Engaging Methods for Exploring ‘Funds of Identity’ in Early Childhood Contexts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Beautifully written paper. The theoretical frame and study methods are clearly explicated. The approaches are innovative and offer rich new territory for those working in early childhood settings. Thank you for this scholarly contribution.

Minor edits:

1. p. 2 'A Substantial body of research...'  Query if it should be 'communities' '

2. Query insert missing word: p. 3 para 2. 'pedagogies have (been) shown ..'

3. 'p. 4. Does 'Funds of knowledge project' refer to the authors' project or projects in general. Suggest minor edit to make this clear

4. p. 5. Materials and method: suggest adding an introductory sentence or two to establish the research took place in both Australian and Chilean settings. 

5. p. 6. p. 9, para 3. Query if 'repositioned' should be 'repositioning'?

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper, which describes the multilingual approaches undertaken in early childhood educational settings in Australia and Chile. The literature review and theoretical basis for the paper are comprehensive and persuasive, with the author/s drawing on sufficient academic sources to establish the significance of the topic and relevance of theoretical perspective. 

What is less clear to me is exactly what the research is aiming to achieve. There are a few goals scattered across the introduction section, but no clearly defined research question that is then used to guide the analysis. Some attention to this is needed. Furthermore, there is no clear justification about why both cultural settings are being included in this paper. Is the aim to compare and contrast between cultures? As the cultural settings differ greatly not only in cultural practices but also in the type of setting (school vs prior to school), I am not convinced of the merit of included both cultural settings in the one paper. 

More detail is also required of the data generation methods used in the research. At present, the methods are very difficult to locate within the descriptions of the settings.

Most significantly, there is a lack of information about how these data were analysed. At present, the results are purely descriptive with little evidence of a theoretical driver of the analysis. This results in a description of activities in both settings, with little or no theoretical connection between these. This is an issue that I believe needs careful consideration if the conclusions are to be more soundly justified. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thankyou for your revisions, which I feel satisfactorily address my previous feedback. I am recommending acceptance .

Author Response

Thank you for your additional feedback. Please see attached document with comments addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx