Sociodemographic Teaching Variables with a Possible Impact on Educational Inclusion for Students with Giftedness in Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this research is to explore the teacher knowledges and attitudes toward inclusive education for gifted students in Portugal. A questionnaire structured in four dimensions: conceptualization, legislation, identification and intervention were used to survey teacher knowledges and attitudes. 863 school teachers in Portugal accepted the investigation. The personal variables were gender, functions performed in the school, age, years of teaching experience, school setting, and type of school.

The topic of this research is meaningful, the literature is well cited, and the researcher provides in-depth discussions and suggestions based on the research findings. However, the statistics need to be modified, there are suggestions for reference:

1.     In Table 1, “EMAEI” needs to be explained in the remarks. Not all readers understand this term and the role of the EMAEI Coordinator.

Besides, there are “others” in Table 1,4 and 6, they need to be explained in the remarks, too.

2.     The subjects are very different among groups, such as: functions performed in the school, type of educational center, and type of school (see table 1), the Levene’s test for equality of variances is suggested before processing One-way ANOVA analysis.

3.     Due to the varying number of items across the four dimensions, it is suggested to present the mean score and standard deviation by dividing the average total score to items of each dimension. Thus, the readers can recognize that the lowest mean score among the four dimensions is conceptualization instead of the other three dimensions. This finding also echo the researcher’s emphasis on the importance of improving teachers’ knowledge and attitude toward gifted education, because the average mean score is near 3.0, teachers' reaction on each item is " Neither agree nor disagree", it shows that more teacher training for increasing the awareness on the special needs of gifted students are necessary. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the review work done, thank you very much for considering our work. The following is a response to each of the reviews carried out.

Best regards

---

Reviewer 1:

Reviewer 1.     In Table 1, “EMAEI” needs to be explained in the remarks. Not all readers understand this term and the role of the EMAEI Coordinator. Besides, there are “others” in Table 1,4 and 6, they need to be explained in the remarks, too.

• Authors: Table 1, as a note, integrates the entire explanation.

 

Reviewer 1. 2.     The subjects are very different among groups, such as: functions performed in the school, type of educational center, and type of school (see table 1), the Levene’s test for equality of variances is suggested before processing One-way ANOVA analysis.

• Authors: Information on the Levene statistic is entered.

 

Reviewer 1. 3.     Due to the varying number of items across the four dimensions, it is suggested to present the mean score and standard deviation by dividing the average total score to items of each dimension. Thus, the readers can recognize that the lowest mean score among the four dimensions is conceptualization instead of the other three dimensions. This finding also echo the researcher’s emphasis on the importance of improving teachers’ knowledge and attitude toward gifted education, because the average mean score is near 3.0, teachers' reaction on each item is " Neither agree nor disagree", it shows that more teacher training for increasing the awareness on the special needs of gifted students are necessary.

• Authors: Explanation of the calculation of the mean and standard deviation for each dimension is integrated. In addition, at the beginning of the Results, mean and standard deviation are included for each dimension and with respect to the total score on the instrument.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Page 3 Lines 117 – 120. 

“The most positive attitudes are generally seen in younger teachers, who have more in-depth training in teaching students with disabilities and exhibit greater effectiveness in managing behavior and collaborating with colleagues and other professionals. However, these same teachers tend to show less effectiveness in inclusive teaching.”

The way this is worded I’m wondering if the author(s) are defining inclusive teaching as just for gifted students rather than including students of all ability levels?  As I read this, I’m left the impression that “students with disabilities” are include in the regular classroom activities although it is unclear if these supported by teachers with specialized training or teaching assistants.  It would be helpful to know if teachers in Portugal received receive specialized training to work with student with learning disabilities, cognitive impairments and emotional impairments. 

 

Page 3 line 143 Unclear what “education cycle taught” refers to or how it is reflect in the data in Table 1.

 

Page 4 Table 1

Please define functions. 
Is the School Group Director like the head of the school or the principal?
Is the department coordinator a content or grade-level leader? 
I don’t know the meaning of EMAEI, so I’m unsure what an EMAEI coordinator’s function is.  Are class directors the same as classroom teachers? 

I am curious why the age/grade level of the students taught was not considered.  

Page 4 Instrument development

How was this questionnaire developed and vetted?  Did experts in the field review it?  Was it piloted?   On page 6, lines 178-179 mention that the factorial structure of the study response was like the initial design, but no information is provided on that factor structure, just a list of questions in Table 2.   It is hard to do a confirmatory factor analysis (see line 302, page 9) if the initial factor structure is unavailable. 

Page 6.  While the scores by category are interesting, mean and standard deviations for the individual items would be helpful.  For example, question 7 asked if participants “came into contact with the subject of giftedness “in their initial training.  That could be reading one article or a single class or something more in-depth, so it isn't easy to interpret the response or how it influences the score this category reported in Table 3

Page 8, line 247.  Please discuss how this study addressed teachers’ attitudes or the factors influencing educational interventions. The survey questions are primarily knowledge-based (I know, I understand, I am familiar, I am aware) rather than addressing attitudes or factors. 

Page 8, Line 252.  Since no information was collected on the training provided by teachers, it is unclear how we can assume teachers lacked training.  

Page 9 Conclusions

Nothing in this study addressed gifted students’ social and emotional issues, so while I agree this is important, the study results offer no supporting data. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the review work done, thank you very much for considering our work. The following is a response to each of the reviews carried out.

Best regards

---

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer 2. Page 3 Lines 117 – 120. “The most positive attitudes are generally seen in younger teachers, who have more in-depth training in teaching students with disabilities and exhibit greater effectiveness in managing behavior and collaborating with colleagues and other professionals. However, these same teachers tend to show less effectiveness in inclusive teaching.”The way this is worded I’m wondering if the author(s) are defining inclusive teaching as just for gifted students rather than including students of all ability levels?  As I read this, I’m left the impression that “students with disabilities” are include in the regular classroom activities although it is unclear if these supported by teachers with specialized training or teaching assistants.  It would be helpful to know if teachers in Portugal received receive specialized training to work with student with learning disabilities, cognitive impairments and emotional impairments. 

• Authors: In the Introduction, information is integrated to respond to this review. We apologise for the ambiguity of the text.

Reviewer 2. Page 3 line 143 Unclear what “education cycle taught” refers to or how it is reflect in the data in Table 1.

• Authors: The term educational cycle is conceptualised.

Reviewer 2. Page 4 Table 1 Please define functions. 
Is the School Group Director like the head of the school or the principal?
Is the department coordinator a content or grade-level leader? 
I don’t know the meaning of EMAEI, so I’m unsure what an EMAEI coordinator’s function is.  Are class directors the same as classroom teachers?  

• Authors: Table 1, as a note, integrates the entire explanation.

Reviewer 2. Page 4 Instrument development. How was this questionnaire developed and vetted?  Did experts in the field review it?  Was it piloted?   On page 6, lines 178-179 mention that the factorial structure of the study response was like the initial design, but no information is provided on that factor structure, just a list of questions in Table 2.   It is hard to do a confirmatory factor analysis (see line 302, page 9) if the initial factor structure is unavailable. 

• Authors: Information on the expert judgment developed is integrated. For reasons of length, a table with factor loadings of the items for each factor has not been included. If the reviewer considers it appropriate, we can integrate this table. The structure obtained was very similar to the initial one for the four dimensions. Our intention is to administer the questionnaire again and we will perform a confirmatory factor analysis (this is indicated in the article as a proposal for future research).

Reviewer 2. Page 6.  While the scores by category are interesting, mean and standard deviations for the individual items would be helpful.  For example, question 7 asked if participants “came into contact with the subject of giftedness “in their initial training.  That could be reading one article or a single class or something more in-depth, so it isn't easy to interpret the response or how it influences the score this category reported in Table 3

• Authors: The item scores are not integrated because they are uniform in the item structure. In addition, at the beginning of the Results, mean and standard deviation are included for each dimension and with respect to the total score on the instrument. If the reviewer considers it appropriate, after these mean values of the dimensions, we can include the mean and standard deviation of items 7 and 8 because of their special interest. Thank you very much for your suggestions for improvement of the article.

Reviewer 2. Page 8, line 247.  Please discuss how this study addressed teachers’ attitudes or the factors influencing educational interventions. The survey questions are primarily knowledge-based (I know, I understand, I am familiar, I am aware) rather than addressing attitudes or factors. 

• Authors: The following is included as a proposal for future research: “to assess whether the attitudes that Portuguese teachers show towards educational inclusion at a general level are also generalized to gifted students”. In addition, a paragraph is integrated into the Discussion on this revision.

