From Attitude to Action: A Preliminary Study on Enhancing Educators’ Competence for Inclusive Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful, constructive, and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and expertise you devoted to reviewing our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments. Your feedback gave us the opportunity to take a fresh look at our work and to sharpen several important aspects of the manuscript.

Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope that the current version of our manuscript more clearly communicates the contribution and relevance of this preliminary study to the broader conversation on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training in higher education. We are grateful for your suggestions and hope the revised version reflects the care with which we have considered your comments.

General response

We understand the concerns regarding the sample size and the preliminary nature of this study. However, we would like to respectfully emphasize that even in its early stage, this study offers valuable empirical insights. It does not merely lay the groundwork for a future intervention; it already provides relevant findings that can inform DEI training designs more broadly.

Our aim is not only to explore the feasibility of our PDP approach but also to contribute to the larger debate on how to meaningfully support educators in navigating inclusive practices in increasingly diverse contexts. We’ve taken your feedback to heart and have done our best to reflect the exploratory nature of the study more clearly, while still showing its potential value for both practice and future research.

 

Responses to reviewer 2

Comment: If this is a preliminary study, it should inform whether to proceed with a full study or change the approach. This should be better emphasized.
Response: Thank you for this remark. We have clarified in the discussion that this study serves a dual purpose: (1) to evaluate the initial feasibility and reception of the PDP, and (2) to identify critical insights that may guide future iterations of both this programme and comparable initiatives. The findings not only inform the next steps in our own research but also illuminate broader issues relevant for institutional DEI strategies.

 

We included the following on line 556: To ensure lasting impact, future programs and research should incorporate ongoing support mechanisms, experiential learning opportunities, and multi-stakeholder engagement (such as student voices)

 

We’re thankful for your input here, it encouraged us to make the dual aim of the study more explicit.

 

Responses to reviewer 3

Structure & Logic

Comment:  On p.2. from the second to third paragraph, there is information missing. Then how are teachers picked? - The fact that the teaching pedagogy isn't the deciding factor doesn't mean it isn't taking into account in a more general fashion. In addition, the third paragraph doesn't follow logically.

Response: We have revised the second and third paragraphs of the introduction to clarify the participant selection process and the rationale behind our focus. The link between the theoretical framework and the practical set-up is now made more explicit to support logical flow.

 

We have incorporated the following information on line 60-63: Selection often prioritizes research performance, seniority, or administrative experience over didactic expertise. Although pedagogy may receive consideration, it typically assumes a secondary role in the overall evaluation process (Chalmers, 2011).

Language & style

Comment: Tone should be more formal; stylistic issues like “isn't” vs. “is not”, etc.
Response: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript for tone, formality, and clarity. Informal contractions and stylistic inconsistencies have been corrected. Redundant spaces and awkward phrasing have been addressed throughout. Everything is highlighted in track changes.

Research questions

Comment: The research questions need more specificity.
Response: We have reformulated the research questions to clearly indicate that the focus is on our PDP, and to better reflect the study's scope and goals. They are now aligned with both the objectives and methods used in the paper. The track highlights the changes.

Methodology
Comment: More detail needed on survey reliability and item adjustments.
Response: Thank you for this note. We included the original crohnbach alpha’s from the instruments in the text on lines 389 and 394.

Comment: In addition, a more detailed account needs to be presented for the changes to the selection and/or adjustments of items

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We would like to respectfully note that this information is already included in the current version of the manuscript. Specifically, we explain why we chose and changed certain items on lines 345-346 (SACIE-R changes; and 364-370 teaching practices questionnaire), detailing how we modified existing items and what criteria we used to make sure they fit the goals of the PDP and the context of inclusive teaching in higher education.

We’re grateful for the chance to clarify this further and to highlight the decisions behind our methodological choices.

