Ten Years of Teaching Forgiveness Education in the Schools of Greece: Looking toward the Future
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article reads very well. GFE efforts were detailed, which can be beneficial to those who want to implement FE in their own regions (especially, outside the US). In particular, the inclusion of the challenges and the adaptations after COVID was insightful. Many who are interested in implementing FE in their own countries and cultural regions would find the successful story of GFE helpful and encouraging.
See below for my comments on each section with suggestions for changes.
1. Introduction
Line 28: “no” good => “not” good
Line 29: add “,” after “social groups” before “there is”
Line 34: “caries” => “carries”
Provide some more examples of specific historical and political traumas (that occurred before the start of FE in that area).
The history of GFE section is under the introduction, correct? Maybe 1.1 can be used instead of another 1 (for the heading numbering).
2. Obstacles
Provide more information about how “forgiveness” is often seen prior to the implementation of FE in Greece. Is Greece a secular society that often push back against religious ideas? Is forgiveness often linked a specific religion in Greece? What does “forgiveness” often mean to those in Greece?
In line 94, forgiveness theory is mentioned, but not explained. What is the forgiveness theory that was based on Aristotelian philosophy, which was better received by Greek teachers and principals?
“covid” is used a few occasions => “COVID” throughout the manuscript
3. The Forgiveness Education curriculum: Adaptations
The heading of the section has a small case “c” => “C”urriculum
In the first paragraph for the section, be clear about whether the story based approach was used or the process model approach was used.
In this section, before discussing adaptations, FE can be elaborated more in detail. Freedman’s work is cited, which is great, but it is hard to imagine how FE looks like to those who are unfamiliar with it.
In line 144, five Aristotelian moral virtues are mentioned, but what are they? Are they Aristotelian? Can some of them be Kantian?
4. Implementing Forgiveness Education
I am having a hard time differentiating the content in 3. and 4. as both seem to be describing what was emphasized in GFE and how GFE was implemented in the Greek context. Section 3 could emphasize differences in GFE compared to typical FE (which the authors have done some, but more could be done in an explicit manner). Section 4 could focus on how GFE was implemented. Section 5 (Teachers’ Workshops) that focus on a component of the implementation might be introduced under Section 4 as well.
5. Teachers’ Workshops
This section was helpful. Any challenges encountered and how to overcome them?
6. Dissemination in the Community
This section was helpful. Any challenges encountered and how to overcome them?
7. Future considerations
Use title case for the heading => “Future Considerations and Innovative Implementations”
Something about resolving the tension between cultural nuances and the absolute, universal, and objective nature of forgiveness would be great (because cultural adaptations are being encouraged).
Check if there is a way to better organize suggestions and future considerations. Some are numbered toward the end, and others are not. It would be better if authors number all important suggestions so that all numbered ones are considered carefully. Some being numbered while others are not give a false sense that the numbered ones are the ones that should be considered (as they stand out more while others are meshed between different points). Or authors could number suggestions (based on their experience) and then number future considerations (not to make the list too long with both suggestions and future considerations combined).
9. Conclusion => 8. Conclusion
Conclusion should be section 8 (not section 9).
Again, cultural adaptations were being encouraged. GFE provides a good example, but what are the boundaries of such adaptations? Also, for sustainability, the importance of evaluations is being discussed, but any suggestions about evaluations? Such suggestions can go under section 7 with other suggestions; what was done in GFE to evaluate the efforts and are there any key tips for sustaining the efforts (based on 10 years of GFE)? (in section 7)
Author Response
Thank you very much for your insightful comments.
Please find my revisions, based on all reviewers suggestions, highlighted in the attached new version of my manuscript.
Regarding your suggestions :
- In line 144 (non-edited, original version) it is unclear to me if there is anything that could be added since there is nothing mentioned in that particular line about Aristotelian virtues.
- The section on "Teachers Workshops" was separate because I needed to emphasize the importance and necessity of educating the teachers prior to FE implementation. This was the reason of not incorporating this part of FE in section 4.
- I did not encounter any challenges in teaching the teachers. On the contrary these workshops were very enthusiastically received.
- The same as the teachers, parents and the whole community were very adaptive and actually "thirsty" for FE training, no challenges encountered here as well..
- Regarding the suggestions about evaluations there are described sections 6 (dissemination in the community) line 245-247 (non-edited, original version) and in section 8 (conclusions) line 449 (non-edited, original version) and referenced in ref. 16 and 17.
Thank you so much again for taking time to review my manuscript!
Respectfully
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an impressive report of a nationwide education program on forgiveness that is growing in scope.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking time to review my manuscript!
Please find my revisions, based on all reviewers suggestions, highlighted in the attached new version of my manuscript.
Respectfully
Peli Galiti
