Review Reports - Inclusive Professional Learning Communities and Special Education Collaboration: A Qualitative Case Study in Texas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the chance to read this very interesting article, which focused on the perceptions of mainstream and special education teachers in Professional Learning Communities (PLC). Taking into account the opinions of both groups of professionals that collaborate through joint participation in a PLC is very significant because of their high impact on the learning procedure of all students, with and without disabilities.
The topic is obviously relevant to the scopes of the journal. Besides, it is one of the very few studies shed light on this topic, since most studies pertained to general education teachers. Additionally, the researchers approached the topic through an appropriate methodological procedure. They performed a qualitative case study research design and approach and covered several parameters. More specifically, they studied the following six characteristics: (a) shared mission, 184 vision, values, and goals; (b) collective inquiry; (c) collaborative teams; (d) action orientation; (e) commitment to continuous improvement; and (f) results orientation. In my point of view, the methodological approach is satisfactory because the researchers decided to implement a case study. However, a broader study in a wider population would lead to safer conclusions. The discussion as well as the conclusions were developed properly. The arguments explain well all the findings and add useful knowledge to the existing literature. Finally, the references, the Table and the Figure are appropriate.
For all the aforementioned reasons, I believe that this paper should be published as it is. Congratulations to the author/researchers!

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article attempts to gather the perspectives of both general and special education teachers as members of PLCs. The semi-structured interviews captured the experiences and views of these teachers during their weekly PLC meetings.

However, in spite of bringing insights from the teachers interactions in PLCs run at all schooling levels, the 12 teachers interviewed seem to have a rather limited view about PLC interaction for students' progress.

To better understand your context, please explain how the PLCs are set up and function in your context (i.e, are they formally set up, do they follow some aims, are they moderated, and so on).

The data gathered from the interviews, in spite of being quite detailed, was not convincing for me regarding the proper understanding of PLCs work and meaning. The PLCs meant for the student progress suppose to agree on a certain action plan, with milestones and monitoring, with evaluation activities of the student progress, and discussions about their progress based on the agreed interventions and so on.
The data from the interviews reflect that general teachers learn from the tips provided by special education teachers on how to support students with special educational needs (SEN). What about the whole classroom and a better understanding of the special education teacher of the national curriculum, as mentioned in the theoretical ground?

Did you use software for qualitative data analysis?

Thank you for providing the interview grid. I could not identify in the findings section suggestions of teachers on how to improve the PLCs.

I didn't understand the information from L 818-830 in the discussion part, as it was unrelated to the data gathered.
Please, while revising, also pay attention to the technical aspects. For example, the references do not include Cornelius & Gustafson, 2020.

While the paper brings useful insights regarding the needed cooperation between general and special education teachers, the data could benefit from a better synthesis and structuring of the important messages, without so many details, but with more analytical power and grouping in categories.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and relevant. However, all the improvements submitted in the attached document must be followed up before it can be considered for approval.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions, which add to the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

However, I did not understand very well in which way the recommendations formulated at L913-916 are based on your findings and related to them.

Congratulation to your detailed work!

Author Response

R2: Thank you for your revisions, which add to the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

R2: However, I did not understand very well in which way the recommendations formulated at L913-916 are based on your findings and related to them.

We would also like to thank the second reviewer for their positive feedback and suggestion.

This information was added because another reviewer suggested using socioformation. Based on your comment, however, we decided to remove this information from our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Inclusive Professional Learning Communities and Special Education Collaboration: A Qualitative Case Study in Texas

Recommendations for Improving the Manuscript:

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the updated version of your manuscript and your responses to the previous comments. Below, I offer a series of constructive suggestions aimed at strengthening the manuscript so that it achieves the analytical and theoretical depth expected of a high-impact publication.

1. Strengthening the Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The main area for improvement is the robustness of the theoretical foundation. While the study effectively presents the teachers' perceptions, it remains at a descriptive level. A qualitative study should aim for a deeper understanding of the phenomena by exploring underlying meanings and generating new interpretations that enrich the field.
Development of the "Conceptual Framework": The conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 is based on the PLC characteristics from DuFour et al. (2008) . However, this framework functions more as an operational model than as a theoretical basis for analysis. It is not developed theoretically throughout the manuscript, nor is it used to critically interpret the findings in the discussion section.
Incorporation of a Robust Theoretical Perspective: I understand that socioformation was not used as a foundational framework in the study. However, it is suggested to mention it because, within the context of the results, it is the theory that could best help overcome the study's current descriptive approach and move it toward a more critical, interpretive, and explanatory perspective, which is expected of a qualitative study in a high-impact journal. There is no explanation for why sustainable social development is not considered, given that any inclusion process is precisely aimed at achieving sustainable social development.
Recent and Relevant Citations: To substantiate this new theoretical approach, it is essential to include references to recent articles (2024-2025) indexed in Scopus that address the relationship between inclusion, teacher collaboration, and sustainable social development (approached from the perspective of socioformation, which is an innovative framework ideal for this study).

2. Improving the Analysis and Interpretation of Results

The findings section is well-organized around the emergent themes. However, the analysis could be deeper if it were explicitly connected to a more robust theoretical framework as suggested.

Critical and Explanatory Analysis: Instead of merely describing the teachers' roles and teamwork, the analysis could explore how these dynamics contribute (or fail to contribute) to a model of sustainable social development within the school. For example, in what ways does the collaboration between general and special education teachers transcend mere procedural articulation to transform the school culture into one that is more inclusive and sustainable?

3. Expanding the Discussion and Implications

The discussion section would benefit greatly from a stronger connection to the proposed theoretical framework and a broader reflection on the study's implications.
Theoretical and Practical Implications: It is suggested that the study's implications be improved and expanded by considering not only socioformation but also sustainable social development. This would provide a more original and significant contribution to the field. To do this, recent Scopus articles must be cited, which are currently lacking.
Dialogue with Current Literature: It is crucial that recent Scopus articles are cited in this section to place your findings in dialogue with the latest research. You cannot simply mention socioformation; you must cite Scopus articles that support this.

4. Formal and Citation Aspects

To meet the journal's standards, it is necessary to address the following points:

In the discussion section, under the study's Implications, the concept of socioformation is integrated, but citations from Scopus articles are missing to support this concept.
Citation Style: It is key to use numbered citations throughout the article and not follow APA 7 style, but rather the journal's guidelines.
Incomplete References: The complete references for entries listed as "Author" must be provided, as the article is not undergoing a double-blind review and reviewers can see the authors' names.
Updating and Quality of References: The references should be updated so that the majority are from the last two years and all are from Scopus or JCR.

Author Response

R3:

1. Strengthening the Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

a. The main area for improvement is the robustness of the theoretical foundation. While the study effectively presents the teachers' perceptions, it remains at a descriptive level. A qualitative study should aim for a deeper understanding of the phenomena by exploring underlying meanings and generating new interpretations that enrich the field.

b. Development of the "Conceptual Framework": The conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 is based on the PLC characteristics from DuFour et al. (2008). However, this framework functions more as an operational model than as a theoretical basis for analysis. It is not developed theoretically throughout the manuscript, nor is it used to critically interpret the findings in the discussion section.

c. Incorporation of a Robust Theoretical Perspective: I understand that socioformation was not used as a foundational framework in the study. However, it is suggested to mention it because, within the context of the results, it is the theory that could best help overcome the study's current descriptive approach and move it toward a more critical, interpretive, and explanatory perspective, which is expected of a qualitative study in a high-impact journal. There is no explanation for why sustainable social development is not considered, given that any inclusion process is precisely aimed at achieving sustainable social development.

d. Recent and Relevant Citations: To substantiate this new theoretical approach, it is essential to include references to recent articles (2024-2025) indexed in Scopus that address the relationship between inclusion, teacher collaboration, and sustainable social development (approached from the perspective of socioformation, which is an innovative framework ideal for this study).

2. Improving the Analysis and Interpretation of Results

a. The findings section is well-organized around the emergent themes. However, the analysis could be deeper if it were explicitly connected to a more robust theoretical framework as suggested.

b. Critical and Explanatory Analysis: Instead of merely describing the teachers' roles and teamwork, the analysis could explore how these dynamics contribute (or fail to contribute) to a model of sustainable social development within the school. For example, in what ways does the collaboration between general and special education teachers transcend mere procedural articulation to transform the school culture into one that is more inclusive and sustainable?

3. Expanding the Discussion and Implications

a. The discussion section would benefit greatly from a stronger connection to the proposed theoretical framework and a broader reflection on the study's implications.

b. Theoretical and Practical Implications: It is suggested that the study's implications be improved and expanded by considering not only socioformation but also sustainable social development. This would provide a more original and significant contribution to the field. To do this, recent Scopus articles must be cited, which are currently lacking.

c. Dialogue with Current Literature: It is crucial that recent Scopus articles are cited in this section to place your findings in dialogue with the latest research. You cannot simply mention socioformation; you must cite Scopus articles that support this.

4. Formal and Citation Aspects

To meet the journal's standards, it is necessary to address the following points:

a. In the discussion section, under the study's Implications, the concept of socioformation is integrated, but citations from Scopus articles are missing to support this concept.

b. Citation Style: It is key to use numbered citations throughout the article and not follow APA 7 style, but rather the journal's guidelines.

c. Incomplete References: The complete references for entries listed as "Author" must be provided, as the article is not undergoing a double-blind review and reviewers can see the authors' names.

d. Updating and Quality of References: The references should be updated so that the majority are from the last two years and all are from Scopus or JCR.

1. We appreciate the feedback on the theoretical and conceptual framework. The framework employed was due to the district’s use of this PLC model. This study is a qualitative descriptive study and, based on our search of literature, represents one of the first studies investigating the collaboration of general & special education teachers in PLCs. Due to the discovery that this topic is an underexplored area with limited references, especially recent references, related to special education and general education teachers working together in PLC teams and the orientation to a practice-based research purpose, we sought to gain insight into the topic and to describe what was discovered. This approach allowed us to collect descriptive data and answer our research questions which were focused on understanding general & special education teachers’ perceptions of their experiences and processes involved in participating collaboratively in a PLC.

Regarding the framework being developed throughout the manuscript, we incorporate the application of the PLC characteristics within and throughout the findings and discussion sections. Please see highlights throughout these two sections.

As stated previously, this was a qualitative descriptive study, and our intent was not to move the study to a critical, interpretive, and explanatory perspective. We believe incorporating this perspective is beyond the scope and purpose of this study/article. To explain why sustainable social development was not considered was not a purpose of this study, as well.

We agree that future studies should move beyond the descriptive level; however, for our study, a description of the teachers’ perceptions of their experiences and insights into the benefits and areas for improvement provide the foundation that needs to be laid first as we and other researchers continue to explore this topic. Further, we agree and see the value in using socioformation as a future framework which is an innovative framework ideal for this study.

2a. We appreciate acknowledging the organization of our study. One of the reviewers mentioned deepening our analysis during the first round, which we did. That reviewer felt that our article was better prepared as evidenced by the second-round feedback, which only questioned the use of socioformation.

2b. This study purpose was to provide descriptive data and analysis (a qualitative descriptive study). In other words, our study is exploratory not explanatory in nature. We are thankful that reviewer 3 highlighted the point about an explanatory approach to our analysis and interpretation of the findings in our current study. Going forward, we will endeavor to conduct future studies based on reviewer 3’s feedback to move our work to the next level. Again, the recommendation to examine the findings as to how the dynamics might apply to a model of sustainable social development is beyond the scope and purpose of this study/manuscript.

3a. Please see comment 1, second paragraph.

3b and c. Several comments reference the use of Scopus in our study. While we did not check all journals, we checked the first three as noted below, all of which are in Scopus. Also, a spot check found the following journals are indeed referenced in Scopus as well:

- Journal of Educational Change

- Journal of Applied Social Science

- Journal of Special Education Leadership

- Educational Research Review

- Journal of Special Education Leadership

- Teaching and Teacher Education

3c. We agree and based on comments from another reviewer decided to remove socioformation from our current study.

4a. Please see comments under 3 above.

4b. We updated the references to follow the journal’s guidelines.

4c. The complete references were added.

4d. As noted previously, there is very limited studies on our topic, and the references are indeed the most recent we found.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the Article: "Inclusive Professional Learning Communities and Special Education Collaboration: A Qualitative Case Study in Texas"

General Evaluation:

While relevant revisions and improvements have been made, the manuscript still requires deep enhancements to meet the standards for qualitative research expected by a high-impact scientific journal like Education Sciences. The results and discussion remain heavily descriptive, which obscures their value. Qualitative research, above all, must be interpretive, critical, and explanatory, and it should guide educational transformations. A descriptive qualitative study, such as the one in its current version, does little to advance knowledge and fails to differentiate its methodology from quantitative studies. From the outset of the review process, I have emphasized this point. Although the authors have attempted to make improvements, the manuscript still lacks progress in providing explanations and proposing transformations.

The study is highly relevant but requires greater theoretical and analytical depth. The findings must be framed as interpretive, critical, and transformative processes. Furthermore, the discussion should focus on generating new explanations that strengthen theory in the field and propose transformations that go beyond current knowledge.

Below, I will once again outline the deep revisions that are required:

Abstract

Refocus on impact and contribution. The current abstract describes the study well but fails to "sell" its importance. To capture the attention of editors and readers in a high-impact journal, it must be more direct, focusing on the main finding and its implications for advancing theory and transforming education.

Introduction

Strengthen the knowledge gap. The introduction effectively establishes the context, noting that empirical research is limited. However, a qualitative study should not frame the problem merely as a lack of studies but as an essential gap in the existing knowledge within Scopus on this topic. This framing is necessary to position the work as a contribution to the advancement of theory.
Add the specific objectives at the end of the Introduction. This is crucial for assessing the extent to which they were achieved. I have been pointing this out since the first round of reviews.
Explicitly articulate the theoretical contribution. At the end of the introduction, explicitly state and number the article's contributions.

Conceptual Framework

Begin the Literature Review from the general to the specific. The current framework (Figure 1) is linear and descriptive. It is confined to reviewing the specific topics addressed in the study but fails to identify a foundational pedagogical theory to support the integration of the findings into a broader model that can guide educational transformations. This limitation prevents the analysis from reaching deep, critical interpretations, as it remains at the level of the study's specific categories.
Integrate a theory that guides profound transformations. The manuscript needs a theory that can guide deep transformations based on the descriptions and analyses, such as socioformation. From the beginning, we have suggested the pedagogical model of socioformation linked to sustainable social development. The team has not considered this, nor have they proposed an alternative of the same caliber—one that approaches the findings with an analytical, interpretive, and critical lens rather than merely describing events or phenomena, which is not the purpose of a qualitative study of this nature. We invite the authors to seek out current transdisciplinary pedagogical theories that address sustainable social development and can frame the study's findings. They should compare these with socioformation. If they find a theory that is superior to socioformation in terms of transdisciplinarity, timeliness, comprehensiveness, and alignment with future challenges, they should adopt it and present a detailed, in-depth comparative analysis, citing articles from Scopus, within this literature review section.

Methodology

Strengthen the justification for the case selection. The manuscript states that the district was chosen because it includes special education teachers in PLCs. However, it must be justified why this particular district (rural, fast-growing) serves as a revelatory case. Explain why the selection of a fast-growing rural district provides an interesting and relevant setting for advancing the educational theory of inclusion.
Explicitly address data triangulation (or its absence). The study relies solely on interviews (self-reported perceptions). This is a methodological limitation that must be acknowledged and more strongly justified. Justify the choice to use only interviews without data triangulation.

Findings

Move beyond description to in-depth interpretation and critical analysis. Interpret what the findings mean for generating educational transformations, using the interdisciplinary theory you are expected to integrate into the Conceptual Framework as a foundation. The analysis should also consider connections to sustainable social development.

EXAMPLE: The general education teacher's comment, where they value their special education colleague's knowledge, transcends mere recognition of expertise; it represents an act of collaborative metacognition, a cornerstone of socioformative theory. In that moment, the educator not only engages in 'epistemic decentering' but also actively initiates a micro-cycle of co-creating solutions to a complex contextual problem: the unachieved learning of one or more students. This process is the engine of sustainable social development at the classroom level, as it transforms a potential barrier to learning and participation into a tangible opportunity for inclusive pedagogical innovation. From this perspective, the interaction is not simply "collective inquiry" as a procedural step. Rather, it is the enactment of a shared professional ethical life project (a key concept in socioformation), where the commitment to the well-being and maximum achievement of all students drives educators to dissolve disciplinary boundaries. The collaboration becomes an exercise in complex thinking, where the didactic strategy is reconstructed through a synergy of knowledge (the content expertise of the general teacher and the expertise in diversified learning processes of the special education teacher). This synergy ensures that the designed solution is not only effective for an immediate academic outcome but is also equitable, relevant, and just—key principles of social sustainability in education. Thus, through a socioformative lens, the Professional Learning Community (PLC) ceases to be a space for simple coordination and evolves into an ecosystem focused on a real problem from the environment. In this ecosystem, the goal is to improve living conditions through socioformative actions and shared responsibility, which is, in essence, the foundation of a sustainable educational community.

Discussion

Engage in a critical dialogue with the literature, don't just confirm it. The discussion should be the strongest part of the article. Avoid simply stating that your findings "align with" or "support" previous studies. Instead, explain how your findings extend, complicate, or even challenge what is already known. Propose changes and transformations in teaching practices and school management based on the interdisciplinary pedagogical theory you add to the Theoretical Framework (such as socioformation or a comparable alternative). Cite articles that not only confirm your results but also add a critical perspective to your claims.
Propose advancements in scientific knowledge and the refinement of theory. Do not limit the discussion to merely substantiating what you found; that is not the purpose of a qualitative study. For example, critically evaluate the model by DuFour et al. and propose new developments from a socioformative perspective. Suggest integrating new elements, such as addressing real community problems and the ethical life project.
Formulate bolder and more specific implications. The practical implications are good but could be more forceful. They should be geared toward driving real and profound transformations, as proposed by the pedagogical model of socioformation.

The English is functional and clear, but it lacks the precision, conciseness, and academic sophistication that top-tier publications require. A review by a professional, native-speaking editor specializing in academic writing will be required.

All suggested improvements must be made for the manuscript to be considered for acceptance. I wish you success; this is a promising study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see cover letter for feedback. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf