Effects of a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Training Course on the Development Teachers’ Competences: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The databases used may mean that the results are only in English or from North American countries. Not searching other databases limits the findings. Perhaps it would be useful to show this limitation, or if it is due to any inclusion or exclusion criteria. (For example: Comparison)

The flow diagram at the eligibility stage appears to be incomplete.

It is suggested to evaluate the recent publication: https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/joned/article/view/39657/37925

Line 110 is missing a punctuation mark

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and pointed comments. For the responses and comments related to each point please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The subject is interesting.

The paper will be better if the authors:

- Review the research questions, specifying that the empirical field will be a Systematic Literature Review
- It will be important to specify that the data to be collected will come from data from other articles from the RSL done.
- Introducing a paragraph about the PRISMA method in the research method would be important.
- The results should be discussed bringing the idea of coming from an RSL.
- Some of the considerations done in the results extrapolate the method of data collection.

Just review some typos.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and timely comments. For the responses and a summary of the revisions made for each point, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your article " Effects of a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) training course on the development teachers’ competences: a systematic review." for review. After careful consideration, I have come to the decision that minor modifications are necessary. Below I will provide the details concerning each section:

 

The introduction does a good job of providing background and setting the stage for the study. However, more can be done to provide a clearer justification for why the study is necessary. The authors should explain more clearly why this particular study is necessary, and how it is unique or different from other studies in the field. They can also provide more information on the current state of research on UDL, such as the reviews mentioned towards the end of the introduction, and discuss the implications of these reviews. Additionally, the authors can discuss more deeply the potential of UDL in teacher education and what the expected outcomes of the study are.

 

The Methods section seems to be adequate in terms of providing information about the criteria used in the study. However, it could be improved by providing more information about how the PICOT categorization (INESSS, 2013) and the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria were used.

I hope that these suggestions will help you to revise your article and make it more effective. I look forward to seeing your revised paper.

Sincerely,

 Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and timely comments. For the responses and a summary of the revisions made for each point please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf