Overcoming Obstacles for the Inclusion of Visually Impaired Learners through Teacher–Researcher Collaborative Design and Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, I consider that the title of the work is very long and should be shortened.

Second, the authors could structure section 4 (Analysis of data and findings) to make it easier to read. They could describe, after the title of section 4, the two main sections of which it consists (4.1 and 4.2). Also, in each of the sections, mark the subsections that appear in the document in italics and that are confused with the literal citations that also appear in italics (lines 331, 359, 460 for 4.1 and lines 507, 554, 599, 672, 698 for 4.2).

Finally, despite the fact that the answer to the research questions can be drawn from section 4, consider that the conclusions will surely be cleaner linked to those research questions since they appear too general.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

September 5, 2023.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Overcoming obstacles for the inclusion of visually impaired learners through teacher-researcher collaborative design and implementation of auditory and tactile mathematical tasks” for the journal Education Sciences. The research project is an exciting and useful for the larger project of inclusive education. In particular the author/researchers make a valuable contribution to inclusive mathematics education for students with visual impairments.  And it must be said that in inclusive education, there needs to be more studies and attention on students with visual impairments. With some significant editing in my view this article would be suitable for publication in the special issue, Critical Perspectives on Mathematics Teacher Education in Education Sciences.

1.      This article is in two parts; in the first part the author/researchers are observing teachers. There is a fair amount of judgment in how the teachers are implementing inclusive instructional practices. “In Phase 1, we used classroom observations, focussed-group interviews, and individual interviews” (line 243). The second part is in this reviewer’s view much stronger. The author/researchers work in collaboration with teachers to create some truly unique and effective inclusive programing.  “In Phase 2, we used written transcripts of the class teachers’ contributions in the design of the three intervention lessons, classroom observations, focussed-group interviews, individual interviews, photographs of the pupils’ work in the three intervention lessons and pupils’ evaluation forms of the intervention lesson in two classes.” (Line 256).

2.      Notable in the second section are the use of auditory stimuli, namely musical instruments. “The active involvement – and the use of musical instruments – in the representation of number sequences by T3a, as well as the invitation of the class to play the next number on the musical instruments, were particularly beneficial for both the sighted and the VI pupils. (Line 589).  This part of the research is innovative and strong. It really does add to the inclusive education literature. See also Line 526 “We aimed to increase the familiarity of the whole class with touch and to show the significance of touch in mathematical learning.” Great.

3.      The presentation of classroom pictures really does support the findings that the author/researchers make, particularly the pictures on p 10 and p. 13. It is clear that the student, Fred, resists the iPad probably due to stigma, as the author/researchers suggest. The narrative benefits from the photographs.

4.      In this Reviewer’s opinion, the writing needs to be much clearer in order that it be more understood. Here are some examples that point to larger editing issues:

5.       Some sentences do not make sense, and/or could be stated in much plainer ways:
E.g.:  “We first summarise findings from the exploratory phase that evidence inclusion issues on resource use in the mathematics classroom.” (Line 18)

6.      Another example:  “The extent (e.g. amount of time) dedicated to aforementioned training is one example of the repercussions from this lack of specificity.” (Line 53).

7.      And another…

Second theme “In tandem – and sometimes emanating from aforementioned issue of teacher positioning – another issue is the VI pupil’s preference for physical resources over digital ones for his inclusion in the teacher’s physical demonstration.” (Line 360)  I understand the point the author(s) are trying to make, but the wording seems cloudy.

8.      Usually one does not string long quotes one after another without some contextualizing between them (p. 2). (This is in the Literature Review section).

9.      Where possible, avoid personifying research. E.g.: “To identify said teacher preparation needs we draw on data and analyses from (Author, 2021), a doctoral study doctoral thesis which endorsed sociocultural and embodied perspectives in an investigation.” (Line 17).  The author/researchers endorse, not a thesis.

10. It is not necessary to repeatedly assert the following:

 “In the study that our paper draws on (Author, 2021), (line 199)

“The study (Author, 2021) upon which this paper draws…. (line 229), etc.

State it once, the reader knows that this article is based upon a dissertation. 

And be clear how this article is different than the dissertation. In the following quote, the Reviewer is not sure if the Research Questions from the dissertation are the exact same as the article or not….:

Author’s (2021) study addressed the following research questions: How are inclusion and disability constructed in the discourses of teaching staff and pupils in the mathematics classroom? How do collaboratively designed mathematics lessons impact upon teaching staff and pupil discourses on inclusion and disability? The first research question was explored in both phases of the study while the second research question was explored in Phase 2. For the purposes of this paper, we extract data and analyses from the study in order to answer the teacher preparation Research Questions formulated at the end of Section 2 (Lines 258-265).

