The Contested Terrain of Critical Pedagogy and Teaching Informal Education in Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author(s)
Overall, it is an interesting and thoughtful paper.
The core subject of the paper seems to fit perfectly with the journal's profile. I found the topic well explained despite the complexity of the matter at hand. The argumentation is easy to follow and convincing. The structure and style are rather engaging. Equally important, the article touches upon a pressing matter involving current research in social sciences. The author(s) does a great job in analysing this current matter from the lenses of paradigms and paradigms war in a manner that can reach a broader audience.
The only suggestion I have- the author (s) should define the purpose / aim of the paper in the introduction.
Author Response
The introduction has been amended to include more contextual information, which hopefully locates the article clearly within the discipline and UK / England context
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author/s
I read your manuscript with great interest. The topic you are discussing is really interesting. However, the manuscript needs significant/major changes that can be significantly improved. Below you will find some major points in the manuscript which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites or/and additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve it.
First of all you need to read the instructions for authors’
[ https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions ] very carefully, and format your manuscript just like the template.
Based on the instructions your manuscript is not an "article" (i.e., research) but a "review".
According to the instructions for authors, "review" should follow specific guidelines, such as PRISMA. If you choose to do something different, you have to justify it. Take a look at other manuscripts in this journal to get an idea.
From the section 1 (introduction) the aim or/and objectives of the manuscript or/and hypotheses or/and research questions are absent or/and unclear, and which should be numbered and clearly written. To help you, I quote some questions (as list of points) so that it can be included in your introduction:
-What is the importance of making this study/contribution that it brings to the literature in the field?
-Why should readers be interested?
-What problem/ gap resolve/fill this manuscript?
-To fill this gap (resolve this problem) what solution/intervention/benefits does this manuscript bring? (in other words, how the proposed study will remedy this deficiency/gap/problem and provide a unique contribution to the literature).
-What is the research question which address to the purpose of the manuscript?
Some of these you have already included, however this section should be reviewed and updated.
Also, I think it would be better to change the syntax throughout the manuscript. Although the manuscript is written in plain, academic and good language, with a style that makes it a pleasant read, it is not academically professional. In several parts of the manuscript, it is in the form of presentation, report, instructions and/or indirect views of the authors (which are sometimes as if imposed) without being documented. The latter in particular, should be done only in the sections Discussion and/or Conclusions based on the template.
Remember that anyone reading your manuscript should understand what is being written, and to distinguish your point of view and opinion from what already exists in the literature.
New articles/researches have been published in the last 3 years, so it would be better to review the bibliography or add a more recent bibliography. I would suggest you take a look at the following links:
- https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/Critical_Language_Pedagogy
- https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/Technology-enhanced_Learning
- https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/ict_sus
- https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=Critical+Pedagogy&journal=education
- https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=Critical+Pedagogy&journal=sustainability
In addition, from the above links you can get an idea of how to make / present / write your manuscript correctly.
After the revision of your manuscript you may need to
revise or re-edit the abstract and/or even the title.
Also, references must be numbered in order of appearance in the manuscript and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. In the manuscript, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the manuscript with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105). The reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the ACS style guide. Finally, you need to correct the numbering in the literature and references within the manuscript. Some references are duplicate.
As a final comment, I recommend an in-depth revision of your manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback, we had been asked to contribute to this special issue which was not restricted to being either based on empirical research or a systematic review - we apologise that you may not have been aware of this - please see below an email from the SI editors to the journals editor regarding this -
Since this is a Special Issue (SI), authors have been invited to or have responded to the Call for Papers (CfP) which is their focus, rather than the usual content of the journal. It is therefore crucial that reviewers have read the CfP. (1)
• This area of practice (informal education) values situated description and reflection, and is not limited to empirical science approaches (indeed could critically frame education science as an abstraction or even a contradiction).
• The SI does not ask for only empirical papers or for a scientific treatment of practice reflections – this would not be expected according to the SI CfP. Existing ES review criteria suggest only either new empirical data or a review in the particular format of a systematic review is acceptable, but for this SI, a third type of contribution is sought, which we would call a practice reflection. We will guide authors experiencing inappropriate feedback to explain this in their response to reviewers and to select the feedback that can be applied to this article type. But to prevent this problem with future articles: reviewers should be made aware of this at the outset (2), and we wish we had alerted contributors to this. This is one key reason that the CfP needs bringing to reviewers’ attention.
Having said all that, we could see a number of ways to enhance or strengthen the article, without losing it's primary purpose or focus.
2) From the section 1 (introduction) the aim or/and objectives of the manuscript or/and hypotheses or/and research questions are absent or/and unclear, and which should be numbered and clearly written. To help you, I quote some questions (as list of points) so that it can be included in your introduction.
-What is the importance of making this study/contribution that it brings to the literature in the field?
-Why should readers be interested?
-What problem/ gap resolve/fill this manuscript?
-To fill this gap (resolve this problem) what solution/intervention/benefits does this manuscript bring? (in other words, how the proposed study will remedy this deficiency/gap/problem and provide a unique contribution to the literature).
-What is the research question which address to the purpose of the manuscript?
Some of these you have already included, however this section should be reviewed and updated.
Response - we have created an introduction which we think achieves this and provides great context
3) Also, I think it would be better to change the syntax throughout the manuscript. Although the manuscript is written in plain, academic and good language, with a style that makes it a pleasant read, it is not academically professional. In several parts of the manuscript, it is in the form of presentation, report, instructions and/or indirect views of the authors (which are sometimes as if imposed) without being documented. The latter in particular, should be done only in the sections Discussion and/or Conclusions based on the template.
Remember that anyone reading your manuscript should understand what is being written, and to distinguish your point of view and opinion from what already exists in the literature.
Response - we have made it clear where it is our opinion and have used greater referencing. We have largely put our views in the discussion part, although not entirely, as this is the nature of informal education, which is a dialogic practice - however we have made it clear when the opinion is ours.
New articles/research have been published in the last 3 years, so it would be better to review the bibliography or add a more recent bibliography. I would suggest you take a look at the following links:
- https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/Critical_Language_Pedagogy
- https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/Technology-enhanced_Learning
- https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/ict_sus
- https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=Critical+Pedagogy&journal=education
- https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=Critical+Pedagogy&journal=sustainability
4) In addition, from the above links you can get an idea of how to make / present / write your manuscript correctly.
After the revision of your manuscript you may need to
revise or re-edit the abstract and/or even the title.
Response - We have updated the references, although not used many of the sources above as we are specifically looking at the intersection of critical pedagogy and informal education, which is very specific and does not feature in these searches - although thanks for undertaking them for us!
5) Also, references must be numbered in order of appearance in the manuscript and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. In the manuscript, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the manuscript with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105). The reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the ACS style guide. Finally, you need to correct the numbering in the literature and references within the manuscript. Some references are duplicate.
Response - we have reviewed and corrected this
6) As a final comment, I recommend an in-depth revision of your manuscript.
Response - given the nature of this SI, and the CfP which we responded to, we hope we can satisfy your questions without jepodising the implicit focus and practice which the SI was seeking to portray, namely the teaching of informal education - however, to help with the overall structure and flow, we have revised the ordering substantially and put in a much clearer conclusion which flows from this re-ordering
We trust this has answered your concerns, whilst retaining the uniqueness of the SI and the place of Critical Pedagogy within it's teaching.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author/s,
I re-read your manuscript with great interest again.
Congratulations for the effort made to improve the work.
However, there are still some issues that I noticed that could be improved.
Kindly re-read your manuscript again with a clear mind and make the necessary corrections.
I would advise you not forget to re-read the instructions for the authors very carefully. I understand your concerns, but you need to follow some basic guidelines, whether your manuscript is theoretical review, research, empirical research, brief report, practice reflection, and so on.
Based on the format of your manuscript, it is considered a type of "review" and not "article" (based on the authors' instructions). The relevant links with the manuscripts I mentioned in my previous review, and I wrote you to take a look, also include manuscripts from other special issues that follow a different type of publications, but follow the basic formatting requirements.
Unfortunately, the introduction to your manuscript is now too poor and looks more like an abstract. The research topic is somewhat placed in context, but without clearly state the gap in the research and how they are looking to fill. More development is needed or/and in-depth revision. To help you again, kindly follow the questions I wrote to you in my previous review and read the instructions for the authors.
Kindly check that the numbering of the sections or/and subsections is correct, and kindly check again for grammatical errors as a final check.
As a final comment and based on the authors' instructions, the reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the ACS style guide.
Author Response
We have identified the piece as a review, although we are disappointed to see that the nuance of this special edition as expressed by the editors of it have been ignored
We have developed the introduction further, situating the piece within the literature and revised the text, section numbering and references.
Comments: I re-read your manuscript with great interest again.
1) Congratulations for the effort made to improve the work.
However, there are still some issues that I noticed that could be improved.
Kindly re-read your manuscript again with a clear mind and make the necessary corrections.
I would advise you not forget to re-read the instructions for the authors very carefully. I understand your concerns, but you need to follow some basic guidelines, whether your manuscript is theoretical review, research, empirical research, brief report, practice reflection, and so on.
Based on the format of your manuscript, it is considered a type of "review" and not "article" (based on the authors' instructions). The relevant links with the manuscripts I mentioned in my previous review, and I wrote you to take a look, also include manuscripts from other special issues that follow a different type of publications, but follow the basic formatting requirements.
Response - it is disappointing that the second reviewer or editor seems not to have taken account of the special editions editors comments - however, by your definitions this is indeed a review
Comments:
2) Unfortunately, the introduction to your manuscript is now too poor and looks more like an abstract. The research topic is somewhat placed in context, but without clearly state the gap in the research and how they are looking to fill. More development is needed or/and in-depth revision. To help you again, kindly follow the questions I wrote to you in my previous review and read the instructions for the authors.
response - we have changed the introduction and situated it better within the literature
Comments:
Kindly check that the numbering of the sections or/and subsections is correct, and kindly check again for grammatical errors as a final check. As a final comment and based on the authors' instructions, the reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the ACS style guide."
response - done
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author/s,
I have read again with much interest your revised manuscript.
The manuscript has been significantly improved.
Therefore, I consider the current version to be suitable for the publication. Congratulations again for the effort made to improve the work!
Please change the type of manuscript from "article" to "review" (line 1). Also, please add the corresponding references to the new pieces (in section 1) of your manuscript, otherwise they will be considered plagiarism. Additionally, you can re-check your entire manuscript and add references where needed.
As a final minor recommendation, kindly check again for grammatical errors, and new publications that could form part of the manuscript.
Many of the references cited are not yet properly formatted. To help you, instead of formatting them manually, please kindly consider using the free Zotero software (https://www.zotero.org/) or ask for help from assistant editors.
Author Response
all revisions done
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author/s,
I re-read your manuscript with great interest again.
Congratulations for the effort made to improve the work!
Your manuscript is ready for publication.
