Early Years Staff Experiences in a “Culture of Learning” Regarding Inclusion in a Nursery Class in a British School: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear author(s),

I have read with much interest your paper titled “Early years staff experiences in a “culture of learning” regarding inclusion in a nursery class in a British school: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.”. The paper present useful data regarding the professional learning meanings for the different role of the early childhood education and care (ECEC) staff membe teaching staff members that work inclusively, meaningful professional learning opportunities to them, and the circumstances under whichhad been offered.

However, there are some issues that I noticed could be improved.

Please find below minor points in the communication which needs clarification / reanalysis / rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve

Page 1, Abstract: I recommend to remove “this study” positioned after “does” from “This study not only does this study consider their opportunities for professional develop on the job but also outside of work”.

ECEC is explained on page 2. I suggest explaining the abbreviation where it first appears in the text (oag 1- Introduction).

ECEC is explained on page 2. I suggest explaining the abbreviation where it first appears in the text (oag 1- Introduction).

I also recommend explaining the abbreviations UN (page 1) and CPD (page 4), EYFS (page 13)

I recommend italicising sub-headings: e.g. page 11 ("Non-formal learning as continuous training inside the nursery classroom"), page 14. ("Affinity with sources of opportunities for professional development through after-work: Informal learning").

I also suggest highlighting the limitations of the studies carried out.

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

Following the reviewers’ instructions, we are responding to the latest feedback.

Comments and Suggestions from the reviewers are at the beginning of each sentence and followed by our responses of each sentence.

First reviewer. Dear author(s),

I have read with much interest your paper titled “Early years staff experiences in a “culture of learning” regarding inclusion in a nursery class in a British school: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.”. The paper present useful data regarding the professional learning meanings for the different role of the early childhood education and care (ECEC) staff member teaching staff members that work inclusively, meaningful professional learning opportunities to them, and the circumstances under which had been offered.

However, there are some issues that I noticed could be improved.

Please find below minor points in the communication which needs clarification / reanalysis / rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve

Page 1, Abstract: I recommend removing “this study” positioned after “does” from “This study not only does this study consider their opportunities for professional develop on the job but also outside of work”. We really appreciate this comment, and following your suggestion, the second “this study” has been removed from this specific sentence.

ECEC is explained on page 2. I suggest explaining the abbreviation where it first appears in the text (oag 1- Introduction). We have included in the introductory section, the full name's words from the abbreviation ECEC.

I also recommend explaining the abbreviations UN (page 1) and CPD (page 4), EYFS (page 13). All the acronyms have been revised and the full name included.

I recommend italicising sub-headings: e.g. page 11 ("Non-formal learning as continuous training inside the nursery classroom"), page 14. ("Affinity with sources of opportunities for professional development through after-work: Informal learning"). Thanks for the comment I have already done the Italicising the subheading you have mentioned.

I also suggest highlighting the limitations of the studies carried out. We have included the limitations of the study in the introductory part on the research methods section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This is certainly novel.

“a one-year ethnographic study which addressed the in-service learning experiences of seven teaching staff members that work inclusively.”

 

How can this be: 2 sessions with different children and yet they worked together during the same periods. The periods are different. Please clarify or write this differently as it seems a bit confusing.

Staff worked one session from 8:30 am until 12:00 pm and a second session from 12:00 pm until 3:00 pm. The children participated in many activities together during those same periods.

 

During the teaching sessions, the first author sat at the back of the classroom and conducted non-participant observation, in addition to joining pupils as an assistant during in-class group work and afterclass activities.

 

Non participant observation??? Yet she was also an assistant.  During in class and afterclass activities.  So what is non-participant about this.  She was active and inactive at the same time?  Not clearlt comprehensible. Please write the correct procedure followed. Was this non-participant?

 

In this regard, as stated in Basford, Butt, and Newton (2017), in the classroom, the lower qualification, the more cleaning duties (please correct the grammar in this sentence).

 

INSET day. (have this written out in full first before you add the acronym)

 

I notice that you do not write the year, this paper will be read many years after you have written it, so please add the year – look at this statement

After February (which year did you do this study), ten children went to reception and ten to a teaching assistant to go to the nursery to play outside.

 

Early intervention was a school aim, and, as research shows mentoring to be a key method of delivering informal learning (Eraut, 1994; 2000; 2004; 2007),, she mentored Alice as the school’s deputy SENCo. (Why are there two commas after the referencing)

 

Be consistent when writing main terminology use. Look at this sentence: The Tas were excellent in the toilet training and hygiene area. Earlier, you use TAs.  Further down the same paragraph, you make the same mistakes. Please correct.

 

In the appendix, you use 3^rd person pronouns, yet you neglect this in the description of one or two of the TAs in the appendix. Please use one or the other and be consistent.

PSEUDONYM: EMMY FUNCTION: SENCO Age: approx. 60 years old Two interviews (October 2010 and June 2011) PREVIOUS STUDIES I am a class teacher, and I did an Open University course because she felt she had to have more training, but that wasn’t compulsory when she started EXPERIENCE I have been taught in junior schools and with infants, so I had experience in all the pr…..

As mentioned in previous block.

Author Response

Following the comments of the Second reviewer, we have commented on and clarified each of the specific sections.

Firstly, we are thankful for the appreciation of considering that the study's aims have been considered innovative.

This is certainly novel.

“a one-year ethnographic study which addressed the in-service learning experiences of seven teaching staff members that work inclusively.”

 

How can this be: 2 sessions with different children, and yet they worked together during the same periods. The periods are different. Please clarify or write this differently as it seems a bit confusing.

Thanks for the comments, certainly it seems pretty confusing. There were two groups in each time slot; therefore, there were four groups observed, with 92 children included in total.  I have tried to describe it, in a different way.

Staff worked one session from 8:30 am until 12:00 pm and a second session from 12:00 pm until 3:00 pm. The children participated in many activities together during those same periods.

 Thanks for pointing out the lack of clarification. We have tried to explain the sessions as time slots.

During the teaching sessions, the first author sat at the back of the classroom and conducted non-participant observation, in addition to joining pupils as an assistant during in-class group work and afterclass activities.Non participant observation??? Yet she was also an assistant.  During in class and afterclass activities.  So what is non-participant about this.  She was active and inactive at the same time?  Not clearlt comprehensible. Please write the correct procedure followed. Was this non-participant?

 We agree with the reviewer and the information has been modified. I have explained the role I had as teaching assistant in which I was assisting the staff, in that way I had the opportunity to observe and take notes when others were teaching and register the collaboration using the observation techniques.  

In this regard, as stated in Basford, Butt, and Newton (2017), in the classroom, the lower qualification, the more cleaning duties (please correct the grammar in this sentence).

We agree with the reviewer comment, and we have modified the sentence as “As stated by Basford, Butt, and Newton (2017), in the classroom, the lower the qualification the staff has, the higher the chance of being delegated cleaning duties.”

 

INSET day. (have this written out in full first before you add the acronym)

 Yes, this is written in the page number five in which we have specified the following: school INSET (in-service education and training) days

I notice that you do not write the year, this paper will be read many years after you have written it, so please add the year – look at this statement

Of course we agree that writing the year is an essential information and we have included the period that was from 2018 until 2019.

After February (which year did you do this study), ten children went to reception and ten to a teaching assistant to go to the nursery to play outside.

 We are sorry as we also feel that some of the information was missing. The new sentence is the following” After February, ten children went to reception, and few weeks before as part of the transition plan, they were playing with the next year teaching assistant during the break times.”

Early intervention was a school aim, and, as research shows mentoring to be a key method of delivering informal learning (Eraut, 1994; 2000; 2004; 2007),, she mentored Alice as the school’s deputy SENCo. (Why are there two commas after the referencing) We have deleted the commas, sorry for the mistake.

 

Be consistent when writing the main terminology used. Look at this sentence: The Tas were excellent in the toilet training and hygiene area. Earlier, you use TAs.  Further down the same paragraph, you make the same mistakes. Please correct. We agree with the reviewer, and we have changed the Tas for the TAs.

 

In the appendix, you use 3^rd person pronouns, yet you neglect this in the description of one or two of the TAs in the appendix. Please use one or the other and be consistent.

PSEUDONYM: EMMY FUNCTION: SENCO Age: approx. 60 years old Two interviews (October 2010 and June 2011) PREVIOUS STUDIES I am a class teacher, and I did an Open University course because she felt she had to have more training, but that wasn’t compulsory when she started EXPERIENCE I have been taught in junior schools and with infants, so I had experience in all the pr…..

We really appreciate you comment, as well as have modified the third person in the presentation of their profile, we have changed the proper dates. Sorry for that mistake and we have modified the dates in the entire document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I have noted some minor issues that needs addressing, please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Third reviewer.

We have gone through the document, and we have considered all the comments and the highlighted observations.  

First of all, we have deleted the extra words highlighted in the abstract. We appreciate that the third reviewer noticed that some of the letters & have to be changed for “and”. We have revised the entire article, and they have been modified.  We also agree with the reviewer and have revised that all two or more references under brackets are in alphabetical order. We have changed the intext references with page numbers. Following the indications, we have started a new paragraph in the sentence starting with “In the nursery classroom from this study”. We have changed the SENCO for the SENCo. We agree with the reviewer, and we have included the missing verb in the sentence “at the same time, the opportunities …”. The term staff is in plural form.  We have changed the TAS for the TAs. We have changed the titles that you have pointed out in italics.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract does not clearly link external demands and high stress levels with continuous professional learning, so the study seems slightly disjointed upon reading the abstract. The paper does not seem to be written by someone who speaks English as a first language. I highly recommend having a Native English speaker read over the paper so the writing can be made more fluid and easier to comprehend. Eraut's professional knowledge is mentioned as a conceptual framework. It seems important that you define this. In the methodology section, it would be helpful to explain which artifacts were collected and analysed. In the results section, it is not always clear how the results relate to the research question, sometimes they just seem like a description of working conditions in the centre. It would also be helpful to explain the different courses for international readers. What is Makaton? What type of religion classes? The comment about cheap labour on page 7 is unclear. Please explain. The results could also be better organized, with a clear explanation of what you hope readers learn from the study. Also, you say it you used interpretative phenomenological analysis, but this does not come through when reading the results section. The results are very descriptive and seem disorganized. I get a sense of what happens in the centre but cannot follow what was analysed or what the research is about. Is it about general functioning of the nursery? professional learning? inclusion of children with SEN? Please move the explanation of  INSET days (page 8) to the first time you mention them, for an international audience. The results and conclusions sections need to be rewritten completely, and better structured so we understand what was analysed, what the results are, and what this study contributes to the literature. Limitations and implications in the conclusion would also be helpful. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer following the instructions above I and going to write down the specific action we have done. First of all, we would like to share our appreciation for the time and effort took to review our article; following the instructions, we have included one of the responses under the comments. Our mother tongue is Spanish, and we have re-elaborated the document. We have worked with a professional proofreader who has worked hard to solve all the issues and comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need further clarification.

1. The abstract does not clearly link external demands and high-stress levels with continuous professional learning, so the study seems slightly disjointed upon reading the abstract. We agree with the reviewer and we have specifically pointed out the main goal of the article which was to portray innovative actions that haven't been explored before. We have deleted the section that was not clearly explained.
2. The paper does not seem to be written by someone who speaks English as a first language. I highly recommend having a Native English speaker read over the paper so the writing can be made more fluid and easier to comprehend. We have paid for a native English speaker native translator and the document with the certification is attached to this message.
3. Eraut's professional knowledge is mentioned as a conceptual framework. It seems important that you define this. We agree with the reviewer, and we have added the definition and we have included further explanation related to the concept.
4. In the methodology section, it would be helpful to explain which artifacts were collected and analysed. Thanks for the clarification, and we agree with it. We have added further explanations regarding the artefacts.
5. In the results section, it is not always clear how the results relate to the research question, sometimes, they just seem like a description of working conditions in the centre. We agree with the reviewer, and we have included an introduction in which each section of the themes has been explained. Furthermore, we have included further information in the introduction per the theme.
6. It would also be helpful to explain the different courses for international readers. What is Makaton? What type of religion classes? The information has been added, and both of the terms have been described.
7. The comment about cheap labour on page 7 is unclear. Please explain. Thanks for the request and the information has been clarified.
8. The results could also be better organized, with a clear explanation of what you hope readers learn from the study. We agree with your comment and we have changed the sentences in the result section and we have reorganised the content.
9. Also, you say it you used interpretative phenomenological analysis, but this does not come through when reading the results section. The results are very descriptive and seem disorganized. I get a sense of what happens in the centre but cannot follow what was analysed or what the research is about. Is it about general functioning of the nursery? professional learning? inclusion of children with SEN? WE agree with the specific comments and we have introduced further explanation in the conclusion in which the specific explanation from the research participants has been further highlighted. 
10. Please move the explanation of  INSET days (page 8) to the first time you mention them, for an international audience. Yes, we agree with the reviewer and we have moved the specific section to the one in which the topic was explained.
11. The results and conclusions sections need to be rewritten completely, and better structured so we understand what was analysed, what the results are, and what this study contributes to the literature. Limitations and implications in the section of the conclusion would also be helpful.  we have included further explanations in the conclusions and we have pointed out how innovative the research is and in which way this research will add to the existing knowledge. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found that whilst the title of the paper points to  professional learning in a culture of learning” regarding inclusion, there is little discussion and analysis of the way the culture of learning has supported inclusive practice, understanding of inclusion and children feeling included. I felt this needed to be a more central component of the paper. Whilst there was a large discussion regarding the types, benefits and challenges to professional learning, these were not linked to inclusion.

I also found there to be many editing errors which meant that the paper lost cohesion and was at times difficult to read. 

There needed to be a more explicit question driving the paper and the discussion and conclusion more explicitly aligned to this as the paper as written does not make a significant contribution in relation to a culture of learning regarding inclusion in a nursery school setting.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

First of all, we would like to share our appreciation for the time and effort took to review our article; following the instructions, we have included one of the responses under the comments. Our mother tongue is Spanish, and we have re-elaborated the document. We have worked with a professional proofreader who has worked hard to solve all the issues and comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need further clarification. 

 

1. I found that whilst the title of the paper points to professional learning in a culture of learning” regarding inclusion, there is little discussion and analysis of how the culture of learning has supported inclusive practice, understanding of inclusion and children feeling included. I felt this needed to be a more central component of the paper. There was an extensive discussion regarding the types, benefits and challenges of professional learning, but these were not linked to inclusion. We agree with the reviewer that we had to add further information explaining how innovatively the article is. The theoretical framework has been further extended, and the definitions have been included. The themes have been presented, and a specific discussion has been included relating to the culture of learning and inclusive practices.  The Eraut theoretical approach has also been included. 
2. I also found there to be many editing errors which meant that the paper lost cohesion and was, at times, difficult to read. A professional English native translator has revised the document; please look at the attachment. 
3. There needed to be a more straightforward question driving the paper and the discussion and conclusion more explicitly aligned to this as the paper, as written, does not make a significant contribution concerning a culture of learning regarding inclusion in a nursery school setting. We agree with the reviewer, and we have specified the themes. The themes have been explained in several sections of the document, from the abstract, introduction, data discussion, and conclusion. We have justified explicitly in the introduction that there is a lack of professionals in EYFS settings that believe that they work in an inclusive setting; specifically and innovatively, this is the case accepted purposefully by the respondent that inclusion was the framework in which they were working based on inclusive education. In this case, the introduction is justified why this article is innovative. The definition has been further included and clarified in the introduction, and the way and terms they work are detailed explicitly in the appendix section, the policies and the specific EYFS framework. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Whilst there has been an attempt to conceptualise the professional learning more cohesively to relate to inclusion and inclusive practices I feel this still needs to be more explicitly stated. To what extend did the PL support the educators to be more comfortable in working with children with additional needs and to view inclusion as a right for all children. 

.The opening sentences are grammatically incorrect and need work. Additionally, the abstracts states that less that 20% of educators  agree with inclusion whilst the body states that 20% feel unprepared to work with children with disabilities. These two statements are not the same. Further edits are needed throughout.