I was impressed by the research in your paper and how you explained it so clearly. I look forward to reading its final iteration in EJoLTS
Below are my suggestions for its enhancement. They are based on my understanding of how a reader might understand your research.
1. I enjoyed your creative approach to highlighting the “Reconnaissance” activities involved such as critical thinking, literature, research design and situational analysis. Reconnaissance is important since you mention it in 5 of the 10 sections and it is often glossed over in taught action research programmes. You might highlight this more strongly in your abstract and throughout
2. Your value of “Equality” struck me very strongly throughout this paper. I believe I counted it at least 8 times It appeared to me that it is the overarching value in your research and the key criteria or standard by which your research can be judged, possible in the following way.
o You state “everyone has equal right and opportunity to participate in the decision making” and offer it as your ontological and pedagogical value when deciding on your research topic and rational for your research.
o You name it as a factor in your research design when you say “the participants should all be equally involved in discussion”
o You use it in your claim of “increased equal participation and interaction”
o You have your claim to have created a more equitable pedagogy validated by a participant when you quote “Thus, cooperative learning provided equal opportunities to all students for participation which is not possible in a conventional teaching style;” and “it gave equal opportunities to every student”
3. The final sections on “Discussion and Conclusions“ could be strengthened. I suggest that you focus on your claims about the influence of your research on your own learning, the learning of others and for your context and beyond. A final section on the future potential of your research might encourage readers to engage with your work in their practice contexts. As this section is not about justifying your research methods perhaps paragraphs could begin with your claim or findings and then relate these to the literatures you have cited
4. More signposts for readers would be helpful such as link sentences and introductions to sections
Below are my comments on the publishing criteria. I have also attached a copy of your paper where I have made editorial suggestions in green throughout the text and I have added comments with content suggestions.
I respect that you are the expert on your research and you alone can decide on whether these suggestions are useful or not.
Looking forward to your next iteration,
Publishing criteria. The paper: Notes to help focus author on what needs addressing.
1. is of a high academic and scholarly quality. It provides a well-reasoned argument and demonstrates that you have creatively and critically engaged with your own thinking and the thinking of others
A valuable piece of research.
It is of a high academic and scholarly quality and engaged with your own thinking and the thinking of others as well as the literature.
2. clearly includes the distinguishing qualities of a Living Educational Theory methodology and/or the contribution it makes to the field of Living Theory research
In the introductory sections the distinguishing qualities of a Living Educational Theory methodology are clear, but it could be more explicit in exploring the influence of the research in the learning of the author, participant and of social formations.
3. includes a clearly written description and explanation of the context(s), purposes, processes and outcomes of the research
A clearly written description and explanation of the context(s), purposes, processes and outcomes of the research
4. can be understood by practitioners from diverse fields of practice, research and cultural contexts as well as experienced Living Educational Theory researchers
5. has all claims supported by appropriate evidence
Needs further attention (see email)
6. communicates clearly how knowledge claims are validated
Needs further attention (see email)
7. provides sufficient details of the normative background of your research
8. is at least 5,000 and no more than 12,000 words long in total (including references and appendixes)
9. is written in English of a standard appropriate for an international academic journal, has been thoroughly checked to ensure that English spelling and grammar has been used throughout, and all references are correct in both the text and references list.
Some references in the text are not in the reference list.
This paper needs to be checked and it still needs editorial attention - some of which I have suggested.
10. conforms to the format guidelines.
Abstract could be tightened up