Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article touches important aspects connected with the meaning nad interpretation of language in the area of education, concerning both theoretical, practical and empirical issues aimig at eliciting the problems connected with the Enactment of CEFR - based curriculum internalization  in the reference to Indonesian Higher Education. The research uses the triangulation of the methods, even if the Author/s mentions the qualitative one - etnography, and implies the comparative study (that refers to the document analysis), and observation. Maybe, the Author/s should consider more precisely the case study conducting the process of research reflects this method. What is more, the reserach problems and aim could be more specific, respecting the way of their formulation in the qualitative strategy. Also, the value of the article could be raised if there were more the qualitative references of data. While reading the article I wonder if the didactic dimention does not pravil upon the scientific one, but it is only the wonder. Nevertheless, the conclusive remarks are crucial and can be transferred into different areas of education in varied regions of the world.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 recommends for clearly stated research design, research question, research hypothesis and research method and these have been accordingly responded to in the revised manuscript. A unified case study was recommended as the sole method of study, but triangulation has long been the norms in Language Planning and Policy as a field of study where documents are collected and analyzed in document analysis, the implementation of the document is collected and analyzed in ethnographic perspectives, and the participants, policy makers, or policy implementers are individually interviewed or interviewed in groups. As a study of a postgraduate department at a university in the Global South, the context, the research method and the findings have been based on the analysis of data from the object of study, but the results and the discussion in this revised manuscript are not confined to that department alone and, following the reviewer’s recommendations, they have been made relevant to the wide readership of Education Sciences as one of the world’s reputed education journals. Additionally, qualitative data, voices of the participants and quotes from classroom observations have been added to the revised manuscripts in the forms of summarizing tables and figures as well as direct quotes from interviewed participants.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really appreciated this research paper. The research was conducted well and the paper is developed really well. My ask for you is to use more thick description of qualitative data, which is one criteria of a good ethnography. While I appreciated the numbers, I hoped to see more quotes form participants and from observations. Please consider adding more participant voice in your paper in the findings section. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 highlights several important points for revision. The findings and the discussion should be made coherent and balanced with compelling arguments. In the revised manuscript, we have presented coherent arguments in the Results section by focusing on policies at global standards, how they are locally aligned and how these aligned policies are enacted in classroom practices.  The findings have also been balanced not only based on quantified data from document analyses but also enriched with notes from classroom observations and voices from the key informants observed and interviewed.  The presentation of generalizable, hard, quantitative data in the forms of frequencies and percentages can provide emic description of the situation while quotes from the head of the department, lecturers and quality assurance team explanatory to the generalized findings can serve as etic description of the situation. We believe that this emic-etic exemplification has fulfilled the reviewer’s expectation for thick ethnographic description in the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf