Educational Poverty and Deprivation: Attitudes and the Role of Teachers during the Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPeer Review: Education poverty and the risk of social exclusion: attitudes and role of teachers during the pandemic
After reviewing this article, my first thought was relevancy – we are now in the “post” pandemic phase. I would suggest recommendations addressing how to assimilate the findings into today’s current teaching practices. This brings up another general point of watching tense – I see a switch between tenses, especially in the Discussion portion of the paper.
Numbering of sections were inconsistent along with margin spacing. The numbering and then the subsections interferes with the fluidity of reading the article. This is an area that needs addressed throughout the entire paper.
Beginning with the Abstract – the acronym SEN was used in line 9—but I did not know what it stood for until I read down to the Introduction. A few words were overly used – assume was one of these words. Especially under Hypotheses and Methods.
Watch spacing – many double spacing within lines – line 30, 121, 122, 140, 348
Realizing that the author is from Italy and not sure requirements for APA, but APA is not being followed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Almost all your suggestions have been accepted (see below point by point). Furthermore, we have: aligned the title with the general content, eliminated the subsections of 6th sect., and changed the codes for the quotations in order to make them more anonymous.
1) After reviewing this article, my first thought was relevancy – we are now in the “post” pandemic phase. I would suggest recommendations addressing how to assimilate the findings into today’s current teaching practices. This brings up another general point of watching tense – I see a switch between tenses, especially in the Discussion portion of the paper.
Response 1: AGREE. The section 6. Discussion has been implemented according to you.
2) Numbering of sections were inconsistent along with margin spacing. The numbering and then the subsections interferes with the fluidity of reading the article. This is an area that needs addressed throughout the entire paper.
Response 2: PARTIALLY AGREE. The subsections of 6th section can be cancelled, because they can interfere with the fluid reading (the title of the section is clear and focused enough); but the subsections of 5th Section must be kept, in order to better distinguish the 5 cultural dimension by which we analysed the teacher attitudes.
3) Beginning with the Abstract – the acronym SEN was used in line 9—but I did not know what it stood for until I read down to the Introduction. A few words were overly used – assume was one of these words. Especially under Hypotheses and Methods.
Response 3: AGREE. We explicated the acronyms SEN in the abstract and text
4) Watch spacing – many double spacing within lines – line 30, 121, 122, 140, 348
Response 4: AGREE. We cut out every useless spaces
5) Realizing that the author is from Italy and not sure requirements for APA, but APA is not being followed.
Response 5: YES we checked APA STYLE for the Bibliography
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review the Manuscript titled, “Educational poverty and the risk of social exclusion: attitudes and role of teachers during the pandemic.” This is a timely topic that has the potential to provide valuable information to the field. Overarchingly, the qualitative methodology seems appropriate, and I found the quotes from participants especially well-selected throughout the paper. My primary concern with the paper as it stands is a misalignment between the components, partly because some terminology was unclear throughout.
Firstly, the title includes, “..the risk of social exclusion..”, (and the abstract alludes to this being the primary concern), but I didn’t see that particular component addressed throughout the actual study. It seemed that the paper was more focused on academic results.
Right away, the abstract introduces “SEN” without explaining what this means and this is a concern throughout the paper with other terminology. To address a wide range of readers, including those within the special education field in other countries, please introduce and define the terminology. Likewise, I found myself unsure of the meanings for “educational poverty” and “deprivation” well into the paper. I think the introduction paragraph needs a clear definition for the term. Perhaps some of the information from section 3 should be introduced much earlier.
I also must ask, is “educational poverty” a well-defined term, or are you attempting to coin the term? If the former, additional citations earlier in the paper would help. If the latter, I might suggest reconsideration because of its confusion with financial poverty, which is also included in this paper.
On line 37, when you refer to “poorest,” does this mean financially or educationally?
Somewhere around section 3, I would expect to see the research questions clearly defined.
Line 72 refers to ESCS, but there is no explanation of what this means.
On line 85, you refer to educational opportunities, but the way this is framed, do you mean education outcomes?
One line 110, when you refer to poverty, is this educational or financial poverty?
Lines 113 and 140 include “ICT” without introducing the actual phrase.
On the second part of section 4, on the top of page 4, I would like to see some rationale as to how the framework for data analysis was developed. Where did these preliminary themes come from? They might need to be included in the literature review. Additionally, what are the implications of finding out this information? What is the overall purpose of the study (and this can be strengthened in the conclusion section as well).
There is some awkward terminology and phrasing throughout, such as the use of “Anyway” on line 235 and “connections problems were often actual” on lines 238-239. Line 324-325 includes an incomplete sentence.
Beginning in section 6, there is an acknowledgement of confusion regarding “educational deprivation.” Once more, I wonder if this is an established term, or one that you are attempting to coin? Clarification could really help define the purpose and/or framework of your study. Likewise, in section 6.2, you discuss “deprivation at various levels,” but would not be considered “poverty” instead, according to your current framework of definitions?
Your included quote on line 358-359 feels out of place, as it actually discounts your results, because it only states that these problems were increasing before the pandemic.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to see much stronger, clearer, and better aligned conclusion. What is it that the study actually revealed, and how is this important for the field moving forward, not only as a reflection of the past, but especially for the future.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some minor errors and awkward phrasing that can probably be corrected with a fresh read-through.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Almost all your suggestions have been accepted (see below point by point). Furthermore, we have: aligned the title with the general content, eliminated the subsections of 6th sect., and changed the codes for the quotations in order to make them more anonymous.
- COMMENTS 1 Firstly, the title includes, “..the risk of social exclusion..”, (and the abstract alludes to this being the primary concern), but I didn’t see that particular component addressed throughout the actual study. It seemed that the paper was more focused on academic results.
Response 1 : AGREE. We changed the title in “Educational poverty and deprivation”, cutting out “the risk of exclusion”, in order to avoid misalignments. All paper is now focused on “educational deprivation” only (and on the “liquid” border between educational poverty and educational deprivation).
- COMMENTS 2 Right away, the abstract introduces “SEN” without explaining what this means and this is a concern throughout the paper with other terminology. To address a wide range of readers, including those within the special education field in other countries, please introduce and define the terminology.
Response 2 : AGREE. We specified the acronyms in the abstract and text.
- COMMENTS 3 Likewise, I found myself unsure of the meanings for “educational poverty” and “deprivation” well into the paper. I think the introduction paragraph needs a clear definition for the term. Perhaps some of the information from section 3 should be introduced much earlier.
Response 3: PARTIALLY AGREE. The distinction between the 2 concepts requires a long explanation, which is done in section 3 (poor student = financially speaking and on the basis of educational outcomes; deprived student= who lacks of an adequate learning environment) Before this, we mention the topic ‘educational poverty’ in section 1.
- COMMENTS 4 I also must ask, is “educational poverty” a well-defined term, or are you attempting to coin the term? If the former, additional citations earlier in the paper would help. If the latter, I might suggest reconsideration because of its confusion with financial poverty, which is also included in this paper.
Response 4: AGREE. We use a well accredited definition of educational poverty; but a less accredited definition of educational deprivation. See section 3 (and also response 3).
- COMMENTS 5 On line 37, when you refer to “poorest,” does this mean financially or educationally?
Response 5: yes, in this case we refer to the financially poorest, as indicated on line 41
- COMMENTS 6 Somewhere around section 3, I would expect to see the research questions clearly defined.
Response 6. AGREE. The research questions were explicated in the abstract but not in the text, so we put them at the end of section 3, and more clearly defined.
- COMMENTS 7 - Line 72 refers to ESCS, but there is no explanation of what this means.
Response 7: AGREE. This has been explicated on line 88.
- COMMENTS 8 -- On line 85, you refer to educational opportunities, but the way this is framed, do you mean education outcomes?
Response 8: AGREE. “educational opportunities” has been replaced by “educational outcomes” on line 107.
- COMMENTS 9 - On line 110, when you refer to poverty, is this educational or financial poverty?
Response 9: in this case we use “poverty” referring to all types of poverty, because we want only to recap the previous information about Italy… poverty in general. NO ADJUSTMENTS.
- COMMENTS 10 Lines 113 and 140 include “ICT” without introducing the actual phrase.
Response 10: AGREE. We use “digital skills” on line 158, and “digital devices” on line 200
- COMMENTS 11 On the second part of section 4, on the top of page 4, I would like to see some rationale as to how the framework for data analysis was developed. Where did these preliminary themes come from? They might need to be included in the literature review. Additionally, what are the implications of finding out this information? What is the overall purpose of the study (and this can be strengthened in the conclusion section as well).
Response 11: AGREE. We added a sentence that refers to literature. See on lines 163-166. Moreover on lines 175-6 we explicated the implications of the choice of this interpretive framework.
- COMMENTS 12 There is some awkward terminology and phrasing throughout, such as the use of “Anyway” on line 235 and “connections problems were often actual” on lines 238-239.
Response 12: AGREE. Cut out of “anyway” on line 235 (now 344), and substitution of “connection” with “connectivity”
- COMMENTS 13 - Line 324-325 includes an incomplete sentence.
Response 13: THIS IS NOT an incomplete sentence, but the first part of the following sentence. We put a “:” character instead of “.” (line 466).
- COMMENTS 14 Beginning in section 6, there is an acknowledgement of confusion regarding “educational deprivation.” Once more, I wonder if this is an established term, or one that you are attempting to coin? Clarification could really help define the purpose and/or framework of your study. Likewise, in section 6.2, you discuss “deprivation at various levels,” but would not be considered “poverty” instead, according to your current framework of definitions?
Response 14: PARTIALLY AGREE. In section 6 the concept we discuss is only “educational deprivation”: we find it coherent with the revised title of the article itself. Thus we kept every word referring to “deprivation” and we abandoned “poverty” .
- COMMENTS 15 Your included quote on line 358-359 feels out of place, as it actually discounts your results, because it only states that these problems were increasing before the pandemic.
Response 15: AGREE, in the former formulation the quote might have sounded out of place, but we added this sentence before quotation (lines 514-5), that should have given more sense to the quote itself: “but it is in emergency that such disorders came to light and were exacerbated.”
- COMMENTS 16 - Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to see much stronger, clearer, and better aligned conclusion. What is it that the study actually revealed, and how is this important for the field moving forward, not only as a reflection of the past, but especially for the future.
Response 16:AGREE. The ultimate version of the article include 3 new sentences, to better summarize the research questions /hypothesis, and translate the research findings into recommendations for future.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEdits has been applied.
Author Response
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your continued work on this important topic and attention to detail. As a reader, I do believe that this rendition, with these revisions, really strengthens your work and the implications it can have in the field.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI only noted a few very minor typographical errors that can be corrected during final edits.
Author Response
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
