The Impact of Programs Aimed at Raising Awareness About Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Schools: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author
This literature review explores the impact of awareness programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the school context. While the manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic, it does not yet meet the standards required for publication in a Q1 journal.

1.INTRODUCTION

The manuscript lacks a robust theoretical foundation. Rather than focusing on the theoretical basis behind Disability Awareness Programs (DAP), which is the central topic of this paper, the introduction is presented from a historical perspective. It focuses primarily on trends in legislation, inclusive education, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) instead of the core issue, DAP, which is only in addressed in the final two paragraphs.

2. METHODOLOGY

The most critical area requiring attention is the methodological design, which lacks the depth and rigour necessary to thoroughly understand the reliability of this systematic review. Several points require clarification: How many researchers participated in the project? What was the process for establishing eligibility? What iterative processes were involved in the review? Did the authors cross-check each other's work? Was there any form of inter-rater validation? How were disagreements handled? Also, please clarify the span of years covered in this review.

3.RESULTS

The results section is weakened by the absence of clearly defined research aims and a lack of clarity in presenting the findings. While the systematic review is intended to focus specifically on awareness programmes for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Table 1 shows some inconsistency with this focus. For example, the study by Lindsay et al. (2013) focused on physical disabilities, Firat (2021) addressed various types of disabilities, and Trufero (2021) included intellectual, visual, motor, and auditory disabilities.

Regarding clarity, the nine papers analysed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 lack source numbers for each paper (e.g., is Abellán et al. (2018a) source 56 or 57?). On p.8, the descriptions of Groups A and B and their respective results seem to have been mixed. On p.9, the the terms "women" and "men" are used, instead of "girls" and "boys."

 Most importantly, the descriptions of the Disability Awareness Programmes (DAP) in the nine papers reviewed are not sufficiently clear for the reader to understand the activities undertaken. For example, the description of Nowakowska and Pisula (2021) on p.10 mentions a lecture, film, and art session involving direct contact with individuals with intellectual disabilities, but the setup lacks clarity. Similarly, Firat (2021) describes seven sessions where participants interact with individuals with specific disabilities, yet this format is also not clearly articulated. Lastly, please clarify the abbreviations AISDPE and ASSDPE mentioned in Table 3

4. DISCUSSION

The discussion section would benefit from significant restructuring to effectively build on the findings and address the broader implications. Rather than a summary, it should explore the main concepts in-depth, systematically integrating existing literature with the findings of this review. Specific areas needing attention to clarify the paper’s contribution to existing research and its relevance to the journal's readers and also in terms of discussing the implications of the findings for understanding the topic.

 For instance, on p.11, the authors state that “not all programs have been equally successful,” with some programs showing no improvement or even a decline in attitudes toward people with disabilities. Greater insight is needed here: What factors contributed to these outcomes? For example, although a program's duration is a significant factor, what other elements could be adjusted to improve future interventions?

 The authors mention that techniques involving direct contact and information provision are most effective, followed by simulation techniques. This critical point should be emphasized and linked to relevant theories. Additionally, this is an opportunity to relate these insights to existing literature. What theoretical basis underpins these approaches?

 On p.12, the authors highlight the importance of direct contact to foster positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. And claim that this aligns with consistency theories and contact theory. Please expand on the theoretical context supporting this approach.

Another section on p.12 notes that while general attitudes towards disabilities improved, awareness around intellectual and developmental disabilities remains challenging. Why might this be? Elaborating here could yield valuable insights and also what can we do to improve the outcomes in relations to intellectual and developmental disabilities?

 Limitations
The limitations section includes a conclusion (i.e., the lack of long-term follow-up) rather than a critique of the study’s limitations. What are the methodological limitations the authors encountered during their research. For instance, were their methodological limitations related to the screening, identification and analysis of the literature?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some parts of the tables appear to be in Spanish (e.g., Table 2, p.9: "Se habló sobre 3 tipos de discapacidad (física, discapacidad intelectual e inteligencia profunda)" and Table 3: "Resultado de cada estudio"). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the valuable remarks. All suggestions were very helpful for us and have been now incorporated in the revised manuscript. On behalf of all co-authors I would like to clarify the points raised by the Reviewers. I hope that the Reviewers and Editors will be satisfied with the responses to their comments and will recognize the re-edited manuscript as acceptable for publication in “Education Sciences”.

With kind regards

We present our responses to the Reviewers’ remarks below.

REVIEWER 1

REVEWER 1: Comments to the Author
This literature review explores the impact of awareness programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the school context. While the manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic, it does not yet meet the standards required for publication in a Q1 journal.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your comments and understand the importance of meeting the standards for publication in a Q1 journal. We have already made significant revisions to the manuscript to improve its quality, addressing the points you raised. These changes enhance the clarity, depth, and overall rigor of the review, ensuring it aligns with the high standards of the journal. Thank you again for your valuable input.

INTRODUCTION

REVEWER 1: The manuscript lacks a robust theoretical foundation. Rather than focusing on the theoretical basis behind Disability Awareness Programs (DAP), which is the central topic of this paper, the introduction is presented from a historical perspective. It focuses primarily on trends in legislation, inclusive education, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) instead of the core issue, DAP, which is only in addressed in the final two paragraphs.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We recognize your point that this section may have been too extensive. In response, we have summarized the historical section and expanded the information on Disability Awareness Programs (DAP). However, we believe it is important to provide a historical context leading up to inclusive education in order to better understand the current state of Disability Awareness Programs (DAP). Additionally, we wanted to highlight the role of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as part of the broader framework. We hope these revisions address your concerns and strengthen the theoretical foundation of the manuscript.

Lines 52-53: “though its segregated approach faced criticism for perpetuating intolerance toward differences”

Lines 54-56: “By the mid-20th century, concepts such as normalization and the 1978 Warnock Report promoted social and educational integration, enhancing self-esteem and autonomy for individuals with Special Educational Needs (SEN)”

Lines 58-81: “In recent decades, , the term “inclusion” has replaced the term “integration”, reflecting a shift toward actively valuing diversity (5). The aim of inclusive education is to remove barriers and discrimination, and ensure that all students, regardless of their conditions and circumstances, learn together in a shared environment (6–8). This approach became established in 2006 with the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which explicitly recognized the right to inclusive education (9). The convention aimed to eliminate discrimination and foster educational settings that accommodate the diverse needs of all learners.”

Line 183-187: “These techniques, whether applied individually or in combination, have been incorporated into various educational programs designed to raise awareness about disabilities. These initiatives aim to increase understanding, promote acceptance of individuals with disabilities, and ultimately reduce negative attitudes toward them (42).

2. METHODOLOGY

REVEWER 1: The most critical area requiring attention is the methodological design, which lacks the depth and rigour necessary to thoroughly understand the reliability of this systematic review. Several points require clarification: How many researchers participated in the project?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for highlighting the importance of clarifying the methodological design. We would like to emphasize that this project was carried out by three researchers, as detailed in line 193 of the manuscript.

Line 193: “Three authors conducted the,”

REVEWER 1: What was the process for establishing eligibility?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your observation regarding the eligibility process. I would like to clarify that the eligibility process was determined by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria are detailed in the manuscript on line 217. If you believe further clarification or elaboration is necessary, I would be happy to address it.

Lines 217-218: “The process for determining eligibility was based on a set of clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.”

REVEWER 1: What iterative processes were involved in the review? Did the authors cross-check each other's work? Was there any form of inter-rater validation? How were disagreements handled?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the review process. I would like to clarify that three authors were involved in this study. In response to your comment, we have added a paragraph on line 244 to address the iterative processes, including how the authors cross-checked each other's work, the approach to inter-rater validation, and the resolution of disagreements.

Additionally, the specific contributions of each author are detailed in the Author Contributions section at the end of the manuscript, on line 481.

Lines 244-250: “Consistency and accuracy throughout the review was ensured by all three authors verifying each other’s work at every stage of the selection and assessment process. When disagreement or discrepancies arose, the authors engaged in discussions to resolve the differences. If consensus could not be reached, a final decision was made through mutual agreement, with careful consideration of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, ensuring that the integrity and objectivity of the review process were maintained.”

REVEWER 1: Also, please clarify the span of years covered in this review.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. As stated in the manuscript on line 189, the search was conducted up to March 22, 2024. Furthermore, the publication date of the articles was not used as an exclusion criteria. For this reason, all articles were analyzed regardless of their publication year. We hope this clarification adequately addresses your question.

3.RESULTS

REVEWER 1: The results section is weakened by the absence of clearly defined research aims and a lack of clarity in presenting the findings.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback. To address your concern regarding the clarity of the research aims and the presentation of the findings, we have restructured the results section to enhance clarity and organization. The findings are now presented under thematic headings, including Impact of Awareness Programs on Attitudes Towards Disability, Most Effective Awareness-Raising Techniques, Demographic Factors Influencing Awareness, Duration of Intervention, and Family and Community Involvement (lines 313–340). In dividing the results into these sections, we have also revised the text within each section to ensure a more coherent and detailed presentation of the findings. Additionally, we have ensured that the connection between the findings and the review’s aims is explicitly articulated throughout the results section.

REVEWER 1: While the systematic review is intended to focus specifically on awareness programmes for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Table 1 shows some inconsistency with this focus. For example, the study by Lindsay et al. (2013) focused on physical disabilities, Firat (2021) addressed various types of disabilities, and Trufero (2021) included intellectual, visual, motor, and auditory disabilities.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. Regarding your observation about the inconsistency in Table 1, specifically with studies that include various types of disabilities rather than focusing exclusively on intellectual and developmental disabilities, we appreciate your attention to detail. The primary objective of the systematic review is to examine awareness programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and while most studies align with this focus, some broader studies were included due to their relevance in understanding how awareness programs for various disabilities may inform approaches for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

For example, the study by Lindsay et al. (2013), although focusing on physical disabilities, provides valuable insights into awareness programs that can be extended to other disability groups, including intellectual disabilities. Similarly, the studies by Firat (2021) and Trufero (2021) include a range of disabilities but still emphasize the core theme of awareness raising, which is central to our review. These studies were selected based on their contribution to the broader understanding of awareness programs, even if they encompass multiple disability types. However, we understand your concern and will clarify this point in the revised version by ensuring that studies focusing on multiple disabilities are appropriately discussed in relation to their relevance for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

REVEWER 1: On p.8, the descriptions of Groups A and B and their respective results seem to have been mixed.

AUTHORS: Thank you for pointing this out. You are absolutely correct that the descriptions of Groups A and B and their respective results were mixed. We have corrected this mistake, and the changes have been made in Table 2 to ensure accuracy. We appreciate your careful review and attention to detail.

REVEWER 1: On p.9, the terms "women" and "men" are used, instead of "girls" and "boys."

AUTHORS: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have made the necessary changes, replacing "women" and "men" with "girls" and "boys" on table 2 to ensure consistency and accuracy in terminology.

REVEWER 1: Most importantly, the descriptions of the Disability Awareness Programmes (DAP) in the nine papers reviewed are not sufficiently clear for the reader to understand the activities undertaken. For example, the description of Nowakowska and Pisula (2021) on p.10 mentions a lecture, film, and art session involving direct contact with individuals with intellectual disabilities, but the setup lacks clarity.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. To address your concern regarding the clarity of the descriptions of the Disability Awareness Programs (DAPs), we have added more detailed information in Table 2 to provide a clearer understanding of the activities undertaken in each program.

Table 2: “the objective of the movie was to help students recognize the importance of promoting self-determination and autonomy for young adults with disabilities” and “and they worked together to make art pieces.”

REVEWER 1: Similarly, Firat (2021) describes seven sessions where participants interact with individuals with specific disabilities, yet this format is also not clearly articulated.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. Similarly, we have added more detailed information in Table 2 regarding the Firat (2021) program.

Table 2: “the first part involved giving information”, “wich varied from week to week.” and “In the second part, a student with the special need which was the focus that week was invited into class. Students were encouraged to chat, play games, and spend time with her/him.”

REVEWER 1: Lastly, please clarify the abbreviations AISDPE and ASSDPE mentioned in Table 3

AUTHORS: Thank you for pointing this out. To aid in the comprehension of the article, we have added the clarifications for the abbreviations AISDPE and ASSDPE below Table 3. Specifically, AISDPE stands for The Attitudes Towards Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Physical Education, and ASSDPE refers to Attitude Scale for Students with Disabilities in Physical Education. Additionally, this information is also provided in Table 1 for reference.

4. DISCUSSION

REVEWER 1: The discussion section would benefit from significant restructuring to effectively build on the findings and address the broader implications. Rather than a summary, it should explore the main concepts in-depth, systematically integrating existing literature with the findings of this review. Specific areas needing attention to clarify the paper’s contribution to existing research and its relevance to the journal's readers and also in terms of discussing the implications of the findings for understanding the topic. For instance, on p.11, the authors state that “not all programs have been equally successful,” with some programs showing no improvement or even a decline in attitudes toward people with disabilities. Greater insight is needed here: What factors contributed to these outcomes? For example, although a program's duration is a significant factor, what other elements could be adjusted to improve future interventions?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to restructure the discussion section to better integrate the findings with existing literature and explore their broader implications. In response, we have expanded the discussion to provide a more in-depth analysis of the main concepts.

Regarding the statement that "not all programs have been equally successful," we have added more detailed information on the factors that contributed to both positive and negative outcomes from line 355 to line 359. Obviously, we have contrasted these findings with the theoretical framework and have included relevant citations to support our discussion.

Lines 355-359: “In light of the varying results observed in some awareness programs, several factors can be identified that may have contributed to the lack of success, or even a decline in positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. In addition to program duration, factors such as program design and content, the quality of facilitators, student engagement, and the cultural and social context of participants can play a crucial role (36,39).”

REVEWER 1: The authors mention that techniques involving direct contact and information provision are most effective, followed by simulation techniques. This critical point should be emphasized and linked to relevant theories. Additionally, this is an opportunity to relate these insights to existing literature. What theoretical basis underpins these approaches? On p.12, the authors highlight the importance of direct contact to foster positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. And claim that this aligns with consistency theories and contact theory. Please expand on the theoretical context supporting this approach.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We agree that expanding on the theoretical context will provide a deeper understanding of why direct contact and information provision are effective techniques for improving attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. To further support this, I have added two relevant citations that strengthen these theoretical perspectives and demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques in fostering more inclusive attitudes. Specifically, we have added information in lines 373 to 377.

Lines 373-377: “Similarities were identified with a previous study where techniques such as information, contact, and experience were employed, alongside guided discussions. The results suggested that the intervention was effective and that its impact persisted over time, albeit with some fluctuations, as the effects did not last as long as desired (42,63).”

REVEWER 1: Another section on p.12 notes that while general attitudes towards disabilities improved, awareness around intellectual and developmental disabilities remains challenging. Why might this be? Elaborating here could yield valuable insights and also what can we do to improve the outcomes in relations to intellectual and developmental disabilities?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We agree that elaborating on why awareness around intellectual and developmental disabilities remains challenging, despite improvements in general attitudes towards disabilities, is an important aspect to address. In response, we have added information on the possible reasons for this issue, as well as a comparison with other studies. Specifically, we have included this additional discussion in lines 395–400 and lines 406-408.

Lines 395-400: “Although rejection is gradually being eliminated, there is still distrust, lack of recognition, and considerable ignorance, which prevents society from moving toward respecting and enabling the right to equality for this group (70). A previous study showed that professionals often have low expectations about the capabilities of individuals with intellectual disabilities, further contributing to their exclusion and limited opportunities (71)”

Lines 406-408: “The social inclusion of individuals with intellectual disabilities is therefore an increasingly important factor, given their significant need for an independent and autonomous life (70).”

LIMITATIONS

REVEWER 1: The limitations section includes a conclusion (i.e., the lack of long-term follow-up) rather than a critique of the study’s limitations. What are the methodological limitations the authors encountered during their research. For instance, were their methodological limitations related to the screening, identification and analysis of the literature?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have revised the limitations section to focus more on the methodological challenges encountered during our research, rather than simply concluding with the lack of long-term follow-up. We have provided a more detailed critique of the study’s limitations, discussing factors such as the broad scope of the reviewed programs, the variety of sensitization techniques, and the focus on basic education contexts from line 452 to 469.

Lines 452-469: “A key limitation of this study is that many reviewed programs did not focus solely on individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, but instead addressed a broader range of disabilities. This makes it difficult to draw specific conclusions about the effectiveness of programs for the target group. The variety of sensitization techniques used across programs also poses a challenge, as it is hard to isolate the impact of individual methods when analyzing multiple techniques often combined in each intervention.

The focus on elementary through to high school environments and students limits the generalizability of the findings to other educational levels or environments, such as higher education, family, or workplace settings. The lack of long-term follow-up in the studies also restricts the understanding of the sustained effects of these programs.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

REVEWER 1: Some parts of the tables appear to be in Spanish (e.g., Table 2, p.9: "Se habló sobre 3 tipos de discapacidad (física, discapacidad intelectual e inteligencia profunda)" and Table 3: "Resultado de cada estudio"). 

AUTHORS: Thank you for pointing out this oversight. We sincerely apologize for the inconsistency in the language of the tables. We have now corrected this issue by translating all relevant content into English. Specifically, the text in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 has been reviewed and updated to ensure consistency and clarity. Additionally, the English throughout the manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed by language experts to ensure accuracy and fluency.

Table 1:”years”

Table 2: “Three types of disability (physical, intellectual disability and profound intelligence) were discussed.”

Table 3: “Results of each study”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is a very worthwhile topic that has been systematically researched. There are some suggestions made in the annotated version of the manauscript and this can be shared with the author. For example, it would be good to see a short discussion on what is meant by inclusion and what definition of inclusion was used in this research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the valuable remarks. All suggestions were very helpful for us and have been now incorporated in the revised manuscript. On behalf of all co-authors I would like to clarify the points raised by the Reviewers. I hope that the Reviewers and Editors will be satisfied with the responses to their comments and will recognize the re-edited manuscript as acceptable for publication in “Education Sciences”.

With kind regards

We present our responses to the Reviewers’ remarks below.

REVIEWER 2

REVEWER 2: Comments to the Author

I think this is a very worthwhile topic that has been systematically researched. There are some suggestions made in the annotated version of the manuscript and this can be shared with the author. For example, it would be good to see a short discussion on what is meant by inclusion and what definition of inclusion was used in this research.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your review, we hope to be able to properly respond to your suggestions.

REVEWER 2: “it would be better to use the term disabled persons rather than those people”

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We have made the change to use the term "with disabilities" in line 36 instead of "disabled people," as we believe it is a more inclusive and person-first language. The phrase "with disability" emphasizes the person before their condition, which aligns with current best practices in language used to describe individuals with disabilities. This approach respects the dignity and autonomy of individuals and is widely recommended by advocacy groups and organizations focused on disability rights.

Line 36: “with disabilities”

REVEWER 2: “support would be a better word here”

AUTHORS: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that "support" is a more appropriate term in this context, and we have made the change. The word "accommodate" has been replaced with "support" in line 89 to better convey the intended meaning.

Line 89: “support”

REVEWER 2: “curriculum that can be adapted or a separate curriculum for different groups of students? This requires clarification”

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified that education should be adapted according to the individual needs of each student in order to promote inclusive education. Specifically, we have elaborated on this point in lines 97 to 100, emphasizing that the curriculum should be flexible and tailored to ensure all students, regardless of their abilities, are included and supported.

Lines 97-100: “Educating for diversity entails creating an adaptable educational program designed to meet the varying needs of students in diverse school contexts (18). This flexibility involves tailoring curriculum content, teaching methods, and assessment practices to accommodate individual differences and promote inclusion (19).”

REVEWER 2: “In a move away from a medical model of disability it would be better to use the word support rather than intervention”

AUTHORS: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that "support" is a more appropriate term in this context to align with a social model of disability, moving away from the medical model. Accordingly, we have replaced the word "intervention" with "support" in line 141 where we deemed it relevant and suitable for the discussion.

However, there are instances in the manuscript where "intervention" is used intentionally, as it reflects the terminology employed in the studies we reviewed. For example, authors such as Lindsay and Edwards (2013) and Rillotta and Nettelbeck (2007) use the terms "intervention" or "program" in the context of education to describe structured activities aimed at promoting awareness and inclusion. In these cases, we retained the original terminology to accurately reflect the studies' content.

We appreciate your feedback and have carefully considered this distinction to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the manuscript.

REVEWER 2: “If barriers are being discussed it would be good to also discuss facilitators of inclusion. Whilst inclusion is discussed it is not clear from this what would help facilitate inclusion.”

AUTHORS: Thank you for your insightful comment. In response, we have added the facilitators of inclusion to complement the discussion on barriers. This addition highlights factors that can actively support and promote inclusion, providing a more balanced perspective. The relevant information has been included in lines 167–171.

Lines 167-171: "Facilitators of inclusion include suitable teacher training, strong collaboration within the educational community, and access to sufficient resources to support diverse learners, which together can help create an environment conducive to inclusion (19).”

 REVEWER 2: “changing attitude is one aspect of inclusion but teachers also need training in the various disabilities and teaching strategies to include all students and this should be acknowledged.”

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right. Changing attitudes is just one aspect of inclusion, and teachers also need training in understanding various disabilities and adopting effective teaching strategies to ensure the inclusion of all students. This is an essential point, and as mentioned in the discussion on lines 415–423, we emphasize the need for targeted teacher training to equip educators with the necessary skills and knowledge to support diverse learners effectively. Additionally, we have included another citation to further emphasize the importance of this aspect and provide additional support for our argument.

REVEWER 2: “Support?” “supports/programmes?” “supports” “support”

AUTHORS: Thank you for your observation. As mentioned previously, we have intentionally retained the terms "intervention" or "program" in certain instances to reflect the terminology used in the studies we reviewed, such as those by Lindsay and Edwards (2013) and Rillotta and Nettelbeck (2007). These terms are commonly employed in the context of education to describe structured activities aimed at promoting awareness and inclusion.

However, where the context aligns more closely with the concept of ongoing assistance or strategies to foster inclusion, we have replaced "intervention" with "support" or "supports/programmes" to better fit the intended meaning and align with current inclusive language practices. This approach ensures both consistency with the original sources and clarity in conveying the purpose of these activities.

We hope this clarification addresses your concern and demonstrates our careful consideration of the terminology throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides an important and timely review of awareness programs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, emphasizing their impact on fostering inclusion and mutual respect in educational settings. The systematic methodology, including the use of PRISMA guidelines, is effective and ensures a rigorous analysis. However, the manuscript could benefit from more contextualization of its findings within contemporary educational practices. While the historical background on inclusive education is thorough, incorporating more recent data or examples would enhance the relevance of the discussion and better illustrate the current challenges and opportunities in implementing these programs.

The discussion section offers a detailed overview of the effectiveness of various awareness techniques but could provide a more balanced analysis. Highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the reviewed programs would give a clearer picture of their practical implications and areas for improvement. Additionally, the conclusions would be more impactful if they included explicit, actionable recommendations for educators, policymakers, and program developers. This would bridge the gap between research findings and practical applications, making the study more valuable to its intended audience.

Although the manuscript is generally well-written, some sections, particularly in the results and discussion, could be refined for clarity and flow. This would improve clarity and ensure that the key points are communicated effectively. The language is clear, but further polishing could enhance the overall presentation and impact of the paper. These revisions would strengthen the manuscript and help it make a more significant contribution to the field of inclusive education.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the article is generally clear, but there are areas where the grammar, sentence structure, and word choice could be improved to enhance readability and precision. For example, some sentences are overly long and could be broken down into shorter, more concise statements. This would help avoid potential reader confusion and ensure that key points are communicated more effectively. Additionally, some phrases, such as "to ensure the interventions’ effectiveness," could benefit from rewording for smoother flow and grammatical correctness. Avoiding redundancy would further strengthen the writing.

There are also instances of awkward phrasing, such as “It was observed that girls showed greater awareness than boys,” which could be rephrased for a more natural tone, e.g., “Girls consistently demonstrated greater awareness than boys.” Similarly, the use of passive voice is frequent throughout the manuscript, particularly in the results and discussion sections. While passive voice is not inherently incorrect, its overuse can make the text feel detached or overly formal. Rewriting some sentences in active voice would help create a more engaging and direct narrative.

There are minor grammatical errors, such as subject-verb agreement issues and inconsistent use of articles. For instance, “The participation of the family and the community was valued” could be revised to “Participation by family and community members was highly valued” for clarity. These refinements, while minor, would improve the overall quality of the writing, making the article more polished and easier for readers to follow.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the valuable remarks. All suggestions were very helpful for us and have been now incorporated in the revised manuscript. On behalf of all co-authors, I would like to clarify the points raised by the Reviewers. I hope that the Reviewers and Editors will be satisfied with the responses to their comments and will recognize the re-edited manuscript as acceptable for publication in “Education Sciences”.

With kind regards

We present our responses to the Reviewers’ remarks below.

 REVIEWER 3

REVIEWER 3: The article provides an important and timely review of awareness programs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, emphasizing their impact on fostering inclusion and mutual respect in educational settings. The systematic methodology, including the use of PRISMA guidelines, is effective and ensures a rigorous analysis. However, the manuscript could benefit from more contextualization of its findings within contemporary educational practices. While the historical background on inclusive education is thorough, incorporating more recent data or examples would enhance the relevance of the discussion and better illustrate the current challenges and opportunities in implementing these programs.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated several updated references to provide greater contextualization of the findings within contemporary educational practices. Specifically, we have added recent data and examples in the following lines 145–146, 166, 168, 172 and line 175.

We believe these additions enhance the relevance of the introduction and provide a clearer perspective on the current challenges and opportunities in implementing awareness programs. We appreciate your recommendation, which has helped strengthen the manuscript.

Line 145-146: “It is the schools that must adapt to the characteristics of the students, not the students who must meet certain criteria to be considered educable (Cobeñas, 2020)”

Line 166: “previous experience with people with disabilities,”

Line 168: Kelly & Castillo, 2024

Line 172: Espinosa, 2024

Line 175: Campos & Entresede, 2024

REVIEWER 3: The discussion section offers a detailed overview of the effectiveness of various awareness techniques but could provide a more balanced analysis. Highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the reviewed programs would give a clearer picture of their practical implications and areas for improvement. Additionally, the conclusions would be more impactful if they included explicit, actionable recommendations for educators, policymakers, and program developers. This would bridge the gap between research findings and practical applications, making the study more valuable to its intended audience.

Although the manuscript is generally well-written, some sections, particularly in the results and discussion, could be refined for clarity and flow. This would improve clarity and ensure that the key points are communicated effectively. The language is clear, but further polishing could enhance the overall presentation and impact of the paper. These revisions would strengthen the manuscript and help it make a more significant contribution to the field of inclusive education.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. Regarding the results section, we have ought to clarify each finding from the reviewed articles, as presented in Tables 2 and 3. These tables aim to provide a clear and detailed summary of the key outcomes from each study included in the review. However, following your suggestions we have added several recent citations to strengthen the arguments and provide additional context for the findings in lines 361, 473-475 . These updates enhance the depth and relevance of the discussion and conclusion.

We appreciate your thoughtful observations, which have guided us in further refining the manuscript to ensure it effectively communicates its contributions to the field of inclusive education.

Line 361: (M. Campos & Entresede, 2024).

Lines 473-475: “Future research will be fundamental to continue advancing in the construction of an inclusive, equitable and quality education system for all students, regardless of their individual conditions and characteristics.”

REVIEWER 3: The English in the article is generally clear, but there are areas where the grammar, sentence structure, and word choice could be improved to enhance readability and precision. For example, some sentences are overly long and could be broken down into shorter, more concise statements. This would help avoid potential reader confusion and ensure that key points are communicated more effectively. Additionally, some phrases, such as "to ensure the interventions’ effectiveness," could benefit from rewording for smoother flow and grammatical correctness. Avoiding redundancy would further strengthen the writing.

There are also instances of awkward phrasing, such as “It was observed that girls showed greater awareness than boys,” which could be rephrased for a more natural tone, e.g., “Girls consistently demonstrated greater awareness than boys.” Similarly, the use of passive voice is frequent throughout the manuscript, particularly in the results and discussion sections. While passive voice is not inherently incorrect, its overuse can make the text feel detached or overly formal. Rewriting some sentences in active voice would help create a more engaging and direct narrative.

There are minor grammatical errors, such as subject-verb agreement issues and inconsistent use of articles. For instance, “The participation of the family and the community was valued” could be revised to “Participation by family and community members was highly valued” for clarity. These refinements, while minor, would improve the overall quality of the writing, making the article more polished and easier for readers to follow.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on the language and style of the manuscript. We have revised the two specific sentences you highlighted for improved clarity and flow in Table 2 and line 337.

Regarding the overall quality of the English, we would like to note that the manuscript was reviewed and edited by a native English speaker prior to submission, and a certificate of this revision was included with the original submission.

We appreciate your suggestions, which have helped us further refine the text. If there are additional areas you believe require specific attention, we would be happy to address them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the revisions the researchers have made in this most recent version of the manuscript. The text is now much clearer and easier to follow, thanks to improved cohesiveness and thorough proofreading. However, I regret to inform you that I still cannot recommend the manuscript for publication due to persistent inconsistencies in the text.

