Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors because the research topic is very novel and original. But I think they have several points to improve:

Introduction:

* Is sex education only taught in physical education or is it a cross-cutting subject? Explain how this sex education is taught in your country.

* The results of the study itself should not be included in the introduction (lines 65-70)

Materials and method:

* The objectives of the study are too general, focused on health and not on gender and sexuality. As is the last paragraph of the introduction.

* Lines 151-157: Health is a much broader and less committed topic according to your own introduction.

* According to your description, you have chosen a convenience sample from among the people who met the inclusion criteria. Were there exclusion criteria? Modify that whole part.

* The sentence in line 171, about the three interviews, is not very clear. Explain why the number of teachers changes in the three phases. Explain the process of the phases well.

Results:

* Identify the participants with their codes in the verbatims.

* Lines 311-315: They write that non-binary identity is decided, but it is not, it is an identity. Change this sentence to make it more inclusive.

* Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are missing.

Discussion:

* Studies are missing to contrast the results in the discussion.

The discussion is more described as the conclusions, which are missing. Re-adapt these two parts.

References:

* If referenced in APA, the numbers should not appear in the references. Some links in the references do not work and some are not well referenced.

Author Response

Reveiwer comment 1  - Is sex education only taught in physical education or is it a cross-cutting subject? Explain how this sex education is taught in your country.

Response - added a line into introduction paragrah 1, lines 29-31.

reviewer comment 2 -  The results of the study itself should not be included in the introduction (lines 65-70)

 

Response - removed sentences with quotes from this study - lines 71 - 76

reviewer comment 3 - 

The objectives of the study are too general, focused on health and not on gender and sexuality. As is the last paragraph of the introduction.

• Lines 151-157: Health is a much broader and less committed topic according to your own introduction.

Response - this study did not set out to examine gender and sexuality at the outset. The grounded theory nature of the study allowed for themes to emerge and the content of sexuality and gender emerged as a key topic for teachers.

Reviewer comment 4 - According to your description, you have chosen a convenience sample from among the people who met the inclusion criteria. Were there exclusion criteria? Modify that whole part.

Response - added screening criteria to method, paragraph 4, lines 187-190

Reviewer comment 5 -The sentence in line 171, about the three interviews, is not very clear. Explain why the number of teachers changes in the three phases. Explain the process of the phases well.

Response - I have added more explanation of the participants in the method paragraph 3, lines 172-184).

reviewer comment 6 -  Identify the participants with their codes in the verbatims.

Response - added participant list as an attachment

Reviewer Comment 7 - Lines 311-315: They write that non-binary identity is decided, but it is not, it is an identity. Change this sentence to make it more inclusive.

Response - this is a direct quote from a participant. The fact they may have this wrong or not understand non-binary identity speaks to the lack of clarity and unsureness expressed by the participants.

 

Reveiwer comment 8 - Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are missing.

Response - corrected the numbering, line 364

Reviewer comment 9 - 

Studies are missing to contrast the results in the discussion.

The discussion is more described as the conclusions, which are missing. Re-adapt these two parts.

Response - alterations made to the discussion lines 418-420, 434-437

Reviewer comment 10 - If referenced in APA, the numbers should not appear in the references. Some links in the references do not work and some are not well referenced.

Response - done.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Congratulation on an excellent paper.  I only have a few recommendations that may improve the quality of your paper: 

It is recommended that more information is provided on the different participants in every phase.  Were the same participants used in every phase?  Why were the sample sizes different in every phase - did the participants not want to participate or what were the reasons?

No literature is referenced in the discussion to support or contradict the findings. The authors can choose if they want to add literature or not. 

Please remove the full stop after the title.

Author Response

Reveiwer comment 1 - It is recommended that more information is provided on the different participants in every phase.  Were the same participants used in every phase?  Why were the sample sizes different in every phase - did the participants not want to participate or what were the reasons?

Response - I have added more explanation of the participants in the method paragraph 3, lines 172-184).

Reviewer comment 2 - No literature is referenced in the discussion to support or contradict the findings. The authors can choose if they want to add literature or not. 

response - I have included literature in the discussion paragraph 1, lines 418-420 and paragraph 4, lines 434-437. 

reviewer comment 3 - Please remove the full stop after the title.

Response - done.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the depth of your study into the perspectives of secondary school educators in Western Australia regarding the teaching of gender and sexuality in health education. Your findings are valuable, particularly the insights into how teachers navigate controversial subjects in the classroom. From my personal perspective, here are some indications that should be addressed to improve the paper for publication:

1. While it is generally well-referenced and cites key studies, some of the references are slightly outdated. Including more recent studies on gender and sexuality education, both in Australia and internationally, would enhance the robustness of the research. For example: Robinson, K. H., & Davies, C. (2021). Gender and Sexuality Education in Australian Schools: Teachers' Understandings, Experiences, and Challenges. Australian Educational Researcher, 48(4), 623-639.

   Francis, D., & DePalma, R. (2020). Queering the Classroom: Pedagogical Challenges in Gender and Sexuality Education. Gender and Education, 32(1), 36-49.

2. Additionally, the connection between the research questions and hypotheses could be more explicitly stated at the outset to improve clarity. For instance, while the manuscript explores the impact of teachers' personal beliefs on their approach to teaching gender and sexuality education, it is not immediately clear how these beliefs specifically relate to the stated research questions. By explicitly stating a hypothesis such as, "Teachers' personal beliefs significantly influence their ability to implement curriculum reforms on gender and sexuality," the authors could better frame the research direction and ensure that readers understand the central focus of the study from the beginning. This would guide the subsequent analysis and make the link between the questions and findings more coherent and easier to follow.

3. The discussion of teacher experiences is rich and informative, especially in exploring the complexities of teaching controversial subjects, but the arguments could be more cohesive if they engaged more with comparative international perspectives. While the results are presented clearly and the use of teacher quotes effectively supports the findings, the analysis would have been further strengthened by including data on the teachers' demographics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity. This information could provide deeper insights into how these factors influence teachers' perspectives and approaches to controversial topics, offering a more nuanced understanding of the diversity of experiences and how personal backgrounds shape the delivery of gender and sexuality education. The conclusions are well-supported by the results, but considering these demographic variables would offer a more comprehensive view of the underlying factors that affect teachers' views and classroom practices.

4. Overall, this is an important contribution, but with some revisions, the paper could provide even more valuable insights for both local and international audiences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is well-structured and easy to follow, though there are occasional phrases where clarity could be improved.

Author Response

Reviewer comment 1 - 

1. While it is generally well-referenced and cites key studies, some of the references are slightly outdated. Including more recent studies on gender and sexuality education, both in Australia and internationally, would enhance the robustness of the research. For example: Robinson, K. H., & Davies, C. (2021). Gender and Sexuality Education in Australian Schools: Teachers' Understandings, Experiences, and Challenges. Australian Educational Researcher, 48(4), 623-639.

   Francis, D., & DePalma, R. (2020). Queering the Classroom: Pedagogical Challenges in Gender and Sexuality Education. Gender and Education, 32(1), 36-49.

Response - I have looked for both of these articles and cannot locate them. I have checked Australian Educational Researcher 48(4) which includes 10 articles but no article from Robinson and Davies. I also checked Gender and Education 32(1) and there is not this article listed. 

Reviewer comment 2 - Additionally, the connection between the research questions and hypotheses could be more explicitly stated at the outset to improve clarity.

Response - this study did not have a hypothesis. It was a grounded theory study.

Reviewer comment 3 - While the results are presented clearly and the use of teacher quotes effectively supports the findings, the analysis would have been further strengthened by including data on the teachers' demographics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity.

response - I will add the participant list as an attachment. This includes the demographics of the teachers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the manuscript is suitable for publication

Author Response

Comment 1- the manuscript is suitable for publication

Response - thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thoughtful responses and efforts to address the feedback provided. I appreciate your clarification regarding the grounded theory approach and the addition of the participant demographic details. Below are some additional suggestions to further improve the manuscript:

While my earlier suggestions for including recent references were intended as examples, I understand you faced challenges locating them. However, if accessing these specific references is not feasible, I encourage you to explore more up-to-date literature related to gender and sexuality education in both Australian and international contexts. This would ensure the study’s alignment with current scholarly discourse.

Although a hypothesis is not required for a grounded theory study, explicitly aligning your research questions with the emergent themes could improve clarity for readers and strengthen the narrative flow.

To broaden the paper’s relevance, consider integrating more international literature on gender and sexuality education, particularly from contexts with similar socio-cultural challenges. Comparative insights could provide a richer discussion and demonstrate how your findings contribute to global debates.

Thank you for providing the supplementary material, which adds valuable context to the manuscript. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of demographic data regarding participants, such as age and teaching roles. However, I would like to suggest that, for this or future studies, the inclusion of additional data on participants’ gender and ethnicity would significantly enhance the depth of the analysis.

 

Examining whether these characteristics influence the perspectives or approaches of teachers regarding gender and sexuality education could add a critical dimension to the findings. Such an approach would provide insights into potential biases or trends that might arise based on these demographic factors, thereby offering a more nuanced understanding of the diversity within the dataset. This additional layer of analysis could greatly enrich the study and strengthen its contribution to the field.

 

Author Response

Comment 1 - I encourage you to explore more up-to-date literature related to gender and sexuality education in both Australian and international contexts. 

Response - I have added references from 2022 (line 82 and 96), 2023 (line 88).

Comment 2 - Although a hypothesis is not required for a grounded theory study, explicitly aligning your research questions with the emergent themes could improve clarity for readers and strengthen the narrative flow.

Response - Added the research question. Lines 159-163.

 

Comment 3 - To broaden the paper’s relevance, consider integrating more international literature on gender and sexuality education, particularly from contexts with similar socio-cultural challenges. Comparative insights could provide a richer discussion and demonstrate how your findings contribute to global debates.

response - added recent literature that supports the findings from 2022 (501-504 and 481-486)

Comment 4 - Thank you for providing the supplementary material, which adds valuable context to the manuscript. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of demographic data regarding participants, such as age and teaching roles. However, I would like to suggest that, for this or future studies, the inclusion of additional data on participants’ gender and ethnicity would significantly enhance the depth of the analysis.

response - Thank you and noted. This study aimed to protect the anonymity of the partipants and in some contexts the gender of the teacher being made known would compromise that. For that reason we removed reference to gender of participants except to state total numbers.

 

Comment 5 - Examining whether these characteristics influence the perspectives or approaches of teachers regarding gender and sexuality education could add a critical dimension to the findings. Such an approach would provide insights into potential biases or trends that might arise based on these demographic factors, thereby offering a more nuanced understanding of the diversity within the dataset. This additional layer of analysis could greatly enrich the study and strengthen its contribution to the field.

Response - thank you for your suggestions. In future studies we will consider this layer with much more nuance.