Physical and Sensory Classroom Environment and Associations with Inclusive Education of Autistic Students in Chile: Construction, Validation and Results of a Teacher-Reported Scale

Review/suggestions

Responses

1. Classroom Size and Connectivity 103, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE AUTHORS ESTABLISH THE CONCEPT OF CONNECTIVITY, IF IT IS OF A SOCIAL NATURE OR REFERS TO THE INTERNET, PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT CONNECTIVITY REFERS TO.

Thank you for your comment. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the concept previously referred to as "connectivity." Based on your suggestion, we have replaced the term "connectivity" with "circulation" in the manuscript to reflect the intended meaning more accurately. In our study, circulation refers to the movement and flow of students and teachers within the classroom, as well as the facilitation of social interactions and engagement among participants, rather than internet or technological connectivity. This change has been reflected throughout the manuscript (see Table 1, Table 8, and Appendix A) to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity.

1. ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OR REACH THAT THE AUTHORS SUGGEST IS TO BE ABLE TO INCLUDE OR TARGET THE SCALE AT STUDENTS WITH ASD, HOWEVER, THROUGHOUT THE LITERATURE AND CITED BACKGROUND, IT SEEMS TO ONLY DISCUSS REGULAR POPULATION AND NOT VULNERABLE POPULATION, IN THIS CASE CHILDREN WITH ASD. REVIEW THE INSTRUMENT PROPOSAL OR ITS BACKGROUND

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. We acknowledge that existing scales largely focus on normo-typical populations and may not address key aspects relevant to neurodivergent students, such as the need for structured visual stimulation, sensory conditions (e.g., noise levels), spatial arrangements, movement opportunities, and other environmental adaptations. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly highlight these gaps in the existing literature and justify the rationale for students with ASD. Furthermore, we have included additional references that discuss the impact of physical and sensory classroom conditions on autistic students, reinforcing the importance of considering these factors in instrument development and administration.

AMONG THE STUDY LIMITATIONS IS THE SAMPLE, WHICH AS IT WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN A PROBABILISTIC (RANDOM) WAY, THE GENERALIZATION OF THE RESULTS IS LIMITED. SIMILARLY, STUDENTS OR SOME OTHER EDUCATIONAL AGENTS WHO COULD EXPAND THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE POPULATION TOWARD WHICH THE SCALE IS DIRECTED WERE NOT INCLUDED.

Thank you for your observation. We fully acknowledge that the study’s sample was not probabilistic (random), which limits the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, we recognize that including other educational agents, such as students themselves or additional school staff, could have increased the representativeness of the population for which the scale is intended.

It is important to note that the next study (Phase 3) will include a different scale that captures the perceptions of primary students, thereby expanding the perspective and representativeness of the population under study.

We have now included a clear statement of these limitations in the Discussion, highlighting the need for future studies with larger, more diverse, and representative samples.

THE AUTHORS CITE RELIABILITY INDICES BASED ON CORRELATION MATRICES AS IF THE DATA WERE INTERVAL, WHILE AN ORDINAL RELIABILITY BUILT ON POLYCHORIC CORRELATION MATRICES SHOULD BE REPORTED, FOR EXAMPLE.

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the estimation of reliability. We acknowledge that in the original manuscript, reliability indices were calculated based on correlation matrices assuming interval-level data. We recognize that for ordinal data, reliability should ideally be estimated using polychoric correlation matrices, as indicated in the references you provided (Ferrando et al., 2022; Baglin, 2014; Dominguez, 2014).

In response, we have re-analyzed the data using ordinal reliability estimates based on polychoric correlation matrices. As a result of this updated analysis, the factor structure of the scale has changed, with two additional factors emerging, increasing the total from 5 to 7 factors. The manuscript has been updated to report these revised reliability indices and the new factorial structure, and the Methods section now clarifies the rationale for using polychoric correlations for ordinal items. This ensures that the psychometric evaluation of the scale aligns with current methodological recommendations for ordinal data.

THERE ARE IMPRECISIONS AND ERRORS IN THE ANALYSES, MAINLY DUE TO THE TREATMENT OF INFORMATION THAT IS OF ORDINAL ORIGIN ON LIKERT SCALES, AND THAT THE ANALYSES PROPOSED BY THE AUTHORS TREAT THE DATA AS IF ITS LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT WERE INTERVAL. IN Table 3. Item Reliability Statistics, THE USE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ORDINAL LEVELS, IT IS SUGGESTED TO USE MORE ADEQUATE MEASURES SUCH AS MODE OR MEDIAN; SIMILARLY, THERE IS A LACK OF INCLUDING TOTAL CORRECTED ITEM CORRELATION

In response to your suggestions, we have:

1. Reanalyzed the data using ordinal-appropriate methods, including polychoric correlation matrices for reliability and factorial analyses.
2. Updated Table 3 to include ordinal-appropriate descriptive statistics, such as median and mode, instead of means and standard deviations.
3. Added the corrected item-total correlations for each item, providing a more accurate measure of item reliability at the ordinal level.

Table 4. Low-Rated and High-Rated items PRESENT THE SAME DIFFICULTIES, SINCE WHEN PLACING THE LOW OR HIGH RESPONSE TO THE ITEMS, WHICH IS BASED ON THE MEAN, IT FACES THE PROBLEMS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. FOR EXAMPLE, Hernández, A., Espejo Tort, B., Gómez-Benito, J. & González Romá, V. (2000). Escalas de respuesta tipo Likert. ¿Es relevante la alternativa 'indiferente'?. Obtenido de: http://hdl.handle.net/10550/39081.

We acknowledge that using the mean to classify items as low- or high-rated is not fully appropriate for ordinal Likert-scale data, as it carries the limitations previously mentioned regarding the treatment of ordinal information (Hernández et al., 2000).

In response, we have revised Table 4 to include an analysis based on percentages, which allows a more accurate and descriptive representation of the distribution of responses for each item. This approach complements the ordinal-appropriate statistics (median and mode) and provides a clearer view of how respondents evaluated the items

IN SECTION 3.4 Differences by levels of education: WHY USE ANOVA WHEN THE DATA OF EACH GROUP DOES NOT BEHAVE NORMALLY OR THERE ARE NO TESTS THAT INDICATE THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE INFORMATION? IS IT APPROPRIATE TO USE NON-PARAMETRIC STATISTICS SUCH AS KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST? IN THE EVALUATION OF FACTORIAL LOADS, A LIMIT OF (<0.40) IS ESTABLISHED FOR SIGNIFICANT LOADS, CITE A REFERENCE THAT INDICATES THIS LIMIT AS VALID, FOR EXAMPLE: Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis. Reino Unido: Cengage

We have re-evaluated the group comparisons using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, which is more suitable for ordinal data and data that do not meet the assumption of normality. The Methods and Results sections have been updated to reflect this change.

Regarding factor loadings, we have clarified that a threshold of 0.30 was used to identify significant loadings, and we have added the following reference to support this choice

-          Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

-          Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

THE WITHDRAWAL OF SEVEN REACTIVES REGARDING THE SELECTION OF LOAD AND UNIQUENESS AFFECTS THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ENTIRE INSTRUMENT AND LOSES THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE DIMENSIONS?

The use of the polychoric matrix, recommended for ordinal variables, allowed for a more accurate estimation of the correlations among items and made it possible to preserve the instrument’s structure without compromising its internal consistency or the representativeness of the dimensions. By applying the criterion of retaining factor loadings equal to or greater than 0.30, all items were retained, indicating that each contributed meaningfully to its respective factor and that the overall factor structure aligned well with the theoretical framework.

WHAT IMPACT WOULD THE RESULTS HAVE ON THE ACADEMIC INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS SET BY CHILEAN EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITIES; DO THEY HAVE A STANDARD FOR SCHOOL PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT CAN SERVE AS CONCRETE REFERENCES FOR THE DIFFERENT INDICATORS?

Regarding your question about academic infrastructure standards in Chile, we have incorporated a discussion of this aspect in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we refer to the national standards and guidelines established by the Chilean Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), which set out basic requirements for school infrastructure. These standards now serve as contextual references for interpreting the results and understanding their potential implications for educational policy and school design

Review/suggestions

Responses

1. The justification for the study indicates that it will examine teachers' perceptions of the physical characteristics of their learning environment and, subsequently, the inclusion of autistic students. However, this aspect is not addressed in the introduction, title, keywords, questionnaire, or discussion. It would be advisable to explore this aspect in greater depth or to restructure the article completely.

The connection to autism and inclusion has been better clarified conceptually in the introduction and literature review as part of the broader motivation and relevance of the study. We have revised these sections to explicitly acknowledge this contextual link without overstating empirical findings that were beyond the current dataset.

1. The keywords should be reviewed and improved, as would not inclusive education include the concept of an inclusive classroom or learning conditions, the physical learning environment, or learning environment? Also, the point mentioned above should be taken into account.

The keywords have been revised to reflect the study's focus and scope better. In particular, we added inclusive classroom and autism to ensure better alignment with the main concepts discussed in the manuscript and with the broader framework of inclusion.

1.  I would like to pose the following question, the answer to which may help to sequence the ideas in the article: Is inclusive education about giving students a voice and listening to their opinions when talking about physical space? To this end, a quote from 2009 has been used to reflect the current paradigm. More recent quotes should be sought.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful question and suggestion. We agree that inclusive education today involves not only providing access but also ensuring participation and giving students a voice in shaping their learning environments. In response, we have incorporated more recent references that reflect this paradigm shift, emphasizing the participatory and student-centered perspectives that characterize current approaches to inclusion.

Specifically, the 2009 citation has been replaced and complemented with updated sources from the past five years that address the role of student agency and voice in the design and adaptation of physical learning environments. These additions help to strengthen the theoretical grounding and ensure that the discussion aligns with contemporary conceptions of inclusive education.

1. When it is stated that, from an inclusive educational perspective, flexible furniture, reconfiguration, etc., would be inclusive education, it is later stated that the most positive aspects were those that encourage active participation and social interaction. Can't current furniture encourage this?

To clarify this point, we have revised the discussion to highlight that inclusivity arises not merely from the presence of flexible or movable furniture, but from the pedagogical and organizational strategies that allow such elements to enhance student engagement and interaction.

1. Was the questionnaire differentiated according to the type of student body, or was it a global response? If the latter, would this reflect the inclusive education that the article aims for? There is no initial question about whether autism is present, and what about the other aspects of student diversity?

We appreciate this valuable question. The questionnaire was administered globally and was not differentiated according to the type of student. The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ general perceptions of the physical characteristics of their learning environment.

1.  It is not clear how the physical space promotes or does not promote inclusive education. It can improve performance, but this is the teacher's perception; no real impact has been recorded, nor is it clear how this improvement has been achieved.

We have strengthened the theoretical justification in the introduction and discussion, drawing on recent literature that links spatial design, sensory conditions, and furniture flexibility to inclusive pedagogical practices and student participation.

1. Results are given for preschool, primary, and secondary education when the sample is from primary education. This aspect should be reviewed.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The validation of the scale was carried out using a broad and heterogeneous sample that included teachers from different educational levels and educational assistants. However, as noted in the revised manuscript, the subsequent application of the instrument will focus specifically on primary education, where its use is expected to provide more contextually relevant evidence for inclusive school environments. The text has been adjusted to clarify this distinction and to avoid any misunderstanding regarding the composition of the sample

1.  It is mentioned that there are difficulties in reducing internal noise, but is this noise from their class or from other classes?

We thank the reviewer for this clarification. The reference to difficulties in reducing internal noise refers primarily to noise generated within the same classroom, such as that produced by student activity, movement, or the use of materials. However, teachers also reported, to a lesser extent, disturbances coming from adjacent classrooms or shared areas, which contribute to the overall perception of an acoustically challenging environment.

This distinction has been clarified in the Results and Discussion sections to provide a more accurate interpretation of the data and to reflect the multifactorial nature of noise sources in school settings.

1. It is recommended to look for more recent references, from the last 3-5 years, to verify that the physical space of schools has not changed, as stated in the article. Additionally, data and articles related to the environment or country of the sample should be sought to help understand the context of the article.

We have updated the Introduction and Discussion to incorporate recent (2021–2025) evidence showing that core features of the physical learning environment.

1. It would be advisable to discuss the results further with current articles that help corroborate the teachers' perception, as this perception limits the obtaining of results. Therefore, we ask that this aspect be improved. Additionally, it would be beneficial to clarify the theoretical and practical contributions derived from the research conducted.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. In response, we have updated the manuscript to include more recent references in discussion  (from the last 3–5 years) that discuss the characteristics of school physical environments, ensuring that our theoretical framework reflects current conditions. Additionally, we have incorporated literature and data relevant to the national context of the study to better situate the findings within the realities of Chilean schools.

