeavors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the paper appears to be technically be well written, the heavily specific terminology and extremely complex writing style did make this seem quite inaccessible to the general audience of readership.

Author Response

Comments - General impressions only.

Response - Not warranted. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript with revisions.  Again, I commend your work in this topic.  Your passion is evident, and it appears that you might be attempting to complete this paper on behalf of an author who is no longer available, which is very honorable.  However, although much text has been added to the beginning of the paper, I am still not seeing a clear contribution to research.  Overarchingly, the paper is very difficult to follow, both in terms of grammatical structure as well as the cohesiveness of content.  Although it has been softened up to some extent, it still feels politically charged which is a barrier to scholarly publication.  Overall, better professionalizing the paper can help you move forward if you are adamant about journal publication.  Alternatively, your perspectives might be better suited for something less formal such as a website.  Regardless, my strongest suggestion is to significantly condense your work so that the reader is better able to identify and follow along with each part of the process and ultimately, a contribution to the literature and suggested next steps.  I wish you all the best in your future work.

Author Response

Dear Drs. Thom, Pagliaro, and Kurz, (June 2025)

The current submission (Skyer & McKay-Cody (2025) Deaf-Indigenous Ecopedagogies and Curricula (06252025).docx) has been completely rewritten, restructured, and represents a major revision that we think is ready for publication, pending minor final changes. 

Melanie and I were able to remove over 10 thousand words from the total original manuscript. We reduced the 89 page single spaced draft to a tight 25 page single spaced, formatted version. 

We did not hit the requested target of 8K words for the body. We are at 9,9K currently. There are no more areas to reduce or cut. We looked. We ask that you consider this version as meeting the requirements even though it is above the requested 8K words. After all, we did reduce it by half. 

We attended to all requested feedback. We used the provided formatted article. We restructured the whole paper and reduced to six key sections, as requested. We streamlined all section headings, revised verbiage, reduced jargon, and (we hope) made the paper more reader friendly while maintaining our essential ideas and even strengthening them.

I (Michael) had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Kurz and Dr. Thom. These conversations were invigorating and helped with major and minor editorial issues. I sincerely appreciate your time and wisdom. 

With equal sincerity, we hope we are at the /final/ stages of this revision. This represents the fourth rewrite for us. The paper has been in continuous development since the original call for papers was released in January 2024 (18 months ago). We have taken all feedback to heart and offer what we think is a final draft (pending any minor changes). 

Please consider it in full. 

With kind regards,

- Michael Skyer and Melanie McKay-Cody