Navigating Controversial Topics: Discussion-Based Pedagogy in Health Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title of the paper doesnot match what the paper is about. The focus of the paper is on best or preferred teaching method in health education. The existing title of the paper is 'Relationships, identity and sexuality education-the discussion based approach'. I feel the paper has to relook at the title.
Constructivist pedagogy is the contemporary approach to teaching. The review of literature is limited. Researches quoted are very old. Latest researches in this area should be included.
How the grounded theory is used needs to be elaborated upon. Coding catagorization and theoretical saturation need to be explained.
Author Response
Comment 1: The title of the paper does not match what the paper is about. The focus of the paper is on best or preferred teaching method in health education. The existing title of the paper is 'Relationships, identity and sexuality education-the discussion based approach'. I feel the paper has to relook at the title.
Response 1: I have changed the title of the paper to - Navigating Controversial Topics: Discussion-Based Pedagogy in Health Education
Comment 2: Constructivist pedagogy is the contemporary approach to teaching. The review of literature is limited. Researches quoted are very old. Latest researches in this area should be included.
Response 2: Added extra paragraphs to flesh out discussion about explicit, constructivist and critical pedagogies. Lines 61-79.
Comment 3: How the grounded theory is used needs to be elaborated upon. Coding catagorization and theoretical saturation need to be explained.
Response 3:
Coding is explained in lines 135-138.
Added theoretical saturation in lines 139 – 142
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the paper itself is sound, and the content and structure are all of publishable content, the significance of the paper could be drawn out more in the introduction. Additionally, there seems to be no clear conclusion section, and although the discussion does draw the paper to a natural conclusion, delineating it with a conclusion section would improve the paper.
Author Response
Comment 1: Although the paper itself is sound, and the content and structure are all of publishable content, the significance of the paper could be drawn out more in the introduction. Additionally, there seems to be no clear conclusion section, and although the discussion does draw the paper to a natural conclusion, delineating it with a conclusion section would improve the paper.
Response 1: Added conclusion – lines 441-449
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors This article is very good because it uses a qualitative method with a very complex grounded approach and requires in-depth analysis and requires a long time. However, there are several shortcomings that must be completed by the author, including; (1) in the Abstract section, the research method is not explained (who the research informant is, how the data collection technique is, the collected data is analyzed using what method and in the Research Results section, the interview quote does not include the source whether it was said by the main informant or additional informant.Author Response
Comment 1: in the Abstract section, the research method is not explained (who the research informant is, how the data collection technique is, the collected data is analyzed using what method
Response 1: Added lines 20-23 in Abstract.
Comment 2: in the Research Results section, the interview quote does not include the source whether it was said by the main informant or additional informant.
Response 2: The results section indicates the quotes were made by participants.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1-I do not see a lot of correspondance between the title and the content of the paper. It seems to me that it is a paper focused on discussion-based approach with a strong bias in favor of this method in teaching, whether is health education or education in general.
2-The paper stirs up many questions to me. I'm not familiar with Australian Education System but I do not understand why it is focused on Health education. I would like to know which contents are included in Health education in AC. It is sexuality only?
3-I miss some reference to the studies on Sex Education from the field of prevention and socio and economic intervention. Methodology of sex education is an important part and larg part of the literature talks about it. Should not be included?
4- I miss also some information related the results. Teaching methodology goes together -and very close- with evaluation and I have found no reference to the results of these methods, which are more effective, how has been the evaluation done.
Author Response
Comment 1: 1-I do not see a lot of correspondance between the title and the content of the paper. It seems to me that it is a paper focused on discussion-based approach with a strong bias in favor of this method in teaching, whether is health education or education in general.
Response 1: Title changed to - Navigating Controversial Topics: Discussion-Based Pedagogy in Health Education
Comment 2: 2-The paper stirs up many questions to me. I'm not familiar with Australian Education System but I do not understand why it is focused on Health education. I would like to know which contents are included in Health education in AC. It is sexuality only?
Response 2: A descriptor of the Australian HPE curriculum overview included in lines 53-57
Comment 3: I miss some reference to the studies on Sex Education from the field of prevention and socio and economic intervention. Methodology of sex education is an important part and larg part of the literature talks about it. Should not be included?
Response 3: This study is grounded theory so didn’t set out to discuss sex education, that emerged from the study and as such is presented in the results section.
Comment 4:I miss also some information related the results. Teaching methodology goes together -and very close- with evaluation and I have found no reference to the results of these methods, which are more effective, how has been the evaluation done.
Response 4: This study is constructivist grounded theory so the data analysis and data collection are an intertwined. This methodology doesn't have a distinct results section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe theme of the paper is relevant for the field of health education by foregrounding teachers' perspectives on sensitive issues.The use of grounded theory approach provides meaningful insights into how discussion based teaching is practised and perceived.
Student voices, classroom observations, and institutional factors could also have been explored for shaping pedagogical choices.
However, it is a good starting point for further empirical enquiry.
Author Response
Comment 1: The theme of the paper is relevant for the field of health education by foregrounding teachers' perspectives on sensitive issues. The use of grounded theory approach provides meaningful insights into how discussion based teaching is practised and perceived.
Response: thank you for your comment.
Comment 2: Student voices, classroom observations, and institutional factors could also have been explored for shaping pedagogical choices.
Response: Yes, I agree. these would be good future research directions to explore.
Comment 3: However, it is a good starting point for further empirical enquiry.
Response: Thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe new title seems to me much more adjusted to the content of the paper.
The changes introduced make the paper's argument much clear.
Maybe more references about "neutrality" could be included, as well as the student's previous beliefs and their source of construction of ideas. However, I understand that doing this would enlarge the paper.
Author Response
Comment 1: The new title seems to me much more adjusted to the content of the paper.
Response: thank you. I will confirm this as the new title.
Comment 2: The changes introduced make the paper's argument much clear.
Response: Thank you.
Comment 3: Maybe more references about "neutrality" could be included, as well as the student's previous beliefs and their source of construction of ideas. However, I understand that doing this would enlarge the paper.
Response: I have added two references regarding neutrality. Lines 405-411.
