May 31
This blog also has two parts:
- Read the second draft of this piece, now titled “Can We Say the R-Word?”. Write about the changes you see the authors make from the first piece to the second. What are some specific improvements?
- Read the reviews of the second draft. What do you notice about the tone and content of these reviews? Why do you think the editor rejected this piece again?
I found this revision (2nd draft) to be tighter, and more focused. This version starts out by getting right into setting up the problem, and the authors are more parsimonious with their wording (2 pages Boom! Here’s the background, here’s the problem). Then they operationally define the term “Colorblindness” right away. “Colorblindness as a set of verbal strategies to ignore race and/or dismiss the significance of racism, is one mode of expressing this resistance”. They also couch their theoretical frameworks of CRT and Colorblindness within their study (p. 4), so by the end of page five, I had a much better handle on what they wanted to accomplish with their study than I did at the same point in the previous draft.
ReplyDeleteThe shortened literature section was improved, and more succinctly summarized the existing knowledge base. The authors tried to communicate how they expected to move the knowledge base forward at the end of page 8 (by examining their own processes for working with students? Meta?). I felt that the “Setting” section, and the “History and Development of the course” section were the most helpful to me and best new additions. Both sections better contextualized what the authors were trying to accomplish, and were they had been previously with this process. For example in the previous draft, I was unsure what they were trying to accomplish with the Kendrick Lamar work, even though I was familiar with it. The description of their process with that piece made much sense to me in this version, and I even think that it would make sense to a reader that was unfamiliar with his work.
Questions that still remain for me?
I still feel like they are missing the target. Also, I’m still confused what the unit of analysis is here, the researchers or the participants (teachers in training, or teachers of teachers).
For example The “lesson reflection essay” questions still do not directly address issues of racism, or direct the students into examining that part of their lesson. Instead we get “discuss the strengths of your lesson, discuss the weaknesses, how would you revise the lesson? Etc. These are standards lesson reflection prompts for beginning teachers. I feel it is the researchers’ role to guide the lesson reflections/discussions to the specific topic. How do the students become conscientious of their color blindness, if they don’t realize that they are?
Students can’t see what the cant see, meaning they are blind to it, as the colorblindness term would infer. The authors make the point that seeing and unlearning racism is a complex, nuanced process, even for teachers who are “highly committed to this project” (p. 4). And, I think that’s where the researchers come into play (or should). To mediate the students to first recognize it, in themselves and the curriculum, then develop pedagogical interventions.
Ok I have read the reviews of both drafts,
DeleteI agree with the reviews, I could never really nail down the focus. Racism is a tough, uncomfortable topic, especially for new teachers who are struggling with just not making a mistake with content they are familiar with. And the conversation is so nuanced, it would take a very skilled facilitator to help them flesh that out. So, I agree with the reviewers that it is problematic for the authors to place their frustrations onto the students. They are reluctant to talk about it because they don’t know they should be talking about it, or just exactly what “it” is.
There was a lot going on here to try and do justice to, the methodology, the collaboration, their interventions, etc. As the reviewers stated, this article could be split into two or more article that could be refined in to publishable work. The authors collaboration process and self-examination process is one, and working with the students themselves another. This is the first time that I have seen actual reviewer feedback, and looking at the writing and revision process in this way is helpful.
Wow, reviewer 3 was straight to the point! The review was lucid and powerful- it felt a little like the JV team showed up to play with the pros!
DeleteI really feel that reviewer #3 was JJ.
DeleteI see much improvement in the second draft. I think the authors were much more reflective in this second version. I liked the addition on pg. 3 of the section describing how teacher candidates can be consciously or dysconciously resistant to developing racial literacy, as well as the process of “unlearning racism” (pg. 4). It seemed to me the researchers were going in with a bit more ‘open-minded’ view of the participants as being possibly more “unaware” in their inexperience, rather than more intentionally just ‘leaving out’ the issues (per the first draft). The addition of the “Together” and “Critical Race Theory” sections on pg. 10-11 also helped to clarify the context of the course and to more clearly understand the theoretical frame (CRT).
ReplyDeleteThe research design was very much improved in this second draft. The description of the program, course, and assignments was much deeper and clearer. I had a much better understanding, and it answered a lot of the questions I had been wondering after reading the first draft. Particularly the inclusion on the Unit questions and learning goals, and the explanation that the participants were told to use/include them in their lessons was an improvement (also, pg. 18 in vignette). After reading the first draft I was not sure there was much explicit direction to address the topics of race and gender. Another section I felt was greatly improved was the data analysis (pg. 17). I liked the addition of open coding for analysis purposes. After reading the first draft, I felt the researchers reading, reflection and discussion was too simplistic in a way, it seemed they may have easily discussed desired (or easy) outcomes, and then went back to find support/evidence for what they wanted to find. Coding seems like a very good addition to the analysis to push researchers to really look carefully for what is really in the data, what is repetitive and prevalent.
