Preservice Special Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Field Experience with English-Language Learner Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The topic of the manuscript is relevant and fits within the scope of the Journal Education Sciences (Special and Inclusive Education – Section). However the manuscript isn´t aligned with the aims of the Special Issue "Mathematics Education for Students with Learning Disabilities". I suggest to propose this manuscript for another special issue at the same section.

The overall paper evaluation is positive, but some effort is necessary to make it acceptable.

Some points for improvement:

- the manuscript, describes research on humans, but does not include information regarding Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board approval.

- don't use acronyms in the title

- The manuscript can be strengthened by making a more detailed presentation of the methodology. The research methods and procedures are not clearly and sufficiently described for other researchers to replicate them.

Best wishes with the rewriting process.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing our piece and your detailed feedback. 

In response to your points:

1. Regarding the appropriateness of the selected special issue, we do see your point that this study is not focused on math education. However, the special issue also highlights cross-disciplinary practices in special education which is why this was selected. 
2. Added statement at line 146 that the study was reviewed and approved by the IRB as non-human subjects study.
3. Corrected use of acronym in the title.
4. Revised the method section. Clarified that the study was a single point, cross sectional design rather that constructivist grounded theory. Added the survey questions used. Provided additional detail on distribution and collection of survey data. Clarified data analysis and identification of themes (lines 134-201)

Again, thank you very much for your response and feedback!

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall comment

            I enjoyed reading and reviewing this paper and thank you for the privilege of examining your work.  I feel that your work is interesting to the field and provides contextualization of a practicum experience which provided supports in identified areas of growth.  Several points of my feedback are more commentary and do not need to be addressed, but are included as a thought between author and reader, as I believe that I wanted you to see.  Other points are intended for clarity of writing.  Thank you again for the privilege of peer review.

 

Abstract

·         Commentary-- Abstract provides general description of the study, but does not capture the context of the study as well as it captures the literature review.  I believe this abstract should be revised with suggested revisions from paper.

·         Suggestion (line 9 Student…. States.)—Phrasing is awkward, I’ve provided a suggestion for revision, which may change again later—“Students in the United States are increasingly diverse in academic ability and linguistic backgrounds.”  

·         Suggestion-- I would love the methodology (constructivist grounded theory design) to be present in your abstract

Introduction

The introduction is sufficient to provide background to most readers.  The audience of the journal would have enough information to understand the context of the problem.

·         Suggestion (line 57):  The term “trump” has become less favorable socially and politically in both special education and multilingual education following the former president’s actions.  To avoid the political trigger for the authorship, I’d suggest a synonym such as “usurp” or “take precedence over”

·         Section 1.1 (lines 60-75) emphasize the problem of the specialization trap.  While I agree with the problem of the silo-effect, I would argue that the act of collaboration (see Friend & Cook, multiple articles and texts) is designed to bring specialists together to support one another through skill development and shared responsibility.  I fear that by advocating for MORE requirements to embed into all curriculum for MORE areas of knowledge, we risk diluting the professional responsibilities and need of specialty skill sets.  The studies sited did find that specialities don’t have the skills of the other field.  This is not a problem IF the field is trained in collaborative practice. 

o   In other words, teachers in Special Ed/ ELL don’t have to be jacks of all trades and masters of none.  They must be specialists who understand how the fields intersect and how to work collaboratively to meet those intersectional needs.

 

Methods

·            The methods of this study need significant revision.  In the current state, the research framework is unable to be evaluated.

o     Provide a design framework logic or figure with description of how the sampling, coding, and analysis were applied.  Tie, Birks, & Francis (2019) might be a useful support in writing this section—please don’t assume I’m calling you a novice because of their paper title.  I just find their paper easy to read.

o   A key element of grounded theory is systematic analysis and coding, including the process for generating codes, analyzing data, and triangulating.  These are currently mentioned in name only in lines 165-166.

o   Describe HOW the data was collected.  What are the interview questions?  Was the only point of collection interview?  (Grounded theory tends to use field notes from many sources including interview, meetings, coursework, etc.)

o   Constructivist grounded theory co-constructs the theory as a result of interactions.  Please clarify how the participants constructed an understanding of the data.  What are the ontological and/or epistemological positions?

Results

The data provided in the results is well written and extremely approachable.  Minor reorganization or revisions will likely be necessary when methods are clarified.  I do not want to provide an extensive critique of the results before the methods are revised.

Tables and Figures

No tables or figures are currently provided.  The addition of tables or figures for methods section would be very beneficial.

 

Discussion, Limitations, & Conclusion

Like the results section, the conclusion sections are well written and extremely approachable.  Minor reorganization or revisions will likely be necessary when methods are clarified.  I do not want to provide an extensive critique of the results before the methods are revised.

 

Editorial

·          Several citations need DOI links.

·         Citation #13 is missing.  This might be for peer review purpose of a typo. 

·         Overall writing style and grammar suits the expectations of the journal

Comments

·         I enjoyed reading your work and look forward to seeing it through the end process of editing.  I hope that you find my feedback supportive and easily used to improve your final manuscript.

·         I look forward to seeing the methodology section expanded and polished.

·         I will happily complete a full review of the results and conclusion sections when the methods are revised.  I have only provided minor comments at this point.

 

 

I hope that you take my critique as a colleague who hopes to see your manuscript to publication.  I believe that through reorganization and revisions your findings will be more likely to have the critical impact that you want. I look forward to seeing this article in its finished form. I have asked the editor to please send this back to me, if necessary.  If there are any unclear feedback points in this, I would also appreciate that feedback on submission.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed and extremely helpful response!

In regards to the suggestions, we have attached a new draft of the paper. Specifically:

1. Abstract
   1. Revised abstract to be more specific to actual study methods.
   2. Revised awkward phrasing.
2. Introduction
   1. Comments were noted and revisions were not made at this time. We do not disagree with the comment, but feel that in order to be able to have the shared responsibility in collaboration, professionals need to know the other specialties generally. Thus, we see our current draft as pointing out the silo-effect and suggesting an incorporation of general knowledge of other specialities into training, but falling short of calling for an overburdening or dilution of current practice. 
3. Method
   1. Our initial draft stating a constructivist grounded theory design was an error. Our initial design was more in line with this design; however, due to several factors, this was not accomplished. The method has been restated as a cross sectional survey design. 
   2. Survey questions have been added to the method section
   3. Additional clarity has been added to the development of themes. 
4. Results and Discussion
   1. Has not been revised as of this version. 
5. Editorial
   1. Citations have been corrected

Thank you so much for detailed and extremely helpful feedback. I am a novice and the article that you suggested will be extremely helpful in the future. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All questions arisen have been addressed,answered and duly implemented by authors. Paper has won in clarity and quality. Now the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.

Please remove all comments in the document.