Next Article in Journal
Mixed-Reality Simulation to Support Practice Learning of Preservice Teachers
Next Article in Special Issue
Interactive Homework: A Tool for Parent Engagement
Previous Article in Journal
Reducing Key Barriers to Classroom Physical Activity Improves Implementation Fidelity in Ontario Elementary Classrooms
Previous Article in Special Issue
Building Mathematics Learning through Inquiry Using Student-Generated Data: Lessons Learned from Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Concrete–Representational–Abstract (CRA) Instructional Approach in an Algebra I Inclusion Class: Knowledge Retention Versus Students’ Perception

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(10), 1061; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101061
by Sherri K. Prosser 1,* and Stephen F. Bismarck 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(10), 1061; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101061
Submission received: 9 September 2023 / Revised: 19 October 2023 / Accepted: 20 October 2023 / Published: 22 October 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

II believe that studies like this (simple but to the point and empirical) should be more published in the field of mathematics education research. 

There are a few typos and grammar errors. Please thoroughly review and edit accordingly. It would help if you have a third person to review and give you a feedback. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A very interesting article describing research that produced an interesting by-product. The article is written in a clear and understandable way and contains all the necessary information. I'm not a native speaker, but I feel that the language is sometimes less formal than is usual for scientific articles. I would consider it a good idea to add more analysis to the article, linking qualitative and quantitative analysis, i.e. the distribution of student improvement within the three categories determined qualitatively. I would also recommend adding to the analyses by interpreting the data graphically.

I appreciate that the authors are aware of the limitations of the data and appropriately suggest repeating the experiment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop