Micro-Videos as a Learning Tool for Professional Practice during the Post-COVID Era: An Educational Experience
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is interesting. However, I would suggest the authors to enhnace their paper by referencing more studies relevant with the design of videos.
I would expect th authors to provide a more detailed section presenting the aim of study.
Could you provide more details about your instruments and measures?
In the Discusssion section, I would expect a paragraph with future reccomendations.
Author Response
We appreciate your feedback on the style and content of the manuscript. It has been rewritten and adapted adding the information requested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As the authors claim - The arrival of the pandemic speeded up methodological changes in Higher Education.
They also explore properly - Many of the education students saw how their internships were suspended, which made it impossible for them to access real contexts that would allow them to know their everyday would-be professional life.
Thus, the authors implement following techniques to bridge the gap between theoretical and practical training - educational videos were used that would reflect the implementation of different educational methodologies in mathematics performed by expert teachers.
Additionally, the authors studied each methodology to measure individually their impact on Primary students’ learning and guarantee that students visualized effective practices.
As the authors state - The results show how, in certain aspects of mathematics, the students’ own capabilities have greater influence than the methodological instruction they receive.
The paper is well organized with clear goals.
However, an improvement of the relevant literature review would be an advantage.
suggestions like this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472811721000616
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1477971420947738
Author Response
We appreciate your feedback on the style and content of the manuscript. It has been rewritten and adapted adding the information requested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors analyzed in this research the way in which the learning tools transmitted by micro-videos by the expert teachers impact the students' perception in learning and the methodological implementation of mathematics in the post-COVID period. The idea itself of this topic is interesting, but the work has some problems that I will expose in the following:
1. The introduction does not highlight the concrete objectives of the research, the working hypotheses, the novelty of the research. Does the research analyze the perception of college students or of students from primary, secondary, etc.?
2. Section 2 - "Videos as a learning tool" should present what? Research methodology, multimedia teaching tools? The information is not presented in a consistent order.
3. Section 3 "Methodologies in the field of Mathematics" should present the methods and methodology used in the analyzes or investigative techniques used by the authors. This section seems to present the methodologies used in the post-pandemic period identified in the specialized literature.
4. According to the objectives stated in section 5 "Aim of the study" and the description of the project in section 4 "Educational experience", the research is carried out only for Camilo Jose Cela University, the students' perception is not analyzed at the national or global level. The title of the article and the described abstract do not suggest this. Maybe they should be changed.
5. According to the information in section 6 – “Method”, you used a mixed approach to analyze undergraduate students' perception of watching instructional videos. You should specify which ad hoc tool you used (did you use the questionnaire technique, statistical survey, etc.)
6. Although it is understood that you are analyzing the perception of undergraduate students, the participants of the study are both infant and primary education degree students.
7. Regarding mathematics as a discipline, the students' perception will be different compared to primary education degree students, the subject is different, there are different study levels and I do not consider that the participants are in a relevant number to propose a conclusion regarding their perception.
8. Have you validated with specific methods the statistical validity of the results? Is the sample used representative of Camilo José Cela University so that we can draw a pertinent conclusion?
9. The edited article does not follow a consistency in the presentation of information between the chapters. In addition, inconsistencies are identified in the way of citing the bibliography that are not specific to the writing techniques specific to the Sustainability journal. I recommend reading the writing instructions and reviewing the entire article.
The knowledge of the filed must be described in a new section to observe how this topic has been analyzed by other authors and to highlight the novelty of your article
Author Response
We appreciate your feedback on the style and content of the manuscript. It has been rewritten and adapted adding the information requested.
In the chapter on methodologies of mathematics, the same ones that have been worked on in the videos with the education students have been exposed, as indicated later in the method
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Suggestion: the manuscript is about professional practice (or pre-service teacher education) of future math teachers, correct? The concept “professional practice” is essential, as it implies a practical implementation in schools. This was not possible due to the pandemic situation. For a clearer contextualization of the proposal, I suggest the addition of keywords that can direct the reader. At first, one may become confused with who the “students” are, if this is clarified.
For example: professional practice; pre-service teacher education/training
Abstract
(see above)
Introduction
Page 1, line 39: maybe remove the “the”. It seems like it is the only correct approach, which may not be the case.
Line 43: subject missing
Page 2, line 49: difficulties, perhaps. I wouldn’t say deficiencies.
Lines 50-55: confusing. This is a very important part of the manuscript because it contextualizes it. This is the rationale.
Line 58: page number for the direct quote
Videos
1st paragraph: I do not understand: do you see video as a repository of content? Is this the idea? I am not sure of the idea that is conveyed in this sentence.
Methodology and results are very confusing
Discussion and Conclusion
Interesting approaches and highly relevant to the area.
Author Response
We appreciate your feedback on the style and content of the manuscript. It has been rewritten and adapted adding the information requested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This version is fine.
Author Response
English style has been revised
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
accept in current form
Author Response
Article has been revised and improved
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors revised the paper according to the recommendations issued. I congratulate them for their work. However, some minor improvements are required on the text and the way the tables/images are arranged. In addition, the title is very long and I think it shoul be modified so that it accurately captures the content of the research. Considering the quality standards of the journal and the topics addressed, the authors should add in the introduction how this research fits into these topics such as sustainability or sustainable development at the level of the educational system, at the national level, etc. The graphs are made in Excel, either to be re-design and to respect the font of the paper, or to be analyzed in another computer tool (for example, SPSS).
Author Response
English style has been revised and improved. It has been added considering the suggestions on the graphics , sustainability topic and English style.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the revised version, nonetheless, the key issue remains:
1. Suggestion: the manuscript is about professional practice (or pre-service teacher education) of future math teachers, correct? The concept “professional practice” is essential, as it implies a practical implementation in schools. This was not possible due to the pandemic situation. For a clearer contextualization of the proposal, I suggest the addition of keywords which can direct the reader. At first, one may become confused with who the “students” are, if this is clarified.
For example: professional practice; pre-service teacher education/training
Additionally:
2. Review referencing system. [x]
Author Response
It has been added considering the suggestions on the keywords, clarify concepts
and English style.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revision.
I believe that the readability of the text is better. It is now possible to understand the complex underpinnings of your study and the objectives.
I highlight the fact that the first objective is not the focus of the article. If the objective was to create the videos, the research is not on the creation, but rather on student perception of the videos. This should be, perhaps, rethought, at least for this particular manuscript.
Additionally, although the statistical information is described, it is not analyzed. We just have the conclusion. Would it make sense to analyze the data or would you be just repeating the information in the conclusions?
Finally, I suggest a review of the references and the MDPI norm. The references are not coherently formatted, and in-text referencing should be in straight parenthesis [X].
Thank-you.
Regards,
Sandra
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions. As you have noted, we have modified the main objective of the study since we have analysed students' perceptions regarding the creation of the videos. And we have also modified the format, and have used square brackets rather than parenthesis.
On the other hand, we would like to poiny out that the analysis of the descriptive data leads us to the conclusions that have been put forward, so we found it repetitive and did not want to indicate it again, but we highly appreciate your suggestion since it has allowed us to reflect on improving the analysis.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
