Game-Based Formative Assessment of Analogical Reasoning in Preschool Children: Support from the Internet of Things Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic raised by the authors is really extremely relevant and productive for the development of psychological and pedagogical science.  Confirmation of this is found in the annotation and in the introduction to this material. The authors emphasize that their research fits into a generally recognized trend – the study of problems related to the idea of sustainable development.  It is obvious that sustainable development largely depends on stability, but the systematic introduction of innovations in public life, in industrial processes, in education, etc. It introduces elements of destabilization, sometimes becoming not only growth zones, but also risk zones. The identification and consideration of problems related to these zones is a significant contribution to the study of sustainable development problems.

It is obvious that today's preschoolers are a generation that will have to ensure sustainable development in the near and distant future.  And the study of the features of the development of modern preschoolers: actual skills, thought processes, their aspirations and preferences, etc., should be considered as one of the priority areas of preschool pedagogy and psychology. This is partially presented in article.

The authors present a kind of tool for evaluating analog thinking of preschool children.  The peculiarity of the presented "assessment tool" (unlike the existing ones) is that the subjects not only visually contact the proposed test materials (which is common in gadgets for preschoolers), but also manipulate objects (cubes) in accordance with the test task received. This is a rather important focus of the presented study, related to the peculiarities of the development of thinking of preschoolers.

However, when getting acquainted with the material of the article, there is an assumption that the authors are in the initial stage of research. This assumption is due to the following questions and clarifications that arose during acquaintance with the text:

First of all, the choice of the age group of subjects from 4 to 6 years is surprising.  For preschool age, the difference of 3 years is a significant difference, How justified is the approach in which different-aged preschoolers were united into a single group with uniform evaluation criteria?

The proposed tool for evaluating the analog thinking of preschoolers is, in fact, just a measurement tool (like, for example, a thermometer). But for the development of science, the statement of quantitative measurement is only a starting point for further research. There is such a message in the presented material (a reference to the fact that the data obtained can form the basis for predicting the development of mental processes in children, and this can be applied for their further education), but this idea is only nominated, but not disclosed.

The ideal solution to the task is not presented in the characteristics of the evaluation tool, which should not be associated primarily with the time indicator (which is emphasized in the article). There are no options for justifying the choice of a particular approach by preschoolers in solving the task: by color?  According to the "plot"?  On a different basis? Meanwhile, this is exactly what refers to the qualitative characteristics of thought processes.  

The difference in perception and thinking of 4-year-old preschoolers in comparison with preschool children, etc., is not emphasized.

Unfortunately, recently, researchers have often presented various diagnostic materials as innovations that help to collect data about a phenomenon. But this is not enough for the sustainable development of science. It is important to make a qualitative analysis of the data obtained, clarify the detected problems, make an informed assumption about the further development of both the phenomenon itself and the approaches to its study.

Unfortunately, this article does not reveal such a practically oriented approach. Actually, everything is reduced to a decision tree model in data mining… But this is only a model.

It is natural that the conclusions reached by the authors are quite obvious even without this study: "the teaching and learning environment should be interactive, provide continuous feedback, be able to attract and maintain the attention of children and have appropriate and adaptive levels of complexity"; "assessment based on games, mediated by information technology, has the potential to form estimates", etc. 

As a result, I believe that the problem raised by the authors of this material is more than relevant and promising.  However, it deserves a more thorough study: in terms of what is analog thinking in general? what are its features regarding preschool age (taking into account the internal age boundaries of this period)? are there any options (including tools) for a research assessment of such thinking in preschoolers? what is the difference between research assessment tools and gaming gadgets? what are the recommendations for teachers and psychologists, taking into account the identified peculiarities of preschool children's thinking and the forecast of their development and improvement?

Direction of the presented research is certainly relevant, interesting, productive, etc., but it deserves a more detailed and meaningful study in order to correspond to the stated direction – the study of conditions (and not individual aspects) that ensure sustainable development.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The results and the method are vey well explained. The dialogue with the authors presented in the introduction and Literature review is thoroughly formulated.

I have just minor recommendations for the authors:

Heading 2 should be Literature review instead of Current Study

Figure 2 should be made clearer, the quality is too low

Try to better structure the conclusion section, including references to theoretical and practical implications of your research, highlighting the novelty of your research and limitations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to express my gratitude to the authors of the article for their attitude attitude to the doubts and comments expressed in the expert opinion. It is the search for answers to problematic questions improved and jones the theory and practice of scientific thought, including in the field of pedagogical research