So…are these questions from the Author’s study or from the current article and/or both?

11. The Theoretical Framework section does not include the presentation of the Social Model of Disability, and this review is unclear as to why. This theory seems to be best placed in theoretical discussion. After all, it is significant not only in describing the author/researchers view of dis/ability but it also can implicate inclusive practice in classrooms.

“The theoretical underpinnings of the study upon which this paper draws are sociocultural: Vygotskian sociocultural theory of learning, with particular emphasis on the 124 notion of mediation (Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1993), and the aforementioned social 125 model of disability (Oliver, 2009). (Lines 123-25)

12. The author/researchers use too many acronyms/codes. The writing feels like a dissertation being almost ‘forcibly’ condensed into a single article. In a longer work like a dissertation, perhaps the liberal use of acronyms/codes has merit. There is space and time for the reader to absorb them. In an article-sized piece of writing, too many acronyms may come across as frustrating to the reader.

E.g,: RQ1 and RQ2. (Research questions 1 and 2). It may be clearer to simply state the research questions.

E.g.: “We coded the names of classrooms and of teaching staff and have used pseudonyms for the names of pupils. We have used: “T” for Teachers; “TA” for Teaching Assistants; “S” for “Schools”; and, “Y” for “Year groups”. T3 denotes the class teacher in School 3.” (Line 282-3)

E.g.: I assume that MTE is Mathematics Teacher Education? (p. 5). Again there are too many acronyms/codes used which impacts clarity.

13. A reiteration that one of the significant strengths of this research is that it was conducted in inclusive settings:

“Data collection was conducted in four primary mathematics classrooms (Y1, Y3 and 267 two Y5 classes; pupils’ ages varied from six to ten) in four mainstream schools” (Line 267).

14. Data Analysis is described well, but that description could be better carried over into the themes.

E.g.: Teacher positioning: when teaching becomes inadvertently inaccessible. (Line 331)

15. (This is a small thing.) A student may feel different, but I’m not sure they feel differentiated:

Line 402 “Another way in which the VI pupil is made to feel differentiated from the rest of the class is the insistence on using resources that mainly try to mitigate against limitations in sight. Again, the VI pupils’ difference is not celebrated, as the VI pupils are asked to use their limited vision to construct mathematical meaning

In conclusion, it would be great to see this article be published. The work is sound, from my point of view, the writing just needs to be clearer. I also think it significant that this article to be published within the mathematical teacher education literature.

September 5, 2023.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Overcoming obstacles for the inclusion of visually impaired learners through teacher-researcher collaborative design and implementation of auditory and tactile mathematical tasks” for the journal Education Sciences. The research project is an exciting and useful for the larger project of inclusive education. In particular the author/researchers make a valuable contribution to inclusive mathematics education for students with visual impairments.  And it must be said that in inclusive education, there needs to be more studies and attention on students with visual impairments. With some significant editing in my view this article would be suitable for publication in the special issue, Critical Perspectives on Mathematics Teacher Education in Education Sciences.

1.      This article is in two parts; in the first part the author/researchers are observing teachers. There is a fair amount of judgment in how the teachers are implementing inclusive instructional practices. “In Phase 1, we used classroom observations, focussed-group interviews, and individual interviews” (line 243). The second part is in this reviewer’s view much stronger. The author/researchers work in collaboration with teachers to create some truly unique and effective inclusive programing.  “In Phase 2, we used written transcripts of the class teachers’ contributions in the design of the three intervention lessons, classroom observations, focussed-group interviews, individual interviews, photographs of the pupils’ work in the three intervention lessons and pupils’ evaluation forms of the intervention lesson in two classes.” (Line 256).

2.      Notable in the second section are the use of auditory stimuli, namely musical instruments. “The active involvement – and the use of musical instruments – in the representation of number sequences by T3a, as well as the invitation of the class to play the next number on the musical instruments, were particularly beneficial for both the sighted and the VI pupils. (Line 589).  This part of the research is innovative and strong. It really does add to the inclusive education literature. See also Line 526 “We aimed to increase the familiarity of the whole class with touch and to show the significance of touch in mathematical learning.” Great.

3.      The presentation of classroom pictures really does support the findings that the author/researchers make, particularly the pictures on p 10 and p. 13. It is clear that the student, Fred, resists the iPad probably due to stigma, as the author/researchers suggest. The narrative benefits from the photographs.

