Inclusive and Digital Science Education—A Theoretical Framework for Lesson Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper proposes a possible new framework by combining the model of educational reconstruction (MER) and the Universal Design for Learning diclusive. The contribution is mainly theoretical, and the authors present an example at the end that shows how operationally can mean designing a digital experiment-based physics lesson.
The paper is potentially interesting for the journal, but some issues need to be addressed. The nature of the issues that I will describe in the following are related to argumentation, which is often not well articulated, and the methodology of the theoretical research.
First of all, it is not clear, from the introduction, why the research needs this new perspective. In literature, there are many works about differentiated learning, inclusive learning, and multiple representations of learning environments to enhance learning and include different learning styles (just to quote a few big research threads that the contribution deals with). In theoretical papers, a more specific positioning is fundamental to understanding the scope of the presented research work, why it is innovative, how it is positioned compared to other research works, and what is the added value. There are no references to previous work, there is just a comment in the final discussion.
Second, despite the theoretical account of the contribution, the contribution is rather practical. There are no research questions and no methodologies to explain the integration. The only possible questions are “our main questions focus on how a lesson planning can be designed that a. enables all pupils to gain access to the learning content despite their very heterogeneous learning requirements and that b) makes it possible for all pupils to work on the same subject matter”, but these questions are not addressed in the paper. Furthermore, section 3, since the strong theoretical account, should be the strongest part in which to discuss, at least tapping into the literature, the potentialities of the integration. Instead, the argument is a bit hasty, and we do not really get into the design or learning.
Finally, there are no conclusions. Even if the implementation is ongoing, in the conclusion author can discuss some preliminary results or ideas coming from the implementation, the possible future directions, the limitations and so on.
These comments are not local but can be traced back in the argumentation of the paper, which is quite weak from a research perspective. Even if potentially interesting, these aspects need to be fixed throughout the paper to make the proposal methodologically sound.
Small comments:
- Section 2.2.1. In the title, the authors use the words “dimensions” and then “principles”, and it can be misleading.
- Sentences like “As research suggests, there is not a single style of learning that fits for most of the 170 learners [57] (p. 36). In fact, the best way of learning is to expose pupils to a range of representations and modalities [58]” need a deeper argument and examples of papers.
- Section 4. There is no reference to the target group of the lesson.
Author Response
Comment 1:
First of all, it is not clear, from the introduction, why the research needs this new perspective. In literature, there are many works about differentiated learning, inclusive learning, and multiple representations of learning environments to enhance learning and include different learning styles (just to quote a few big research threads that the contribution deals with). In theoretical papers, a more specific positioning is fundamental to understanding the scope of the presented research work, why it is innovative, how it is positioned compared to other research works, and what is the added value. There are no references to previous work, there is just a comment in the final discussion.
Response 1:
Thank you for your feedback. To address your comment, the introduction has been revised to clearly articulate the innovative aspects of the proposed approach, its added value, and how it differs from existing research. The revised text now explains:
- Why this perspective is needed:
“While inclusion and digitalization have been discussed separately in the past [20], international publications [21,22] and publications in Germany [20,23–25] try to develop a conceptual combination of inclusion and digital media.” (p. 2, lines 47–49).
“Although initial ideas for designing inclusive and digitalized (science) lessons already exist (see e.g. [20]), there is a need for an approach that provides guidance for the systematic planning of such lessons.” (p. 2, lines 56–58).
- How this paper contributes to the field:
“This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussions about the implementation of inclusive practices and digital media in the science classroom by exploring how inclusive and digital science education can be realized through the theoretical frameworks of the Model of Educational Reconstruction (MER) and Universal Design for Learning diclusive (UDL diclusive). While MER focuses on subject-specific and learner-centered lesson planning, UDL diclusive offers principles for creating flexible, accessible, and engaging learning environments. By combining these frameworks, we propose a comprehensive approach to lesson planning that addresses diverse learner needs while harnessing the potential of digital media.” (p. 2, lines 79–87).
- What makes this approach innovative:
“The approach advances the theoretical foundations of lesson planning by showing how established frameworks can evolve to meet contemporary educational challenges like digitalization and diversity. While UDL is often applied broadly across subjects, its integration with MER provides a discipline-specific approach tailored to science education. This ensures that inclusive teaching is embedded in discipline-specific content.” (p. 2, lines 87–92).
- The article’s objective:
“Therefore, this article is an approach that aims to extend the didactic model of educational reconstruction MER by a diclusive step based on the UDL diclusive to develop a theoretical framework for inclusive and digital lesson planning.” (p.2, lines 93-95).
These revisions provide a clearer positioning of the research within the field, demonstrating its contribution and relevance to ongoing discussions about inclusive and digitalized science education.
Comment 2:
Second, despite the theoretical account of the contribution, the contribution is rather practical. There are no research questions and no methodologies to explain the integration. The only possible questions are “our main questions focus on how a lesson planning can be designed that a. enables all pupils to gain access to the learning content despite their very heterogeneous learning requirements and that b) makes it possible for all pupils to work on the same subject matter”, but these questions are not addressed in the paper.
Response 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. To address your comment, we have included dedicated research questions to clarify the focus of the paper and explain the integration of MER and UDL diclusive. The revised text (p. 1, lines 93–98) now reads: “Therefore, this article is an approach that aims to extend the didactic model of educational reconstruction MER by a diclusive step based on the UDL diclusive to develop a theoretical framework for inclusive and digital lesson planning. The objective of this paper is to address the following research questions: How can MER and UDL diclusive be combined to facilitate the planning of inclusive and digitally enriched science lessons? What does such a lesson look like?”. These research questions establish a clear foundation for the paper’s objectives, linking the theoretical framework with its practical application.
Comment 3:
Furthermore, section 3, since the strong theoretical account, should be the strongest part in which to discuss, at least tapping into the literature, the potentialities of the integration. Instead, the argument is a bit hasty, and we do not really get into the design or learning.
Response 3:
Thank you for your feedback. Section 3 has been revised to provide a stronger argument and to elaborate on the potentialities of integrating MER and UDL diclusive in more detail (p. 8, lines 279–280; p. 9–10, lines 302–326). The revised section discusses the advantages of this integration for inclusive and digital science education:
“Integrating MER and UDL diclusive presents several potentialities for inclusive and digital science education. First, it improves accessibility. MER focuses on understanding students’ preconceptions and aligning these with scientific concepts. When combined with UDL diclusive, which emphasizes multiple means of engagement, representation, and action, lesson plans can be designed to address diverse learning needs proactively. For instance, digital tools like interactive simulations or videos with subtitles enable students with auditory or visual impairments to engage more effectively. Furthermore, the combination encourages self-regulated learning. The UDL diclusive’s emphasis on learner autonomy complements MER’s structure-oriented approach. For example, interactive digital media can provide step-by-step guidance and fade-in/fade-out support, allowing students to control their learning pace as they work on science tasks. The combination of MER and UDL diclusive offers a structured yet flexible framework for designing lessons prioritizing inclusivity and digital enhancement. A detailed methodology includes firstly the ‘Clarification and Analysis of Science Content’ [29]. This remains a cornerstone of MER, ensuring the science content is accurate, structured, and accessible. The second step is ‘Recording Students’ Perspectives’ [29]. UDL diclusive enriches this aspect by emphasizing diversity dimensions. Teachers can gather input through digital surveys or adaptive learning platforms, which help identify individual needs and preferences. Lastly, ‘Designing and Evaluating Learning Environments’ [29] benefits from the combined strengths of both frameworks. For instance, a digital physics experiment on light refraction can include interactive features like pause-and-explain videos or adjustable difficulty levels, ensuring that all students can engage with the material at their level (see next chapter). To illustrate this integration, we will present a physics lesson focusing on light's refraction.”
Comment 4:
Finally, there are no conclusions. Even if the implementation is ongoing, in the conclusion author can discuss some preliminary results or ideas coming from the implementation, the possible future directions, the limitations and so on.
Response 4:
Thank you for your comment. A conclusion has been added to address this point (p. 15, lines 494–506). The revised section emphasizes the extension of the Model of Educational Reconstruction (MER) by incorporating inclusive and digital aspects through the UDL diclusive model. It highlights the importance of this extension for teacher education and training.
The conclusion also discusses the framework’s potential, which is illustrated with a practical example of an inclusive, digitally enhanced teaching unit on optics. The approach outlined in the article demonstrates how the framework can be applied to other planning processes.
Furthermore, the conclusion outlines future directions, including empirical testing and refinement of the framework in real classroom settings. It also acknowledges current limitations, such as addressing diverse national educational contexts and the lack of empirical evidence, while proposing further research to evaluate the framework’s effectiveness and adaptability across disciplines and educational systems.
Comment 5:
Section 2.2.1. In the title, the authors use the words “dimensions” and then “principles”, and it can be misleading.
Response 5:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have standardized the terminology in Section 2.2.1 to consistently use “principles” throughout, ensuring clarity and avoiding potential confusion.
Comment 6:
Sentences like “As research suggests, there is not a single style of learning that fits for most of the 170 learners [57] (p. 36). In fact, the best way of learning is to expose pupils to a range of representations and modalities [58]” need a deeper argument and examples of papers.
Response 6:
Thank you for your valuable comment. We appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the argument and provide further support through additional references. In response, we have clarified the argument on page 5, lines 202–205. The revised text explicitly highlights that there is no single style of learning that fits the diversity of learners, referencing foundational works on this topic (see e.g., [59], p. 36; [60]). Additionally, we emphasize that addressing diverse learning needs requires exposing pupils to a variety of representations and modalities, supported by further references (see e.g., [61, 62]). We believe this revised argument adequately addresses your comment by reinforcing the concept that “no one size fits all” in learning environments.
Comment 7:
Section 4. There is no reference to the target group of the lesson.
Response 7:
Thank you for pointing this out. Information on the target group has been added to the section (p.10, lines 331-334): “The practical example presented in this section—a digitally enhanced, inclusive physics lesson on light refraction—is designed for heterogeneous groups of secondary school students (typically grades 7 and 8 in Germany).”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The use of UDL is wide, with CAST as the most known US source. Figure 2 appears to have a significant amount of direct information from CAST. It would be beneficial to let the reader know this is not original information. In the introduction, the first sentence starts with "for a couple of years". This could be worded using more descriptive and specific language to frame the length of time the article will refer to in the research. The two topics are well researched in the field and the introduction makes it seem like these are new to the field. Inclusive teaching is presented in the introduction, but is not explored in the same detail as other topics. The definition of inclusive practices should be clearer and explain what inclusion means for the frameworks presented. An explanation of the country of study was presented, but given the different philosophies of inclusion, UDL, lesson planning in different countries it may be helpful to ground the information in a clearer way and provide examples of other nations' definitions or philosophy so the article becomes more relevant to a greater number of readers.
Author Response
Comment 1:
The use of UDL is wide, with CAST as the most known US source. Figure 2 appears to have a significant amount of direct information from CAST. It would be beneficial to let the reader know this is not original information.
Response 1:
Thank you for your comment. A corresponding remark has been added to the caption of Figure 2 on page 7 (“The UDL diclusive for the use of digital technology in inclusive classrooms. [33], expanded and adapted by [30].”). This clarification aims to ensure the reader is aware that the information has been adapted from existing sources and is not original.
Comment 2:
In the introduction, the first sentence starts with "for a couple of years". This could be worded using more descriptive and specific language to frame the length of time the article will refer to in the research. The two topics are well researched in the field and the introduction makes it seem like these are new to the field.
Response 2:
We agree with your comment. Therefore, the sentence (p. 1, lines 19-23) has been changed accordingly to outline the time period to which the article refers in the research. The sentence has also been reworded to make it clear that these topics have been present for some time: “Over the past decade, two key topics have continued to receive significant attention in the field of school development: the advancement of inclusion and associated changes in the educational system on the one hand and the use of digital media in classrooms on the other hand. These themes, while extensively researched, continue to challenge educational systems worldwide as they seek to address diverse learner needs.”
Comment 3:
Inclusive teaching is presented in the introduction, but is not explored in the same detail as other topics. The definition of inclusive practices should be clearer and explain what inclusion means for the frameworks presented.
Response 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. A definition of inclusion and inclusive practices was added in the introduction (p. 1, lines 23-26): “Inclusion, as defined by UNESCO [1], encompasses the right of all learners to quality education that fosters their full potential, irrespective of social, economic, or cultural backgrounds, special educational needs, or disabilities.”. Another paragraph links the two frameworks more clearly with the aim of the article, which explains the importance of inclusion for the two frameworks (p. 2, lines 79-92).
Comment 4:
An explanation of the country of study was presented, but given the different philosophies of inclusion, UDL, lesson planning in different countries it may be helpful to ground the information in a clearer way and provide examples of other nations' definitions or philosophy so the article becomes more relevant to a greater number of readers.
Response 4:
Thank you for your comment. In the introduction different philosophies and practices of inclusion are presented to ground the information: “Different countries approach inclusion through different philosophies and practices, influenced by their sociocultural and educational contexts. For instance, in the United States inclusion as highlighted for example in the NGSS often focuses on traditionally under-served, reflecting an emphasis on equity, while in Nordic countries such as Sweden, the debate about inclusion centers on human rights, democratic principles, placement of SEN students, participation, and belonging [2]”. Moreover, the country of study was added in appropriate places in the introduction.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
