Preliminary Effectiveness of Professional Learning about Disability-Specific Evidence-Based Classroom Practices for Education Support Staff

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This is a very well written article about on-line professional learning for teaching assistants in Australia. The authors are clear that this is a preliminary study which indicates that people respond positively and self-report increased knowledge and self-efficacy but that there is no objective evidence that their practices have changed. Other limitations are also acknowledged. Nevertheless, this study is a step in the right direction. I have very little feedback on changes to offer.

 

 

If the figures are available it may be helpful to note the proportion of the ES staff who completed the course completed the surveys? It looks as if it was a reasonable proportion as around 700 people completed the course, the 323 ES staff were almost half.

 

I would have liked a little more on course content, but once the details are unblinded this would likely be accessible.

 

Author Response

Thank you for investing your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript and providing feedback.
We have added the proportions of ES staff who completed and did not consent to participate in the research as suggested.
A link to more detail about the course will be provided in the final unblinded manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The publication reflects on a actual topic in development of the educational system.  However, the research objectives and especially the research questions are not clearly formulated. The publication has two thematic lines: the online study platform and its visitors' feedback on the acquired knowledge. These thematic lines lack an analysis of the interactions between them. In chapter 1.2. a scientifically based professional learning model is included. However, the data analysis used in the publication is hardly related to this model. On the other hand, the argumentation described in the discussion is not really connected with the data obtained in the study.

The authors of the publication should first clearly focus the research. It would be desirable to choose the scientific basis as well as guidelines for the analysis and interpretation of the research results.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in providing feedback regarding the scientific base for the professional learning model, which we feel has resulted in valuable improvements to the manuscript.

We have addressed your feedback by: 

• Adding a table that links Desimone's model for PL explicitly to the course design/content.
• Updating the aim so the research question is clearer.
• Describing how we anticipate the open ended survey responses will elicit insights into the links between the course design and theoretical frameworks.
• Reorganising the results to align more clearly with the theories/qualitative coding.
• Adding more open ended survey data to the results to create clearer links between course design, the statistical outcomes, and theoretical frameworks.  We then ensured this flowed into the discussion.

We feel it is important to note that the open ended survey findings are only used to provide a little more context and exploration of our statistical results exploring changes in knowledge and self-efficacy after completing the PL courses. The open ended survey findings presented are not intended to provide a deep analysis to find support for the scientific base for the model, given these are both well-established models/theories, and our focus of this initial pilot of the PL courses is on whether there is evidence of preliminary effectiveness. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections made in the publication are correct. Its quality has been greatly improved. The article is recommended for publication.