Changing Structures of Attention When Learning About Decimal Fractions with Digital Tools
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors.
The manuscript entitled “Changing Structures of Attention When Learning about Decimal Fractions with Digital Tools” explores how dynamic digital representations influence Year 4 students’ conceptual understanding of decimal fractions. Using task-based interviews and microgenetic analysis, the study examines shifts in students’ attention when interacting with four digital tools: Wishball-hundredths, Decimal Strips, Zooming in on Place Value, and Zoomable Number Line. Findings suggest that these tools can provoke productive cognitive conflict, support conceptual change, and reduce the abstractness of decimals. Although the topic is timely and relevant, addressing the integration of digital tools in mathematics education and their role in conceptual development, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to improve its quality, which are explained in greater detail in the following paragraphs.
Regarding its originality and contribution, the manuscript addresses an underexplored area: the microgenetic analysis of attention shifts in the context of digital tools for decimals. The integration of three theoretical perspectives is innovative and well justified. However, the contribution to existing literature should be more explicitly articulated in the introduction and discussion. For instance, how does this study extend prior work on virtual manipulatives beyond confirming their affordances? I recommend framing the novelty in terms of practical implications for classroom practice and teacher professional development.
Regarding the research questions and objectives, the former are clearly stated; however, they could be slightly reformulated for precision. For example: What conceptual changes occur when children attend to features of dynamic digital representations of decimal fractions? How do attention-shifts mediate engagement with these representations? The authors should explicitly link each research question to the corresponding findings in the discussion.
Regarding the methodology: (a) the rationale for selecting six participants is clearly explained; (b) the description of task-based interviews is comprehensive, but the role of the interviewer should be clarified (how was neutrality ensured to avoid leading responses?); and (c) the microgenetic approach is appropriate, yet the coding process lacks detail (how were reliability and validity established beyond expert review?). The authors should consider reporting inter-rater agreement or triangulation strategies.
Regarding the results and their interpretation, the results section is rich in qualitative evidence. The four main findings are insightful but could be better aligned with the research questions. Therefore, the authors should explicitly state which finding addresses which question. While the discussion connects findings to theory, it should also address practical implications for teachers (e.g., how to scaffold attention shifts in classroom settings).
Finally, I highlight that the manuscript demonstrates strong theoretical grounding, drawing on constructivism, representation theory, and Mason’s theory of attention shifts. Furthermore, the findings provide valuable insights for educators and researchers. However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to improve methodological transparency, conciseness, and alignment with Education Sciences standards.
Author Response
I sincerely thank the reviewers and editors for their time and thoughtful feedback on my manuscript. The constructive comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the work. The response letter attached outlines how I have addressed each of the suggested revisions from Reviewer 1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction:
-------------
- This section lacks a paragraph or two highlighting the limitations and concerns of the related works. Adding this would help connect to the article’s aims.
- The last paragraph should provide more details to the reader about each work's section.
- Subsections 1.1 and 1.2 seem more like a Related Work section, which would deserve its own proper section. Moreover, the article lacks a discussion of related works regarding available digital tools that support decimal fractions in some way. In a quick search, I found the following works:
. Ecological, epistemological, and existential challenges of integrating digital tools into school mathematics
. Ergonomic, epistemological, and existential challenges of incorporating digital tools into school mathematics
. Principles and tools of designing effective e-simulators for primary school students
Theoretical Frameworks
----------------------
- OK.
Materials and Methods:
----------------------
- Well structured. Its steps and techniques are well aligned with the theories that hold the article. For example, students build their understanding through an experience (Constructivism) using four tools that provide four different external representations of decimal fractions (Representation Theory).
Results:
--------
- Strong connection to the discussion in the previous Section (Materials and Methods).
- Presentation of findings follows the analytical procedures and framework described earlier.
Discussion:
-----------
- Strong connection to the discussion in the previous Section (Result).
- The article lacks a more explicit discussion about practical implications for teachers using concrete examples in class
Author Response
I sincerely thank the reviewers and editors for their time and thoughtful feedback on my manuscript. The constructive comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the work. The response letter attached outlines how I have addressed each of the suggested revisions from Reviewer 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found the article compelling and thorough. My comments and suggestions are minor.
Small edits:
It was unclear what was meant by “… is not visible” at Line 28.
There is an unneeded apostrophe in Figure 7 heading.
Table 2 could use some reformatting so that not all the paragraphs are centered and left-justified, instead to be easier to distinguish different parts in the table. I believe you could also utilize a smaller font.
Rather than using “Interviewer” and “Researcher” in transcripts interchangeably, it would help to be consistent and choose one name.
Larger Suggestions:
Section 1.1 on Conceptual Understanding, the paragraph starting at Line 99 seemed thrown in and not as related to conceptual understanding as it is to defining terms. I am not sure what all the definitions serve other than helping the reader know there are different ways to define families of decimals. It may help to only define those terms when needed to understand the research being cited, which shows how conceptual understanding is researched. Maybe this could be moved to the Theoretical Framework since it relates to how you analyzed the data, especially since it’s related to how you selected the tasks also.
I am not sure whether this is needed, but in the Theoretical Framework, Section 2.3, it could use a table or a diagram to help follow all the definitions and how they relate. The table below was helpful for me. I also wonder whether you could expand on each learning progression a bit more to give examples so they could be better understood before you get to the methods.
It may help to have a table of the participants, their achievement level, and a summary of their conceptual understanding before reading each vignette. It may also help the reader to see the transcriptions in a table and with full names used rather than initials.
In the results section, only two students are featured of the six that were interviewed. How did you choose those cases? Why not show representative examples from across the full sample since there were only six?
Author Response
I sincerely thank the reviewers and editors for their time and thoughtful feedback on my manuscript. The constructive comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the work. The response letter attached outlines how I have addressed each of the suggested revisions from Reviewer 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author.
I have carefully reviewed the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Changing Structures of Attention When Learning about Decimal Fractions with Digital Tools”, submitted for evaluation to Education Sciences.
I appreciate that the author has taken into consideration the comments and suggestions made in the first review of this manuscript. In this new version, I believe that the author has substantially improved the manuscript and corrected the weak points of the first version.
More specifically, I have noted that the author has made the requested changes to the introduction and discussion of the manuscript, reformulating the research questions for precision and linking them more explicitly to the corresponding findings of the study. In addition, the author has emphasised the contribution of this study to classroom practice, adding a specific section in the discussion to address this aspect. Also, the author has incorporated the requested clarifications in the methodology and related in a better way the findings to the research questions.
Finally, I consider the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Education Sciences. Therefore, the decision made on this manuscript is to ACCEPT IN PRESENT FORM.