For instance, in Table 2 on p.9, there appears to be a contradiction in the description of the study by Rillotta and Nettelbeck (2007) (51). Specifically, the authors state:

"The results of the participants in Group B (who took part in 8 sessions) were better than those of the participants in Group A (who took part in 3 sessions). Students who spent more time with people with intellectual disabilities had a better attitude."

What does not align with reason is that Group B (8 sessions of indirect contact) reportedly showed better outcomes than Group A (3 sessions of direct contact). This implies that the indirect condition had a greater impact than direct contact. If this is indeed the case, it contradicts the authors' assertion that students who spent more time with people with intellectual disabilities had a better attitude.

This inconsistency raises significant concerns and suggests the possibility of additional errors in the analysis. I strongly recommend that the authors conduct a thorough inspection of their findings and cross-check their analysis with the nine studies included in their literature review. Accuracy and consistency are essential to meet the high standards required for publication in a Q1 journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the valuable remarks. All suggestions were very helpful for us and have been now incorporated in the revised manuscript. On behalf of all co-authors, I would like to clarify the points raised by the Reviewers. I hope that the Reviewers and Editors will be satisfied with the responses to their comments and will recognize the re-edited manuscript as acceptable for publication in “Education Sciences”.

With kind regards

We present our responses to the Reviewers’ remarks below.

REVIEWER 1

REVIEWER 1: I appreciate the revisions the researchers have made in this most recent version of the manuscript. The text is now much clearer and easier to follow, thanks to improved cohesiveness and thorough proofreading. However, I regret to inform you that I still cannot recommend the manuscript for publication due to persistent inconsistencies in the text.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your feedback and for recognizing the improvements made. We thoroughly reviewed the manuscript again and addressed the inconsistencies throughout the text. We hope the revised version meets your expectations.

REVIEWER 1: For instance, in Table 2 on p.9, there appears to be a contradiction in the description of the study by Rillotta and Nettelbeck (2007) (51). Specifically, the authors state: "The results of the participants in Group B (who took part in 8 sessions) were better than those of the participants in Group A (who took part in 3 sessions). Students who spent more time with people with intellectual disabilities had a better attitude."

What does not align with reason is that Group B (8 sessions of indirect contact) reportedly showed better outcomes than Group A (3 sessions of direct contact). This implies that the indirect condition had a greater impact than direct contact. If this is indeed the case, it contradicts the authors' assertion that students who spent more time with people with intellectual disabilities had a better attitude.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your observation. It seems there may have been a misinterpretation of the results. Both Group A (3 sessions in total, 2 of them direct contact) and Group B (8 sessions in total, 3 of them direct contact) involved direct and indirect contact with people with intellectual disabilities; the difference lies in the duration and type of sessions. The statement, "Students who spent more time with people with intellectual disabilities had a better attitude," refers specifically to the total amount of direct contact each participant had with individuals with intellectual disabilities.

The findings indicate that participants in Group B, who spent more time on direct contact (3 sessions of direct contact), demonstrated better outcomes compared to those in Group A, who had less direct contact (2 sessions of direct contact). We have clarified this distinction in the revised manuscript to avoid any further confusion in Table 2.

• Table 2 (Rillotta & Nettelbeck, 2007):
  • 1 reflection session.
  • Direct contact
  • craft, art or sports (direct contact)
  • Sharing activities with people with disabilities: games or cooking (direct contact)

REVIEWER 1: This inconsistency raises significant concerns and suggests the possibility of additional errors in the analysis. I strongly recommend that the authors conduct a thorough inspection of their findings and cross-check their analysis with the nine studies included in their literature review. Accuracy and consistency are essential to meet the high standards required for publication in a Q1 journal.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We are fully aware of the importance of obtaining results accurately and consistently. We believe that there may have been a misinterpretation of the data, which led to the perceived inconsistency. To address this, we have conducted a thorough review of our analysis and cross-checked our findings with the nine studies included in the literature review, and confirmed that all is ok.

Additionally, we have provided a more detailed description of the sessions to clarify the methodology and ensure that the process is fully transparent. We are confident that these revisions will resolve the issues raised and strengthen the manuscript.

We appreciate your careful consideration and welcome any further suggestions to improve the accuracy and clarity of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf