Equity Gaps in Literacy among Elementary School Students from Two Countries: The Negative Social Resonance Effect of Intersectional Disadvantage and the Dampening Effect of Learning Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My compliments on this article. It is a very well written manuscript that covers a very relevant topic in learning, making it an article that is easy to read and dive into. It also has a very solid base in literature (although it could probably do with some more recent sources - note how exactly 50% (72/144) references are older than 10 years). Although it is very clear what the authors did and how they backed it up, I could not quite grasp the actual contribution of this article. A lot is based on an extensive research base, which is good, but what is the actual contribution of the empirical part of the study? This is very briefly addressed in the Discussion ("This makes the development of prevention and intervention strategies more complex and increases the need to identify common causal mechanisms in the emergence of equity gaps.", p. 15), although I think this should be elaborated upon more thoroughly in the Introduction. In other words: it is clearly presented what is known, however I fail to see 1) what is not yet known, and 2) how the authors contribute to this c.q. extend the existing research base. Note that on page 2 they state: 

"It would therefore be of great importance to identify common factors across the intersectionality of disadvantaged groups, fields, and types of equity gaps from an educational perspective. This may help avoid the need to develop a myriad of specific preventions and interventions, but rather allow general principles to govern the use of effective educational strategies. Our goal is to empirically establish two such factors: a negative social resonance effect of intersectional disadvantage and a dampening effect of learning capital on equity gaps".

And on page 14 (in the Discussion), they state:

"It seems almost impossible to develop tailored prevention and intervention for this plethora of different equity gaps. This makes it all the more important to identify strategies that go beyond individual cases using evidence-based approaches. Insights into common causal mechanisms in the emergence of equity gaps offer a promising starting point. However, the causal mechanisms of equity gaps are just as manifold as their manifestations. To make matters worse,  they are localized at different scale levels." 

The statement in the Discussion could however already be predicted from the established literature. In addition, the recommendations are in fact means for prevention or intervention, since they are aimed at the disadvantaged groups instead of presented as general principles. So in short my conclusion is: this article's actual goal for and contribution to the field should be better presented.

 

Additional questions and (minor) issues are the following.

1. The mean age and standard deviation are mentioned. What were the age ranges of the participants, and how might the (probably narrow) age range influence the results? 

2. The authors state they wanted to test whether teachers' subjective judgment was a stronger predictor of students' later reading comprehension, or the other way around. How much time was there between T1 and T2? As far as I could tell, this has not been specified and might be of importance when trying to identify common (moderating or mediating) factors. 

3. The statistical symbols in the Results should be in italics. Other than that, clearly presented.

 

Although I think that it is important to address the aforementioned issues, I still think this is a very well written article that is in the interest of many scholars and practitioners. Well done! 

Author Response

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Thank you for allowing me to review your manuscript.  This is a very fascinating and necessary study that can inform areas of growth in addressing equity issues between countries.  The intersectionality between gender, migration status, and socioeconomic status lends to identifying reasons why some students continue to struggle despite educational interventions.  Models that incorporate these factors could serve the field in a powerful way.  In reading your manuscript, I learned a great deal and feel that your work makes a significant contribution to the literature on this topic.

 

Very minor revisions to consider:

The term, “for example” was used repetitively.  Consider removing some instances where possible or using a range of synonyms to point to examples to reduce redundancy.

            For example, for instance, researchers observed, etc.

 

Figures 1, 2, & 4 were split across two pages.  I realize this was likely out of your control, but check with the publisher to ensure that they will appear on a single page to ensure optimal review by the reader.

 

Lines 563-566 – Consider revising to make one cohesive sentence.  This is a powerful statement you are making; therefore, it is important that it flows together well for greater impact.

 

Suggestion: “This is bad enough; however, when access to learning resources and further learning opportunities is contingent on social judgments, further disadvantage can be imposed. When persons making these judgments are themselves a part of the educational system, the educational system has a responsibility to address and eliminate the source of this disadvantage.”

 

As you mentioned in the same paragraph, these students are at a disadvantage with reading. Comprehension outcomes measured by a test – I feel it is also important that we address the way we measure students’ performance on reading outcomes.  There are also equity gaps in ways we assess students from varying backgrounds.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf