Between Expert and Novice: Identity Transition from Teacher to Student as Sustainable Agentic Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper addresses an emerging group of teacher-student population and focused on their identity transition and agency. The topic is intriguing and the paper is overall well-written. I suggest that minor revision is required before the manuscript is considered for publication. Please see my comments as follows:

 

1. line 95. The research question mentioned “sustainability agency”. Is sustainable agency assumed? Can agency be sustainable or not sustainable? Any theoretical support? If not, I would suggest to delete the modifier and use “agency” simply.

 

2. The author made use of multiple notions to conceptualize agency, which sometimes conflict. In line 110, agency was defined as an “acting capacity”, while the authors stated that agency is more than “a capacity” in line 125. They look conflicting. It is fine to integrate theories but the authors probably should take a theoretical stance on agency (vis-a-vis structure) consistently and make sure that different theories are compatible.

 

3. The description of data analysis so far reflected little about the role of theory/notions aforementioned. Is the analysis theory-informed or entirely grounded?

 

4. How long is the PhD program normally or on average?

 

5. What does the paragraph in lines 246-249 mean?

 

6. 4.1 and 4.2 described the participant’s teacher and student identity they took, but reflected limited variations among the participants. They look homogenous, failing to reveal “a rich disclosure of teacher identity” and/or “a full doctoral trajectory” as the authors had claimed earlier in sampling. The participants had different years of teaching experiences in different countries and also were at different stages of their PhD program, which seems to have limited impact on their agency and identity transition. The same problem with section 4.3.

 

7. I suggest not to discuss the findings with the social cognitive perspective, while the whole study seems to operationalize an ecological perspective. Otherwise it is confusing to readers.  

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Comments to the Author

1. line 95. The research question mentioned “sustainability agency”. Is sustainable agency assumed? Can agency be sustainable or not sustainable? Any theoretical support? If not, I would suggest to delete the modifier and use “agency” simply.

Our response

Thanks very much for pointing out this significant issue. We agreed with the reviewer on this notion and deleted the modifier “sustainable” in the revised piece.

Comments to the Author

2. The author made use of multiple notions to conceptualize agency, which sometimes conflict. In line 110, agency was defined as an “acting capacity”, while the authors stated that agency is more than “a capacity” in line 125. They look conflicting. It is fine to integrate theories but the authors probably should take a theoretical stance on agency (vis-a-vis structure) consistently and make sure that different theories are compatible.

Our response

Thanks very much for pointing the conflicts out. We reworked the “Theoretical Underpinnings” part to make sure that different theoretical discussions align with each other. We rephrased it as follows:  “Another notion, namely doing, permeates discussions of agency, and denotes that although agency is a capacity, it is not static as if property, or competence of the individual [25]. It is dynamic and performative, involving proactive engagements to achieve the self-transformation within one's envisaged life plan [16].”

Comments to the Author

3. The description of data analysis so far reflected little about the role of theory/notions aforementioned. Is the analysis theory-informed or entirely grounded?

Our response

Thanks for bringing this question up. We clarified in the revised piece that “For data analysis, we adopted thematic analysis that balanced inductive and deductive coding, driven by the data and informed by the theoretical underpinnings adopted by the study”. While the “Findings” section presented results largely emerging from the data and was not closely aligned with the theoretical underpinnings, the “Discussion and implication” section reflected on the findings referring to these theoretical thoughts.

Comments to the Author

4. How long is the PhD program normally or on average?

Our response

Thanks for this question. We added this information in this R1, “Finally, at the time of interviews, they were newcomers, juniors, and seniors at different phases of doctoral candidature that normally lasts 3-4 years in Australia, which facilitates a probe into a full doctoral trajectory.”

Comments to the Author

5. What does the paragraph in lines 246-249 mean?

Our response

We deleted this part which is irrelevant to the manuscript. Sorry about this confusion.

Comments to the Author 

6. 1 and 4.2 described the participant’s teacher and student identity they took, but reflected limited variations among the participants. They look homogenous, failing to reveal “a rich disclosure of teacher identity” and/or “a full doctoral trajectory” as the authors had claimed earlier in sampling. The participants had different years of teaching experiences in different countries and also were at different stages of their PhD program, which seems to have limited impact on their agency and identity transition. The same problem with section 4.3.

Our response

Thanks for raising this issue. We owe our apology for seemingly homogenising these participants. To reveal a rich disclosure and a full doctoral trajectory, we incorporated data sourcing from different participants under (sub)themes in alignment with our theoretical underpinnings. By doing so, we did not mean that they were the same. However, given the qualitative nature, we did not endeavor to reflect on the impacts of different variables on agency and identity transition, which we explicate in the “Discussion and implication” section as a limitation of the study. We admit that as a qualitative study, it is limited in clarifying how identity transition is differently experienced by individuals with different variables, which hopefully can be addressed by future studies with bigger participant pools. As supported by the other review feedback:

Despite the lack of representativeness of the sample of 10 experts, the results obtained open

a wide field of discussion on the need to undertake further research - on improving the quality of language teaching by people who do not have a cultural background in the country whose language they teach.

Comments to the Author

7. I suggest not to discuss the findings with the social cognitive perspective, while the whole study seems to operationalize an ecological perspective. Otherwise it is confusing to readers.

Our response

Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We deleted discussions in relation to social cognitive lens. We rephrased that, ‘This study also makes it salient that an expert teacher identity was an intentional “doing” process, anchoring in creating “achieved” attributes that enrich the becoming process that keeps unfolding and evolving, which lent weight to the perspective that identity construction as agentic accomplishment relates to intentional participation in self-development and self-renewal [32].”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A significant strength of the article is its framing of its content in the interdisciplinary sociocultural space. This approach creates a perspective of methodological correctness of the perception of the cognitive problem and the research question posed. Characteristic is - which creates a climate for a good evaluation of the article - a rich review of the literature, especially in the area of the results of previous studies of high quality and recognition in the scientific world. Very interesting is the framing of the research problem in three spaces past-present-future. Despite the lack of representativeness of the sample of 10 experts, the results obtained open a wide field of discussion on the need to undertake further research - on improving the quality of language teaching, by people who do not have a cultural background in the country whose language they teach.  

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

A significant strength of the article is its framing of its content in the interdisciplinary sociocultural space. This approach creates a perspective of methodological correctness of the perception of the cognitive problem and the research question posed. Characteristic is - which creates a climate for a good evaluation of the article - a rich review of the literature, especially in the area of the results of previous studies of high quality and recognition in the scientific world. Very interesting is the framing of the research problem in three spaces past-present-future. Despite the lack of representativeness of the sample of 10 experts, the results obtained open a wide field of discussion on the need to undertake further research - on improving the quality of language teaching, by people who do not have a cultural background in the country whose language they teach.

Our response

Thanks very much for articulating these strong points and contributions to this piece. We are particularly glad and grateful that the reviewer agrees that despite being non-representative, the study could offer valuable directions that may facilitate future research endeavours.

Again, we deeply appreciate your valuable feedback on our manuscript. If any other modifications or information are needed, we would be keen to consider and flexible to make changes. Thank you again for the positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of this manuscript.