Technology and School Unit Improvement: Researching, Reconsidering and Reconstructing the School Context through a Multi-Thematic Digital Storytelling Project

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article reports on an action research project which takes a novel approach to inclusive education through collaborative, problem-based learning. The program implemented in the school looks to be a creative and engaging one.  The methodology is described in some detail and could be improved through careful editing.  

However, there are major omissions in the article, particularly in the reporting of results and the discussion, which weaken the article substantially.  For example, it is not evident what results were yielded by the coding of the data; the semi-structured interviews conducted with the students (the students' voice) were mentioned only in passing and the 'findings' reported are mainly quotes from researcher/teacher reflective journals; the 'triangulation' expected from the multiple data sources is not evident.

The article needs to be substantially reworked to include the results of the data coding and analysis, the semi-structured interviews of students (especially as 'student voice' was said to be important) and the assessment of student products against the criteria. The theoretical framework could be more coherent - the connection between constructivist theory and problem-based learning needs to be established.  The discussion and conclusion needs to be reframed to address the study's aims to design a program for inclusive education - this focus is needs to be developed with more explicit detail about the adaptations made for inclusive and differentiated learning - much of what is presented is in very general terms.

The author is also advised to seek professional editing prior to submitting a fully revised version for review to this or another journal.  The paper has potential but requires a substantial amount of work to reach a standard acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

My paper is submitted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the opportunity of reviewing this manuscript, which describes a multi-thematic digital storytelling project, and examines the potential of such a project for promoting inclusion and reconstructing the school system. It describes an innovative interdisciplinar proposal, integrating science, technology and the arts to create as a team, in response to a significant task. I must congratulate you on this inspiring piece of work.

I would like to make some suggestions, which I feel can help improve the manuscript, making it suitable for publication.

Inclusion, and inclusive education seem to be a central point in the manuscript. However, in the introduction very little is said about inclusion, the different approaches for dealing with diversity in the classroom (1st paragraph; lines 26 - 35). Likewise, the discussion contains several examples about students with learning difficulties, but they are meagerly discussed. I would suggest this topic is more developed in both sections, as it is contributes to the significance of the paper.

In the same vein, more references could be added to better support the relationship between special needs and storytelling.

The research questions are not adequate. They seem to me to be tailored to the specific answers provided, as if they had been written a posteriori, to help directing the learner towards the main conclusions, and not derived from true research interest. I.e, why should one expect an effect of DS on critical thinking after having been only told about inclusion?

Although the proposal is explained in detail, there are still some particular items of the methodology which remain unclear. For example, how is creativity, critical thinking... defined? Do all the teachers share the same definition? Which are strong and weak students (line 209).

Some of the conclusions are not supported by evidence. E.g. l. 378 (what can be deduced from the research-based evidence is that digital storytelling gretly helped learners develop critical thinking). The subsequent excerpts are remarkable examples of individual engagement and exemplary group processing, but do not demonstrate the development of critical thinking. Back to point 2, it has probably to do with defects of the research questions.

Some other minor comments include:

- line 36:  the sentence "based in the above asumption..." does not have antecedent.

- lines 51-52: repeated sentences

- paragraph starting in l.80: I would suggest first defining the concepts and then explaining their potential advantages, and not the opposite.

Author Response

Deat reviewer

My paper is submitted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading this article, the authors were very clear regarding their selection of research methods and justified their inclusion in the project. The project was outlined well and the outcomes were clearly explained.

However the article seemed to finish quite abruptly, perhaps more detail could be added re  the recommendations for how this approach could be adjusted to work in other schools with  units for special needs students where there is less familiarity with digital applications. What do the authors think about the long term effects on the teachers' pedagogy methods? Could these changes that have been noted be useful for teachers and students outside the unit.

It would be helpful if the age of the students were noted as 6th grade  may refer to other ages in different  countries. 

Please rephrase the following sentence in the conclusion.

"All things considered, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the initial aim of the research was attained since the specific project promoted inclusive education and led to the restructuring of the school unit."  

The word 'obvious'  is too precise, perhaps a more generic term would be more applicable.

Language application: 

Could the authors ensure that all the references are written using the Roman alphabet, a number are in the Greek format.

Some minor changes required re selection of vocabulary as in line 33 - 'literature' should be replaced. Line 42 'leverage' is not clear re the meaning of this terminology. Line 93 who does 'he' refer to?

Line 167, there is a sp - r'esearches'. Line 176 another term should be used instead of 'sensitize'. Please stop embolding terms . 

Line 249 ' Learners' should be in lowercase.  Please try and use another verb instead of 'got' as this is quite informal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

My paper is submitted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for making the effort to respond to the feedback from reviewers. The amendments made to the paper have enhanced the quality of the submission significantly.  A few minor proofreading issues still persist but these do not detract from the overall communication.