The biggest improvement I saw in the second draft was the self-reflection on the part of the researcher both as an individual and throughout this research process (pg. 19, 20, 25, 26). After reading the first draft I did not think the researcher was taking in to account the facts that their participants were in fact very inexperienced pre-service teachers, one cannot assume they had much exposure to diversity or discussing issues or critical race, pedagogy, gender, etc. I thought the researcher was assuming they should be comfortable and confident in having (and leading) discussions of such topics with their classes, which for many is very difficult if they are not prepared. I figured since they are pre-service teachers with limited experience they were not likely prepared. It was very much an improvement for me to see that the researcher spent a good amount of time addressing these exact issues, and their own initial researcher bias because of her own experience, which happens to be very different from the participants. Overall I felt the second draft was much for thoughtful, reflective, and greatly improved. It answered a lot of the questions I had after reading the first draft.
After reading the reviews of the first draft, I do see what they were saying about the two paper/ two topics. I also defiantly share the first reviews feels that the authors seem to "blame" the participants a bit for not recognizing/address in their own colorblindness... like I had said in my own review I think it’s a bit much to assume that they participants had much background or knowledge with racism in schools/pedagogy considering they are still limited in experience. I also liked that the second reviewer recommended the author look at “Critical Humility”, which after reading the second draft of the article was clear the author had taken the reviewer up on!
DeleteAfter reading the reviews of the second draft, I see that I connect strongly with the ideas of reviews #3. Largely their description of and reference to additional research on WPTs (white preservice teachers). I agree that this is a label which like many others can be problematic, in that it does not describe individuals varying experiences as WPT. I like the idea of making the argument more about privilege, and experience in ones background… not just WPT.
Authors, you second draft is an improvement on the first submission - which provided room for an interesting analysis of race in an English teacher preparation program. First of all, let me begin by congratulating you for this attempt and for taking many of the suggestions from the reviewers (wise choice - those people knew what they were talking about).
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I like this version better as it is more focused and effective.
Lastly, here are some additional comments/suggestions. Once again, please note that I have used the journal's criteria:
A. Significance/relevance to English teacher education/teacher learning:
The literature review finally bring up the case for “the personal toll institutionalized racism takes upon POC” - this is important and useful. You also defined “PWI” - thank you!
I think I understand your play on words of the title - however, this phrasing means something very different for those of us who work with children that receive special education services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_the_Word_to_End_the_Word). The “r-word” does not stand for race to me.
B. Theoretical/conceptual framework (connections to relevant research/scholarship)
The naming of the framework makes the article flow much better. As I read, I kept on thinking of critical race theory (CRT), but once you mentioned it, it became clearly connected to the research work. I would have liked to seen you describe “critical humility” earlier on in the article.
Moreover, there are still several areas of concern: a) on page 2, you kept the statement “racial-cultural mismatch between teachers and students is in and of itself a problem” but you do not provide any evidence (or literature) to support your statement - this limits your argument. b) On page 3 you bring up the case for “racial literacy” as a “necessary skill for all teachers”, but you do not provide the reasoning behind your statement -can you build on this?
C. Methods (if manuscript is an empirical study)
1. Appropriateness to questions
The main question is focused: “1) How do English teacher educators identify colorblindness among White teacher candidates and develop pedagogical interventions to disrupt this framework?” - but why do you have a number in front?
2. Adequate description of methods (including data collection and analysis)
I am still not sure about the timing (now you described the course as 15 weeks, but you still list 16 weeks of data) - can you clarify?
3. Rigor of method:
You addressed the race of the student teachers in your setting section - this clarified many things for me - thank you. The overall description of the methodology makes sense and details what seems like a logical and well-thought out system for analysis.
I really like the additional data you shared on the tables (reflections, feedback, etc.)- this makes much more sense.
D. Findings/conclusions are literature- or data-based
Overall advancement and contribution to the field: Originality and innovativeness of the argument:
E. Writing style/composition/clarity.
There are still several areas of concern that should be addressed in the writing including: a) on page 1 you still tate that "white teachers have "increasingly become the face of public schools" - this statement is misleading as I cannot think of a time when white teachers have not been the majority of teachers in the US. b) paragraph 2 on page 1 still holds some problematic flow. c) page 1 paragraph 3 still brings up the YOC being the majority - when did this happen and what evidence do you provide for this statement? If you add the numbers you provide: 26+15+5+2 = this is 48% - not the majority.
