Analysis of the Factors Influencing Inclusive Education Competency of Primary and Secondary Physical Education Teachers in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title should be more succinct. 

There should be more details of the methods in the Abstract. 

The authors should include a comprehensive review of related literature which is linked to the justification of the study. There should also be a stronger justification of the study. And the Discussion section has to link back to the literature used in the Introduction section. The studies cited in the Discussion were not discussed and critiqued in the Introduction. 

The authors should give more details for developing and validating the "Physical education teachers' inclusive education competency" measure. Was EFA conducted? Give examples of some of the items in the measure. Demographic information is not part of the questionnaire. 

What was the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants? What screening was done for the returned questionnaires? 

What are posterior comparisons? What are the results about posterior comparisons showed in Table 4?

The authors should be mindful of the language used when referring to persons with and without disabilities. For example, special children and ordinary children are not accepted terminology.

There are awkward sentence structures. There are also grammatical errors that need to be corrected in the manuscript. The help of an English editor is encouraged. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “To Enable the Sustainable Development of Inclusive Physical Education: Inclusive Education Competency of Primary and Secondary Physical Education Teachers and Its Influencing Factors in China” (ID: 2064199). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to comments are as flowing.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

 

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive and positive comments.

1.The title should be more succinct. 

Re: The title has been changed to “Analysis of the Factors Influencing Inclusive Education Competency of Primary and Secondary Physical Education Teachers in China”. (line5-7)

2.There should be more details of the methods in the Abstract. 

Re: We have added the reliability and validity test method of the questionnaire and data analysis method. All changes are as follows: The questionnaire in this study was adapted from the Questionnaire on the Professional Competency of Teachers in Compulsory Education, and the results from exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis showed that the questionnaire had good reliability and validity. There were 286 physical education teachers participating in the study, including 228 males and 58 females. Both the independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were carried out. (line17-22)

3.The authors should include a comprehensive review of related literature which is linked to the justification of the study. There should also be a stronger justification of the study. And the Discussion section has to link back to the literature used in the Introduction section. The studies cited in the Discussion were not discussed and critiqued in the Introduction. 

Re: We have supplemented and improved the Introduction and Discussion section, added relevant research on the influencing factors of inclusive education competency to the Introduction section, connected the Discussion section with the Introduction section, and added references.

4.The authors should give more details for developing and validating the "Physical education teachers' inclusive education competency" measure. Was EFA conducted? Give examples of some of the items in the measure. Demographic information is not part of the questionnaire. 

Re: First, we have added the specific process of questionnaire preparation. Second, we have conducted exploratory factor analysis on this questionnaire with the results presenting in the “Reliability and Validity” section. Third, examples of the items of each dimension have been added in the “Questionnaire on Physical Teachers’ Inclusive Education Competency”. Finally, we have removed the demographic information of the participants in the “Questionnaire on Physical Teachers’ Inclusive Education Competency”.

5.What was the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants? What screening was done for the returned questionnaires? 

Re: We have added the criteria “A total of 317 questionnaires were collected, covering 20 provinces, including the northeast, east, central and west. Eliminating questionnaires with a large proportion of missing answers and completely duplicated answers, the number of effective questionnaires was 286, with an effective rate of 90.2%.” (line 150-153)

6.What are posterior comparisons? What are the results about posterior comparisons showed in Table 4?”

Re: The definition of the posterior comparisons has been added “Posterior comparisons is to test which population means are equal and which population means are different through pairwise comparison between population means. In this study, the least significant difference method (LSD) proposed by Felsch was adopted, which is essentially t-test. Therefore, the variables with significant difference analysis results were further analyzed by the posterior comparisons, so as to explore the differences in the dimensions of inclusive physical education and the over-all situation of different teaching ages, whether children with or without disability were taught and the length of training related to inclusive education.” (line 246-253) Meanwhile, the results about posterior comparisons has been explained below Table 4.

7.The authors should be mindful of the language used when referring to persons with and without disabilities. For example, special children and ordinary children are not accepted terminology.

Re: We have changed the “special children” to “children with disabilities”, “ordinary children” to “typically developing children”.

8.There are awkward sentence structures. There are also grammatical errors that need to be corrected in the manuscript. The help of an English editor is encouraged. 

Re: We have found native speakers of English to revise the article. Attached is the credential.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this manuscript. According to my point of review, there are some issues that would improve the quality of this manuscript as the following:

 

Abstract:

1- I suggest the authors to re-write the second sentence “This study investigated the…” because of some repetition.

2- The authors have mentioned the sample size twice; please remove the first mentioned.

3- More details about the sample are needed (e.g., mean age; standard deviation; gender; … and so on).

4- The authors should provide data analysis part or the statistical analysis they have used.

 

Keywords:

1- I suggest the authors to add one keyword about quality of education or quality of inclusive education.

 

1. Introduction:

1- I suggest the authors to add a brief definition of the term “quality of inclusive education”.

2- In the last paragraph, line 77 to 82, the aims of the study are not clear; I suggest the authors to re-write this part.

 

2. Materials and Methods:

1- The authors should add “Procedure” section right after the “Participants” section.

 

2.2. Measures.

1- I suggest adding a separate section titled “ Reliability and Validity”, and moved line 111 “The reliability analysis of the questionnaire…” until the end of the paragraph line 123 “… questionnaire structure validity was good.” to that section.

2- Please add a reference for this sentence “…, showed that the questionnaire structure validity was good”.

 

2.3. Data Analysis.

1- More details about the tests the authors have used in order to analyze the data are needed (e.g., One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in this study to assess the …, and so on).

 

4. Discussion:

1- I suggest starting this section with the aims of the study.

 

4.1. Physical Education Teachers’ Inclusive Education Competency.

1- In paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4, the authors should compare their findings with the literature, add references and provide explanations.

 

4.2.3. Difference of Inclusive Education Competency on Physical Education Teachers with the Length of Training Related to Inclusive Education.

1- Please add a reference for this sentence: “Generally speaking, the longer the relevant training time, the higher the inclusive education competency of teachers would be”.

 

5. Practical Implications

1- In paragraph 2: “Second, increase the pre-service and post-service…”, what did the authors mean by “post-service”? Did they you mean “in-service”?, if so, please correct it.

 

7. Conclusions:

1- Line 357 to 358, no need for capitalizing the first letters “In terms of the Length on Training Related to Inclusive Education,…”, please fix it.

 

Note: In general, I suggest the authors to go either with the term “children with special needs” or “children with disabilities” and use it in the whole manuscript.

 

All the best!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “To Enable the Sustainable Development of Inclusive Physical Education: Inclusive Education Competency of Primary and Secondary Physical Education Teachers and Its Influencing Factors in China” (ID: 2064199). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to comments are as flowing.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

 

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive and positive comments.

Abstract:

1- I suggest the authors to re-write the second sentence “This study investigated the…” because of some repetition.

2- The authors have mentioned the sample size twice; please remove the first mentioned.

3- More details about the sample are needed (e.g., mean age; standard deviation; gender; … and so on).

4- The authors should provide data analysis part or the statistical analysis they have used.

 

Re:

1-We have rewritten the second sentence “This study investigated the current situation of the inclusive education competency of primary and secondary school physical education teachers and analyzed its influencing factors.” (line 14-16)

2-We have removed the first mentioned sample size.

3-We have added the gender information of the samples. Due to our demographic variables did not involve age information for the participants, there was no age information added.

4- We have added “Both the independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were carried out.” (line 21-22)

 

Keywords:

1- I suggest the authors to add one keyword about quality of education or quality of inclusive education.

 

Re:

1-We have added “quality of inclusive education” in Keywords.

 

1. Introduction:

1- I suggest the authors to add a brief definition of the term “quality of inclusive education”.

2- In the last paragraph, line 77 to 82, the aims of the study are not clear; I suggest the authors to re-write this part.

 

Re:

1-We have added a brief definition “The quality of inclusive education comprises the level of inclusive education and the degree of its effects. High-quality inclusive education is crucial in enhancing the effect and value of children’s learning.” (line 56-58)

2-We have rewritten the Introduction section and the aim of this study has been further supplemented to make it clearer.

 

2. Materials and Methods:

1- The authors should add “Procedure” section right after the “Participants” section.

 

Re:

1-We have added the “Procedure” section right after the “Participants” section.

 

2.2. Measures.

1- I suggest adding a separate section titled “Reliability and Validity”, and moved line 111 “The reliability analysis of the questionnaire…” until the end of the paragraph line 123 “… questionnaire structure validity was good.” to that section.

2- Please add a reference for this sentence “…, showed that the questionnaire structure validity was good”.

 

Re:

1-We have divided the “Measure” section into two parts, “Questionnaire on Physical Teachers’ Inclusive Education Competency” and “Reliability and Validity”, and have moved line 111 to “Reliability and Validity” section.

2-We have added two references for this sentence to prove the good structure validity of the questionnaire.

 

2.3. Data Analysis.

1- More details about the tests the authors have used in order to analyze the data are needed (e.g., One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in this study to assess the …, and so on).

 

Re:

1-We have added the details about the tests that we used in this study to analyze the data, “In this study, the data were obtained by distributing questionnaires, carefully screening questionnaires and eliminating extreme values and outliers. SPSS 26.0 soft-ware was used for data analysis to test the reliability and validity of the data and analyze the differences. First, we analyzed the demographic data of the subjects to obtain the personal information of the subjects. Second, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the reliability and validity of the measure. Third, frequencies, means and standard deviation were calculated for the sociodemographic variables and four dimensions of inclusive education competency. Finally, in terms of different demographic variables, independent sample t test or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for each dimension score and total score to assess the influencing factors of physical teachers’ inclusive education competency.” (line 208-219)

 

4. Discussion:

1- I suggest starting this section with the aims of the study.

 

Re:

1-We have added one phrase to start the Discussion section “The aims of the current study were to investigate the current situation of inclusive education competency of primary and secondary school physical education teachers in China and explore the impact of different teaching age, teaching children with disability or not and the length of training related to inclusive education on physical education teachers' inclusive education competency.” (line 284-288)

”

 

4.1. Physical Education Teachers’ Inclusive Education Competency.

1- In paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4, the authors should compare their findings with the literature, add references and provide explanations.

 

Re:

1-We have compared our findings with the literature, and have added references and explanations.

 

4.2.3. Difference of Inclusive Education Competency on Physical Education Teachers with the Length of Training Related to Inclusive Education.

1- Please add a reference for this sentence: “Generally speaking, the longer the relevant training time, the higher the inclusive education competency of teachers would be”.

 

Re:

1-We reconsidered the validity of this sentence and decided to remove it.

 

5. Practical Implications

1- In paragraph 2: “Second, increase the pre-service and post-service…”, what did the authors mean by “post-service”? Did they you mean “in-service”?, if so, please correct it.

 

Re:

1-We have replaced “post-service” with “in-service”.

 

7. Conclusions:

1- Line 357 to 358, no need for capitalizing the first letters “In terms of the Length on Training Related to Inclusive Education,…”, please fix it.

 

Re:

1-We have fixed the incorrect use of capitalization.

 

Note: In general, I suggest the authors to go either with the term “children with special needs” or “children with disabilities” and use it in the whole manuscript.

 

Re: We have changed the term to “children with disabilities” in the whole manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Editing is still required. For example, in the Abstract (line 16), it should be “There were 286 physical education teachers who participated in the study…” Some phrases are unclear. For example:

·        -  “…realize the life care of sports disadvantaged students” (line 59).

·        -  The training related to inclusive education mostly stayed within the concept, without real and systematic teaching. (Lines 354-355)

·        - As a baton, evaluation could effectively intervene teachers’ actions, and the school’s reward mechanism was an important factor affecting teachers’ enthusiasm. (Lines 396-397)

Effective is not the correct term to be used in “effective questionnaires was 286, with an effective rate of 90.2%” (lines 110-111). Incomplete sentence “However, the data of this study showed that the longer the teaching time, the higher the inclusive education competency was not necessarily.” (Lines 304-306).

When citing authors in the text, only use the surname, not the full name, e.g., Wang Yan, Yan Leng.

The authors should be also consistent in using children with disability or children with disabilities in the manuscript. Also, suggest naming the dimension “acquiring support” instead of “acquiring supports”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of my co-authors, we sincerely thank you for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision. We revised the manuscript according to the comments carefully and hope it meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:

Comment

Editing is still required. For example, in the Abstract (line 16), it should be “There were 286 physical education teachers who participated in the study…” Some phrases are unclear. For example:

• -  “…realize the life care of sports disadvantaged students” (line 59).
• -  The training related to inclusive education mostly stayed within the concept, without real and systematic teaching. (Lines 354-355)
• - As a baton, evaluation could effectively intervene teachers’ actions, and the school’s reward mechanism was an important factor affecting teachers’ enthusiasm. (Lines 396-397)

Effective is not the correct term to be used in “effective questionnaires was 286, with an effective rate of 90.2%” (lines 110-111). Incomplete sentence “However, the data of this study showed that the longer the teaching time, the higher the inclusive education competency was not necessarily.” (Lines 304-306).

Response:

1. We have revised the sentences to make our expression more accurate and appropriate.

- “There were 286 physical education teachers who participated in the study…” (Line 16).

- “…realize the caring for life of sports disadvantaged students” (Lines 60-61).

- “The training content mainly stayed at the macro level, but did not involve the knowledge that teachers needed in practice, such as how to help children grow and progress through inclusive education, and how to properly deal with the differences between typically developing children and children with disabilities.” (Lines 355-359).

- “As a baton, evaluation can effectively guide teachers’ actions, and the performance incentives of schools can improve teachers’ enthusiasm for inclusive education.” (Lines 399-401).

- “286 valid questionnaires were obtained, and the effective rate of the questionnaire was 90.2%”. (Lines 111-112).

- “However, the data of this study showed that the length of teachers’ teaching time was not proportional to the level of their inclusive education competency.” (Lines 304-306)

Comment

When citing authors in the text, only use the surname, not the full name, e.g., Wang Yan, Yan Leng.

Response:

We revised the citing authors in the text with using the surname.

Comment

The authors should be also consistent in using children with disability or children with disabilities in the manuscript. Also, suggest naming the dimension “acquiring support” instead of “acquiring supports”.

Response:

We revised “children with disability” to “children with disabilities” and “acquiring supports” to “acquiring support”.

       We really appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the improvements; I wish you all the best.

Author Response

Thanks for all that you have done for us and this manuscript, I hope everything goes well for you.