Does “Out” Get You “In”? Education Outside the Classroom as a Means of Inclusion for Students with Immigrant Backgrounds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting research paper talking about how EHOC could be utilized to foster inclusion for students with immigration background. I enjoyed reading this paper very much. I have a suggestion that the author should include a clear introduction with a clear research question, an argument, a summary of the research design, and a brief introdcution of the structure of the paper. A clear introdcution would be very helpful to guide the audience through this paper. 

Another concern might be the implications. I do see a lot of potential of the EHOC with inclusion model. If the author could provide a more clear implications to research and practice in future education field, it would be meaningful. 

Overall, this is a good paper. 

I think the language is ok. 

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for their positive and constructive feedback. We agree that the introduction lacks a clearer research question and could benefit from a brief summary. We have added the respective sections at the end of the introduction.

Furthermore, we revised the section at the end of the document and included implications for research and refined the recommendations for teacher-education and policy-making.

 For your convenience, we include manuscript versions with and without track of the changes made.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a rich qualitative study exploring the education outside the classroom approach and its potential benefits for students with immigration backgrounds, which is of significant importance considering Europe’s increasing ethnic and racial diversity and the need for effective immigration integration strategies.

 

While the study presents valuable participant observation data, there are several aspects that could be improved:

 

1.     Introduction:

The focus of this article centers on Germany. To enhance clarity, the authors should shift from discussing global refugee numbers to specifically addressing the refugee situation in Germany. Incorporating previous research findings related to Germany would provide a more comprehensive context.

 

In Line 40, the authors state, “There is little research on the inclusion of immigrant children in school.” It is essential to clarify this statement’s scope, as there is plenty of research on this topic. Does it pertain to elementary school settings or specifically to German academia? This precision will strengthen the article’s thesis.

 

2.     Methodology:

Although this study employs a case study approach with a convenience sample, the authors should elaborate on the criteria that led to the selection of participants Ben and Ali. Given the high socio-economic status of Ben and Ali’s classmates, it is vital to explore how this distinction may impact their inclusion experiences. Additionally, the authors should address the gender issue as both participants are boys.

 

To ensure the study’s representativeness, the authors should discuss how the choice of Ben and Ali and the focus on a specific class with only three children with an immigrant background align with the broader population, where 20% have an immigrant background. This clarification will strengthen the study’s potential implications for future research.

 

3.     Findings: The qualitative analysis presented in the paper is compelling.

 

To enhance clarity, the authors should provide explanations for the numbers 1-4 in the self-assessment table. For example, they should explicitly state what each rating represents. Additionally, they could elaborate on the methods used to measure integration based on both self-assessment and external assessments.

 

The absence of Ali’s narrative due to language barriers raises concerns about the analysis’s validity, particularly since he is one of only two immigrant children in the study. The authors should address the potential impact of this omission.

 

Overall, this paper offers valuable insights into the education outside the classroom approach and its implications for students with immigration backgrounds in Germany. By addressing the aforementioned points, the article will become even more cohesive and impactful for the journal’s readership.

 

 

Author Response

R2

This paper presents a rich qualitative study exploring the education outside the classroom approach and its potential benefits for students with immigration backgrounds, which is of significant importance considering Europe’s increasing ethnic and racial diversity and the need for effective immigration integration strategies.

 

While the study presents valuable participant observation data, there are several aspects that could be improved:

 

1. Introduction:

The focus of this article centers on Germany. To enhance clarity, the authors should shift from discussing global refugee numbers to specifically addressing the refugee situation in Germany. Incorporating previous research findings related to Germany would provide a more comprehensive context.

 

We agree that the introduction would benefit from focusing on Germany and providing more information with reference to the literature. We shifted the focus to Germany, however, believe that it is important to see the specific German situation in a global perspective.

 

In Line 40, the authors state, “There is little research on the inclusion of immigrant children in school.” It is essential to clarify this statement’s scope, as there is plenty of research on this topic. Does it pertain to elementary school settings or specifically to German academia? This precision will strengthen the article’s thesis.

 

We have clarified this position and added a reference to a literature review on research on the integration of refugee children and youth.

 

2. Methodology:

Although this study employs a case study approach with a convenience sample, the authors should elaborate on the criteria that led to the selection of participants Ben and Ali. Given the high socio-economic status of Ben and Ali’s classmates, it is vital to explore how this distinction may impact their inclusion experiences. Additionally, the authors should address the gender issue as both participants are boys.

 

To ensure the study’s representativeness, the authors should discuss how the choice of Ben and Ali and the focus on a specific class with only three children with an immigrant background align with the broader population, where 20% have an immigrant background. This clarification will strengthen the study’s potential implications for future research.

 

 

We have now included a section stating the inclusion criteria and described the reasoning to choose those two cases. We have further discussed the role of socio-economic status and added information in the results section. We have further addressed the gender issue with the female voice being potentially underrepresented as a limitation and given additional information on gender aspects in the findings by adding an ANOVA analysis (which we had, of course conducted earlier but understand now that it would had been beneficial for the understanding if included).

By having specified the differences between rural and urban migration population numbers, we have made clear that our sample is representative for rural southern Germany. We want to thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue.

 

3. Findings: The qualitative analysis presented in the paper is compelling.

 

To enhance clarity, the authors should provide explanations for the numbers 1-4 in the self-assessment table. For example, they should explicitly state what each rating represents. Additionally, they could elaborate on the methods used to measure integration based on both self-assessment and external assessments.

 

We have added a more detailed description of the two questionnaires and given a graphic example of the emoticons used for the FDI4-6 in the supplement.

 

The absence of Ali’s narrative due to language barriers raises concerns about the analysis’s validity, particularly since he is one of only two immigrant children in the study. The authors should address the potential impact of this omission.

 

We have now addressed the underrepresentation of Ali’s voice in the limitations and discussed its potential threat to the validity of the findings. We have also added a description of how we tried to mitigate this limitation.

 

Overall, this paper offers valuable insights into the education outside the classroom approach and its implications for students with immigration backgrounds in Germany. By addressing the aforementioned points, the article will become even more cohesive and impactful for the journal’s readership.

 

For your convenience, we include manuscript versions with and without track of the changes made.

 

We again want to thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and believe that by addressing them, we have made the paper more concise and potentially impactful.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for making the revisions. Please do some minor grammar edits.