Technologies for Teaching Mathematics in a Multilingual Digital Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Digitalization of the learning process is one of the main topics in education in the last decades and it is a really important task, in this way paper is attractive to readers, but paper still needs work to be considered as a publication:

- First of all, there is a big lack of theoretical background, lot of research have been done in the last years talking about COVD and its influence in learning in general and also in mathematics and you need to use it to justify the main objective of the paper. Moreover, the use of advanced technology in learning and digitalization of teachers must be justified. Moreover, you cannot list references as it appears you mus interpret them not listing.

- The test should be clearly identified and presented, the same with the contents.

- Moreover, in method section: Is there just a pretest-postest with the same group?  Is the same test? Or are you comparing two groups?

- Percentages in  Figure 6 are 101% and 99%, revise.

- I am not sure about the results and their discussion due to the lack of references and also the unclear model used.

Author Response

Пожалуйста, посмотрите приложение。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article under review carries out a descriptive investigation of the results obtained by a group of students who have been introduced to certain mathematical concepts (in the specific example, quadratic forms) in a multilingual context and through a digital learning environment (Moodle). The topic is interesting and topical. However, I believe that there are some very important aspects of the manuscript that need to be revised:

1. the structure of the article should be comprehensively reformed. The authors do a literature review in the Methodology section and in the Results section, while the methodology is not explicitly explained. The text should be restructured so that there is a clear differentiation between literature review, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions.

2. The literature review should be strengthened with the review of a larger number of more current works. At this time, the state of the art is not clear. In addition, some of what is written is, in my opinion, not very relevant for the purposes of the article because it is too general (for example, talking about experiences based on classic constructivist authors such as Vygotsky and Bruner, lines 135 to 156).

3. The Methods section should describe the sample of participants, the instruments used, and the research design, at least.

4. Clear objectives of the research should be stated. In addition, the study variables should be described, their nature (quantitative or qualitative) should be clarified, and how they were measured should be explained.

5. The analysis of results should be strengthened. In order to draw reliable conclusions from the analysis carried out, it is advisable to include some hypothesis testing. I do not fully understand why the authors have chosen to represent the results using bar charts, when the scores are not nominal but quantitative and ordinal, but this may become clearer when the authors define and explain the nature of the variables.

6. The discussion should be strengthened as to the relationship of the results obtained with the preceding literature.

7. The conclusions are too generalistic (e.g., no allusion is made to mathematics learning) and are weakly supported by the results obtained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Theoretical background of the paper is still too little and need a deep revision on the following topics:

- Advanced technologies for education innovation

- Use of ICTs in classroom.

-Perception of the use of technologies in education from the perspective of teachers and students.

This will help you to conclude in a stronger way and to obtain a better framwork.

Author Response

“Dear colleague,

Thank you for your careful consideration of our manuscript and helpful comments. Below are our corrections, citing lines of the manuscript where possible.

We have made additions to the literature review (lines 118-130, 132-139, 148-159, 164-170).

To strengthen the theoretical base, 6 sources have been added and commented upon.”

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have significantly improved their article and have responded adequately to the comments. I only suggest separating the literature review section, extracting it out of the Materials and Methods section.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Thank you for careful consideration of our manuscript and helpful comment. Literature review section was separated.