1. Finally, review the references to ensure they follow the journal's criteria. I encourage the authors to continue improving the article, as the topic is of great interest to the educational community.

We thank the reviewer for this recommendation and for the encouraging words regarding the relevance of our study. We have carefully reviewed all references to ensure that they fully comply with the journal’s formatting and citation criteria.

We appreciate the constructive feedback received throughout the review process, which has allowed us to improve the clarity, theoretical grounding, and contextualization of the manuscript.

Review/suggestions

Responses

My main concern is that the title suggests you validate an instrument designed to measure inclusive learning environments. Therefore, I expected a clear conceptualization of what an inclusive learning environment entails—possibly with references to different types of special educational needs. Instead, the paper provides only general information about classroom conditions that support students’ well-being and engagement.

The article was restructured, including aspects that thoroughly develop the assessment of educational inclusion for autistic students. The conceptualization has been improved, guiding the literature review toward the relationship with students in general, as well asthe specific conditions that support the well-being and participation of autistic students.

The theoretical background is not specifically related to inclusive education. In the section on research aims, you briefly mention that the environments evaluated by participants are connected to autistic children. However, if I understood correctly, your sample did not specifically target teachers working in inclusive classrooms (or, if it did, this is not stated in the methods section)

We appreciate this observation and agree that a stronger connection between the theoretical background and inclusive education was needed. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the theoretical section to explicitly frame the study within inclusive education literature. We now highlight how the physical and sensory dimensions of the classroom contribute to accessibility, participation, and well-being for all learners, includingautistic students.

Rather, it seems that you happened to include several participants who teach autistic children. This gives the impression that the focus on inclusive education was added after the data collection, once you noticed this pattern in your sample. I have a similar concern about the instrument itself—it appears to assess general features of an ideal learning environment, rather than those specific to inclusion. If working in an inclusive environment was not a requirement for participation, this seriously undermines the validity of the study.

We thank the reviewer for this important comment and the opportunity to clarify the conceptual and methodological alignment between inclusion and the assessed classroom environments.

The focus on inclusive education was not introduced post hoc. The scale was designed from the outset to assess environmental features and depict which aspects are relevant to enable the participation and well-being of all students, including those with special educational needs such as autism. The term “inclusive” in the study  refers to environments that reduce physical and sensory barriers, promote participation—dimensions consistently described in the literature as essential to inclusion ( Booth & Ainscow, 2015; Byers et al., 2018; Saggers et al., 2016; UNESCO, 2025)

In Phase 1, although working with autistic students was not a strict inclusion criterion, this reflects the authentic composition of public-funded Chilean school´s  classrooms, thus, most participants had direct or indirect experience teaching autistic students, as reflected in their survey responses.

We have strengthened the Methods section to clarify this context and have revised the Theoretical Framework to emphasize how inclusive education principles informed the design of the instrument and the interpretation of the results.

Moreover, the sample includes therapists and psychologists, whose professional contexts (often private rooms rather than classrooms) differ substantially from those of teachers; thus, their responses should not be included in the data analysis

To participate in the validation phase 1 of the scale, education professionals had to work at a school and have close knowledge of a regular classroom where they provide support. These responses were used solely for the validation of the scale. In the second phase, only the homeroom teachers who had a student diagnosed with autism in their class participated.

From a technical standpoint, I also recommend that you explicitly include your research questions in the paper, and present the research aims in a more differentiated way. As I see it, the first aim is the validation of the instrument, the second is the comparison of public and private educational environments in Chile, and the third is the comparison of learning environments across different educational levels.

Thank you very much for the suggestion; we have included the research question and the objectives of the study.

Review/suggestions

Responses

1. Conceptual contribution and research gap: The most critical weakness lies in the absence of a clearly articulated research gap and a convincing justification for developing a new instrument. The introduction gestures toward inclusive education and autism, but this framing is not integrated into the scale development process or the subsequent analysis. The resulting instrument replicates constructs already captured in widely validated scales (e.g., Barrett et al., 2015; Byers et al., 2018; OECD studies). Without a clear demonstration of what is missing in existing instruments—and how PSICS fills that gap—the claim of novelty is unconvincing. As it stands, the manuscript risks presenting established constructs as if they were new.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive observation. We acknowledge that the initial version of the manuscript did not sufficiently articulate the specific research gap and the rationale for developing the instrument. In response, we have substantially revised the Introduction and Rationale sections to clarify the scale's conceptual contribution and its novelty.

Specifically, we now highlight that existing instruments, such as those developed by Barrett et al. (2015), Byers et al. (2018), and OECD studies, primarily focus on objective physical aspects of learning environments (e.g., lighting, temperature, spatial layout). However, they do not fully address how these environmental dimensions are perceived and experienced by teachers in relation to inclusive educational practices, particularly in classrooms that include autistic students.  These conceptual clarifications are now explicitly presented in the revised manuscript.

1.  Literature review and referencing practices: The literature review omits key international work linking physical learning environments to educational outcomes. Instead, it relies on a restricted and sometimes peripheral set of sources, reinforced by non-standard keywords such as “physical learning environment” and “sensory learning environment.” This selective approach artificially narrows the scope and leads to overstated claims that no prior instruments exist. The result is an incomplete and at times misleading scholarly foundation.

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and constructive feedback regarding the scope and depth of the literature review. We agree that the initial version of the manuscript provided a limited overview of prior research and did not adequately reflect the breadth of international studies linking physical learning environments to educational outcomes. In response, we have substantially expanded the literature review.

In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we adjusted the search strategy and literature review by incorporating the above. This ensures alignment with international standards, enhances the precision and completeness of our references, and situates our work within a globally recognized conceptual framework.

1. Methodological design:  The study bases the instrument solely on teachers’ perceptions, without adequately justifying why other stakeholder perspectives (particularly students) are excluded. Many of the items are adapted with minimal modification from existing scales, raising questions about originality. While the exploratory factor analysis and reliability indices show statistical consistency, psychometric robustness cannot compensate for a lack of conceptual innovation. Furthermore, the study is described as addressing inclusion and autism, yet no operationalization of these dimensions is offered.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these thoughtful and detailed observations. Regarding the teacher-focused perspective and study phases, we acknowledge that the PSICS instrument focuses on teachers’ perceptions. This decision is grounded in the broader design of a three-phase research project. The present study corresponds to Phase 2, which explores teachers’ perceptions of the physical and sensory conditions of their classrooms.
In a prior study,  an objective classroom observation was conducted regarding an environmental feature. Phase 3 will include students’ perceptions, using a simplified instrument adapted to children’s language, with fewer items and visual supports. This sequential design allows for a comprehensive understanding of school environments from multiple perspectives, with this current article focusing specifically on teachers as key agents in inclusive educational practices.

Regarding item adaptation and originality:
While existing validated instruments inspired some PSECS items, they were substantially adapted and contextualized to reflect dimensions particularly relevant to inclusive education and autism. Specifically, prior scales do not address essential aspects such as the need for organized visual stimulation, acceptable noise levels,  opportunities for movement and diversifications of surfaces and flexible and structured spaces—all of which are highly relevant in learning environments that could provide better conditions for inclusive education.
Furthermore, the most frequently cited scales (e.g., Barrett et al., 2015; Byers et al., 2018; OECD, 2017) were developed in educational contexts that differ significantly from those in Latin American schools, where infrastructural, cultural, and pedagogical realities pose distinct challenges. The OECD instrument, while including one dimension related to classroom space, is primarily focused on general school facilities rather than classroom-specific conditions.
The PSICS, therefore, contributes conceptual and contextual innovation by addressing these overlooked elements and situating them within Latin American educational settings.

Regarding psychometric robustness vs. conceptual innovation:
We agree that psychometric strength must be accompanied by conceptual clarity. Accordingly, we have expanded the Introduction and Discussion sections to emphasize how the PSECS integrates both perceptual and inclusive dimensions of classroom environments, offering an original approach for depicting classroom factors that contribute to inclusive pedagogical practices.

Operationalization of inclusion and autism:
The revised version now includes a more explicit operational definition of inclusion and autism, specifying how these dimensions informed the development of items and interpretation of findings.

4. Framing of results: The findings are essentially descriptive of Chilean teachers’ dissatisfaction with classroom conditions (e.g., noise, overcrowding, temperature, maintenance). Framed as such, the study may have contextual relevance, but it does not advance the international discourse on inclusive learning environments. The current presentation overstates its contribution and underplays the derivative nature of the scale. Recommendation In sum, the manuscript’s contribution is derivative rather than innovative; its literature base is selective and incomplete; and its methodological choices are insufficiently grounded in established standards for scale development. These are not superficial flaws but issues that affect the study’s conception, execution, and claims

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree that the study has a strong contextual component related to the Chilean educational setting. In the revised version, we have clarified this scope and nuanced the discussion to highlight the study’s contribution within its context. Specifically, we emphasize that the results provide empirical evidence from a Latin American country, a region underrepresented in international research on inclusive physical learning environments.

1. I hope the authors will take these comments as constructive guidance to refine their future research. A stronger contribution would require (1) situating the work more carefully within international literature, (2) clarifying the conceptual gap with respect to existing validated tools, and (3) aligning methodological choices with the standards of psychometric development in inclusive education research.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive suggestions, which we find very valuable for strengthening both the current and future stages of our research.

In response, we have (1) expanded the literature review to situate the study more clearly within the international debate on inclusive learning environments, (2) clarified in the Introduction and Methods sections the conceptual and contextual rationale for adapting the existing tool, highlighting the specific gaps that motivated its use in the Chilean context; and (3) reviewed the methodological description to ensure greater alignment with established psychometric standards in inclusive education research, including clearer justification of analytical choices and procedures for adaptation and validation.

Review/suggestions

Responses

1. The summary should include the findings related to the conclusion.

The summary has been revised to explicitly include the main findings of the study, linking them to the conclusions.

1. The introduction follows a logical structure: first, the context of inclusive education, the physical environment, sensory conditions, furniture/arrangement, participation, and flexibility. This step-by-step approach makes it easier for the reader to follow the topic step by step.

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the logical structure of the introduction. We are glad that the sequence facilitates the reader’s understanding of the topic.

1. The concept of "inclusive education" is introduced in the literature review, but its direct link to the physical environment and furniture arrangement should be more clearly established. The conceptual bridge is currently somewhat weak.

We have strengthened the conceptual connection between inclusive education and the physical environment, particularly regarding furniture arrangement.

1. The methodology should be presented graphically.

A graphical representation of the methodological process has been added (see Figure 1).

1. The mean and standard deviation are given only for the overall scale score, but if there are subscales (or if the factor structure is tested), reporting them separately would be more informative.

The results section has been updated to include the mean and standard deviation for each subscale derived from the factor structure. This addition provides a more detailed and informative presentation of the data.

1. The table is referenced, but it would be useful to briefly touch on the key findings highlighted in the table in the text (e.g., the item with the lowest/highest mean).

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the corresponding section to summarize the most relevant findings from the table, highlighting the items with the highest and lowest mean values to better contextualize the data within the text.

1. Possible explanations for why private schools report higher satisfaction and subsidized schools lower satisfaction (infrastructure investments, care conditions, resource inequalities, socioeconomic context) should be discussed. This allows the findings to go beyond mere reporting.

The article was restructured, focusing in this new version on the application of the scale. For this reason, the aspects referred to in this comment were omitted. 

1. The distinction between private and semi-private schools should be more clearly defined.

We have restructured the article, giving greater emphasis to the presentation of the results from the administration of the scale, so the distinction between private and semi-private was not necessary.

1. The phrase "describing their spaces as pleasant, feeling comfortable, and generally liking their classrooms" is a bit too colloquial. More academic language (e.g., "reporting their classrooms as aesthetically adequate, comfortable, and conducive to teaching") would be preferable.

The sentence has been rephrased using more formal and academic terminology, as suggested, to ensure the tone aligns with scholarly standards.

1. The pedagogical implications of the findings should be discussed further: For example, why might preschool teachers rate chair comfort higher? Is it because of the different equipment in these classrooms, or because of differences in teaching approaches?

The discussion section has been expanded to address possible pedagogical explanations and reflections for the differences observed among educational levels, including variations in classroom equipment and teaching approaches in different levels.

1. The idea that learning spaces encompass not only physical but also pedagogical and social dimensions is well-developed.

We are pleased that the multidimensional perspective of learning spaces was clearly conveyed.

1. The provision of concrete recommendations for educational policies and clear directions for future research is highly valuable.

We thank for this encouraging remark. We appreciate that the policy-oriented and forward-looking aspects of the study were well received.