The Role of Flexibility in the Realization of Inclusive Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article analyses the influence of educators’ flexibility on their attitudes towards inclusive education and self-efficiency, which may influence their pedagogical behaviour and the results of the student. This topic is very important for the quality and successful education of all students and, therefore, deserves more attention from researchers. Researchers define flexibility as “the capacity to change and to adapt to a challenging Flexibility can be defined as “the capacity to change and to adapt to a challenging environment” (Georgsdottir and Getz, 2004) and analyse its effectiveness in two models: Model 1, which focuses on the needs of students with learning difficulties (LD); Model 2 focuses on the needs of students with emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD). It is assumed that in the first case, teacher flexibility should affect the achievements of mainstream students and students with LD; in the second case it should affect the social relations and the management of one's behaviour. The results of the research revealed a positive attitude of educators towards the achievements of mainstream students and students with LD, and a significant increase in teachers' belief in the possibility of students with EBD to form social connections, make friends, and participate in inclusive education.

The authors define the main concepts of the research in the introductory part of the article. They discuss and analyse the concept of flexibility in terms of teachers’ possible solutions and behaviours (1.1), the diversity of students’ needs, as well as learning and social skills (1.2).

However, the article lacks a definition of inclusive education. The concept of inclusive education is not interpreted in the same way by different authors and in different cultural contexts. In this case, it can be assumed that inclusive education is related to the education of students with special educational needs. However, a more detailed description is needed of how the authors define the phenomenon of the “implementation of inclusive education” (line 56), is it related to the organization of support (line 200), or is it about broader activities in organizing inclusive education? A clearer description of inclusive education practices is needed.

Moreover, a more detailed explanation of the experience of the study participants would also be needed (lines 226-228). The following questions arise: do teachers in primary and secondary schools apply the principles of inclusive education or do they work in homogeneous groups? How is inclusive education represented by a special school? What are the characteristics of an inclusive class? (Lines 226-228).

The results of the study are presented clearly and correctly. They are visualized in the table and two diagrams. In the discussion part, the research results of both models are discussed in detail, but the authors do not formulate conclusions. The unique results of this study would be thoroughly revealed if the conclusions of this study were formulated.

Researchers describe the limitations of the study in detail and share insights for future research. The results of this study enrich the knowledge about inclusive education.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for letting me review your work. Reading has been a pleasure. I will now proceed to the evaluation of it.

Originality/Novelty: Is the question original and well defined?

I think it addresses an interesting and necessary topic, since, as the authors indicate, diversity is increasing and educational inclusion is a necessity. On the other hand, training on this topic is deficient.

I consider this work to be original, novel and of clear application in the educational field. The research topic is well defined.

The introduction is simple and clear. But the theoretical framework does not have a good thread. It is full of small subsections that do not relate well all the aspects of the study. And it leads poorly to the research objectives.

I believe that a theoretical framework without subsections in which the different ideas are related would be more enriching. In addition the studies are not recent, in the last 5 years there are few studies: 2017 = 1; 2018 = 0, 2019 = 1, 2020 = 1 and 2021 = 0.

 

Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge?:

Although the sample is not significant, I believe that these first results offer a contribution to knowledge.

Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations carefully identified as such?

The results are interesting, and well presented, although I believe that a table with the values of each model would complete the figures and give a more complete view of the adequacy of the model and how each factor contributes to it.

The discussion, although interesting, I think it is poorly related to previous studies.

In the section on limitations, it speaks of a small sample, when it should speak of its representativeness. The limitations derived from the survey study are not mentioned either. 

Scientific Soundness: is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?

The methodology section is incomplete. Neither procedure nor design has been included. And the analysis section should be placed before the results section. In addition, the normality data of the sample is not indicated. Nor is it clear what type of analysis is involved. 

As for the sample, the type of sampling, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are not indicated, nor is there any mention of the low representativeness of the sample.

The description of the instruments is somewhat poor, and the reliability and validity values of the original scale are not included. Then in the results section it is indicated for the sample, but this should be included in the instruments section.

Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?

I find the topic investigated interesting and relevant. But at the same time, it suffers from a theoretical framework that is poorly structured and with references that are not very updated. The methodology section should be completed. It is very important to specify that the sample is not representative, and that it presents errors. Do not simply indicate that it is small. The normality of the sample should also be indicated. The design and procedure section should be included. More comparison studies should be included in the discussion. And the limitations should be reviewed. 

As for the references, must be updated. Only two self-citations were found: 19 and 42 which I consider relevant.

Appendix A is of poor quality and does not look good.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration. I appreciate the changes made.  Congratulations for the work. 

Best regards,
The reviewer