Contextual Mathematical Modelling: Problem-Solving Characterization and Feasibility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting well written paper. I like especially the two -phase procedure.

However I have concerns about the research questions.

First of it is not common to ask yes-no questions. I think they can be easily changed to a more common formulation. (To what extend…)
Second a double question (RQ1) is not common too. 

some minor items:

67: This is a vague referral

93 this framework. Framework is not mentioned explicitly

99:aims to characterize MM problems, rather than the problem-solving processes that take 99 place in class, we focused on two of the criteria that are related to the knowledge required 100 for PS, namely, “Resources” and “Heuristics”. 

116: In this study, we focused on the use of PS in a context, through solving MM problems 116 in the context of workplace mathematics. 

What is the focus? This is not consistent.

211: stage? you mean phase (see table 1)

Table 1 Explain why stem background/level of education is less than 122. Th use of label F is not handy to use (see later)

Last I remember Bakker has written several times related to this. I remember:

van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A., & Drijvers, P. H. M. (2016). Techno-mathematical Literacies in the workplaces of engineers. Paper presented at 13th international congress on mathematical education, Hamburg, Germany.

van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A., & Drijvers, P. H. M. (2016). Techno-mathematical Literacies in the workplaces of engineers. Paper presented at 13th international congress on mathematical education, Hamburg, Germany.

Author Response

Response to reviewer #1:

Thank you very much for the positive feedback on our study, and for your valuable comments. We marked our changes in the revised manuscript using “track changes” (we did not mark deleted sentences).

We agree with your comment about the research questions; therefore, we rephrased them so they do not express a yes/no question. We also defined more clearly the number of the RQs, in order not create a double question. We think that it is important to divide the RQs into two (and not into four), since each couple of RQs deal with another aspect of the study: the first characterizes the problems, and the second tests the feasibility of integrating these problems into secondary class.

Regarding the minor comments:

1. Comment: “67: This is a vague referral”. Our response: we revised this sentence.
2. Comment: “93 this framework. Framework is not mentioned explicitly”. Our response: we moved this sentence towards the beginning of this paragraph and revised it, so it will be clear that we refer in this sentence to the PS framework of Schoenfeld.
3. Comment: “99: aims to characterize MM problems, rather than the problem-solving processes that take place in class, we focused on two of the criteria that are related to the knowledge required for PS, namely, “Resources” and “Heuristics”. Our response: we emphasized more clearly our goal in this study. This revision was also followed by a revision of the study goal that was mentioned at the end of the introduction (lines 78-79).
4. Comment: “116: In this study, we focused on the use of PS in a context, through solving MM problems in the context of workplace mathematics. What is the focus? This is not consistent.” Our response: We agree that this sentence was not clear, and revised it.
5. Comment: “211: stage? you mean phase (see table 1)”. Our response: Yes. We indeed meant a phase. We revised this sentence and the follow-up sentence, as well as the abstract in which we also mentioned stage instead of a phase.
6. Comment: “Table 1 Explain why stem background/level of education is less than 122. The use of label F is not handy to use (see later)”. Our response: Thanks for that note. We reviewed the data and discovered that the data about the level of education was not accurate; therefore, we revised it. We also added a comment about calculating the frequencies, and changed the “F” to “Frequency”.
7. Comment: “Last I remember Bakker has written several times related to this. I remember: van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A., & Drijvers, P. H. M. (2016). Techno-mathematical Literacies in the workplaces of engineers. Paper presented at 13th international congress on mathematical education, Hamburg, Germany.” Our response: Thanks for that comment. We do agree that more references by Bakker and colleagues should be incorporated into the paper. Therefore, we added two of them (see newly added #4 & #5 references).

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for inviting me to be a reviewer of the manuscript entitled Contextual Mathematical Modelling: Problem-Solving Characterization and Feasibility. This document is really impressive in terms of your efforts to demonstrate the power of your study.

The current study investigates contextual mathematical modelling problems that were retrieved from authentic workplace situations and simplified for formal secondary school math lessons.

The introductory chapters of this study represent a theoretical basis based on scientific research and studies in the field of research and describing, for example, the solution of mathematical problems. Furthermore, the study describes the research methods and tools used, and the processing of the obtained data. The following is a presentation of the findings and results of the study, which are presented in tables and graphs. Calculation methods are given somewhere. Finally, we find discussions of the results.

In the study, I see great potential for further follow-up research.

However, some passages of the study are very descriptive and lengthy. This is sometimes confusing. Therefore, I would suggest shortening and simplifying them.

This study refers to 43 scientific references, resources and publications. The references used are current and of sufficient quality, and are a suitable tereotic basis for this study.

This study represents a contribution in this area of research.

The basic ideas of the submitted manuscript are fascinating and interesting.

Author Response

Response to reviewer #2:

Thank you very much for acknowledging the importance of this study. Following your comment about “very descriptive and lengthy” passages, we went over the paper carefully and revised some of the sentences that we believe you found as confusing due to their length. Additionally, the paper was reviewed by a linguistic English editor. We marked our changes in the revised manuscript using “track changes” (we did not mark deleted sentences).