Do English Language Pre-Service Teachers Feel Ready to Teach Students with ADHD? Voices from Japan, Poland, Turkey, and Ukraine
, Zrinka Fišer 3, Mutsumi Iijima 4, Elisa Díaz-Prada 5 and Nataliia Shcherba 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGiven that the number of students with ADHD-like behaviors is on the rise, the study addresses a timely and relevant topic. The manuscript presents a mixed-methods cross-national study, albeit involving a small number of participants, exploring the self-efficacy and pedagogical approaches of pre-service EFL teachers from Japan, Poland, Turkey, and Ukraine. The use of quantitative and qualitative methods, including vignette methodology, enhances the authenticity and contextualization of the data.
Although the manuscript explores a valuable topic of inclusivity in education with cross-cultural implications, it has several methodological framework and analytical engagement issues in the Discussion section. The gaps in the reliability, interpretation, and transparency weaken the credibility of findings.
The principal concern relates to the Discussion section, which predominantly reports results, including numeric data that were already presented in the Results section, instead of interpreting them in light of earlier research. This makes the discussion of findings superficial. One would expect a deeper engagement with discussing results for the Scopus Q1 journal.
The manuscript fails to address aspects of instrument validity and reliability. The authors do not report on the validation process of the instrument, nor present evidence of internal consistency for the Likert-scale items.
Moreover, the participants’ experience with ADHD is not discussed. It is unclear whether they had prior classroom exposure to students with ADHD, which could impact their self-efficacy and responses to the scenarios. The authors mention only the participants' overall teaching experience (Lines 314-317).
The treatment of responses written in multiple languages is not explained. Participants were allowed to respond either in their native languages or English (Lines 338-339), yet it is not mentioned how the responses written in different languages were handled during the coding process. Were they translated, and who performed these translations? Furthermore, the authors note that two researchers independently coded the data, but there is no discussion of inter-coder reliability. This undermines the study’s trustworthiness and the replicability of the findings.
The study uses ANOVA to compare groups with unequal sample sizes, e.g., 22 Ukrainians and only 8 Polish participants, which can violate the results and compromise their validity. Also, the authors mention the use of paired-sample t-tests (Lines 357-358), but they are not adequately reported.
Table titles are not specific enough and do not indicate the nature of the data or the method used to collect them (for example, does Table 3 report ANOVA results?).
Statistical data should normally be presented with two decimals.
The reference list requires revision as some references appear incomplete or inconsistently formatted.
In sum, while the topic is timely and relevant, and the manuscript demonstrates potential, it currently lacks methodological transparency and sufficient analytical depth in its discussion of the findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript is generally well-written, but some parts are dense, e.g., Lines 382-389.
Author Response
|
Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable comments. Authors
|
|
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Reviewer 1 |
Response from Authors |
|
Given that the number of students with ADHD-like behaviors is on the rise, the study addresses a timely and relevant topic. The manuscript presents a mixed-methods cross-national study, albeit involving a small number of participants, exploring the self-efficacy and pedagogical approaches of pre-service EFL teachers from Japan, Poland, Turkey, and Ukraine. The use of quantitative and qualitative methods, including vignette methodology, enhances the authenticity and contextualization of the data. Although the manuscript explores a valuable topic of inclusivity in education with cross-cultural implications, it has several methodological framework and analytical engagement issues in the Discussion section. The gaps in the reliability, interpretation, and transparency weaken the credibility of findings. The principal concern relates to the Discussion section, which predominantly reports results, including numeric data that were already presented in the Results section, instead of interpreting them in light of earlier research. This makes the discussion of findings superficial. One would expect a deeper engagement with discussing results for the Scopus Q1 journal.
|
The results and discussion sections have been merged – section 4 (the text in blue). |
|
The manuscript fails to address aspects of instrument validity and reliability. The authors do not report on the validation process of the instrument, nor present evidence of internal consistency for the Likert-scale items.
|
Cronbach's alpha values for the reliability of questionnaire items were within the acceptable range: For inattention situations – .81 For hyperactivity/impulsivity - .75 This sentence was added to the text: “The inattention situations scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .81, whereas the hyperactivity/impulsivity situations scale of .75. (Lines 370-371) |
|
Moreover, the participants’ experience with ADHD is not discussed. It is unclear whether they had prior classroom exposure to students with ADHD, which could impact their self-efficacy and responses to the scenarios. The authors mention only the participants' overall teaching experience (Lines 314-317).
|
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the experience in teaching students with ADHD may significantly impact one’s self-efficacy. However, in this research, we did not inquire about participants’ teaching experience with students with ADHD because the data instrument (the six classroom vignettes – please see section 2.2) did not explicitly refer to ADHD in order not to predispose the participants’ responses to specific situations in light of ADHD-like behaviours. In this way, we wanted to avoid unnecessary labelling – the specific behaviour and the learner with ADHD. We added the following sentence in Section 2.2: “Although the scenarios presented the ADHD-like behaviours, none of them made an explicit reference to ADHD. In this way, we did not predispose participants’ responses with a focus on ADHD but rather elicited responses to regular classroom situations.” (Lines 342-345).
|
|
The treatment of responses written in multiple languages is not explained. Participants were allowed to respond either in their native languages or English (Lines 338-339), yet it is not mentioned how the responses written in different languages were handled during the coding process. Were they translated, and who performed these translations? |
This sentence was added to the text (Section 2.2): “The responses in the native language of the participant were translated into English by the relevant researcher, considering their native language background.” (Lines 351-353). |
|
Furthermore, the authors note that two researchers independently coded the data, but there is no discussion of inter-coder reliability. This undermines the study’s trustworthiness and the replicability of the findings.
|
Interrater reliability was not calculated; instead, the analysis employed an iterative coding approach involving multiple discussions among the researchers to ensure consensus and consistency in coding decisions (Saldaña, 2021).
The relevant section in the manuscript has been revised. The following sentence was added: “The coding was conducted iteratively through multiple discussions to ensure consensus and consistency in coding decisions (Saldaña, 2021). (Lines 392-393)
Reference list: Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. |
|
The study uses ANOVA to compare groups with unequal sample sizes, e.g., 22 Ukrainians and only 8 Polish participants, which can violate the results and compromise their validity. Also, the authors mention the use of paired-sample t-tests (Lines 357-358), but they are not adequately reported. Statistical data should normally be presented with two decimals.
|
Thank you for pointing this out. The low number of the Polish participants was our concern. Initially, we thought of excluding the numerical data obtained from this cohort. However, considering that we included the qualitative data from the participants from four countries, we wanted to be consistent and include all the data available for this cohort. This sentence was added to Section 2.3.: “We admit that the significantly lower number of the Polish participants (n= 8), compared to the other cohorts (Ukraine n = 22, Japan n = 16, Turkey n = 16), may have violated the quantitative results and compromised their validity. However, considering that the number of responses that provided qualitative data was sufficient for this cohort, we wanted to report the analysis for all the available data for the given cohort of participants, considering the research questions and cross-research questions discussion of the findings. Please advise whether we should exclude the Polish cohort from the quantitative data analysis. The reporting of the statistical data has been corrected according to the APA7 guideline https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/numbers-statistics-guide.pdf |
|
Table titles are not specific enough and do not indicate the nature of the data or the method used to collect them (for example, does Table 3 report ANOVA results?).
|
The titles of the tables have been specified. |
|
The reference list requires revision as some references appear incomplete or inconsistently formatted. In sum, while the topic is timely and relevant, and the manuscript demonstrates potential, it currently lacks methodological transparency and sufficient analytical depth in its discussion of the findings. |
The reference list has been revised. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author/s,
This study offers a timely and much-needed contribution to the field of inclusive language education by exploring how pre-service English language teachers across four culturally and educationally diverse countries (Japan, Poland, Turkey, and Ukraine) perceive and respond to ADHD-like behaviours in the classroom. Through a robust mixed-method design employing the vignette methodology, the researchers successfully capture nuanced perspectives on self-efficacy and teaching approaches in managing inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity—core features of ADHD.
One of the study's key strengths lies in its international scope, which allows for a valuable cross-cultural comparison. This comparative lens reveals both convergences and divergences in how ADHD-like behaviours are interpreted and addressed, providing insights that are crucial for developing more universal and evidence-informed approaches to inclusive language teaching. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data further strengthens the study’s validity and depth, offering a holistic understanding of teacher perceptions and strategies.
The finding that participants exhibit moderate confidence in managing ADHD-like behaviours, while also demonstrating alignment with some evidence-based practices, is particularly encouraging. It highlights the importance of targeted training and curriculum development in teacher education programs to bridge existing gaps and reinforce inclusive practices.
While the study is thoughtfully designed and provides rich data, there are areas for improvement that would enhance its clarity and impact. The introduction, although comprehensive, could be more concise to maintain reader engagement. Some of the background information currently in the introduction might be more appropriately placed in a separate literature review section to improve structural coherence. Additionally, the statistical data presented in tables would benefit from more detailed explanation and interpretation within the main text to aid readers in fully grasping the significance of the results. Finally, the conclusions section is notably brief and would benefit from further elaboration to better synthesize the key findings and implications, and to provide a stronger sense of closure.
Despite these minor issues, this research represents a meaningful step forward in addressing ADHD-like behaviours in language classrooms. It has clear implications for teacher training and inclusive pedagogical practices, opens up important discussions, and sets a solid foundation for further exploration in this under-researched area.
Warm regards.
Author Response
|
Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable comments. Authors
|
|
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Reviewer 2 |
Response from Authors |
|
While the study is thoughtfully designed and provides rich data, there are areas for improvement that would enhance its clarity and impact. The introduction, although comprehensive, could be more concise to maintain reader engagement. Some of the background information currently in the introduction might be more appropriately placed in a separate literature review section to improve structural coherence.
|
The introductory part of the text has been rewritten for cohesion and coherence (the text marked in blue; lines 42-55). |
|
Additionally, the statistical data presented in tables would benefit from more detailed explanation and interpretation within the main text to aid readers in fully grasping the significance of the results.
|
The results and discussion sections have been merged – section 4 (the text in blue). |
|
Finally, the conclusions section is notably brief and would benefit from further elaboration to better synthesize the key findings and implications, and to provide a stronger sense of closure. |
The Conclusion section has been rewritten (the text in blue, lines 599-646). |
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been considerably improved in response to the earlier feedback. Methodological transparency has been enhanced through the inclusion of Cronbach’s alpha values, which establish the internal consistency of the questionnaire. The authors have also provided an explanation of how multilingual responses were handled, and the description of the coding procedure has been expanded. The limitations posed by the small Polish sample have been acknowledged, and the results and discussion sections have been merged. Overall, these changes enhance the paper’s clarity and quality.
However, the discussion still relies heavily on restating results rather than providing a deeper analytical interpretation. The authors asked whether the data on Polish participants should be removed. Given that the rationale for their inclusion has now been provided and the potential risks have been acknowledged, these data should be retained.
In sum, the revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. The study retains its cross-cultural relevance and offers valuable insights into inclusive pedagogy.