Imagine if the third reviewer had seen the first draft... I wish I had written this before reading that review. I think that my appraisal of the second draft was influenced by my having read the first. It really came a long way and the authors made significant efforts to incorporate the suggestions made by the first reviewers. They attempted to ground it in theory (as suggested)and I felt that they had done a decent job until I read the second round of reviews. Much of my discomfort with the article is tied to the study. The study is done and all that can really change is the what is done with the data and how it is written up. I think that the retroactive theoretical framing fits a bit awkwardly. I have to admit that this feeling got stronger after reading the reviews and may not be 100% original. If the study had been conducted with a critical perspective in mind the later explanation of a theoretical framework would read more naturally. Retrofitting wasn't 100% convincing.
ReplyDeleteI am also not living in solitude on "They weren't student blaming island". Again, I think the authors left themselves vulnerable to these charges with the way the conducted and reported the study. There were two decisions that I think led to this. First, the decision to not gather information as to what informed their views of race. Secondly, the decision to have the students engage another project without providing feedback was puzzling to me. "We
decided to have students engage in this task prior to receiving the feedback on the lesson plans
and critical self-reflections." The authors should not have been "shocked" at the lack of critical reflection about race in later assignments when they withheld constructive feedback. I think the greatest fault was being critical of the students when the real criticism should have really been directed at whoever decided to expect different outcomes on the second assignment. They created a classroom environment where the "colorblind" were leading the "colorblind". While they were critical of the students (I thought rightfully so) they didn't provide opportunity to understand how the "colorblindness" developed. The skipped directly to diagnosis and stayed there for the bulk of both articles.
The reflective pieces were more complete in the second draft of the article. Some of the sections that I thought were unnecessary in the first draft were eliminated in favor of a more thoughtful and detailed "self-study" in the second attempt.
Ultimately, the second draft was a far better dish than the first but it still lacked critical ingredients. The store was closed and the authors had to make due with the data that they had. They made it significantly better but it ended at edible...not delicious.
In this second draft there are some obvious improvements. One main correction is an attempt in incorporating a theoretical framework – Critical Race Theory – which was an obvious one for this study and could have easily been mentioned in the first draft. The descriptions of the researchers’ positionalities in terms of their personal experiences around issues of race were also better articulated. Researcher one had obviously more experience, not only with embedding implications of race and oppression in her teaching, but also her lived experiences as a Black woman. Researcher two, on the other hand, was White, from a middle class background with basic knowledge of how race and privilege permeate our educational system. These differences were laid out in a more explicit manner. The blaming of teachers for their colorblind positions was also less evident, there was greater mention of colorblindness being a result of systematic oppression. In the methods section there was more clarity of the background leading to the study, including the procedures and interpretations of the data. There was increased cohesiveness and sequential details in the methods section. Additional improvements could be made in the actual procedures of the study in order to address the research question. I really don’t see this as a method toward intervention, it was more about building awareness around race and oppression. The researchers were indirect in eliciting action or self-reflection from the participants on how they view race in literature. One example of this is the writing prompt question offered pre-service teachers choices on how they incorporated race, gender, and class in their lessons. The question did not directly address race. I thought it erroneous to deduce that participants engaged in colorblind perspectives if they did not address race in their responses, especially since they were given choices on which topics they address in their lessons.
ReplyDeleteThe second set of reviews still addressed the blaming of teachers for their colorblind mindsets. The tone mostly focused on the incorporation of literature review that could strengthen their arguments, including how previous research supports the behaviors of the researchers and the procedures they implement in their data collection process.
The improvements made to this second draft have created a much more focused, clearer, and articulate argument. The incorporation of Critical Race Theory makes this article much more convincing. Right from the beginning, the statement of the problem was much more to the point and easier for the reader to grasp. Colorblindness was defined concisely in an operational sense, which made the overall argument more believable.
ReplyDeleteI still have a problem with the statement that there have been drastic demographic changes in the public school teaching force, after the authors stated that there has been a majority of white teachers for over 30 years. Another related issue has to do with the numbers cited to show a majority for students of color. The numbers were the same in the first draft and only add up to 48%. The final issue with the demographics had to do with the percentage change of white teachers. The statement made was that there was approximately a 4% change in the amount of white teachers, when in fact there was a change of 5 percentage points, which equates to a 5.7% change. Seemingly a small matter, but significant in terms of overall accuracy for the article.