4.      In this Reviewer’s opinion, the writing needs to be much clearer in order that it be more understood. Here are some examples that point to larger editing issues:

5.       Some sentences do not make sense, and/or could be stated in much plainer ways:
E.g.:  “We first summarise findings from the exploratory phase that evidence inclusion issues on resource use in the mathematics classroom.” (Line 18)

6.      Another example:  “The extent (e.g. amount of time) dedicated to aforementioned training is one example of the repercussions from this lack of specificity.” (Line 53).

7.      And another…

Second theme “In tandem – and sometimes emanating from aforementioned issue of teacher positioning – another issue is the VI pupil’s preference for physical resources over digital ones for his inclusion in the teacher’s physical demonstration.” (Line 360)  I understand the point the author(s) are trying to make, but the wording seems cloudy.

8.      Usually one does not string long quotes one after another without some contextualizing between them (p. 2). (This is in the Literature Review section).

9.      Where possible, avoid personifying research. E.g.: “To identify said teacher preparation needs we draw on data and analyses from (Author, 2021), a doctoral study doctoral thesis which endorsed sociocultural and embodied perspectives in an investigation.” (Line 17).  The author/researchers endorse, not a thesis.

10. It is not necessary to repeatedly assert the following:

 “In the study that our paper draws on (Author, 2021), (line 199)

“The study (Author, 2021) upon which this paper draws…. (line 229), etc.

State it once, the reader knows that this article is based upon a dissertation. 

And be clear how this article is different than the dissertation. In the following quote, the Reviewer is not sure if the Research Questions from the dissertation are the exact same as the article or not….:

Author’s (2021) study addressed the following research questions: How are inclusion and disability constructed in the discourses of teaching staff and pupils in the mathematics classroom? How do collaboratively designed mathematics lessons impact upon teaching staff and pupil discourses on inclusion and disability? The first research question was explored in both phases of the study while the second research question was explored in Phase 2. For the purposes of this paper, we extract data and analyses from the study in order to answer the teacher preparation Research Questions formulated at the end of Section 2 (Lines 258-265).

So…are these questions from the Author’s study or from the current article and/or both?

11. The Theoretical Framework section does not include the presentation of the Social Model of Disability, and this review is unclear as to why. This theory seems to be best placed in theoretical discussion. After all, it is significant not only in describing the author/researchers view of dis/ability but it also can implicate inclusive practice in classrooms.

“The theoretical underpinnings of the study upon which this paper draws are sociocultural: Vygotskian sociocultural theory of learning, with particular emphasis on the 124 notion of mediation (Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1993), and the aforementioned social 125 model of disability (Oliver, 2009). (Lines 123-25)

12. The author/researchers use too many acronyms/codes. The writing feels like a dissertation being almost ‘forcibly’ condensed into a single article. In a longer work like a dissertation, perhaps the liberal use of acronyms/codes has merit. There is space and time for the reader to absorb them. In an article-sized piece of writing, too many acronyms may come across as frustrating to the reader.

E.g,: RQ1 and RQ2. (Research questions 1 and 2). It may be clearer to simply state the research questions.

E.g.: “We coded the names of classrooms and of teaching staff and have used pseudonyms for the names of pupils. We have used: “T” for Teachers; “TA” for Teaching Assistants; “S” for “Schools”; and, “Y” for “Year groups”. T3 denotes the class teacher in School 3.” (Line 282-3)

E.g.: I assume that MTE is Mathematics Teacher Education? (p. 5). Again there are too many acronyms/codes used which impacts clarity.

13. A reiteration that one of the significant strengths of this research is that it was conducted in inclusive settings:

“Data collection was conducted in four primary mathematics classrooms (Y1, Y3 and 267 two Y5 classes; pupils’ ages varied from six to ten) in four mainstream schools” (Line 267).

14. Data Analysis is described well, but that description could be better carried over into the themes.

E.g.: Teacher positioning: when teaching becomes inadvertently inaccessible. (Line 331)

15. (This is a small thing.) A student may feel different, but I’m not sure they feel differentiated:

Line 402 “Another way in which the VI pupil is made to feel differentiated from the rest of the class is the insistence on using resources that mainly try to mitigate against limitations in sight. Again, the VI pupils’ difference is not celebrated, as the VI pupils are asked to use their limited vision to construct mathematical meaning

In conclusion, it would be great to see this article be published. The work is sound, from my point of view, the writing just needs to be clearer. I also think it significant that this article to be published within the mathematical teacher education literature.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx