Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this work. The structure is clear and the rationale is well made for the significance of the study. The methods are outlined clearly and the data is presented clearly. It reads as an overview of the whole study  and it would be interesting in future to be able to have a more detailed analysis of specific observations to unpick how the different aspects of UDL supported the individual children, however this is a suggestion due to an interest in further findings.   The study is only of 5 children and the author (s) do not overstate the data, however do highlight how the findings for this small group highlight the opportunities and limitations in terms of an UDL approach.

The work would provide a valuable small scale study in terms of UDL but also highlights a range of approaches to support children with additional learning needs which would be valuable for those supporting children  in practice.

Minor issues

Line 276- 'several' may be better than 'lots'. 

Line 263  change to 'The next paragraph examines methods and strategies aligned with
the three UDL principles and modalities'.
Line  146 change to: 'The study has employed a purposive quota sampling method to select participants from a municipality preschool, located in a city of Latvia with a student population of 64 children'.

This is  a valuable study to share with practitioners and early childhood  education students.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your review, thank you for your respectful and motivating comments and for your enormous contribution to the development of our article and our future professional activities.
Please find below the changes we have made based on your comments and please find attached the article where you can see the changes in yellow!

Line 300 - 'several' may be better than 'lots'. 

Line 263  change to 'The next paragraph examines methods and strategies aligned with
the three UDL principles and modalities'.

Line  146 change to: 'The study has employed a purposive quota sampling method to select participants from a municipality preschool, located in a city of Latvia with a student population of 64 children'.

Thank you for your time and valuable advice - the team of authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review an important and interesting study in the Universal Design of Learning framework. This research is important as inclusive student groups are increasing all over the World. The introduction to the study also puts the research into a broader context by talking about policy decisions and introduces the topic well. I particularly liked that the researchers describe children with an autism spectrum diagnosis in the order that they are primarily children (rather than, for example, children with autism). Of course, the characteristics of autism spectrum disorder are very varied and controversial - I will come back to this at the end of my feedback. As a reader, I would have liked both the summary and the introduction to have opened up Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, since this is so prominent in the research section.

The research questions are clearly presented and answered in the results section.

In the presentation of the data, it is important to make it clear from the outset that this is a case study of 5 children. Children start their pre-school in different ages in different countries, so please, write it down, which ages where these informants in Latvia. It would also be interesting to understand what the researchers mean by an inclusive special needs group - what other children are included in the group? The study justifies the choice of five informants by a quota sampling method, but it is unclear what the two non-ADL diagnoses are: on the one hand, they are described as 'typically developing peers' (section 3.1), while earlier in the presentation of the data, they are described as having a range of behavioural challenges."These children do not meet the criteria for an ASD diagnosis, but have difficulties with attentional, social, limited interests and/or self-care skills".

In addition, the reader is left wondering about the gender of the preschoolers, could it be opened up? One idea could also be to come up with pseudonyms that reveal gender instead of codes that are a bit difficult to follow (PPA, PPB..). Montessori pedagogy comes up in the tables, but these are not so much opened up in the text section itself. In other words, the context of the subjects and their pre-school group should be made more transparent to the reader.

The results are interesting. The researchers highlight the fact that even those children who did not have a diagnosis chose UDL aids such as hearing protectors and gloves. This result is somewhat questionable if these children also had clear attention and behavioural challenges, as described earlier. In the discussion and conclusions, the findings of the multi-method study convincingly highlight the benefits for all of an inclusive, accessible and barrier-free environment and multisensory teaching methods. There could be more discussion with previous studies about that. In the end of the article, it would be useful to open up clearly the suggestions for further research that have been raised by the researchers.

As a broader comment, the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder is very blurred and today the evidence for neurodiversity is already being challenged by many researchers. Authors could consult, for example, the writings of psychiatrist Sami Timimi on the subject and include this, for example, in the reflection section. Do we benefit from the categorisation and minority thinking attached to neurodiversity, or could we just see the diversity and just use UDL to increase accessibility for all? As a reader, I would have liked to see policy recommendations in the light of the research findings or bolder proposals at a more abstract level to change society, along the lines of the approach already taken in the introduction to the article. 
This article will be interesting, after some changes. Thank you!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive feedback, as well as for your respectful and encouraging comments. Your insights and suggestions significantly contribute to the refinement of our manuscript and will undoubtedly enhance our future research and professional development.
We have thoroughly revised the manuscript in accordance with your recommendations. Please find the updated version attached, where the changes are highlighted in yellow for your convenience.

Comment 1: "In the presentation of the data, it is important to make it clear from the outset that this is a case study of 5 children. Children start their pre-school in different ages in different countries, so please, write it down, which ages where these informants in Latvia."
Response 1: Agree. To address this, we have clarified the participants' ages (4–8 years) in the Abstract (Page No. 1; Paragraph Abstract; Line 9) and elaborated on the group's composition, specifying that these are from Latvia, children with ASD and other speech/language disorders in the introduction (Page No. 5; Paragraph 2.2.; Line 186). This provides more context from the outset.

Comment 2: "It would also be interesting to understand what the researchers mean by an inclusive special needs group - what other children are included in the group? The study justifies the choice of five informants by a quota sampling method, but it is unclear what the two non-ADL diagnoses are: on the one hand, they are described as 'typically developing peers' (section 3.1), while earlier in the presentation of the data, they are described as having a range of behavioural challenges."These children do not meet the criteria for an ASD diagnosis, but have difficulties with attentional, social, limited interests and/or self-care skills"."
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed the term "typically developing peers" throughout the text to avoid ambiguity and have included more clear specification that "two additional participants have been included to investigate the effectiveness of UDL interventions for children with diverse behavioral challenges, including those with other developmental challenges (e.g., speech/language disorders). These children do not meet the criteria for an ASD diagnosis, but show difficulties with attention, social interaction, restricted interests and/or self-care skills, and have been selected based on pre-study observations" (Page No. 5; Paragraph 2.2.; Line 186).

Comment 3: "In addition, the reader is left wondering about the gender of the preschoolers, could it be opened up? One idea could also be to come up with pseudonyms that reveal gender instead of codes that are a bit difficult to follow (PPA, PPB..). Montessori pedagogy comes up in the tables, but these are not so much opened up in the text section itself. In other words, the context of the subjects and their pre-school group should be made more transparent to the reader."
Response 3: Thank you for the suggestions to clarify the genders of the children. All five children included in the study were boys (Page No. 4; Paragraph 2.2.;Line 182).
Thank you for the recommendation to elucidate the significance of utilising Montessori methods in the context (Page No. 5; Paragraph 2.2.; Line 192).

Comment 4: "As a reader, I would have liked both the summary and the introduction to have opened up Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, since this is so prominent in the research section."
Response 4: Agree. To address this we have significantly expanded the discussion of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in both the abstract and the introduction, explicitly linking UDL strategies to his theory (Page No. 1; Paragraph Abstract.; Line 12, and  Page No. 2; Paragraph 1; Line 76). 

Comment 5: "As a broader comment, the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder is very blurred and today the evidence for neurodiversity is already being challenged by many researchers. Authors could consult, for example, the writings of psychiatrist Sami Timimi on the subject and include this, for example, in the reflection section. Do we benefit from the categorisation and minority thinking attached to neurodiversity, or could we just see the diversity and just use UDL to increase accessibility for all?"
Response 5: Thank you for including the reference and prompting reflection on this important point. We have now addressed the neurodiversity perspective by emphasizing UDL’s universal applicability, while using ASD-specific examples to highlight our study context (Page No. 16; Paragraph 4.; Line 384). The suggested author's research is included in the reference list (Page No. 22; Paragraph References; Lines 649 and 651)

Comment 6: "In the end of the article, it would be useful to open up clearly the suggestions for further research that have been raised by the researchers."
Response 6: Agree. We have addressed this by adding a clear section on future research directions at the end of the article, aligning with your valuable advice (Page No. 17; Paragraph 4.; Line 453).

Comment 7: "The researchers highlight the fact that even those children who did not have a diagnosis chose UDL aids such as hearing protectors and gloves"
Response 7: We agree that the results were interesting. In response to the comment, we confirm that these conclusions are true and based on the findings of the observations. Note - this kindergarten group was chosen purposefully, because there is a perspective in the use and implementation of various new strategies. The possibility of using additional aids, such as sound-absorbing headphones or gardener gloves, does not require large financial investments, so they were easy to offer and use in daily practice. Although their practical significance cannot be attributed to the long term, offering them to all children is extremely important in order to identify those children whose specific needs are often not identified, and therefore do not receive appropriate support. The fact that the children wanted to try these aids was interesting for both the teachers and the researchers.


We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and sharing such constructive insights. Please do not hesitate to contact us if any further clarifications are needed.
Thank you once again for your valuable contribution. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx