For this article, I would recommend a major revision and a second round of review to be published.

While the article presents a interesting idea regarding the running of a qualitative methods class in a community critical framework, there is some structural issues with the article that need to be addressed before to be able to assess if it is suitable for publishing.

In the case of the introduction, while there is an development on what the authors define as community critical methodologies, there is a lack of review of the literature regarding teaching qualitative methodologies. Is it impossible for the reader to understand the position of the authors in that field, and the article should take a stand in this issues because it could be read by an educational minded public.

While the paper establishes itself well in the critical framework, there are some issues that I would like to raise:
Page 3, line 23: While I understand the point of the paragraph, it reads like an unfinished argument. Why should be hard for students to embrace this kind of thinking? This line of thought should be extended to make sense of the argument.
Page 4, line 33: The discussion of the concept deconstruction should be consolidated in one paragraph, since both paragraphs tend to argue for the same idea.
P4, L40: Source?
Page 5, L3-5: Needs citations. Is this a local or worldwide phenomenon?
P5, L17: While I agree with this statement, needs to be referenced to previous research.
Page 6, L10: Needs citation and maybe a deeper reflection regarding this statement. It does not make sense to include these concepts so late in the development of the article. Especially when is not rescued later in the discussion.
P6, L40: While I understand the question that structures the course, does the creation of the method had a research question attached? Why would a qualitative research methods class is the ideal setting to carry this out? Is this exploratory work? Needs to be cleared up.

The second section of the introduction needs some reestructuration. I recommend a reduction of this section, aiming to describe in detail the teaching unit. It needs to be clear enough that this is the setting of the paper, not the source of data of the article. Some comments:
Page 7, L 20: Needs citation
P7, L30-34: What are the characteristics of this online space? Differences or advantages compared to usual classrooms? Does this virtual space affords a different experience? How?
P7, L50: What are “pieces” of data? Not clear.
P8, L6: When? At the start/middle of the 14 weeks?

Overall, the article’s introduction needs to give a clear idea of why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript. The aims of the article are very unclear at this point.

The method section need to be thoroughly rewritten. Currently, the section is a description of the process in which they carried out the teaching unit. The description of this does not match the results that they describe, which describe the results of the teaching unit from the teachers’ perspective. In fact, it was not until the end of the section/start of the result section that I could understand that the experiences of the students were not the study object, but the knowledge and experiences of the teachers of the unit. This should be explicit from the start and should be discussed in the introduction. Regarding the information that is currently on the section, I would recommend to add it to the second section in a reduced form. Some comments:
Page 8, L10: Repeated information. Maybe a characterization of the participants or context is needed to avoid this.
P8, L33: Important issue. Should be noted when describing the project.
P8, L48: Why? I don’t understand. Is this part of data collection by students?
P9, L20: Confusing. Are the interviews the data or do they complement their research with other data?
P9, L33: Not clear. Are students using this as data or something else?
P9, L44: Was this paper written before or after the unit was taught?
P9, L51: Consent already mentioned before.
P10, L18: Why? If this is reported, readers need to know the reasons behind the decision. It is because the authors could not reach enough indigenous Australian participants? Or would unintended consequences would follow from their participation, for example?
P10, L42-44: Still, very opaque description on what constitutes data used by students on unit.

The third section, reflections on the process reveals the real aim of the article and jumps right into the results/reflections. What is troubling is that the authors, since they describe the process of teaching the methodology unit in the methods, they do not mention or describe the basis on which the results are founded. Some comments:
Page 10, L53: This should be mentioned at the very start of the article. It is crucial considering that is a new approach.
Page 11, L8: Why? Should be explained.
P11, L17: Was ethical approval an issue?
P11, L22: And how the authors registered this? Notes? Diary? Video? From memory? This could be rewritten to be the real method section of the article.

The results/reflection/discussion section of the article is very hard to assess since I do not know from where the data came from and if any rigor practices were implemented in the analysis of such data. Some comments:
Page 14, L28: Maybe move this into discussion?
P14, L37-41: With what consequences in this specific case?
P15, L13-17: Rephrase.
P15, L25: Only the question in the project is from a community critical framework?
P15, L48-55: It is hard to understand why the authors would choose not to include student comments when it’s critical to triangulate conclusions such as this one.
P16, L21: How is this process guided?
P16, L25: Section needs to be expanded.
P16, L38: This is inherent to the nature of this kind of course (introduction to a subject in undergrads)
P16, L49: Why? Needs expansion of reasoning behind statement.
P17, L6: It depends on how the students perceive the survey.
P17, L20: Or it measures something else (role of universities)
P17, L40: Assumptions or expectations?
P17, L45: This process in educational psychology is referred as scaffolding. See Brunner (1976) or Vigotskii (Zone of Proximal Development)
P18, L6: And how, considering critical theory can this be addressed?
P18, L16: How did the teachers resolve this tension in the classroom? Was addressed or just noted?
P20, L3-10: And how this could be of help to university teachers, community/educational psychologists? Needs to be addressed in a deeper manner.

If more help is needed to structure the article, I recommend the book Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology (Levitt, 2019).

In Engaging community critical methodologies in teaching with undergraduate psychology students the authors present a case study in which community critical methods are inserted within a qualitative methodology class. More specifically, the authors give an interesting account on the ways that the implementation of critical and community approaches in a qualitative methods class can tension and bring to the table unknown assumptions of the students regarding the practice of psychology/community psychology.

The article has greatly improved in clarity since the last round of reviews. In this round, I would suggest some minor changes detailed below (clean document is attached with line numbers):

Page 8, line 151: "we felt this offered much pluralism against the idea that answers can be clear and straightforward." Answers in which discipline? Psychology? Community psychology? Research methods in general? Please specify.

Page 9, line 174: "However, it also includes poststructural, feminist, queer theoretical, and most importantly decolonising content highly relevant in Australia" Why? To those not immersed in the AUS educational context, this statement is a bit opaque. A brief explanation is enough to inform readers.

Page 13, from line 277: A suggestion: The argument made here reads much better when you describe first what the authors are going to do and afterwards, explain why you did not include other sources of information for this paper.

Page 17, line 347: “Many (students)? frame their questions…” Please specify.

Page 21, from line 460: Regarding my first comment “How did the teachers resolve this tension in the classroom? Was addressed or just noted?” While I understand that you value the negative content of the interviews as positions, this paragraph would improve in clarity if you would specify that teachers (or the whole class/students) are the ones to discursively position the negative contents of those interviews as opinions.