Literature review

Comment: The review is not nuanced enough.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The entire author team has carefully revisited the literature review in light of your comment. While we acknowledge the call for additional nuance, we remain confident that the selected references reflect a well-considered and coherent theoretical foundation for this preliminary study. The literature was chosen deliberately to align with the scope, aims, and methodological focus of our work. Nevertheless, we are open to integrating additional perspectives in future work as the broader study progresses.

Your comment reminded us of the importance of staying open to evolving perspectives as our research develops, thank you for that.

 

Data & descriptions

Comment: The characteristics are a bit skewed. An older individual will have had more opportunity for training. I carefully assume that the one individual is also the one with the most training. In addition, 9 hours of training isn't much for a teacher. I would like to know where this label comes from.
Response: Thank you for your observation. The label concerning training duration (i.e., less than 9 hours) was defined by the institution where the training was delivered, based on internal benchmarks. Regarding the assumed link between age and training, we did not make this connection in our analysis, as the opportunity for training does not necessarily imply participation.

Tables & figures

Comment: Formatting issues with boldface, italics, and notes.
Response: All tables have been reviewed and reformatted according to APA 7 guidelines. Redundant notes have been removed, and inconsistencies in italics and boldface have been corrected. Decimal formatting has also been standardized across tables, using the submission form of this journal.

Results & interpretation

Comment: Subjective interpretations in the results section; missing perspectives.
Response: We have adjusted the wording in the results section to avoid premature interpretation. The phrasing is now strictly descriptive. Furthermore, we have addressed the lack of multiple perspectives by adding a discussion of how institutional and systemic factors (e.g., time, workload, leadership support) intersect with teacher agency and capacity.

The following was added in the discussion on line 542-548: Lastly, while this study provides insights into educators’ self-reported changes in attitudes, self-efficacy, and practices following participation in the PDP, it captures only one perspective—that of motivated participants reflecting on their own development. This preliminary study did not examine broader structural or institutional barriers to inclusive teaching, such as time constraints, lack of resources, or limited institutional support, which may significantly influence the extent to which inclusive practices can be implemented in daily teaching.

We’re especially grateful for this comment, as it helped us bring in a broader and more critical perspective into the discussion.

References
Comment: Unclear citation format (e.g., “Dursun et al., 20-21”).
Response: All references have been reviewed and corrected to conform with APA 7 guidelines. The citation mentioned was a typographical error and has been corrected.Thank you for catching this, we’ve taken care to ensure accuracy across the reference list.

Once again, we are truly grateful for your careful reading and valuable suggestions. We hope that our revisions demonstrate the seriousness with which we engaged with your feedback, and that the manuscript now more clearly reflects its intended contribution. We remain committed to advancing thoughtful, evidence-based approaches to DEI training in higher education, and we welcome any further guidance you may have in this process.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) have done an excellent job of improving the text in line with the recommendations. However, if it is a preliminary study, it is a study before the main study. The results of the preliminary study should help to decide whether to proceed with the full study, change the approach or even the intention if it proves inappropriate or without sufficient justification. This aspect should be emphasised more in the publication, e.g. in the introduction or discussion.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful, constructive, and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and expertise you devoted to reviewing our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments. Your feedback gave us the opportunity to take a fresh look at our work and to sharpen several important aspects of the manuscript.

Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope that the current version of our manuscript more clearly communicates the contribution and relevance of this preliminary study to the broader conversation on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training in higher education. We are grateful for your suggestions and hope the revised version reflects the care with which we have considered your comments.

General response

We understand the concerns regarding the sample size and the preliminary nature of this study. However, we would like to respectfully emphasize that even in its early stage, this study offers valuable empirical insights. It does not merely lay the groundwork for a future intervention; it already provides relevant findings that can inform DEI training designs more broadly.

Our aim is not only to explore the feasibility of our PDP approach but also to contribute to the larger debate on how to meaningfully support educators in navigating inclusive practices in increasingly diverse contexts. We’ve taken your feedback to heart and have done our best to reflect the exploratory nature of the study more clearly, while still showing its potential value for both practice and future research.

