In the literature review, you mentioned the advantages and disadvantages of CS, but here your research question 3 only touches upon teachers’ perceptions on its benefits, leaving out the disadvantages. Would it be a good idea to also inquire about teachers’ perceptions on the disadvantages of CS? 

Here, the mention of student teachers being ‘unconfident’ about whether it is ‘theoretically appropriate’ to use CS is a crucial point and deserves more elaboration. What are some concrete episodes whereby students teachers experienced difficulties with CS choices? What exactly are their concerns? I believe it might be good to extract data that echo with this lack of confidence so that you could offer more concrete pedagogical suggestions towards the end of the paper. 

Really interesting points here! 

This mention of urban and rural schools is very intriguing, as I can imagine that something like CS could differ quite much between the urban and rural contexts. What is the rationale for including these two types of schools? Not sure if this comment is helpful, but would it be a good idea to also briefly touch upon the investigation of CS in rural schools as well? 

It might be helpful to illustrate more in this paragraph. Since this research is based in Vietnam, as a reader I am very curious to know in more detail what existing studies reveal about CS in this context and the interplay between these past studies and yours

This paragraph is very concise. However, I thought it might be helpful to denote why you chose to investigate the case of both student teachers and experienced teachers. Are you going to compare them, and what is the rationale for doing so? 

[Indeed, Rwandan government’s excuse for suspending to teach history and then teaching one national narrative is its fear of retriggering the conflict. As a result, it chose to evade the possibility of re-igniting ethnic distinctions at the expense of addressing the resulting structural violence. Although some Rwandans view the government approach to the issue as manipulative, some previous research on intergroup contact highlights how intergroup encounters where different identities and perspectives of the conflict are discussed enhance negative attributions and stereotyping among participants (Moaz, 2000a and 2000b).]
Is this whole section from the Moaz source? The first two sentences seem separate from the Moaz reference. Can it be clarified?

Suitable number of relevant and recent sources that outline current critical thinking on the subject.

Signposting of argument makes the article coherent and cohesive

Clear outline on need for research, demonstrates understanding of the existing academic field and defines the focus of the research.