Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Interesting topic to explore.

- Informative Introduction. 

- Very interesting, relevant and up-to-date sources.

- Some basic literature review is provided which helps the reader identify the context, but it needs to be enriched. Check the comments in the text.

- Good use of English but some rephrasing is strongly suggested. There is repetitive language and a lot of very short sentences which are not smoothly connected. Try to use more complex structures and be more academic.

- The Methodology section provides some critical information but some more should be added to ensure methodological robustness and justify specific methodological choices (check comments in the text).

- The results, especially the qualitative ones, are presented very well and clearly. Some improvements can be made though (check comment in the text).

- Discussion is good  and arguments are supported by relevant sources. 

-Conclusions are clear and implications are offered.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments. 

I have addressed all comments as follows:

• Introduction section: rephrase repetitive language in lines 57, 60-61.

I have addressed this comment. I have rephrased these sentences. Please see track changes in the introduction section.

• The Literature review section, under: 2.1. Teaching and Learning Mathematics Education, change proficiencies to competencies.

I have addressed this comment. I have made this change. Please see track changes in 2.1. Teaching and Learning Mathematics Education section.

• In the Literature review section, under: 2.2.Technology-based pedagogy for Mathematics Education section, enrich this section by adding more literature and case studies and show how the current study will bridge the gap in the literature.

I have addressed this comment. I have added more literature, indicated what technology-based tools were used in other research, and included what knowledge this study will add to the field. I have included the added literature in-text and in the reference list. Please see track changes in the 2.2 Technology-based Pedagogy for Mathematics Education section.

• Some sentences in the literature review are implications and do not belong in the literature review section.

I have addressed this comment. I have removed these sentences. Please see track changes under section 2.2 Technology-based pedagogy for Mathematics Education under the Literature Review.

• Under section 2.3 Virtual Communities of Practice Theory, clarify ‘students who are practicing teachers’.

I have addressed this comment. I have clarified the participants for the study. Please see track changes under section 2.3 Virtual Communities of Practice Theory.

• Under section 3.1, General Background, explain why qualitative methods were used.

I have addressed this comment. I have clarified why a qualitative study was undertaken. I have supported using a relevant source/reference. Please see track changes under section 3.1 General Background.

• Under 3.7 Data analysis, use more academic terminology, clarify the data analysis process, and include if data analysis tools were used.

I have addressed this comment. I have expanded on the data analysis under section 3.7, Data Analysis. Please see track changes on the revised paper.

• Under section 4 Results, clarify what perceptions were found.

I have addressed this comment. I have clarified the perceptions under section 4 Results. Please see track changes on the revised paper.

• Under section 5.3, Challenges experienced when using technology-based pedagogy during the COVID-19 pandemic, rephrase repetitive language.

I have addressed this comment. I have rephrased these sentences. Please see track changes in section 5.3.

• In section 6, Conclusions, clarify who the participants are and what perceptions were found.

I have addressed this comment. I have clarified the participants for the study, and I have clarified the perceptions. Please see track changes under section 6 Conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

A very interesting study based on well-researched literature and well carried out. The presentation of the results must be changed, though: The axis in the two figures have different measures (80-100 in fig1, 0-100 in fig 2). And it is always very tempting to present answers in diagrams as percentages but for this qualitative research diagrams showing the number count would be more appropriate. 

 

two minor remarks:

Last sentence of 2.1 [This is concerning for students..... environments] - a very important message - but it needs maybe a reference to a source.

and the reference to "mathematics anxiety" (line 402) seems not really based in the study and references to other research are missing.

 

and one typo: in line 231 Virtual Communities of Practice has the abbreviation VoP - everywhere else in the text it is VCoP  

 

I wish you good luck with these small adaptations.

 

Author Response

Author's notes for each comment from the reviewer:

• A very interesting study based on well-researched literature and well carried out. The presentation of the results must be changed, though: The axis in the two figures have different measures (80-100 in fig1, 0-100 in fig 2). And it is always very tempting to present answers in diagrams as percentages but for this qualitative research diagrams showing the number count would be more appropriate. 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have taken your comments into account. I have used the number of participants instead of the percentage of participants. Both figures now have the same axis measures (0-16).

• Last sentence of 2.1 [This is concerning for students..... environments] - a very important message - but it needs maybe a reference to a source.

Thank you. I have added a recent and relevant reference to support my statement. Reference number [12]: Zilka, G.C; Finkelstein, I.; Cohen, R.; Rahimi, I.D. Implications of the digital divide for the learning process during the COVID-19 crisis. Review of European Studies 2021, 13, 57-71, doi:10.5539/res.v13n2p57

• and the reference to "mathematics anxiety" (line 402) seems not really based in the study and references to other research are missing.

Thank you, I have removed this sentence from the paper. I have double-checked the paper, all references cited are relevant to the paper and are included in the reference list.

• and one typo: in line 231 Virtual Communities of Practice has the abbreviation VoP - everywhere else in the text it is VCoP  

Thank you, I have corrected this. I have replaced VoP in line 231 with VCoP.