 

Responses to reviewer 2

Comment: If this is a preliminary study, it should inform whether to proceed with a full study or change the approach. This should be better emphasized.
Response: Thank you for this remark. We have clarified in the discussion that this study serves a dual purpose: (1) to evaluate the initial feasibility and reception of the PDP, and (2) to identify critical insights that may guide future iterations of both this programme and comparable initiatives. The findings not only inform the next steps in our own research but also illuminate broader issues relevant for institutional DEI strategies.

 

We included the following on line 556: To ensure lasting impact, future programs and research should incorporate ongoing support mechanisms, experiential learning opportunities, and multi-stakeholder engagement (such as student voices)

 

We’re thankful for your input here, it encouraged us to make the dual aim of the study more explicit.

 

Responses to reviewer 3

Structure & Logic

Comment:  On p.2. from the second to third paragraph, there is information missing. Then how are teachers picked? - The fact that the teaching pedagogy isn't the deciding factor doesn't mean it isn't taking into account in a more general fashion. In addition, the third paragraph doesn't follow logically.

Response: We have revised the second and third paragraphs of the introduction to clarify the participant selection process and the rationale behind our focus. The link between the theoretical framework and the practical set-up is now made more explicit to support logical flow.

 

We have incorporated the following information on line 60-63: Selection often prioritizes research performance, seniority, or administrative experience over didactic expertise. Although pedagogy may receive consideration, it typically assumes a secondary role in the overall evaluation process (Chalmers, 2011).

Language & style

Comment: Tone should be more formal; stylistic issues like “isn't” vs. “is not”, etc.
Response: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript for tone, formality, and clarity. Informal contractions and stylistic inconsistencies have been corrected. Redundant spaces and awkward phrasing have been addressed throughout. Everything is highlighted in track changes.

Research questions

Comment: The research questions need more specificity.
Response: We have reformulated the research questions to clearly indicate that the focus is on our PDP, and to better reflect the study's scope and goals. They are now aligned with both the objectives and methods used in the paper. The track highlights the changes.

Methodology
Comment: More detail needed on survey reliability and item adjustments.
Response: Thank you for this note. We included the original crohnbach alpha’s from the instruments in the text on lines 389 and 394.

Comment: In addition, a more detailed account needs to be presented for the changes to the selection and/or adjustments of items

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We would like to respectfully note that this information is already included in the current version of the manuscript. Specifically, we explain why we chose and changed certain items on lines 345-346 (SACIE-R changes; and 364-370 teaching practices questionnaire), detailing how we modified existing items and what criteria we used to make sure they fit the goals of the PDP and the context of inclusive teaching in higher education.

We’re grateful for the chance to clarify this further and to highlight the decisions behind our methodological choices.

Literature review

Comment: The review is not nuanced enough.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The entire author team has carefully revisited the literature review in light of your comment. While we acknowledge the call for additional nuance, we remain confident that the selected references reflect a well-considered and coherent theoretical foundation for this preliminary study. The literature was chosen deliberately to align with the scope, aims, and methodological focus of our work. Nevertheless, we are open to integrating additional perspectives in future work as the broader study progresses.

Your comment reminded us of the importance of staying open to evolving perspectives as our research develops, thank you for that.

 

Data & descriptions

Comment: The characteristics are a bit skewed. An older individual will have had more opportunity for training. I carefully assume that the one individual is also the one with the most training. In addition, 9 hours of training isn't much for a teacher. I would like to know where this label comes from.
Response: Thank you for your observation. The label concerning training duration (i.e., less than 9 hours) was defined by the institution where the training was delivered, based on internal benchmarks. Regarding the assumed link between age and training, we did not make this connection in our analysis, as the opportunity for training does not necessarily imply participation.

Tables & figures

Comment: Formatting issues with boldface, italics, and notes.
Response: All tables have been reviewed and reformatted according to APA 7 guidelines. Redundant notes have been removed, and inconsistencies in italics and boldface have been corrected. Decimal formatting has also been standardized across tables, using the submission form of this journal.

Results & interpretation

Comment: Subjective interpretations in the results section; missing perspectives.
Response: We have adjusted the wording in the results section to avoid premature interpretation. The phrasing is now strictly descriptive. Furthermore, we have addressed the lack of multiple perspectives by adding a discussion of how institutional and systemic factors (e.g., time, workload, leadership support) intersect with teacher agency and capacity.

The following was added in the discussion on line 542-548: Lastly, while this study provides insights into educators’ self-reported changes in attitudes, self-efficacy, and practices following participation in the PDP, it captures only one perspective—that of motivated participants reflecting on their own development. This preliminary study did not examine broader structural or institutional barriers to inclusive teaching, such as time constraints, lack of resources, or limited institutional support, which may significantly influence the extent to which inclusive practices can be implemented in daily teaching.

We’re especially grateful for this comment, as it helped us bring in a broader and more critical perspective into the discussion.

References
Comment: Unclear citation format (e.g., “Dursun et al., 20-21”).
Response: All references have been reviewed and corrected to conform with APA 7 guidelines. The citation mentioned was a typographical error and has been corrected.Thank you for catching this, we’ve taken care to ensure accuracy across the reference list.

Once again, we are truly grateful for your careful reading and valuable suggestions. We hope that our revisions demonstrate the seriousness with which we engaged with your feedback, and that the manuscript now more clearly reflects its intended contribution. We remain committed to advancing thoughtful, evidence-based approaches to DEI training in higher education, and we welcome any further guidance you may have in this process.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On  p.2. from the second to third paragraph there is information missing. Then how are teachers picked? The fact that the teaching pedagogy isn't the deciding factor doesn't mean it isn't taking into account in a more general fashion. In addition, the third paragraph doesn't follow logically. 

In particular with financial cuts in HE your argumentation needs to be more elaborated. Please revise accordingly. 

p.2.79 Why is this placed in boldface? Also check the remainder of your work. 

What is the take-home message after p.3.111/112? 

"insufficiently positive" = Negative? Oddly phrased. 

In your problem statement, to what extent are time and resources relevant for inclusive practices? I can imagine that with increased financial cuts in HE (e.g., in the netherlands), inclusive practices are threatened due to a lack of financial resources.

What does this mean: "(Dursun et al., 20-21)"?

I would go over your text in terms of formality. I see a sentence starting with "but". There are more suitable synonyms. In addition, instead of "isn't" = is not. 

Instead of proposing a new programme, did you re-evaluate existing ones? To examine why they don't work? 

p.5.218-220 Then I also expect to have a more nuanced literature review (that is what I am missing at the moment). 

You research questions aren't specific enough. "in a PDP" isn't what you mean. It is your PDP, right? 

I spot a few additional spaces before starting a new sentences. Can you please check? 

The characteristics are a bit skewed. An older individual will have had more opportunity for training. I carefully assume that the one individual is also the one with the most training. In addition, 9 hours of training isn't much for a teacher. I would like to know where this label comes from. 

The note under table 1 is redundant. This has been explained in the main text.

You are referring to surveys in the methodology. I expect reliability scores. In addition, a more detailed account needs to be presented for the changes to the selection and/or adjustments of items. 

If you are using APA 7 are a reference format please take another look at e.g., table 3 (text in italics; also check p.11 437: the italics aren't applied correctly). Revise accordingly. Furthermore, the boldface parts distract me. What does it mean in this table? 

For table 4: keep the number of decimals consistent. 

Refrain from using descriptions as "a similar positive trend". This is already an interpretation (a subjective one). That doesn't belong in the results section.

The findings from your study aren't surprising since you have sufficiently examined why inclusive practices are challenging. You only highlight what is crucial for it, but the reasons as to why teachers might be unable to do it (time, resources?). You only provide one perspective, but more perspectives are needed. 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful, constructive, and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and expertise you devoted to reviewing our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments. Your feedback gave us the opportunity to take a fresh look at our work and to sharpen several important aspects of the manuscript.

Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope that the current version of our manuscript more clearly communicates the contribution and relevance of this preliminary study to the broader conversation on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training in higher education. We are grateful for your suggestions and hope the revised version reflects the care with which we have considered your comments.

General response

We understand the concerns regarding the sample size and the preliminary nature of this study. However, we would like to respectfully emphasize that even in its early stage, this study offers valuable empirical insights. It does not merely lay the groundwork for a future intervention; it already provides relevant findings that can inform DEI training designs more broadly.

Our aim is not only to explore the feasibility of our PDP approach but also to contribute to the larger debate on how to meaningfully support educators in navigating inclusive practices in increasingly diverse contexts. We’ve taken your feedback to heart and have done our best to reflect the exploratory nature of the study more clearly, while still showing its potential value for both practice and future research.

 

Responses to reviewer 2

Comment: If this is a preliminary study, it should inform whether to proceed with a full study or change the approach. This should be better emphasized.
Response: Thank you for this remark. We have clarified in the discussion that this study serves a dual purpose: (1) to evaluate the initial feasibility and reception of the PDP, and (2) to identify critical insights that may guide future iterations of both this programme and comparable initiatives. The findings not only inform the next steps in our own research but also illuminate broader issues relevant for institutional DEI strategies.

 

We included the following on line 556: To ensure lasting impact, future programs and research should incorporate ongoing support mechanisms, experiential learning opportunities, and multi-stakeholder engagement (such as student voices)

 

We’re thankful for your input here, it encouraged us to make the dual aim of the study more explicit.

 

Responses to reviewer 3

Structure & Logic

Comment:  On p.2. from the second to third paragraph, there is information missing. Then how are teachers picked? - The fact that the teaching pedagogy isn't the deciding factor doesn't mean it isn't taking into account in a more general fashion. In addition, the third paragraph doesn't follow logically.

Response: We have revised the second and third paragraphs of the introduction to clarify the participant selection process and the rationale behind our focus. The link between the theoretical framework and the practical set-up is now made more explicit to support logical flow.

 

We have incorporated the following information on line 60-63: Selection often prioritizes research performance, seniority, or administrative experience over didactic expertise. Although pedagogy may receive consideration, it typically assumes a secondary role in the overall evaluation process (Chalmers, 2011).

Language & style

Comment: Tone should be more formal; stylistic issues like “isn't” vs. “is not”, etc.
Response: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript for tone, formality, and clarity. Informal contractions and stylistic inconsistencies have been corrected. Redundant spaces and awkward phrasing have been addressed throughout. Everything is highlighted in track changes.

Research questions

Comment: The research questions need more specificity.
Response: We have reformulated the research questions to clearly indicate that the focus is on our PDP, and to better reflect the study's scope and goals. They are now aligned with both the objectives and methods used in the paper. The track highlights the changes.

Methodology
Comment: More detail needed on survey reliability and item adjustments.
Response: Thank you for this note. We included the original crohnbach alpha’s from the instruments in the text on lines 389 and 394.

Comment: In addition, a more detailed account needs to be presented for the changes to the selection and/or adjustments of items

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We would like to respectfully note that this information is already included in the current version of the manuscript. Specifically, we explain why we chose and changed certain items on lines 345-346 (SACIE-R changes; and 364-370 teaching practices questionnaire), detailing how we modified existing items and what criteria we used to make sure they fit the goals of the PDP and the context of inclusive teaching in higher education.

We’re grateful for the chance to clarify this further and to highlight the decisions behind our methodological choices.

Literature review

Comment: The review is not nuanced enough.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The entire author team has carefully revisited the literature review in light of your comment. While we acknowledge the call for additional nuance, we remain confident that the selected references reflect a well-considered and coherent theoretical foundation for this preliminary study. The literature was chosen deliberately to align with the scope, aims, and methodological focus of our work. Nevertheless, we are open to integrating additional perspectives in future work as the broader study progresses.

