Teachers’ Understanding of Implementing Inclusion in Mainstream Classrooms in Rural Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic continues to be an important one internationally, and evidently has not seen as much attention in South Africa as in some other parts of the world. The methodology is notable as we rarely have access to observational data and it adds such depth to the study. So many studies in this field rely on teacher self-report data which is valuable for capturing beliefs and attitudes but limited as a proxy for classroom practice. The article is very well written and clearly structured. The findings are not surprising but the study has several unique aspects, including the context and the methodology, that add value.

My comments are mostly focused on providing additional context and detail, bringing forward more of the rich data, and situating the study and findings within international literature. I hope the attached feedback is helpful as the authors revise their manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments suggestion highlighted in red in the manuscript 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First and foremost I would like to congratulate the authors on producing a clear and accurate abstract that covers all the major points made in the article with remarkable concision and clarity. It is not always so. 

The tension (or apparent contradiction) between adherence to the concept of inclusiveness and the near total inability to put its principles into practice is brought into perspective. 

I would like to make the following suggestions for minor but desirable improvements : (1) how was the observation of the teachers carried out? How many lessons / periods, etc. over how much time? It would be useful to know more about the observation grid that was used. Could the author(s) be a little more specific? (2) a summary is given of the teachers conceptions and understandings of inclusion, of their own self-reporting (of the constraints they work under)    but we don't really get to "hear" their voices directly (verbatim). Is there no way in which the authors might, if briefly, quote their statements? (3) There seems to be a slight technical issue with the presentation of the first section. I would personally delete the explicit reference to "Literature review" (68) and add numbers instead (69) to 1. Understanding inclusive education.  1.1. Global and national trends 1.2. Pivotal role of the teacher 1.3. Barriers to implementation 1.4. Inclusive pedagogy and the "Core expertise" model. In section 2, I would also add numbers to 2.1. Research design 2.2. Research setting (unless the editorial guidelines say otherwise), etc. (3) The article tends to repeat statements or claims made about teacher attitudes, difficulties experienced, etc. I have absolutely no objection to going over some crucial facts or opinions again and again,  but would nonetheless encourage authors to check that any repetition is relevant for the sake of argumentation or includes something extra that refines or clarifies what was stated earlier on. (4) Some reviewers might rightly express surprise at the relatively small number of bibliographical references . I would argue that a small number of references is perfectly fine if the study presents a fine-grained qualitative analysis of empirical data, i.e. the in situ observations and the answers given to the semi-guided interviews. That is why I make the suggestion of "fleshing out" the observation section (slightly) and offering a fine-grained account of the statements made by the informants.

I am talking here of "finishing touches". The authors must feel free to respond to the suggestions I make without compromising their own delivery style and line of argumentation. As it stands, the article already gives a realistic account of the issues and contradictions that teachers commonly struggle with... not just in rural South Africa but in many places (including urban Europe). And that is what matters most.

Author Response

Comments suggestion highlighted in red in the manuscript