Preparedness and Response to COVID-19 Disruptions and Learning Challenges for Students with Disabilities in South Africa: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I would suggest you to reconsider Figure 1. Some eferences are technically inaccurate

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

I have addressed all your comments that you raised for my manuscript in the correction sheet uploaded

Kind regards

Sibonokuhle Ndlovu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The comments and suggestions of the earlier review are incorporated. The paper needs a grammar/language check before publication. For example, the word 'eventually' appears in two places in a single sentence in line 321. More needs to be checked and corrected if needed. Over all, the article is revised as per the comments and can be published after the grammar /language check

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

I have addressed all your comments  for my manuscript and a correction sheet showing how i responded to your comments has been uploaded.

Kind regards

Sibonokuhle Ndlovu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript has been improved by incorporating the recommendations from reviewers. The revised manuscript includes a more clear scoping review procedure and results of each stage. Sections in the manuscript are more logical. There are a few minor suggestions that might further strengthen the manuscript.

• The format of headings and subheadings are a bit confusing. The subsections of the Method have numbered subheadings; however, those of the Introduction are not numbered. Also, a subheading like ‘Diversity in response and preparation of COVID-19 by South African institutions’ (p11, line 320) is not numbered even within a section with numbered subheadings.

• P 4, line 184-186: There is no document that has Appendix A. It seems that Appendix A refers to ‘Table 2. PRISMA-ScR checklist ….’ The checklist includes 20 items in the table 2; however, the line 184 says that ‘The PRISMA extension for scoping views with 18 items…’

• It must be a document format converting issue, but Figure 1 doesn’t show correctly in the PDF file for reviewers. It would be better for Author(s) to create an image file for the figure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

I have addressed your comments for my manuscript and how your corrections have been addressed is shown on the correction sheet uploaded.

Kind regards

Sibonokuhle Ndlovu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The article is a good theoretical study: a good review of the literature, but the empirical study is very weak. In order to draw any conclusions regarding the subject of research, it is not enough just to analyze the literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

I have addressed and responded to  your comments for my manuscripts. The correction sheet on how i have addressed and responded to your comments has been uploaded.

Kind regards

Sibonokuhle Ndlovu

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The authors have placed accents in the article, which allows the article to be accepted for publication

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

In the future the author should pay ore attention of the research details

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a timely article with reference to COVID 19 pandemic situation, well researched and presented. 

Though the title addresses  education of persons with disabilities, the results reported is brief. It can be elaborated. Of course, the discussion  is well done in this regard.

Needs thorough edit and proof reading. Some of the sentences are  long and complex though grammatically correct. Readers may find it easier if the sentences are shorter and simpler, particularly so in articles that are to do with review of literature like this one.

Certain suggestions are made in the text that is attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript explored the higher education preparedness and responses to COVID-19 including its impact on students with disabilities learning in South Africa through the lens of resilience strategies. Results of the scoping review analysis revealed that higher education institutions in South Africa were inadequately prepared to the pandemic in general, which is associated with the lack of anticipative and transformative capacities in the resilience theory, and the pre-existing learning challenges of students with disabilities were exacerbated due to the ill preparedness. The author suggests anticipative and transformative resilience strategies and fourth industrial revolution (4IR) technologies to be better pre-prepared for adversities.

While the findings of the study are not surprising or unexpected, the evidence from the study shed light on the challenges that higher education institutions face during the adversities and possible strategies to prepare for it. There, however, are several concerns with regard to the purpose and focus, methods, and implications of the study that would need to be addressed. First, it is doubtful that enough focus has been placed on the issue of students with disabilities’ learning in the study as appeared in the title of the manuscript. The current title makes readers expect more specific attention to students with disabilities in higher education institutions; however, the manuscript seems to simply include the disability area as a part of the study. Second, the analysis process needs to be described more in detail to show how themes were generated rigorously and connected to the resilience theory. Third, it seems that there is no sufficient logic in suggesting the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) based on the study findings although it is agreed that the 4IR technology will tremendously improve teaching and learning of all students (including students with and at-risk for disabilities). Fourth, implications and suggestions are too broad and vague to be pragmatic although the anticipative and transformative capacities cannot be overemphasized. I’ve listed suggestions below. I encourage the author to consider these aspects when it is revised.

Introduction (and overall focus of the study)

• I believe all 1-3 headings can be organized in one section, ‘Introduction.’

• The author described general (un)preparedness and responses to the pandemic in both global and South Africa contexts very well. It would be more consistent with the title if the issues of students with disabilities in higher education were included in the introduction. As the author pointed out in the result section, students with disabilities have not been appropriately educated in higher education institutions. There would be much literature that can support that students with disabilities are a vulnerable population in higher education. The lack of students with disabilities information in the introduction may make readers think that the investigation of the vulnerability of students with disabilities in adversities was not the purpose of the study. In the result section, only nine of the twenty-seven articles mentioned the negative impact on students with disabilities’ learning.

Methods

• The term ‘Scopic Review’ and ‘Scoping Review’ were mixed used across the manuscript. I think ‘Scoping Review’ is a commonly used terminology. It would be better to be consistent with it.

• It is not clear how the thematic analysis was conducted. Was it coded by multiple trained reviewers? If so, how was it coordinated?

Results

• It would be great to have a PRISMA chart for the scoping review.

• It would be great to have a table for all themes generated including its elaboration and associated references.

Discussion

• I was interested in the reference 62 (i.e., Wits Disability Rights Unit Annual Report 2020- https://www.wits.ac.za/media/wits-university/students/disabilityunit/documents/Wits%20Disability%20Rights%20Unit%20Annual%20Report%202020.pdf). However, I wasn’t able to get the document.

• In my opinion, the beneficiary of anticipative/transformative resilience and 4IR technology doesn’t need to be limited to students with disabilities. The ill-preparedness of the higher education system probably impacted various vulnerable students such as students in low socioeconomic status and students from different cultural backgrounds including students with language barriers.

• Readers probably expect more practical and realistic strategies to be prepared for adversities. If anticipative/transformative resilience were identified as the opportunities for improvement, what practices need to be installed and implemented to efficiently improve them? Is it necessary to build a new system, support leadership, or revise policy?

• There is no doubt that 4IR technology would support students with or at-risk for disabilities in various ways. It however may take time to make such technology fully available in educational settings. As the author mentioned, students with disabilities had not been adequately included and/or supported in their learning even before the pandemic. I would suggest the author consider a currently available educational framework to reform instructional systems such as differentiated instruction, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), co-teaching, or peer-assisted learning to efficiently include all students in the instruction first. The system should be able to eventually create a positive institutional culture and improve both equity and quality in education. When such a system is cultivated and enculturated, appropriate support for learning loss based on needs including additional or intensified instructional support would be consistent regardless of student identity or context. 4IR technology, as a part of the various evidence-based practices, could be successfully embedded within the system when it is available.

Reviewer 4 Report

The methodology chosen for the study is not scientifically sound: in fact, the author makes his own hypotheses based on the literature analysis and his personal opinion, without confirming the conclusions with any specific methodology or empirical research.

The conclusions and discussion are presented somewhat chaotically; many conclusions are not reflected in the theoretical or empirical research.

It is also worth paying attention to the design of the article: references to the literature are formatted incorrectly

The article is a good study but absolutely not suitable for the level of this journal.