Looking for Special Education in the Swedish After-School Leisure Program Construction and Testing of an Analysis Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would like to highlight the importance of this topic (special education). It is one of the professional challenges that we have as a society in the XXI century to end the risk of discrimination and stigmatization that currently exists in many educational systems.

The Swedish context is mentioned in the abstract but I consider important that this also appears in the title of the manuscript.

Regarding the Introduction and Theoretical Framework, it is correct, but taking into account the international approach of the journal is necessary more information about the educational laws/decrees about Special Education in Sweden would be lacking to understand the context of the study.

About the method and results, I find many weaknesses and major changes to make:  Information is lacking from the 4 interviewees, about their selection criteria, short information about the professional profile (age, gender, and years of experience).

Quotes appear in the results, but they are impossible to identify and relate to the interviewees because they are not coded.

Even though it is a “testing of a Study Design”, there is a lack of a deeper reflection on the limitations of the work (only 4 interviewed a very specific context). How this manuscript is useful for other countries?

Author Response

Dear editor/reviewers

Thanks for valuable and constructive comments. I have done my best to correct and complement my article according to the suggestions. Below is a description of the changes. In the article, I have marked/ highlighted the changes in yellow.

I have now changed the title, so it becomes clear that it describes the Swedish school childcare. Now there is also a description of the Swedish special education relevant for the context. There is now more detailed information about Swedish school childcare. The term analysis model is used instead of study design.

The purpose is reformulated according to proposals. The research questions now responds better to the interviews that were conducted.

The method:

I have explained the motives for my selection and provided a detailed description of the respondents. For reasons of confidentiality, I have not stated the exact age and years for the teacher educators. I have described the method more clearly and carried out a validating feedback in which two respondents participated. I have changed interviewee to respondents in all places. I have removed the table that described the interview questions (unnecessary) and replaced it with a table of the respondents (table 1). I have also described the research ethics positions.

The quotes are now linked to each respondent.

In the discussion, I have given reasons why the analysis model and the result can be relevant for those who work with school childcare outside Sweden and Scandinavia. I have made the language changes that were advocated. Shorten sentences and exchange words for better understanding. The article is extended by five references.

I hope my changes are sufficient.

Regards

XXXX

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Looking for Special Education in the After-school 2 Leisure Program Construction and Testing of a Study Design

This is an important subject that has received too little attention previously. I find the method You use feasible, and the discussion enlightening.

My minor comments are on the quality of the English language. There are quite a few places where I would have suggested another wording or split sentences. Thus, I recommend a thorough language check. To illustrate, I suggest line 11 can be changed into: With the problematization of the special education concept in the after-school leisure centers as a starting point, …

Consider splitting line 29 in two: …changed over time. This is clear …

Line 52-54 needs attention

Line 66: consider using “duly” instead of “sharply”

Line 70: “Equality” may be better than “equivalence”

Line 151: I find the purpose of the study unclearly stated.  Can it be shortened to:  “To test a model for analyzing how stakeholders in the Swedish after-school leisure program define special education (relative to the mission to complement, compensate and teach)?

Line 223: It was clear from the start/beginning

Consider another word for “template” unless You mean “schablon” (in Swedish), perhaps “basic concepts” could be used?

Line 224: “perplexity” is a very strong word, can You use “uncertainty” ?

Line 232: Be consistent, use “respondent” as You did first instead of “interviewee” through out

Line 238 do or did not have? Be consequent with past or present time

Line 258-259: Suggestion: “Unfortunately fewer children enroll in clubs and associations now, a respondent says/said”

Line 267-269 Should be shortened or split up.

Line 275-276 I find the statement unclear, so I would suggest a re-writhing

Line 287: It is very rear to consider a child in need…

Line 287: program, but… .Such a case would be when a child needs the structure, he/she would have had  in a classroom.

Line 298: “large groups” is vague, “more populous settings”?

Line 324: “…it that the after…”

Line 338: clearly: substitute with obviously?

Line 368: Re-phrase,  avoid one and one’s in the same sentence. “Possibly two different systems can be combined in a single mission…”? The sentence is long and should be shortened or split up.

