Review Reports - Smart Learning by Design: A Framework for IoT-Driven Adaptive Classrooms and Inclusive Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears that the authors have addressed the reviewers’ comments, and the manuscript now includes the sections that were previously missing.
The remaining task is to eliminate first-person constructions such as “we …”.
For instance, in a sentence like “We are working on the implementation of a first …”.

In addition, the use of non-academic formulations such as “we hope to share the results in future work” should be avoided.
Kindly revise the manuscript to remove such expressions and replace them with more formal, academic phrasing.

Wishing you success

Author Response

Reviewer #1

Wishing you success

Reply to Reviewer 1.

Thank you for your careful review and constructive feedback. We appreciate your acknowledgment that the revised manuscript now includes the previously missing sections and addresses earlier comments.

We have considered your suggestions regarding language use and we have revised the manuscript to eliminate first-person constructions. Phrases such as “we are working on…” and “we hope to…” have been replaced with more formal, academic expressions that maintain the clarity of intent while aligning with scholarly standards. All the changings are highlighted in RED color.

With sincere thanks,
The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors for thoughtfully addressing the initial feedback. The revised manuscript clearly identifies itself as a conceptual framework, not an empirical study, which helps set the right expectations for readers. That clarification in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion is a helpful improvement.

The expanded literature review and added citations lend the paper a stronger academic foundation, particularly in defining the problem and situating it within the context of inclusive education. I also appreciate the more precise explanation of “IoT-driven adaptive practices” early in the manuscript, as this makes the work much more accessible and easier to follow.

Although the paper remains theoretical, the authors’ plans for future pilot studies and data collection are encouraging. I support their continued development of this framework and look forward to seeing how it evolves through research. Overall, the revisions have improved the clarity and depth of the manuscript, and it now aligns more closely with the journal’s standards.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Reply to Reviewer 2.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We truly appreciate your recognition of the revisions made to clarify the conceptual nature of the manuscript. Your comments helped us refine the framing of the work, and we are glad that the adjustments to the abstract, introduction, and conclusion have improved the reader’s orientation.

We are also grateful for your remarks on the expanded literature review and the clearer articulation of “IoT-driven adaptive practices.” Strengthening the theoretical foundation and improving accessibility were key goals in this revision, and your acknowledgment of these efforts is deeply appreciated.

While the manuscript remains theoretical at this stage, we are committed to advancing the framework through empirical research. Your support for our future pilot studies is very motivating, and we look forward to sharing the outcomes of those efforts in subsequent publications.

Thank you again for your constructive and supportive review.

Warm regards,
The Authors

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments to the Author

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Smart Learning by Design: A Framework for IoT-Driven Adaptive Classrooms and Inclusive Education.” The paper presents a timely and innovative conceptual framework at the intersection of inclusive pedagogy and educational technology. It explores how Internet of Things (IoT) devices and data-informed teaching strategies can support more responsive, inclusive learning environments. While the manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic and provides a clear structure, several aspects require clarification, elaboration, and revision before the work is ready for publication.

Definition and Referencing of “IoT”

The acronym "IoT" is used in the abstract without prior definition. For clarity and accessibility, particularly for readers outside of computing or engineering fields, please introduce the full term at first mention:
“Internet of Things (IoT)-driven real-time environmental and behavioral monitoring...”
Furthermore, no academic reference is provided to define or contextualize IoT, despite it being central to the framework. Please add at least one scholarly source to anchor the term.

Missing Reference for Embodied Cognitive Science

The sentence “As supported by Embodied Cognitive Science (late 1980s)...” appears in the introduction without any citation. As this is a key theoretical foundation.

Inconsistent Capitalization

The manuscript refers to “education for all” inconsistently. Since this is the name of a formal UNESCO initiative, it should be capitalized as “Education for All” throughout.

Weak Integration of UDL

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is referenced in the manuscript as a guiding framework but is:

Not sufficiently explained or connected to the proposed IoT-based model.
Missing proper citation to foundational sources.

Please strengthen the conceptual integration of UDL by showing how specific features of your IoT system map onto its three core principles: multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression.

Use of Very Old Sources

Several foundational studies—e.g., Mehrabian (1967), Burgoon et al. (1984)—are cited to support classroom communication and proximity. While historically relevant, they should be complemented with updated literature on interaction in technology-rich classrooms.

Clarify Scope and Limitations of the Framework

While the conceptual framework is clear, the lack of empirical testing must be emphasized more transparently. The abstract and conclusion may give the impression that the model has been piloted. Please explicitly state that:

The framework is theoretical.
Pilot implementations and empirical testing are planned for future research.

Improve Coherence Between Theory and Technology

Sections on classroom architecture, physical proximity, and instructional models (e.g., Table 1) are well-developed but feel somewhat disconnected from the technological core (IoT). Please clarify:

How these pedagogical insights inform or shape the design and interpretation of IoT data.
How the proposed sensor measurements align with desired instructional architectures or interaction patterns.

Language and Style

The manuscript would benefit from language editing to:

Break down overly long sentences.
Reduce the use of passive voice.
Improve flow between sections (especially between theory and implementation).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written, with clear structure and appropriate academic tone. However, the quality of English could be improved in several areas to enhance clarity and readability. Specifically:

Some sentences are overly long and complex, which may hinder comprehension.
There is occasional overuse of passive voice.
Minor grammatical inconsistencies and formatting issues appear throughout the text (e.g., inconsistent capitalization, missing articles).
Transitional flow between theoretical sections and the proposed framework could be strengthened with clearer signposting.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this paper; however, this is not a research study but a hypothetical discussion around the topic presented. My concern is that the format does not meet the needs and requirements of the journal. In addition, the author (s) need to include more citations for the significant components of this work, specifically around defining and situating the problem. The article also addresses IoT-driven adaptive practices, which are never defined. I had to independently research what that was, drastically impacting the article's readability. The concept and framework presented are fascinating. I highly recommend that the author (s) conduct a research study around this topic where they create research questions, collect data, and then present their findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am grateful for the opportunity to review the manuscript "Smart Learning by Design: A Framework for IoT-Driven Adaptive Classrooms and Inclusive Education" for Education Sciences.

The proposition to integrate Internet of Things (IoT) technologies with Universal Design for Learning principles within the Italian educational context is both innovative and germane to fostering inclusive pedagogical environments.

Regrettably, the manuscript exhibits critical deficiencies that preclude its acceptance in its present form. Foremost among these is the absence of empirical substantiation to corroborate the posited benefits, such as enhanced student engagement or amelioration of educational disparities, rendering the work predominantly conjectural. While the manuscript delineates potential applications of IoT sensors for monitoring classroom dynamics, it fails to articulate a cogent methodological framework, omitting critical details regarding sensor specifications, analytical methodologies, or evaluative metrics. Furthermore, an overemphasis on the Italian educational milieu and UDL principles overshadows the necessity for tangible illustrations of how IoT-derived data might refine pedagogical practices, such as optimizing teacher proximity. Ethical considerations, notably data privacy, and technical challenges, such as integration with existing infrastructure, are addressed cursorily, lacking substantive proposals for actionable solutions, such as consent protocols or educator training strategies.

Consequently, I recommend rejection of the manuscript due to its lack of methodological rigor and empirical grounding. Nevertheless, I earnestly encourage the authors to pursue this promising avenue of inquiry, fortifying future submissions with robust empirical data and a meticulously delineated methodological approach.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A