Reviewer 2. Page 8, Line 252.  Since no information was collected on the training provided by teachers, it is unclear how we can assume teachers lacked training.  

• Authors: It is integrated as a limitation of the research.

Reviewer 2. Page 9 Conclusions. Nothing in this study addressed gifted students’ social and emotional issues, so while I agree this is important, the study results offer no supporting data. 

• Authors: The part of the Conclusion that refers to this review is eliminated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is timely and significant, particularly in the context of inclusive education. The topic addresses a critical gap in teacher training and education policy, and your analysis provides valuable insights into the varying levels of knowledge, attitudes, and training among teachers in Portugal. However, there are areas where the paper could be improved to enhance its impact and clarity.

The introduction effectively establishes the need for inclusive education and highlights giftedness as a unique and underexplored category. However, further contextualization of the Portuguese education system's progress and challenges in inclusive education would provide a stronger foundation for your research. Including more recent and international comparisons could help readers situate your findings within a broader global framework.

Your methods section is clear and well-organized, but the qualitative component of the study is underutilized. While the quantitative findings are robust, integrating more qualitative data into the discussion would offer a richer and more nuanced understanding of the challenges teachers face in supporting gifted students. Specific examples or quotes from teachers’ observations could illustrate key points and strengthen your argument.

The results section presents the data systematically, but the discussion of the findings would benefit from more detailed interpretation. For instance, you note that female teachers scored higher in all dimensions, but the implications of this finding are not fully explored. Does this suggest a need for gender-sensitive training approaches? Similarly, the disparities between urban and rural schools highlight resource inequities, but specific strategies to address these gaps are not clearly articulated. Including actionable recommendations for policymakers and school administrators could enhance the practical relevance of your study.

Although your study emphasizes the importance of teacher training, the connection between training and improved outcomes for gifted students could be further developed. For example, citing specific training models or programs that have proven effective in similar contexts would add depth to your recommendations. You might also consider addressing potential barriers to implementing such training, particularly in rural schools with limited resources.

Your conclusion effectively summarizes the study’s findings, but it could be more compelling by emphasizing the broader implications of your research. For instance, how might your findings inform future research on inclusive education in other countries? What are the potential long-term benefits of addressing the gaps in teacher training identified in your study? These points would underscore the significance of your work and inspire further research and action in the field.

Consider reorganizing some sections of the paper for better flow and coherence. For instance, the discussion on the multidimensionality of giftedness in the introduction could be more succinct and integrated into the literature review. This would allow you to dedicate more space to discussing the practical applications of your findings in the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written but contains some grammatical and syntactical errors that detract from its clarity and readability. For example, in the abstract, the sentence “The results show significant differences in terms of gender, with female teachers demonstrating greater knowledge and training in all the dimensions analyzed” could be revised for conciseness. Consider rephrasing it as: “Female teachers demonstrated significantly greater knowledge and training across all dimensions.”

Throughout the text, there are instances of awkward sentence construction. For example, in the introduction, the sentence “This situation means specific pedagogical practices are required that recognize these students and respond to their individual needs” could be revised for clarity. A possible revision is: “This situation necessitates specific pedagogical practices tailored to recognize and address these students’ individual needs.”

Another common issue is inconsistent use of tenses. For example, in the results section, you alternate between past and present tense when discussing findings. To maintain consistency, use past tense for reporting specific results, such as: “The study found that female teachers scored higher in all dimensions.”

Some sections contain overly long sentences that could be broken down for clarity. For instance, in the discussion, the sentence “These guidelines are based on the concept of universal design and a multi-level approach aimed at adapting to each student’s needs and potential” could be split into two sentences: “These guidelines are based on the concept of universal design. They employ a multi-level approach to adapt to each student’s needs and potential.”

There are a few minor punctuation errors, such as missing commas in compound sentences. For example, in the sentence “However as previously mentioned, implementation of these legislative measures varies significantly,” a comma should be added after “However.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the review work done, thank you very much for considering our work. The following is a response to each of the reviews carried out.

Best regards

---

Reviewer 3:

Reviewer 3. The introduction effectively establishes the need for inclusive education and highlights giftedness as a unique and underexplored category. However, further contextualization of the Portuguese education system's progress and challenges in inclusive education would provide a stronger foundation for your research. Including more recent and international comparisons could help readers situate your findings within a broader global framework.

• Authors: The Introduction is improved following the contributions provided by the reviewer.

 

Reviewer 3. Your methods section is clear and well-organized, but the qualitative component of the study is underutilized. While the quantitative findings are robust, integrating more qualitative data into the discussion would offer a richer and more nuanced understanding of the challenges teachers face in supporting gifted students. Specific examples or quotes from teachers’ observations could illustrate key points and strengthen your argument.

• Authors: At the end of the Discussion, a paragraph is integrated with statements from the participants. They have been placed in the dimensions Conceptualization and Legislation because they are the ones with the lowest results. We thank the reviewer for this contribution.

 

Reviewer 3. The results section presents the data systematically, but the discussion of the findings would benefit from more detailed interpretation. For instance, you note that female teachers scored higher in all dimensions, but the implications of this finding are not fully explored. Does this suggest a need for gender-sensitive training approaches? Similarly, the disparities between urban and rural schools highlight resource inequities, but specific strategies to address these gaps are not clearly articulated. Including actionable recommendations for policymakers and school administrators could enhance the practical relevance of your study.

• Authors: Information has been integrated to reinforce the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

 

Reviewer 3. Although your study emphasizes the importance of teacher training, the connection between training and improved outcomes for gifted students could be further developed. For example, citing specific training models or programs that have proven effective in similar contexts would add depth to your recommendations. You might also consider addressing potential barriers to implementing such training, particularly in rural schools with limited resources.

• Authors: The reviewer's contribution has been taken into consideration, integrating a program example and delving into the “limitations” of the rural school.

 

Reviewer 3. Your conclusion effectively summarizes the study’s findings, but it could be more compelling by emphasizing the broader implications of your research. For instance, how might your findings inform future research on inclusive education in other countries? What are the potential long-term benefits of addressing the gaps in teacher training identified in your study? These points would underscore the significance of your work and inspire further research and action in the field.

• Authors: Information is included to strengthen the above. In addition, the possibility of proposing research in other countries is included as a proposal for future research.

 

Reviewer 3. Consider reorganizing some sections of the paper for better flow and coherence. For instance, the discussion on the multidimensionality of giftedness in the introduction could be more succinct and integrated into the literature review. This would allow you to dedicate more space to discussing the practical applications of your findings in the conclusion.

• Authors: New information has been integrated in the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion to make everything more uniform, justified and balanced.

 

Reviewer 3. Comments on the Quality of English Language. The manuscript is generally well-written but contains some grammatical and syntactical errors that detract from its clarity and readability. For example, in the abstract, the sentence “The results show significant differences in terms of gender, with female teachers demonstrating greater knowledge and training in all the dimensions analyzed” could be revised for conciseness. Consider rephrasing it as: “Female teachers demonstrated significantly greater knowledge and training across all dimensions.”

Throughout the text, there are instances of awkward sentence construction. For example, in the introduction, the sentence “This situation means specific pedagogical practices are required that recognize these students and respond to their individual needs” could be revised for clarity. A possible revision is: “This situation necessitates specific pedagogical practices tailored to recognize and address these students’ individual needs.”

Another common issue is inconsistent use of tenses. For example, in the results section, you alternate between past and present tense when discussing findings. To maintain consistency, use past tense for reporting specific results, such as: “The study found that female teachers scored higher in all dimensions.”

Some sections contain overly long sentences that could be broken down for clarity. For instance, in the discussion, the sentence “These guidelines are based on the concept of universal design and a multi-level approach aimed at adapting to each student’s needs and potential” could be split into two sentences: “These guidelines are based on the concept of universal design. They employ a multi-level approach to adapt to each student’s needs and potential.”

There are a few minor punctuation errors, such as missing commas in compound sentences. For example, in the sentence “However as previously mentioned, implementation of these legislative measures varies significantly,” a comma should be added after “However.”

• Authors: A native English speaker has checked the quality of the language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your consideration of our work. We are very grateful for the work you have done to improve our article.

Best regards,

Ramón

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much improved.  Suggest adding a reference to support your decision to adjust the means and standard deviations (page 6 lines 222-223).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your consideration of our work. We are very grateful for the work you have done to improve our article.

Best regards,

Ramón

---

Reviewer 2. Much improved.  Suggest adding a reference to support your decision to adjust the means and standard deviations (page 6 lines 222-223).

Authors: A reference is added to support this decision. In addition, we indicate an example of an article that has also followed this procedure for an investigation on the educational process of students with rare diseases (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1046643).