Navigating Multiple Perspectives in Discussing Controversial Topics: Boundary Crossing in the Classroom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very good research report of publishable quality. The paper follows a traditional research reporting organisational structure. Arguments and ideas are logically presented providing the reader with a following narrative that is coherent.  In general the researchers present a thorough research report demonstrating thoughtfulness and reflection both in framing the research and the discussion of the findings. However, there are some shortcomings that the authors need to address before this article is published. I am also adding a few suggestions that the authors may also like to consider.

There are a considerable language errors. Perhaps it is best to have the article proof read by a native English language speaker. There is also some confusion on the use of adverbs. For the case of pedagogical approaches terminology I recommend sticking to "academic" rather than "academical". More details in the next section of this review.

It would be helpful to add the student age groups in what is currently labelled "table 3" on the demographics. Readers cannot be assumed to be familiar with the educational system contextualising the research. The labeling of table 2 and table 3 need to be switched as the current order does not follow the writing flow and is confusing. 

Consider revising the subtitle "Conclusion" to "Discussion and Conclusion" considering that you are including the discussion in this section. In this section there are claims that merit to be linked back to the findings (e.g. line 427-429); at other times literature references can help add strength (e.g. claim on line 470-471).

Considering your argument about the limited classroom time to permit a richer discussion (ending on line 481), perhaps the authors would like to contemplate the use of digital technologies extending the discussion beyond the timeframe of the lesson meeting and the classroom walls. 

Considering recommendation emerging from the research findings (ending on line 498), calls for the implications to follow on rather than presenting the reader with a discussion of the "Limitations" of the study  before coming back to the "Implications".

As said in the earlier section, the paper contains a substantial number of English language errors. It is best that the paper is proof-read by a professional English language expert. 

There is some confusion on the use of "academic" and "academical" as a term referring to prominent pedagogical approaches. 

To give the authors an idea here is a list of line numbers where it is felt that attention is needed: 56, 134,136,201-203, 223-225, 229, 310, 322,325, 335,339,345,408,460,473,489.
Furthermore there are instances when expressions do not sound right in English. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is a fair attempt at an interesting and potentially useful topic but does not manage to frame it with a narrative that would bring out the originality or novelty of the contribution. A range of subjective judgments has limited the overall extent of the observations and collected data. A substantive thematic analysis would help in breaking down the codes leading to a more clear [ and broader] set of themes from the data. From a more clear set of themes, the work can then potentially select a few key areas of discussion and add original analytical content.

comprehensible and articulate.

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf