Development of Transdisciplinary and Complex Learning in Inclusive Educational Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

p. 1 Ln 40: May I suggest combining two phrases into one: “… addresses the challenging necessity of …”

p. 1 Ln 41-42: It is not clear who “their” refers to – “… training future teachers to deliver high-quality education that meets the needs and demands of their professional and social development in the 21st century” (how does the education they are learning to deliver to elementary students meet the needs of their own professional or social development?)

p. 2 Ln 49: May I suggest that instead of “…to be considered meaningful, importance should be 49 placed on practical experience” the authors rephrase to something like: “…to be considered meaningful, practical experience should be emphasized”.

p. 3 Ln 84: I suggest rewording the following sentence: “With regard to complex learning, it includes problem-solving and understanding difficult situations, in which students must use their knowledge and skills from various areas to tackle interdisciplinary challenges” Instead, drop the “with regard to” phrase to say something like: “Complex learning includes problem-solving…”

p. 3 Ln 106: “The social construction of knowledge [16,17], emphasizes the importance of placing …” – there should not be a comma after the parenthetical information.

p. 3 Ln 118: “It is worth noting, that out of the 39 students in the group, the majority were women (79.5%).” The comma is misplaced. It should be “…worth noting that, out of the 39 students in the group, the majority were women.” (you can omit the phase between commas and still have the sentence make sense: “It is worth noting that the majority were women.”) You could also simply reword this sentence: “It is worth noting the majority of the 39 students in the group were women.”

p. 3 Ln 127: An apostrophe is better: “The school goal is to prepare students…” should be “The school’s goal was to …”

p. 5 Ln 206: Fix wording: “To This research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee …” – delete To and just start with “This research …"

p. 6 Ln 251-252: “How did you learn with this activity? What contributions has it made to your learning process?” – I am not sure what “How did you learn with this activity is asking. Is this asking students to articulate which tasks/aspects of the task helped promote their learning? I also wasn’t sure what “it” referred to (What contributions has it made to your learning process… is this referring to the activity? If so, maybe this question fits better with the previous question asking students to articulate WHAT they learned from the activity.)

p. 6 Ln. 267: Fix error: “… improve this activity for the next courses?” should be “…improve this activity for future courses” or “for the next course”

p. 6 Ln. 283: “…using a collective case study design, which is appropriate to focus on the subject of study and our research objectives…” I’m not sure I understand this sentence, but I think it should be written something like the following: “…using a collective case study design, which is appropriate for the focus of our study and our research objectives…”

p. 6 Ln. 290: “Later, a temporary triangulation of the data was conducted, classifying, and coding the information in …” This should be: “Later, triangulation of the data was conducted, during which the information was classified and coded in order to find …”

p. 7 Ln 309-317:  Authors restated what transdisciplinary instruction is supposed to achieve – I suggest that, rather than just reiterating what *should happen, it would be more interesting to tell us what *did happen. I found the discussion of findings cumbersome because the quantitative data were presented first, followed by the qualitative data, which was about the same dimensions as the quantitative data. It might flow better if you presented a point you want to make about the quantitative data and then elaborate/support it with what you took from the qualitative statements made by participants. To be honest, it doesn’t seem like the quantitative data was very interesting or compelling.  Your discussion of the qualitative data was much more compelling, as we could see how students discussed what they thought or had learned in each dimension.

p. 9 – bottom half: Some of the statements were not very interesting/revealing, and the gist of what students said about how positive the experience was could just be summarized. This would tighten up the discussion. 

The English was very good. I made a handful of suggestions to improve clarity and to correct grammatical errors. 

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER 1:

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Thank you for your contributions and for taking the time to review our article titled “Development of Transdisciplinary and Complex Learning in Inclusive Educational Practices” (Manuscript ID: education - 2761494).

All suggestions and proposals from your review have been accepted and modified.

Regarding the grammatical issues indicated on the pages and lines, it is reported that these contributions have been accepted and included.

On p.1 Ln 40, it is resolved by adapting the text according to the indicated suggestion: “that addresses the challenging need  to train future teachers”.

The suggestion for textual modification of p. 1 Ln 41-42 changing it to: “With this in mind, one of the main purposes of this study was to identify an educational practice that addresses the challenging need to train future teachers to deliver education in context, and that develops the professional and social demands of the 21st century”

The proposal to change p. 2 Ln 49 has been modified, including the following wording: The proposal to change p. 2 Ln 49; has been modified including the following wording: “Furthermore, for learning to be considered meaningful, practical experience should be emphasized”.

In p. 3 Ln 84, the following text has been incorporated: “Complex learning includes problem-solving and understanding difficult situations”.

Likewise, the comma has been deleted in the suggestion on p. 3 Ln 106.

Concerning the proposal to reformulate the phrase: p. 3 Ln 118, the following wording has been incorporated: “It is worth noting the majority of the 39 students in the group were women (79.5%)”.

Regarding the indication of grammatical change proposed on p. 3 Ln 127, it has been modified by: “The school’s goal was to actively engage in society”.

Given the proposed correction, p. 5 Ln 206 has been replaced by the text: This research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC - 2637453) of the University of Valencia.

Regarding the suggestion in the questions asked in the study and its wording: p. 6 Ln 251-252: we have considered that they are not susceptible to change because they are the questions asked to the students, and it would modify the sincerity of the content of the study, but we consider their contribution for future research.

The suggestion to change the wording p. 6 Ln. 267, has been replaced by: “What do you suggest to the teachers to improve this activity for the next course?”.

The proposed wording of the phrase p. 6 Ln. 283, has been changed to the following text: “using a collective case study design, which is appropriate for the focus of our study and our research objectives”.

Regarding the suggested change p. 6 Ln. 290: has been modified by: “Later, triangulation of the data was conducted, during which the information was classified and coded in order to find arguments”.

On p. 7 Ln 309-317: Authors restated what transdisciplinary instruction is supposed to achieve – I suggest that, rather than just reiterating what *should happen, it would be more interesting to tell us what *did happen. I found the discussion of findings cumbersome because the quantitative data were presented first, followed by the qualitative data, which was about the same dimensions as the quantitative data. It might flow better if you presented a point you want to make about the quantitative data and then elaborate/support it with what you took from the qualitative statements made by participants. To be honest, it doesn’t seem like the quantitative data was very interesting or compelling.  Your discussion of the qualitative data was much more compelling, as we could see how students discussed what they thought or had learned in each dimension.

The proposed summary of the responses in the lower half of dimension 3 p. 9: Statements about how positive the experience was have been cut.

We want to clarify that we have addressed your concerns regarding the presentation of quantitative data. In both the first and second parts of the quantitative results, we have elaborated on the findings and their implications. Additionally, in the discussion and conclusions section, we have thoroughly discussed and explained the quantitative results in relation to the qualitative findings. It's important to note that the quantitative results complement and provide nuanced insights to the qualitative data, as the focus group discussions were central to our field research. Therefore, the quantity of quantitative results is naturally lesser. We have made sure to highlight the interplay between both types of data to provide a comprehensive understanding of the study outcomes.

All authors have read and approved the changes made to the manuscript. We hope that the revised paper is now suitable for inclusion in the Education Sciences journal and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

The authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It introduces an important lens to the subject of inclusive education—transdisciplinarity. You may need to rework the methodology and results sections to improve clarity and overall coherence. Consider showing how the mixed-method approach helps in arriving at the conclusions you make; it was not very clear to me. Also, consider separating the discussion section from the conclusion. Please see the attachment for additional comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of English language seems acceptable. 

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER 2:

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Thank you for your contributions and for taking the time to review our article titled “Development of Transdisciplinary and Complex Learning in Inclusive Educational Practices” (Manuscript ID: education - 2761494).

All suggestions and proposals from your review have been accepted and modified.

• Comment: Add space between the two words.
  Response: We have incorporated the suggested change, adding a space between the two words in line 80.
• Comment: Please consider saying what you mean by SEN, and why is it important to focus on, in this study. You hardly talk about it. You mention '...full engagement of every student, regardless of capabilities..." in the previous paragraph, but I believe a direct discussion on/mention of SEN would further help usher us smoothly into the objectives of the study.
  Response: We have revised the text to address SEN more directly, emphasizing its importance in fostering inclusivity and catering to the diverse needs of students. We believe this enhancement better aligns with the study's focus on ensuring the full engagement of every student, irrespective of their capabilities.
• Comment: Please consider stating, in advance, the research design that you used and the philosophy behind it. This will assist in understanding your methodological choices below.
  Response: We have restructured the manuscript to provide a clear and upfront explanation of the research design and the underlying philosophy guiding our methodological choices. We placed the design subsection at the beginning of the “Materials and Methods” section.
• Comment: How many groups were there? Consider introducing them, before going into details about each group.
  Response: starting from line 139, we have explicitly mentioned the existence of two distinct groups in our study. The first group comprises 39 university students undergoing training to become primary school teachers. The second group consists of 4 experienced teachers working with children with SEN. The initial group creates a didactic resource (social stories) designed to aid the teachers in their practices, while the latter group provides valuable feedback to the students regarding the efficacy of this resource.
• Comment: This is not clear. Please clarify what you mean. When did these groups submit the story...?
  Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript, and upon reassessment, it appears there was an error in the formulation. The mentioned sentence has been removed to avoid any confusion. To provide clarity, all students submitted their didactic resource (the social stories) to the teachers for evaluation.
• Comment: Consider providing examples of the developed social stories.
  Response: An example has been provided in line 193.
• Comment: How many groups were there? Consider introducing them, before going into details about each group.
  Response: We enhanced the context section by defining and describing this category of students, along with their specific educational needs. This addition will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the study's context (line 162 onwards).
• Comment: Some background of ASD is necessary. Please consider defining/describing this category of students and their educational needs in the introduction or context section.
  Response: We defined and linked the concept with our study in line 162 onwards.
• Comment: Please provide examples of this.
  Response: An example has been provided in line 193.
• Comment: Meaning of source not clear here.
  Response: We meant “font” instead. The change is made in line 212.
• Comment: Delete 'To' at the beginning?
  Response: Yes, it is deleted in line 237.
• Comment: Consider giving the approval number.
  Response: The approval number is added in line 237.
• Comment: Not clear to me what this is referring to. Please consider using another description/clarifying.
  Response: The clarification is added in lines 239, 240, and 241.
• Comment: Rephrase to enhance clarity.
  Response: The clarification is added in lines 239, 240, and 241.
• Comment: Consider giving a hyperlink to this.
  Response: The hyperlink is added.
• Comment: Consider moving this to where you talked about groups above (line 140).
  Response: Participants are described in line 140 onwards.
• Comment: This should have come earlier. Generally, there is need to present the methodology section more logically. As it stands, it seems to go back and forth, sometimes being repetitive and even disjointed. Consider grouping similar ideas together, and choosing what to come before the other, in a logical, sequential way.
  Response: We separated the design from data analysis and it is at the beginning of the “Materials and Methods” section.
• Comment: Not clear what temporary means here.
  Response: The term "temporary" has been removed as it was an error.
• Comment: and used to collect data?
  Response: Yes, to collect data (clarification is made in lines 332 and 333).
• Comment: For which data? Consider saying what discourse analysis entails. How did you exactly go about the discourse analysis of the data? Who was/were involved? Etc.
  Response: The explanation of content analysis (it is not discourse analysis) is included in line 334 onwards.
• Comment: Why focus only on the most significant responses? Can't it be argued that you are 'cherry picking" evidence? What does the other data that you do not focus on us tell us? Could they be saying the opposite of what you are reporting here?
  Response: The decision to primarily report on the most significant responses stems from the lack of statistical significance in the remaining dimensions. While we acknowledge the importance of presenting a comprehensive picture, we have focused on the dimension that complements the qualitative analysis of Padlet responses most effectively. This choice aims to avoid “cherry-picking” evidence and is guided by the statistical relevance of the data. The non-significant dimensions do not provide meaningful insights and, therefore, have not been emphasized.
• Comment: Which are these? Consider stating them (again).
  Response: The four dimensions are already explained in the section “2.4. Procedure and data processing”, before the results. Thus, we indicated in line 345 that this comment refers to the four dimensions.
• Comment: How are you sure of this strong causal relation? You may consider being more nuanced in your assertions.
  Response: To address this, we modified the statement to be more nuanced, using "could be" to indicate potential outcomes rather than making definitive claims (line 348 onwards).
• Comment: What statistical tests enabled you to reach these conclusions?  If these are your own efforts at meaning making, please move such arguments to the discussion section of the article.
  Response: The analysis presented in this part of the Results section primarily consists of descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, along with paired-samples t-tests (T-tests) to compare pretest and posttest scores. These statistical measures were employed to assess the significance of observed changes in the dimensions under consideration. We placed the arguments into the discussion section of the article.
• Comment: I find this hard to follow. You could consider using an infographic, table, graph, etc. to make it easier for the reader to refer to when presenting such findings. 
  Response: While we appreciate the value of visual aids such as tables or graphs for presenting complex findings, in this instance, we opted not to include such visual representations due to the limited scope of the presented results. The passage you mentioned represents a single significant finding within the broader context of the study's outcomes. 

Allow us to explain again the result and the statistical analysis conducted. The paragraph indicates that in Dimension 2, a significant improvement was observed, particularly among the group of teachers, from the pretest phase (M = 5.65, SD = 1.34) to the posttest phase (M = 6.45, SD = 0.64), with a t-value of 2.95 and a p-value of .002. This implies that there was a notable enhancement in this dimension's scores following the implementation of the proposed activity. The statistical analysis employed here is a paired-samples t-test, which compares the means of two related groups to assess if there is a significant difference between them.

• Comment: Say what this is about.
  Response: The clarification is in line 352.
• Comment: This seems to be "what you think" is the implication of the finding. Such arguments could be made in the discussion section. Here, consider letting the data speak for itself.
  Response: The arguments were moved to the line 522 onwards.
• Comment: Show the results related to this analysis.
  Response: We have conducted a frequency analysis using SPSS to explore the perceptions of participants regarding reflection and commitment in teacher training. Here are the summarized results (line 359 onwards):

Regarding the term "commitment":

45% of students listed cooperation as related to commitment.

35% of students mentioned collaboration as associated with commitment.

15% of students expressed the view that commitment is voluntary.

5% of students indicated that commitment is mandatory.

These findings suggest a notable consensus among participants regarding the association of commitment with key aspects of teacher training, particularly cooperation and collaboration. However, there were also varying perspectives, with some participants emphasizing the voluntary nature of commitment while others emphasized its mandatory aspect.

• Comment: Generally, I believe a substantial re-working of how you present your results is necessary.
  Response: We have taken your suggestions and have restructured the presentation of our quantitative results accordingly. Each result has been explained in more detail, taking into account the suggestions you provided. We believe these changes will enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of our findings.
• Comment: Check whether you mean quantitative, or qualitative data. Below, what you present is qualitative data.
  Response: The clarification is included in line 368.
• Comment: Comment: How did you decide what was relevant? What criteria did you use? I am afraid, but there seems to be insufficient transparency in how you arrived at your results. This raises substantial questions about the rigor of your paper.
  Response: The selection of relevant data was guided by a systematic approach based on content analysis. This method allowed us to identify and prioritize the most significant and relevant responses from the focus group discussions. Specifically, we analyzed the content of the discussions to identify recurring themes, key insights, and unique perspectives shared by the participants. We then used these criteria to determine which data points were most pertinent to our research objectives and most representative of the overall themes and dimensions discussed. To provide transparency regarding our selection process, we focused on data that aligned closely with the central themes and objectives of our study. We prioritized responses that provided valuable insights into the perceptions, experiences, and attitudes of the participants regarding the topic under investigation (line 369 onwards).
• Comment: Most of the points seem to come from the qualitative data. Consider including insights from the quantitative data. And consider finding ways of making what you learned from the quantitative results speak to what you learned in the qualitative data.
  Response: In the discussion section, we have thoroughly examined the implications of both the qualitative and quantitative findings. We have drawn connections between the two sets of data at the beginning of this section, highlighting how they complement each other and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic. By integrating insights from both qualitative and quantitative data, we aim to offer a robust analysis that enriches the overall discussion.
• Comment: Consider using more sensitive vocabulary throughout.
  Response: We will replace the term "disorders" with more sensitive vocabulary throughout the manuscript in line 567. We understand the importance of using respectful and inclusive language when discussing sensitive topics, and we will ensure that our terminology reflects this consideration.
• Comment: Consider stating the limitations of the study, and potential avenues of future research.
  Response: We have already included the limitations of the study, potential avenues for future research, and practical implications at the end of the last section. This allows us to provide a comprehensive overview of the study's scope and acknowledge areas for improvement and further exploration (line 597 onwards).
• Comment: You may have to translate into English the non-English language references in this list e.g. 1, 2, 3, 5, etc/or get their English equivalent.
  Response: We have chosen to keep the references in Spanish as the consulted documents are in that language and do not have an English translation available. We believe this ensures accuracy and fidelity to the original content of the cited sources.

All authors have read and approved the changes made to the manuscript. We hope that the revised paper is now suitable for inclusion in the Education Sciences journal and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

The authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript addresses important issues in teacher education and more specifically preparing teachers to work with special needs students (an area that suffers from teacher shortages in various parts of the world). 

There are only minor edits needed, though. Example: the first part of the first sentence under 'Procedure and data processing' perhaps require the deletion of the first word (To). 

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER 3:

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Thank you for your contributions and for taking the time to review our article titled “Development of Transdisciplinary and Complex Learning in Inclusive Educational Practices” (Manuscript ID: education - 2761494).

All suggestions and proposals from your review have been accepted and modified.

Thank you for your contributions and evaluation.

The suggested correction has been made to the word indicated on p. 5, L 233, in the section “Procedure and data processing” deleting the first word “To”.

All authors have read and approved the changes made to the manuscript. We hope that the revised paper is now suitable for inclusion in the Education Sciences journal and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

The authors.