Integrating Practice and Theory in Teacher Education: Enhancing Pre-Service Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article explores factors defining the (development of) self-efficacy of per-service teacher students with respect to inclusive education. I find the text very interesting, well structured, and readable. However, I have a few suggestions for improvements.

Sec 1: I would appreciate a broader perspective on inclusion (e.g. references on problems with the implementation within education systems) and self-efficacy, e.g. (Garvis & Pendergast 2016) and, most important, previous work on the topic (a simple literature search gives me at least four relevant citations)

Sec 2: I would appreciate information about the representative character of the samples. How is group 2 selected? The interviews were taken with group 1 or 2?

There is comprehensive theoretical with respect to "statement creation in the work of of Mayring, please include this.

I am not familiar with the cluster map method and I would appreciate a more accessible explanation of the method. Do the x- and y-directions of the map mean something or is it just about "closeness"/"distance"?

Sec 3: I suggest to move sec 3.1 to 2.3.4. I suggest to split table 1 and to have a short table at each cluster subsection.

What is the bridging value?

In subsection 3.2 the authors discuss further analysis of the importance ranking. However, the ranking was done within particular groups -- how would it be comparable between groups? Here, I need more explanation. 

Table 2: I suggest to consider whether community support might go into psychological and affective state (at least this is what support is often about...)

Sec 4: I recommend to abstain from subsubsection for the sake of better readability.

The definition of relations between cluster themes and Bandera's sources should go into sec 3.3

I feel this would allow also for a productive overhaul of the discussion with better cross-referencing of findings from the literature from sec 1.

I strongly recommend to present the statements sorted in an annex

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your review. Please see the attachment of a table that includes our detailed comments to your review.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article conducts an interesting research on the self-efficacy perceived by teachers in training on attention to diversity. However, self-perception on a topic as specific as attention to diversity (and with so much scientific literature) should require a deep theoretical framework that positions the construct from which attention to diversity is analyzed. The non-existence of this construct and the development of a tool based on the self-perception of teachers in training make the results of this study of little relevance to the field of education. The theoretical foundation of such essential topics as attention to diversity must be confronted through a series of characteristics, elements, skills, elaborated knowledge, theories and scientifically supported practices to address this issue through a tool. The simple use of the scientific method to elaborate the tool is not enough; its theoretical foundation must be supported by advances in educational research. Relying on teachers' self-perception for the construction of categories only harms and limits progress in the educational field to their own experience. Educational sciences need to be built on established knowledge that can be improved. Significant changes should be made in the article, confronting the categories extracted from the interviews with the teachers in training with the theoretical foundations of attention to diversity in order to offer validity and greater scientific robustness to the research presented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for agreeing to review our manuscript. We appreciate your engagement, though we believe some of your comments may stem from a misinterpretation of our study’s scope and methodological approach. Our work specifically focuses on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy for inclusive teaching in special education, and we employed Group Concept Mapping as a validated method aligned with this focus. We would welcome the opportunity to clarify our approach and address any concerns. We will check in with our Assistant Editor for further guidance on moving forward.

Kind regards.