A Paradigm Shift for a More Inclusive, Equal, and Just Academia? Towards a Transformative-Emancipatory Pedagogy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As a scholar in the field of inclusive education, I see great value in the argument the authors try to make. Transformative pedagogy does not (yet) receive  the attention it deserves. Also, the explicit connection to intersectionality and decolonial studies is very interesting.

However, there are some issues with the manuscript that need to be solved before this manuscript is suitable for publication. In particular, problems related to the theoretical framing of arguments, the overall flow of the article, and the coherence in the discussion/conclusion section are noted and further discussed below. I do hope that these comments may help the authors to revise their manuscript thoroughly for publication in this journal.

My decision to suggest ‘reconsider after major revision’ of this paper can be grounded in the following arguments:

·         Overall comment: There is a lot of repetition in the article. The authors spend a lot of time describing what is about to come (e.g., p. 2 “In this section I explain…”). This is redundant, what the authors are arguing, should become clear from the arguments themselves.

·         In the introduction a strong connection is made to Freire’s work. However, when reading about ‘transformative’, I immediately think of Mezirow too. It would be nice if the authors could explicitly link (or argue how they cannot be linked) within the article. This would make the theoretical underpinnings stronger.

·         The argument is made that ‘current pedagogical models’ need to be rethought. This instills the idea in the reader’s mind that a new pedagogical model is about to be introduced. However, it remains quite vague if the holistic approach is an extension of the student-centred approach or a totally different approach. In my eyes, it’s the former since the holistic approach is also a critique to the banking model. Moreover, It is also vague if transformative pedagogy is inherently holistic or some explicit considerations must be made to make it holistic. In my eyes, again, it’s the former, because if it transformative pedagogy is not holistic, no transformation would occur. But then the question surfaces: what is meant by the title ‘a holistic approach to’? Critically rereading the manuscript a few times makes me reflect that the main argument the authors want to make is a call for ‘holistic’ approaches in education. In that case, some of the arguments become less useful (like the distinction between teacher- and student-centred models). To overcome this, I think it might be fruitful to make two distinct claims from the beginning: 1/ we see education is still to teacher-centred and 2/ is cognitively (or not-holistically)-oriented; and both prohibit true inclusive education because of X and Y (consult literature here). Then, it becomes much more ‘logical’ that you argue for a holistic approach and prefer it to be transformative. Maybe this reading is all wrong, but then again, it is up to the authors to make their arguments more clearly.

·         I applaud the attention to intersectional and decolonial approaches. The one remark here is: isn’t it inherently part of holistic transformative pedagogy? It would be interesting if the authors would explicitly reflect on this idea and clarify why today in this political climate, for instance, it is needed to incorporate these approaches more explicitly.

·         I would also suggest to diversify in sources. Go maybe deeper into Critical Pedagogy, Social Justice Education and Responsiveness to diversity.

·         The practical examples are very interesting. Maybe this could also be added to the part on transformative pedagogy in general.

·         Elements of the last section are maybe more suitable for the introduction (e.g.;, first paragraph). In that way the reader is instantly more aware of why the topic is important.

·         Small remark: be clear in what is understood by concepts like ‘diversity’.

Author Response

Notes for the manuscript

 

Reply to both reviewers

 

I am grateful for the reviewers’ time and efforts in helping me improve this article. Their insights allowed me to the have a better grasp of the changes needed to strengthen my overall argument and specific aspects of the manuscript. I have revised most sections of the manuscript and the main changes are highlighted in the text with references to the reviewers (R1 and R2).

 

Before I offer detailed responses to the specific comments, I would like to clarify I have worked almost on any aspect raised by the reviewers. The main problems they raised allowed me to see more clearly the pedagogical model I have developed. After a long reflection on whether I am improving the current models or bringing in a new one (as R1 highlights), I have come to the conclusion that Transformative Pedagogy offers insights of how depart from the student-centered model.

 

The manuscript has been enriched with new literature that better explains the specific characteristics of the student-centered model and also literature in the field of inclusive education, as identified by R1, namely, Social Justice Education and

 

A more nuanced text has emerged and yet, a stronger argument about the paradigm shift is defended through the text. I hope the reviewers and the editor are satisfied with the changes. I am willing to continue improve the text is further changes are required.

 

A final note: Changes have been made also to adapt the reference style to the journal’s guidelines, and the manuscript was sent to an English proof-reader who helped remove repetitions and improve the language.

 

 

 Reviewer 1

As a scholar in the field of inclusive education, I see great value in the argument the authors try to make. Transformative pedagogy does not (yet) receive the attention it deserves. Also, the explicit connection to intersectionality and decolonial studies is very interesting.

However, there are some issues with the manuscript that need to be solved before this manuscript is suitable for publication. In particular, problems related to the theoretical framing of arguments, the overall flow of the article, and the coherence in the discussion/conclusion section are noted and further discussed below. I do hope that these comments may help the authors to revise their manuscript thoroughly for publication in this journal.

• Yes, your comments have been extremely useful and constructive. I have included your insights to revise the manuscript towards a more coherent and structure. I have responded to your main criticism by reinforcing some sections to clarify my argument and by creating new ones-
• In the text, I refer to changes made according to your comments with “R 1”. In most cases, I have also added a note.

My decision to suggest ‘reconsider after major revision’ of this paper can be grounded in the following arguments:

Overall comment: There is a lot of repetition in the article. The authors spend a lot of time describing what is about to come (e.g., p. 2 “In this section I explain...”). This is redundant, what the authors are arguing, should become clear from the arguments themselves.

• Thank you for this point. I have made changes when relevant.

In the introduction a strong connection is made to Freire’s work. However, when reading about ‘transformative’, I immediately think of Mezirow too. It would be nice if the authors could explicitly link (or argue how they cannot be linked) within the article. This would make the theoretical underpinnings stronger.

• Yes, the theoretical framework and the empirical work that supports it have found inspiration from the from Transformative Learning Theory, especially the developments in the field which seek to promote a more holistic approach. I refer in particular to the work that has followed Mezirow’s first theorization, as discussed also in Taylor and Cranton 2012. However, there is a limited space in the article to develop this aspect, so I have deliberately left it out this approach. This literature is vast and yet it is still focused on individual development and empowerment, while critical pedagogy is more focused on emancipatory goals (the focus of this article). I have added a footnote on this when introducing the holistic framework.

The argument is made that ‘current pedagogical models’ need to be rethought. This instills the idea in the reader’s mind that a new pedagogical model is about to be introduced. However, it remains quite vague if the holistic approach is an extension of the student-centred approach or a totally different approach. In my eyes, it’s the former since the holistic approach is also a critique to the banking model.

• In the new version of the article, I have tried to clarify that although the two approaches - student-centred and transformative pedagogy - have some similarities, because they move away from banking education, the student-centred is not the same think as transformative pedagogy. Criticizing banking education is one of the many aspects I am trying to address via the use of a new paradigm, but it is not enough. Please, see the additional points in the text.

Moreover, it is also vague if transformative pedagogy is inherently holistic or some explicit considerations must be made to make it holistic. In my eyes, again, it’s the former, because if it transformative pedagogy is not holistic, no transformation would occur.

• There have been evolutions in the field of critical pedagogy as in others (including Transformative Learning theory) where the holistic approach has become more obvious as well as the inclusion of intersectional and decolonial approaches. I have made it more explicit that the theoretical framework I am proposing is the result of my work as a teacher, working and teaching about migration topics to international students coming from all over the world. A framework can be holistic and yet not “transformative” in the way I define it here: meaning emancipatory (see text). One of the key pillars of transformative pedagogy is that the holistic approach serves emancipatory aims and ultimately “social transformation”. In the new version of the article, I have strived to clarify these points.

But then the question surfaces: what is meant by the title ‘a holistic approach to’? Critically rereading the manuscript a few times makes me reflect that the main argument the authors want to make is a call for ‘holistic’ approaches in education. In that case, some of the arguments become less useful (like the distinction between teacher- and student-centred models).

• The argument is about the potential role of transformative education in expanding the aims of current academic paradigms. The need to be holistic is consequent to the need to address students’ needs in a more comprehensive way, and cultivate their well-being and growth based on their own talents and needs, but it is not the only aspect of the theoretical framework. The core idea is that academic education needs to be linked to demands for social justice (critical tradition) and not of mere inclusion of different groups (liberal tradition).

To overcome this, I think it might be fruitful to make two distinct claims from the beginning: 1/ we see education is still too teacher-centred and 2/ is cognitively (or not-holistically)-oriented; and both prohibit true inclusive education because of X and Y (consult literature here). Then, it becomes much more ‘logical’ that you argue for a holistic approach and prefer it to be transformative. Maybe this reading is all wrong, but then again, it is up to the authors to make their arguments more clearly.

• Reply to point 1: What I was trying to do in the first version of my article is to say that replacing current paradigms is necessary. The current paradigms respond (although not always explicitly) to philosophies of education that are not up to be as inclusive as we need to be today. The criticism is therefore directed to both paradigms in use, both teacher- and student- centered ones. Transformative pedagogy as described in this article is not adding to current models: it is different philosophy of education rooted in the critical tradition and has different features and aims. It is also true that some aspects overlap. I have tried to clarify all these points in the manuscript.
•  
• Reply to point 2: Inclusive education can be both linked to a “critical” understanding of “inclusion” or a “liberal” one. I am arguing for the first, this is why I am also pushing the argument further, saying that including intersectional and decolonial perspectives is necessary as it allows to deep the aims of transformative pedagogy, which are about emancipation of individuals and social transformation, bringing in, among others, the perspectives and worldviews of marginalized groups.
• The main point I am making is that student-centered pedagogy and critical pedagogy are two distinct approaches to teaching and learning. While they share some common principles, they have key differences in their underlying philosophies and instructional methods. The main differences are in their Philosophical foundation, but also in the understanding of power and authority in the classroom and goals of education.

I applaud the attention to intersectional and decolonial approaches. The one remark here is: isn’t it inherently part of holistic transformative pedagogy? It would be interesting if the authors would explicitly reflect on this idea and clarify why today in this political climate, for instance, it is needed to incorporate these approaches more explicitly.

• Intersectional and decolonial approaches have been increasingly included in the field of critical pedagogy, as a result of demands from a variety of marginalized communities, including indigenous peoples. However, they are not the same thing as transformative pedagogy. Many indigenous communities, especially in the Global North (e.g. Canada) do not necessarily refer to Freire’s work. This is why I believe it is necessary to problematize this integration and ask the questions of why, whether and how these approaches should be integrated into (higher) education in general and in Transformative Pedagogy more specifically. The effort in this article is to show, though few examples, what we would gain by including more consistently these approaches in the classroom. The list is not exhaustive.
• Moreover, given the different origins and geographical locations, I am not sure whether we can say that these approaches are “inherently” part of holistic transformative pedagogy if we don’t make an explicit effort to move towards a pedagogical model that is able to create this integration. This endeavor is rooted in a larger global discussion of how to include intersectional and decolonial perspectives in academic teaching, while moving away from “addictive” framework which are not engaging with a radical rethinking of current paradigms, including the student-oriented approach, largely used in academic teaching today.

I would also suggest to diversify in sources. Go maybe deeper into Critical Pedagogy, Social Justice Education and Responsiveness to diversity.

• I have included some references to Social Justice Education and Responsiveness to diversity in the Introduction. This point helped me clarify the specificity of my approach and its connection to the larger debates about inclusive education. More specifically, while Social Justice Education can be considered as a type of critical pedagogy rooted in the Freirian tradition, Responsiveness to diversity is more closely linked to the liberal, or constructive tradition.

The practical examples are very interesting. Maybe this could also be added to the part on transformative pedagogy in general.

• I appreciate this suggestion. I have changed the structure of section 3, and now the practical examples are better integrated into the holistic transformative framework.
• As mentioned above, I do think that we can treat transformative pedagogy and the other approaches as separated and in need of more integration. The practical examples serve to give some hints of how this integration can happen and why it is important if we want to create a transformative learning space that integrates the voices of historically marginalized groups and that is able to integrate an educational intervention that incorporate insights from intersectional and decolonial approaches. The practical section has been modified to show the contribution of transformative pedagogy in general and the added value of these approaches when they are integrated into transformative praxis.

Elements of the last section are maybe more suitable for the introduction (e.g. first paragraph). In that way the reader is instantly more aware of why the topic is important.

• Thank you. I have included some sections in the Introduction and expanded some discussion on this in the Conclusion

Small remark: be clear in what is understood by concepts like ‘diversity’.

• I have now included clearer definitions of both “diversity” and “inclusion” in the Introduction

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

see attached, I tried to be helpful! I love the Holistic Approach, just wanted to see more of it and the application. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

none 

Author Response

Reply to both reviewers

 

I am grateful for the reviewers’ time and efforts in helping me improve this article. Their insights allowed me to the have a better grasp of the changes needed to strengthen my overall argument and specific aspects of the manuscript. I have revised most sections of the manuscript and the main changes are highlighted in the text with references to the reviewers (R1 and R2).

 

Before I offer detailed responses to the specific comments, I would like to clarify I have worked almost on any aspect raised by the reviewers. The main problems they raised allowed me to see more clearly the pedagogical model I have developed. After a long reflection on whether I am improving the current models or bringing in a new one (as R1 highlights), I have come to the conclusion that Transformative Pedagogy offers insights of how depart from the student-centered model.

 

The manuscript has been enriched with new literature that better explains the specific characteristics of the student-centered model and also literature in the field of inclusive education, as identified by R1, namely, Social Justice Education and

 

A more nuanced text has emerged and yet, a stronger argument about the paradigm shift is defended through the text. I hope the reviewers and the editor are satisfied with the changes. I am willing to continue improve the text is further changes are required.

 

A final note: Changes have been made also to adapt the reference style to the journal’s guidelines, and the manuscript was sent to an English proof-reader who helped remove repetitions and improve the language.

 

Reply to Reviewer 2

 

Reply to specific comments in the text

• I thank you for your insights and your efforts to help me revise this manuscript towards a more coherent and structure. I have done my best to include your insights when relevant and to respond to main criticism by reinforcing some sections to clarify my argument. I am also extremely thankful for your close reading of the text and very specific comments. They were very helpful.
• I have copied and pasted your comments below and also added comments or references in the manuscript. In the text, I refer to changes made according to your comments with “R 2”. In most cases, I have also added a note.
• I am willing to further work on the manuscript if my efforts seem insufficient to address all the issues raised.

Abstract: just "diversity"?  new language in Canada/US includes equity, inclusion, decolonization and belonging

• I have kept “diversity” and then added the phrase “inclusive, equal, and just education” when relevant, following also the UNESCO (2021) global call for a transformation of education. See also the change in the title.

 

Introduction

What contexts in Higher Education? US, Britain and Canada (Western) models have a very different approach to others. Need to clarify scope/focus, can be international but would helpful in anchoring analysis

• The reason I haven’t identified the geographical locations is that, in my view, the pedagogical models used in most universities around the world, despite differences, follow one of the two or a hybrid model which combine both philosophies of education. I have tried to better clarify this point in the text and added also that my analysis is addressing “ideal-types” of the two models
• Many major universities around the world follow the same educational models of the “West”. These models are rooted in the colonial legacy, but I have preferred to leave this discussion out. I have simply mentioned that  Canada, USA, and Britain, as well as Nordic countries in Europe have moved towards more horizontal models (student- centred types), while countries such as France, Italy and Spain, just to name a few, are still mostly teacher centred. In another geographical context where I have worked, e.g. North Africa, the teacher-oriented model is dominant, with few exceptions in American universities, following the USA models. However, in most cases, the teachers remain the main authority. Similar questions are emerging in universities across Latin America.
• I am not sure how I can keep my approach open, and yet anchor it in specific contexts. I hope the changes I have made seem reasonable. Any suggestions on the new version of the manuscript are more than welcome.

 

Is there only a singular author?

• Yes, this article is single authored. The citations Author 1, 2, etc. refer to my different publications.

Grammatical disconnect, goes from first person "I" to third person "the article"

• I have addressed this issue in the text (see changes). I have also asked an English proof-reader to edit the text again-

 

Page 2: This paragraph may not be relevant, since the outline is below.

• Thanks

 

Clarify scope, if you are focusing on higher education great, Freire was focused on adult education as well but picking one (though alluding the value of the other) may make for a stronger argument

• I have focused on higher education only.

 

Here is where the problem of context comes into play. Without a geographic location it is hard to make this discussion on "diversity" writ large - clear. There have always been diverse individuals buying for education in the United States (for example) but now we see increased diversity in that space. Clarifying location will help.

 

• I think that to a certain extent I can avoid identifying the geographical context, because internationalization is taking place everywhere, including in the so called “Global South”. Universities around the world are becoming increasingly diverse and these debates, although to a different degree, are taking place (or are likely to become so) around the world. Compare also to my previous comment on geographical locations. If you think that the changes I have made are insufficient, I would be delighted to take your feedback on this point as well.

 

Diversity of thought is different from immutable social categories; this is a necessary distinction to make.

• Good point. Although today there is a tendency of seeing “diversity” mostly in terms of identity, I do believe that political views as well as worldviews deriving from students’ diverse backgrounds are as important as identities such as race, gender, etc.
• This reflection is also based on my long experience implementing transformative pedagogy in the classroom. Our class are not homogenous anymore and internationalization brings in new complexity which needs to be addressed via new pedagogical framework. I have also taught to several far rights students over the years. Moreover, for some students, diversity in the classroom is expressed by their belonging to a certain social class and interests. The issue of race, for instance, is not what emerges mostly in the classroom, although in the countries where they go to study, they may go through process of racialization.
• Taking into account identities in the classroom does not mean that from a pedagogical perspective we should consider them as fixed or immutable. According to the critical tradition I am adhering to, they are always situated and do not mean the same thing in the same places. This is why we are facing new pedagogical challenges that were not present before. Anti-racist education used in the USA, for instance, while it is useful to address racism between whites and blacks (see Brookfield or hook), it has been less useful in my classrooms. ;Most of my courses include a variety of students coming from all over the world. This diversity poses new questions. For instance, some students self-ascribed categories are not always aligned with the definitions given in the context where they go to study (e.g. Global North).  

 

Good point, clarify what "innesting" means here though. I understand you're doing transformative versus additive, but just need to make that explicit. perhaps add some examples? Decolonial scholars use the usage of art that is indigenous without context for "decolonial" pedagogy (e.g. four corners mat in a classroom) or using buffalo instead. (but these are of coures tokenistic in their superficiality)

 

• I am not sure I understand your last sentence. Do you mean that without a decolonial approach we may fall into problems such as folklore, cultural appropriation, etc.? In any event I have further argued this point in the text.

 

 

Define diversity (p. 2) and inclusion (p. 3)

• I have defined both in the Introduction.

 

All of Europe? Or Western Europe? Need clarity here.

• Good point. Yes, all of European Universities, including Eastern Europe, where they are mostly using the teacher-centered model. But, yes, you are right, I may need to specify, but I am not sure how (see my comments above on this).

 

Preferred the structure of your teacher-centred paragraph, it was more clear and easier to follow your explanation

• Ok I have made an effort to make them both clearer and easier to follow. In particular, I have tried to make a greater effort to explain how it is different (or not) from the student-centered model. I have also included a 3^rd sub-section to introduce Transformative Pedagogy

 

Line 171, “Science around this has been debunked”

• I am not sure I understand this point. What do you mean? About the teacher-centered? I have used more literature for both models. I feel the overall section is stronger now.

 

Line 192, “But it is both models you are moving past - correct?”

• Yes, correct. I feel there is a need to identify these problems with the second model, in particular, in order to explain why although better than the first one it is still insufficient.
• I have now argued that the first is problematic in a more profound way and despite debates and research explaining why we need to move away from the first model, it is still in place on most countries around the world.

 

Lines 199-200: this is also ableist, as it is based on a particular (outdated) rendering of cognitive capacity/communication

• Good point. It is also “androcentric, ableist, and Eurocentric, universalistic, among other things.” I have added this point and have also further argue that from the perspective of excluded groups can be understood also as “oppressive,” as they are exclude from what it is considered the “norm.”

 

Line 253: There are multiple authors? How does the "I" work then?

• I am referring to 2 articles written by myself and a book written with others. ‘I am the sole author of this manuscript”  

 

Line 205, Define “whole person” (could align well with "diversity" ideas above)

• Good point. I have removed that paragraph now, but taken your comment into account elsewhere, when I develop my analysis of the new theoretical framework I have developed.

 

Line 208-215: How is this different from the first argument?

• The first is about the way the model addresses the learner, the second is focused on its inability to take diversity in terms of gender, class, etc. into account. They are linked but two different aspects, so they need to be treated differently, as I also try to do in my model (cf. section that follows). I have done a greater effort to better explain these differences in the new version. I have also explained that they are part of the same problem.

 

Lines 220-224. Sounds similar to the ideas of global citizens? Or citizenship work in pedagogy? Is that the work/ideas you're engaging with?

• Yes, there are important links and even overlaps, as there are with human rights education, peace education, and other approaches (anti-racist education). In my view, these different approaches can be seen as concrete applications, among others, of transformative pedagogical principles. Most of them, I believe, draw (although not always explicitly) from principles of critical pedagogy more specifically. The engagement with social justice in education is one of the core ideas of “critical” pedagogy, as “critical” refers to address and challenge inequalities and social injustice.
• However, it is also important to note that this is not always the case. Some of these approaches (as it is in many cases with “inclusive education” ) are entangled in the liberal tradition rather than in the “critical” one. This epistemological difference is central and this is why I think we need to discuss more deeply that the student-centered approach and transformative pedagogy are not the same thing. This debate is also ongoing in some of these fields, including human rights education, where some authors are arguing that transformative pedagogy should be the new paradigm to be used to promote the goals of human rights education as established in the 2011 UN Convention on Human rights education and training.
• The student-centered approach does not engage directly with power and is NOT about seeking to challenge the status quoin academia and dismantle social injustice (see also Reviewer 1). This is my new take in the article, and I feel the argument is now stronger.

 

Line 257: Mention emotions above but do not mention affect (might be helpful if you want to engage with those scholars/work)

• Not sure what you mean here! Emotions are specific components of affect, but affect encompasses a wider emotional landscape. Both emotions and affect play crucial roles in understanding human behavior and mental states. Despite these differences, in the article, I am treating them as the same. I know it can be perceived as a simplification

 

Line 260: This can lead to decolonial pedagogies, would be valuable to bring in

• Not sure what you mean here! Yes, it is linked to critical pedagogy in general and also to decolonial pedagogies.

 

This is a great idea to share if this is the first place it is being published, but it is sincerely challenging to contextualize the model without details of the location of the work/analysis.

• I have tried to make an effort to further explain the table. What I am arguing is that academic goals are still mostly about acquisition of knowledge and then recently we have moved to practical concerns (with the wider use of experiential learning, for instance), but they are not directed towards the use of the affective dimension of learners yet. However, the affective dimension is the one that allows us to go deeper into exploring self-awareness and to transform attitudes and helps seek for a deeper questioning about social injustice (transforming behaviours).

 

Table 1, Could have very practical ties to Experiential Learning

• Yes, it does have ties with it. Thanks, I have tried to make this point clearer in various sections of the text.

 

 

Line 267 What are the pillars?

• I have tried to be clearer in the new version of the text. They are the three main features of my pedagogical framework.

 

7. 7. Any practical examples to tie this to? Seems very abstract, and hard to pinpoint. Would be great to see an application of teh holistic approach as a type of transformative pedagogy.

• Good point. I have tried to include more practical examples in each example I am using in the practical section. I have done a greater effort to integrate intersectionality and decolonial theory in my holistic approach.  

Title Incorporating intersectional and decolonial approaches in transformative pedagogy

• I have deleted “in transformative pedagogy”

Clarify, p 7: “This integrated approach allows to deepen the scope of transformative pedagogy in face of increasing diversity and to create a more inclusive environment that promotes the educational experiences of students coming from different paths of lives and from different parts of the globe.”

• The students most of us, academic teachers, teach to come from every corner of the world. I have clarified this point in the text, but in the introduction and removed here.

Lines 333-335 politics of passing, and forced disclosure? “By zooming in the “positionality” of each person involved in the learning process (teachers and students alike) and the “power dynamics” at play in the classroom, the learning environment can be used the reflection of broader societal dynamics.”  

• Yes, it is indeed a possibility and it raises several ethical issues. I am writing a book about this. I haven’t found the space to develop this point further in this article. I hope it is ok, as now I have made a greater effort to explain that we need to create safe spaces

Line 342, define ”emancipatory practices ”

• I have removed “emancipatory practices” and clarified throughout the text that the model seeks to combine learning goals with students’ well being and emancipatory goals (both individual and collective ones). I have tried to be consistent throughout the text, and, in some views, the structure is more coherent now. I have removed concepts such as “emancipatory practices” for the sake of clarity and parsimony-

Lines 368: Is this part of your Holistic Approach?

Below I offer some practical examples of ways to integrate intersectional and decolonial approaches into transformative pedagogy.

• Yes, it is in a certain sense. I hope that in the new version of the article is clearer now. I have included this section in my framework: the Holistic Transformative Pedagogy

Line 372 – examples They are also a bit too general, maybe pick something more concrete?

 

• See new version of the text. I have done my best to be as concrete as possible.

 

Lines 454-455: no mention of disciplinary divides? There is a leadership responsibility to promote and support outside of appointing a black female head of Diversity, and to engage in pedagogical discussions of inclusion in all disciplines. Many are hungry for this but are not afforded the opportunity due to their disciplinary pressures

 

- Yes, good point. The new version does not include this point, but the conclusion has been changed, and also there is more references to my discipline(s) and topics, researched and taught.

1. 10, YES! Please expand!

• Done! Thanks

Final paragraph: What role does your Holistic Model take?

- Yes, good point. The Introduction and the Conclusion have been changed. I hope my theoretical model is better anchored in current debates about inclusive education from both the constructivist and critical tradition.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for taking my review comments into careful consideration. I truly notice a big improvement. Sometimes equal/equality and equitable/equity could be more consistent, this might be something to still look into. Also the referencing made need some further work, but I guess the Editors will take on the feedback process with regard to this.

I hope the article receives the scholarly interest it deserves! Good luck with future endeavors.