Line 393 Ref. 6. equality

Author Response

Dear editor/reviewers

Thanks for valuable and constructive comments. I have done my best to correct and complement my article according to the suggestions. Below is a description of the changes. In the article, I have marked/ highlighted the changes in yellow.

 

I have now changed the title, so it becomes clear that it describes the Swedish school childcare. Now there is also a description of the Swedish special education relevant for the context. There is now more detailed information about Swedish school childcare. The term analysis model is used instead of study design.

 

The purpose is reformulated according to proposals. The research questions now responds better to the interviews that were conducted.

 

The method:

I have explained the motives for my selection and provided a detailed description of the respondents. For reasons of confidentiality, I have not stated the exact age and years for the teacher educators. I have described the method more clearly and carried out a validating feedback in which two respondents participated. I have changed interviewee to respondents in all places. I have removed the table that described the interview questions (unnecessary) and replaced it with a table of the respondents (table 1). I have also described the research ethics positions.

The quotes are now linked to each respondent.

 

In the discussion, I have given reasons why the analysis model and the result can be relevant for those who work with school childcare outside Sweden and Scandinavia. I have made the language changes that were advocated. Shorten sentences and exchange words for better understanding. The article is extended by five references.

 

I hope my changes are sufficient.

 

Regards

XXXX

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review "Looking for Special Education in the After-school Leisure Program Construction and Testing of a Study Design". I found the analysis model presented in the manuscript interesting. There are, however, several places that need clarity, additional information, or reconsideration. 

1. I suggest the removal of "study design" and statements regarding testing a model be removed from the abstract, title, research question, methods and conclusion. I believe for the most part this is an issue of language versus design. The language indicates that authors are proposing some unique methodology to study the prominent research question regarding how teachers in after school programs describe the inclusivity of their programs for students with special education needs. By labeling both 3.1 and 3.2 as models, it distracts from the analysis model and is misleading. The authors are testing a model- the analysis model- but not testing a study design. Clarity is needed throughout to eliminate language that indicates the study design or study method is being tested as that would only occur for new or unique additions to methodology, which this study does not. 
2. I am also confused at times about "defining special education" that is mentioned at times. Are the authors trying to discover teacher beliefs and actions in current after-school programs related to the inclusion of students with disabilities? Does the definition address what tenants of the analysis model or the curriculum or the legislation are present in current after-school programs? The research question should better reflect the purpose of the interviews. 
3. As such, I suggest the removal of Table 1. It adds nothing to the manuscript. 
4. The abstract seems to be missing words and has incomplete sentences. I believe "education" is needed after special in line 10, "being" after point in line 11, and the sentence in lines 13-15 needs revision. Line 17 should include "analysis" before model and model should be singular. 
5. A similar pattern for missing words or unclear sentence structure continues in 1 and 1.1. "After-school" should be included after segregated in line 44. The sentence in lines 51-52 needs to be re-written for clarity. The word "handling" before children in line 55 should be changed. I am unsure what the sentence in lines 83-84 means. "Here there" in line 91 should be corrected. Section 1.2 is written much more clearly. Line 65 has a reference but it is not clear what is meant by "clearly addressed". The sentence in lines 80-82 needs to be re-written.
6. Line 210 - the word "the" should be removed and "of" changed to within. Line 360 should remove "have neared each other and". 
7. The authors in several places make bold statements without much evidence to support the statement. Examples include "clear signs..." and "Much time.." lines 58 and 59. Evidence should be provided and potentially examples are included and explained. The reference used to support several statements (4) used data that ended in 2011- nine years ago. If there are no current data sets that can support those statements, it should be recognized that the data is out of data and the call for new research should include whether the patterns of that data set continue or not. It is not reasonable to make statements about trends using out of date data. 
8.  What do the authors mean by lines 224-225 about the concept raising perplexity which was anticipated. More information is needed there- potentially the inclusion of the template with a glossary for terms would help resolve the issue. 
9. 3.3 should include information about how the participants were selected. Additionally, the conclusion should include limitations of such a small sample and what can be taken from a qualitative sample. Was there any attempt to triangulate data or even member check the results. Qualitative case studies require descriptions of the validity and reliability attempts even for pilot studies. The methods as described are insufficient. 

Author Response

Dear editor/reviewers

Thanks for valuable and constructive comments. I have done my best to correct and complement my article according to the suggestions. Below is a description of the changes. In the article, I have marked/ highlighted the changes in yellow.

 

I have now changed the title, so it becomes clear that it describes the Swedish school childcare. Now there is also a description of the Swedish special education relevant for the context. There is now more detailed information about Swedish school childcare. The term analysis model is used instead of study design.

 

The purpose is reformulated according to proposals. The research questions now responds better to the interviews that were conducted.

 

The method:

I have explained the motives for my selection and provided a detailed description of the respondents. For reasons of confidentiality, I have not stated the exact age and years for the teacher educators. I have described the method more clearly and carried out a validating feedback in which two respondents participated. I have changed interviewee to respondents in all places. I have removed the table that described the interview questions (unnecessary) and replaced it with a table of the respondents (table 1). I have also described the research ethics positions.

The quotes are now linked to each respondent.

 

In the discussion, I have given reasons why the analysis model and the result can be relevant for those who work with school childcare outside Sweden and Scandinavia. I have made the language changes that were advocated. Shorten sentences and exchange words for better understanding. The article is extended by five references.

 

I hope my changes are sufficient.

 

Regards

XXXX

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The new parts added to the theoretical framework, method, and discussion and conclusion are very useful.

Author Response

Dear reviewer
Many thanks for previous comments

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The additional clarifications in the introduction improve the readability and better frame the need of the study. 
2. Table 1 is helpful but I would recommend including ranges for age and professional experience for all participants for uniformity. Explanation for the ranges should be provided (confidentiality measure). The ranges should also be included in the text- but is some of that text necessary if the Table presents the same information? 
3. The information included line 258 on page 8 is helpful but should be revised for verb tense and sentence structure (e.g., revise the question to be a statement of what was asked line 263; verb tense should be changed 267 from "could" to past tense; line 273 isn't a sentence). 
4. line 340- "rear" isn't the correct word. 
5. line 352- it is not uncommon to have groups of 30 to 60? It is unclear as written. 
6. line 428- delete the "shall" from the sentence and revise the verb tense. The present study forms.. and include commas after "and" and "run" in the same line. 
7. After re-reading the manuscript, I still believe that my second concern from the first review applies. The interviews were not about defining special education but how after school programs are evolving to support children with disabilities. "Defining special education" could be accurate if you add "defining how special education is being actualized in after school programs" or something along those lines. The context of the after school program is critical for the research question. 
8. I think the last paragraph is an attempt to address the limitation of generalization for a qualitative study. The caution of using this data as anything more than a pilot study should be included. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Many thanks for valuable comments. I have now changed all the points on the list. In the article marked in green.

 

1. The additional clarifications in the introduction improve the readability and better frame the need of the study. 
2. Table 1 is helpful but I would recommend including ranges for age and professional experience for all participants for uniformity. Explanation for the ranges should be provided (confidentiality measure). The ranges should also be included in the text- but is some of that text necessary if the Table presents the same information?  Done. I removed some text as presented in the table.
3. The information included line 258 on page 8 is helpful but should be revised for verb tense and sentence structure (e.g., revise the question to be a statement of what was asked line 263; verb tense should be changed 267 from "could" to past tense; line 273 isn't a sentence). Done
4. line 340- "rear" isn't the correct word. It is rare  ….
5. line 352- it is not uncommon to have groups of 30 to 60? It is unclear as written. Done.
6. line 428- delete the "shall" from the sentence and revise the verb tense. The present study forms.. and include commas after "and" and "run" in the same line. Done
7. After re-reading the manuscript, I still believe that my second concern from the first review applies. The interviews were not about defining special education but how after school programs are evolving to support children with disabilities. "Defining special education" could be accurate if you add "defining how special education is being actualized in after school programs" or something along those lines. The context of the after school program is critical for the research question. I agree and have changed the wording in a number of places so it will be consistent.
8. I think the last paragraph is an attempt to address the limitation of generalization for a qualitative study. The caution of using this data as anything more than a pilot study should be included. Completed. 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the attention to my feedback in both rounds of revision.