Your comment reminded us of the importance of staying open to evolving perspectives as our research develops, thank you for that.

 

Data & descriptions

Comment: The characteristics are a bit skewed. An older individual will have had more opportunity for training. I carefully assume that the one individual is also the one with the most training. In addition, 9 hours of training isn't much for a teacher. I would like to know where this label comes from.
Response: Thank you for your observation. The label concerning training duration (i.e., less than 9 hours) was defined by the institution where the training was delivered, based on internal benchmarks. Regarding the assumed link between age and training, we did not make this connection in our analysis, as the opportunity for training does not necessarily imply participation.

Tables & figures

Comment: Formatting issues with boldface, italics, and notes.
Response: All tables have been reviewed and reformatted according to APA 7 guidelines. Redundant notes have been removed, and inconsistencies in italics and boldface have been corrected. Decimal formatting has also been standardized across tables, using the submission form of this journal.

Results & interpretation

Comment: Subjective interpretations in the results section; missing perspectives.
Response: We have adjusted the wording in the results section to avoid premature interpretation. The phrasing is now strictly descriptive. Furthermore, we have addressed the lack of multiple perspectives by adding a discussion of how institutional and systemic factors (e.g., time, workload, leadership support) intersect with teacher agency and capacity.

The following was added in the discussion on line 542-548: Lastly, while this study provides insights into educators’ self-reported changes in attitudes, self-efficacy, and practices following participation in the PDP, it captures only one perspective—that of motivated participants reflecting on their own development. This preliminary study did not examine broader structural or institutional barriers to inclusive teaching, such as time constraints, lack of resources, or limited institutional support, which may significantly influence the extent to which inclusive practices can be implemented in daily teaching.

We’re especially grateful for this comment, as it helped us bring in a broader and more critical perspective into the discussion.

References
Comment: Unclear citation format (e.g., “Dursun et al., 20-21”).
Response: All references have been reviewed and corrected to conform with APA 7 guidelines. The citation mentioned was a typographical error and has been corrected.Thank you for catching this, we’ve taken care to ensure accuracy across the reference list.

Once again, we are truly grateful for your careful reading and valuable suggestions. We hope that our revisions demonstrate the seriousness with which we engaged with your feedback, and that the manuscript now more clearly reflects its intended contribution. We remain committed to advancing thoughtful, evidence-based approaches to DEI training in higher education, and we welcome any further guidance you may have in this process.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the changes made improve the paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I will still change Table 1 because it is likely that the individual with an age of 45-54 year has "much training". The latter needs to be specified. 

If you are using APA 7, please take another look at your table 2. In addition, you do not refer to N, but to n (it is a subset of something). 

Table 3 isn't according to APA 7 guidelines. Please check and revise accordingly. 

In a similar vein, Table 4 isn't meeting APA 7 guidelines. Moreover, The jump from two to four decimal numbers makes it inconsistent. Make sure the note under your table is in line with the guidelines as well.

I wouldn't use "another positive trend". It is subjective and doesn't add anything relevant to your results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1.13 "at follow-up" = with follow-up?

p.2.77 Is this a quote? If so, please insert the page number(s). 

p.5.232 This is a closed-end question. I would advise against this (this is more suitable--as a statement--for a hypothesis). 

p.6247 3 = three. 

If you are using APA 7, please check how italics is used (e.g., for N/n). Also make a distinction between n and N. Apply this throughour your manuscript. 

p.9 Please place the Md, M and SD in italics (but not the statistics after). Also apply this to the tables. 

p.11.table5 The formatting is a bit odd (it is set to the left zijn of the page).

Overall decent quality manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the effectiveness of a three-day professional development program in improving the attitudes, self-efficacy, and inclusive teaching practices of educators in higher education.

The paper presents a solid and up-to-date theoretical framework on inclusive education in higher education, addressing key concepts such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL), the importance of teacher attitudes and self-efficacy, and empirical evidence from professional development programs. Recent and relevant studies are cited, demonstrating awareness of the current state of the field. However, it is suggested that a brief theoretical framework be added starting on the second page, specifically where it begins to address the attitudes, self-efficacy, and inclusive teaching practices of educators in higher education, separating this analysis from the Introduction section. In the Introduction, it would be advisable to include the objective and briefly explain how the research is structured.

The quasi-experimental design is well described, including pre-, post-, and follow-up measurements. The instruments used (SACIE-R, TEIP, Teaching Practices Questionnaire) are specified. However, although the instruments used to measure the attitudes, self-efficacy, and even teaching practices of educators in higher education are listed, it is suggested to delve further into the dimensions and variables assessed in each instrument. A summary table could help the reader better understand each instrument.

The results are presented in a clear and understandable manner, differentiating between attitudes, self-efficacy, and teaching practices. However, the interpretation of some results could benefit from greater quantitative and visual detail (tables, figures) to facilitate understanding and comparison.

The discussion adequately argues the results, relating them to previous literature and highlighting both the achievements and limitations of the training program. Practical implications are acknowledged, and future lines of research are suggested, presenting a critical and contextualized analysis. Conclusions are derived directly from the results obtained and supported by the evidence presented. Both achievements and limitations are acknowledged, and realistic recommendations for future practice and research are offered. The article uses current, relevant, and high-quality references, both theoretical and empirical, covering international literature and recent studies on inclusive education and teacher professional development. 55% of the citations correspond to research from the last five years.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the study is undoubtedly topical. The author(s) have successfully used the analysis of three important aspects of inclusive education implementation (attitudes, self-efficacy & inclusive educational practices) for the scientific design of the study. The study has a significant scientific basis. However, in the introduction to the publication these scientific findings are very scattered. First the introduction describes the keywords, then this description is continued again by expanding the description of the keywords, then it is expanded again in the problem statement section. Only at the end of this long description is there an explanation of what the author(s) intend to study. Such an introduction should certainly be consolidated by highlighting the aspects that are relevant for this study.
It would also be advisable to improve the formulation of the objective of the study (see line 223). The current wording does not make the correlations between the selected variables clear.
The wording of research question 2 should also be reconsidered (see line 232). As currently worded, the question is oriented towards very limited answer options. With regard to the third research question (see line 234), it should be noted that the answer is rather vague in the following publication. It is debatable whether this question is at all relevant to the aim of the study.
The methodology of the study is transparent, but the small number of participants in the study is an obstacle to any scientific generalisation. Perhaps this could be considered a pilot study, but this is not the intention of the author(s) in this case.  Moreover, the author(s) mainly describe the didactic methods used in the training programme, but the information on the content of the course itself is very limited. It is therefore not clear what the participants learned and how the content of the training could influence their future practice. This limitation of the study is not sufficiently reflected in the discussion section. 
In view of the above objections, it would be questionable to promote this version of the study for further publication.  

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This study focuses on the following main question: 'How effective are PDPs in promoting inclusivity in HE?'

In order to answer this main question, the following sub-questions will be investigated:

To what extent does participation in a PDP lead to changes in educators' attitudes  towards inclusivity in HE?

• Does a PDP increase educators' self-efficacy in creating inclusive learning environments in HE?
• To what extent do educators' didactic practices change after participating in a PDP?

The study answers the research questions, but as the sample is very small, it is not possible to generalise the conclusions and it is difficult to say that they are representative, even though it is a case study.

The research is interesting and relevant but given the size of the sample it makes it impossible to contribute to scientific knowledge. The study works more as an example to be replicated in other contexts and with a larger sample.

The conclusion is insufficient, with many gaps, which stems from the lack of representative results.

Perhaps consider comparing the results with other similar studies.

The references are appropriate to the study.

I would recommend publishing this paper at a conference and developing the study again with a larger sample.

It would be pertinent to understand why teachers dropped out of study. Perhaps it would be pertinent to understand this, given the subject of the study.

Line 292 interactive - ‘n’ missing