The Impact of ICT on Primary School Students’ Natural Science Learning in Support of Diversity: A Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “The Impact of ICT on Primary School Students' Natural Science Learning to Address Diversity: A Meta-Analysis". This is a timely and relevant contribution that addresses the intersection of inclusive education, digital technologies, and science learning in primary education—an area of growing importance in contemporary educational research.
Overall, the authors present a well-structured systematic review and meta-analysis that adheres, in large part, to established methodological standards. The article demonstrates both academic rigor and practical relevance, particularly in its focus on the use of ICT to support learners with special educational needs (SEN) in the context of natural science education.
Nonetheless, before the manuscript can be considered for publication, several clarifications and improvements are needed. These relate primarily to the transparency of methodological procedures, the reporting of synthesis results. Below, I outline a series of specific questions and recommendations addressed to the authors:
- The introduction would benefit from further elaboration to clearly articulate the rationale for the review. In its current form, the manuscript outlines the relevance of inclusive education and the potential role of ICT; however, the authors should explicitly describe remaining uncertainties or gaps in the literature.
- Concerning the protocol presented in the "Materials and Methods" section, the manuscript does not provide any information regarding the prospective registration of the systematic review or the availability of a review protocol. Could the authors clarify whether the review was prospectively registered in a publicly accessible database? If so, please provide the name of the register and the corresponding registration number. Moreover, if a review protocol was developed prior to conducting the review, indicate where it can be accessed (e.g., by providing a citation, DOI, or direct link). If not, please explicitly state that no protocol was prepared.
- The manuscript briefly describes the inclusion and exclusion process; however, it lacks important methodological detail regarding how data were extracted. The authors should indicate how many reviewers screened each record and full-text report, whether they worked independently, and what procedures were in place to resolve disagreements. Moreover, state whether any automation tools were used at any stage of the selection or data extraction process, and if so, describe how they were integrated.
- Finally, a clarification in the "Results" section is needed. If the authors study the heterogeneity of obtained data, please present the results of all analyses conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity among the study outcomes. If such analyses were not conducted, provide a rationale for their omission, particularly given the limited number of studies included in the meta-analysis.
Addressing these issues could significantly enhance the clarity and impact of their work. I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript and look forward to seeing the revised version.
Author Response
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “The Impact of ICT on Primary School Students' Natural Science Learning to Address Diversity: A Meta-Analysis". This is a timely and relevant contribution that addresses the intersection of inclusive education, digital technologies, and science learning in primary education—an area of growing importance in contemporary educational research.
Overall, the authors present a well-structured systematic review and meta-analysis that adheres, in large part, to established methodological standards. The article demonstrates both academic rigor and practical relevance, particularly in its focus on the use of ICT to support learners with special educational needs (SEN) in the context of natural science education.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comments.
Nonetheless, before the manuscript can be considered for publication, several clarifications and improvements are needed. These relate primarily to the transparency of methodological procedures, the reporting of synthesis results. Below, I outline a series of specific questions and recommendations addressed to the authors:
- Comment: The introduction would benefit from further elaboration to clearly articulate the rationale for the review. In its current form, the manuscript outlines the relevance of inclusive education and the potential role of ICT; however, the authors should explicitly describe remaining uncertainties or gaps in the literature.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. The following paragraph has been added at the end of the introduction to address your concerns: Despite the growing recognition of the potential of ICT to foster more inclusive educational environments, significant gaps remain in the literature regarding their specific effectiveness in supporting the learning of students with SEN. While many studies broadly ad-dress the use of ICT in diverse educational contexts, few offer a systematic and quantitative analysis that allows for solid conclusions about its actual impact on this particular group. This meta-analytic review is therefore justified by the need to synthesize the avail-able evidence, identify patterns, and highlight both the progress and current limitations in the use of technological tools to support the learning of SEN students in Primary Education.
- Comment: Concerning the protocol presented in the "Materials and Methods" section, the manuscript does not provide any information regarding the prospective registration of the systematic review or the availability of a review protocol. Could the authors clarify whether the review was prospectively registered in a publicly accessible database? If so, please provide the name of the register and the corresponding registration number. Moreover, if a review protocol was developed prior to conducting the review, indicate where it can be accessed (e.g., by providing a citation, DOI, or direct link). If not, please explicitly state that no protocol was prepared.
Answer: Point 2.5 has been introduced. This indicates that it has not been registered in PROSPERO or any other repository due to the exploratory nature of the study and time constraints. However, this omission is transparently reported, recognizing that protocol registration is a good practice recommended by PRISMA to ensure the traceability of the review process.
- Comment: The manuscript briefly describes the inclusion and exclusion process; however, it lacks important methodological detail regarding how data were extracted. The authors should indicate how many reviewers screened each record and full-text report, whether they worked independently, and what procedures were in place to resolve disagreements. Moreover, state whether any automation tools were used at any stage of the selection or data extraction process, and if so, describe how they were integrated.
Answer: Various aspects of the methodology section have been reintroduced and revised to ensure that the manuscript meets all the criteria proposed by the PRISMA declaration. Accordingly, the number of reviewers, their work, and the procedures implemented are indicated. The tools used and how they were integrated are also included.
- Comment: Finally, a clarification in the "Results" section is needed. If the authors study the heterogeneity of obtained data, please present the results of all analyses conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity among the study outcomes. If such analyses were not conducted, provide a rationale for their omission, particularly given the limited number of studies included in the meta-analysis.
Answer: In section 3.4, a table has been added with the items corresponding to the different aspects described in the methodology, which has allowed us to analyze the risk of bias associated with each of them.
Addressing these issues could significantly enhance the clarity and impact of their work. I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript and look forward to seeing the revised version.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. The work has been considerably improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This study seeks to underscore the beneficial role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in facilitating the learning of Natural Sciences in Primary Education, with special attention to student diversity. It emphasizes how Science teaching at this stage fosters critical thinking, encourages scientific inquiry, and deepens students’ understanding of the world around them. The results reinforce the need for inclusive and fair educational strategies that are responsive to each learner’s unique needs.
The objective of this research is to carry out a systematic review of existing literature addressing the effectiveness of technological tools in supporting the teaching of Natural Sciences to Primary Education students with special educational needs.
Although the article is, at times, not entirely straightforward in its presentation, the authors’ objective remains clear and understandable.
It is recommended that Figure 2 be revised to enhance its clarity and effectiveness, with particular attention to improving the caption for greater comprehension
Author Response
Comment: This study seeks to underscore the beneficial role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in facilitating the learning of Natural Sciences in Primary Education, with special attention to student diversity. It emphasizes how Science teaching at this stage fosters critical thinking, encourages scientific inquiry, and deepens students’ understanding of the world around them. The results reinforce the need for inclusive and fair educational strategies that are responsive to each learner’s unique needs.
The objective of this research is to carry out a systematic review of existing literature addressing the effectiveness of technological tools in supporting the teaching of Natural Sciences to Primary Education students with special educational needs.
Although the article is, at times, not entirely straightforward in its presentation, the authors’ objective remains clear and understandable.
It is recommended that Figure 2 be revised to enhance its clarity and effectiveness, with particular attention to improving the caption for greater comprehension
Answer: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made the necessary modifications to the manuscript to improve the clarity and coherence of the text. Specifically, the section highlighting the role of ICT in the teaching of Natural Sciences in Primary Education has been revised to incorporate a clearer focus on student diversity and special educational needs.
Additionally, Figure 2 has been reviewed as suggested, in order to enhance its clarity and communicative effectiveness. Special attention has been given to the caption, which has been revised to facilitate better understanding by readers.
We sincerely appreciate your observations, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you to the authors for their thorough and thoughtful revisions. I am pleased to confirm that the changes introduced have substantially improved the manuscript, both in terms of methodological transparency and overall clarity. Overall, I am satisfied with the way the authors have addressed the previous concerns, and I consider the revised manuscript to be suitable for publication.
