Cooperative Oral Reading in Foreign Language Education: A Pathway to Inclusive Intercultural Competence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting. I only recommend a few minor revisions that may improve the readability of the paper.

1. Line 231: I do not think the dash before the full stop is necessary.
2. Lines 503–513: The information provided in these lines is already presented in detail in the following sections and is therefore repeated. I would suggest removing the content in lines 503–513.
3. Lines 519, 553, and 585: There is no need to specify the time span of data collection, since this information is already clearly stated in Section 2.3 (line 396).
4. Line 653: This line does not seem necessary.
5. Line 675: I am not sure about the use of a colon at the end of Section 3.3 to introduce the following sections.
6. Line 689: It is unclear why it is necessary to specify that the students who state that “an excessive concern with form…” are female. If this information is relevant to the analysis, it should be explicitly justified. Otherwise, I would suggest omitting it.
7. Currently, the most widely used acronyms are LGBTQ+ or LGBTQIA+. In the article, the acronym LGBTI is used. If the texts analysed focus specifically on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex issues only, this should be clarified in a footnote. Otherwise, I would recommend adopting a more inclusive acronym (e.g. LGBTQIA+).
8. Lines 814–817 and 821–823: These passages are identical, except for the omission of the word “oral” in the second occurrence. I suggest reformulating one of the two passages.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to read and evaluate our manuscript.

We have addressed all of your suggestions for improvement in each case. For further details, we have attached a document that outlines all the changes made.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Below I send my comments on your work: 

This study presents a mixed-methods approach that examines cooperative oral reading (CORE) as a pedagogical strategy in pre-service foreign language teacher education, linking language-related episodes (LREs) and interculture-related episodes (IREs) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The study is original and is a good contribution to research due to its alignment with current debates on intercultural competence, CLIL and ISLA. However, in my opinion, several aspects require clarification and methodological strengthening before publication.

In what concerns the title and abstract, the title reflects the pedagogical focus, population, and inclusive/intercultural focus. It also states aims, methods, and main findings. The alignment with SDGs is good and distinguishes the paper from similar studies.

However, the abstract refers effectiveness of the research without providing quantitative indicators. Claims such as “demonstrates that cooperative oral reading is an effective pedagogical strategy” would benefit from a brief reference to the nature of the evidence, e.g. frequency patterns of LREs/IREs or comparative tendencies across languages. I also think that the authors should consider explicitly mentioning teacher education in the abstract’s first sentence, as it is central to the research.

Introduction and literature review sections. The introduction is well written and shows authors’ understanding of literacy research, FL didactics, and teacher cognition. The transition from oral reading to cooperative reading and then to intercultural competence is well done. The critique of Eurocentric interculturality and the integration of SDGs is somewhat new and well justified.

However, in my opinion, the introduction is a bit long and we may have the idea that it works as a combined introduction and extended literature review. I suggest authors should consider separating into: Introduction (problem, gap, aims); Literature Review (oral reading, CORE, interculturality, SDGs). Also, the transition from ISLA to CORE would benefit from a synthesis paragraph explaining what CORE adds to ISLA beyond interaction and exposure.

Conceptual framework and hypotheses. The distinction between LREs and IREs is articulated and theoretically justified. The extension of IREs toward SDG-linked interculturality is innovative, which I like. Hypotheses H1–H4 derive from the literature and objectives.

However, I think the hypotheses are mainly descriptive and lack clear operationalisation for empirical testing. For example, H1 and H3 appear to function as underlying assumptions rather testable hypotheses. I think authors should consider reformulating H1 and H3 to clarify (what empirical indicators confirm or disconfirm them). I also think that the paper would benefit from a visual conceptual model linking CORE → LREs/IREs → SDGs → teacher education outcomes.

In terms of methodology, the mixed-methods design is appropriate and aligned with the research questions. The longitudinal nature of the study adds reliability to the research. Ethical procedures are described and compliant.

However, I am concerned about the sample. The English group consists of only two students, yet is used to support some of the strongest conclusions about deep interculturality. This limits application in other contexts and should be acknowledged as a limitation earlier. I also think that there might be somewhat non-equivalence across languages. Languages differ simultaneously in proficiency level, text type and group size. As a result, it is difficult to isolate whether differences in IRE depth stem from CORE itself, text authenticity, language proficiency or mediator expertise.

Instrument validation. The questionnaire is described in detail, but there is no discussion of pilot testing, no inter-rater reliability procedures and no coding reliability for IRE–SDG mapping. So, I suggest the authors should frame the study as exploratory and illustrative, not comparative. Authors should also add a short subsection on instrument development and reliability and clarify who coded the IREs and how reliability was confirmed.

Results Section. Results are valuable and well organised by language. The distinction between linguistic focus and intercultural focus is applied. The tables that synthetise SDG treatment are clear. The results section is very long and, sometimes, overlaps with discussion. Quantitative results are largely descriptive. I think authors should consider adding basic descriptive statistics summaries (means per session, for example). Some arguments in the results already imply interpretation and should be moved to the discussion.

Focus groups and qualitative analysis. Focus group data add information and contextualise quantitative findings. The students’ reflections are well integrated. I particularly like the emphasis on mediation.

However, the analysis would benefit from explicit coding categories, short illustrative quotations, clarification of how focus-group data were analysed (thematic analysis, content analysis, etc.).

Discussion section. The discussion is strong and connected to literature. The contrast between Landeskunde and critical interculturality is positive. The link to European policy and teacher identity is a strong added value.

But, in my opinion, the discussion sometimes repeats results instead of synthesising them. Claims about European citizenship and policy alignment sometimes go beyond the data and they should be framed as implications, not direct outcomes. I think authors should consider adding a short subsection titled “Limitations”.

Conclusions. Conclusions are clear and my only suggestion is to avoid normative language such as “must” unless clearly framed as a recommendation.

The paper is suitable for publication and may contribute to foreign language teacher education and intercultural pedagogy. However, revisions are required. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to read and evaluate our manuscript.

We have addressed all of your suggestions for improvement in each case. For further details, we have attached a document that outlines all the changes made.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important and current topic and makes a valuable contribution to foreign language teacher education by linking cooperative oral reading with intercultural competence and the SDGs. As a suggestion, to improve the paper, it might be worthwhile to streamline the Introduction and the Results sections to make it less descriptive, and to improve the analytical focus. In the Discussion it would be good if there was a more explicit cross-language synthesis and a clearer alignment between the reported findings and the stated hypotheses. Overall, however,the study is well grounded and may be further improved through targeted tightening and synthesis.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to read and evaluate our manuscript.

We have addressed all of your suggestions for improvement in each case. For further details, we have attached a document that outlines all the changes made.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf