Analysis of Preschool Teachers’ Dialogue with Children During Combinatorial Activities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is devoted to the issue of developing mathematical thinking in preschool children through solving combinatorial problems. The study focuses on the analysis of questions asked by teachers in the dialogue between pre-school teacher and children. Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of video recordings, the authors evaluate the questions asked. The authors of the text focus on the possibilities of a positive influence of appropriately asked questions for the successful development of mathematical ideas in preschool children. They emphasize the importance of pedagogical and mathematically focused teacher competencies.

The research is based on the analysis of 11 video recordings of various combinatorial activities carried out with preschool children by various teachers. Based on the coding of the dialogues, the authors classify questions from the "point of view of leading dialogue" into two categories: funneling questions and focusing questions. From the mathematical content focus into five categories: Number, Comparison, Mathematical terms, Reasoning, and Problem solving questions. The authors' goal was to analyze the frequencies of representation of individual categories.

 

Due to the small number of video recordings of pedagogical experiments and the large content and implementation diversity, it is not possible to generalize the conclusions of the research. However, the implemented experiment can be an inspiring source for further research in this area. The conclusions found provide a number of new stimuli for the development of teachers' mathematical competencies.

The authors cite an extensive set of publications that are up-to-date and relate directly to the issue addressed.

Structure and commentary on the text:

Ad 1) Introduction

In the introductory part of the text, the issue is anchored in detail of the context of previous research and available literary sources. The cited references are relevant to the issue and the research.

Ad 2) Matherials and Methods

• The text does not state how many teachers participated in the implementation of the activities. Whether each activity was implemented by a different teacher or whether some activities had a common leader. This information is not given for the children who participated in the experiment either. Were some children involved in more than one activity? I recommend adding.
• There is no time limit for the implementation of the experiment. I recommend adding.

Ad 3) Results

• Table 3 (361) I question the correctness of the total sum of questions 296. For the given values ​​it comes out to 276. I recommend checking and correcting.
• Table 3 (361) is very unclear. I recommend formally editing.
• Table 6 (424) For clarity I recommend adding a row with totals
• Table 8 (565) For clarity and clarity of the text I recommend adding values ​​for funneling questions
• I question the statement “focusing questions predominate in more than half of all the dialogues” (572-573). Focusing questions predominate only in dialogue 3.

Ad 4) Discussion and conclusions

It is beneficial that the research has drawn attention to the various approaches teachers use to engage with children in developing their mathematical thinking. The analysis and classification of questions that a teacher can ask children when solving problems in the field of elementary combinatorics is also beneficial. This is a complex area that offers opportunities for further similar professional research.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates which questions preschool teachers could use during combinatorics activities to promote children’s mathematical thinking. Studying teachers' questions helps us see how to prompt deeper thinking in early math. The paper gives a useful list of question types that teachers can try in class. However, it has a major weakness.

 

1) The paper is too long and contains a lot of redundancy. For example, the introduction alone is six pages.

2) The methodology is presented too superficially, in my opinion—particularly regarding participant selection. The paper lacks a detailed explanation of the criteria used to select participants. Moreover, only a single video per teacher is provided, which is insufficient for a robust evaluation.

3) While the paper outlines the data collection process, there is a need for more rigorous analysis. The qualitative approach is appropriate, but the paper would benefit from a more detailed description of how the data was analyzed

4) The paper discusses the importance of preschool teachers’ questions for promoting children’s mathematical thinking, but it lacks a detailed discussion of the guidelines or strategies for using (or designing) such questions.

5) The paper lacks a clear literature review. I would thoroughly revise the theoretical part again with current literature and connect it with the current study.

6) Every study has limitations, but this paper does not sufficiently address its own. Acknowledging these limitations would strengthen the paper by providing a more realistic view of what the study can and cannot conclude.

The study is valuable and practical. With clearer reliability, tighter claims, and a bit more analysis, it will be much stronger.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors did not address my earlier comment on manuscript length. The introduction remains overly long and repetitive and could be shortened without loss of content or clarity.
2. Add a subsection on preschool teachers’ questions that promote children’s mathematical thinking, with clear design/usage guidelines, decision rules for when to use each type, and examples linked to your findings.
3. Adding more papers doesn’t fix the absence of a coherent literature review. Please add a dedicated Related Work/Literature Review section that synthesizes current literature and explicitly connects it to your study’s motivation, research questions, and contributions.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your constructive comments, which we have addressed fully. Our responses to your comments are below.

Comment 1: 

The authors did not address my earlier comment on manuscript length. The introduction remains overly long and repetitive and could be shortened without loss of content or clarity.

Response 1:

We have significantly shortened the introductory section and added a subchapter on literature review, which also includes the topic of teachers asking questions to preschool children. We have significantly changed the introduction and retained only those parts that are more directly related to our research problem. The changes are visible in the document. We kindly thank you for your constructive comments and guidance.

Comment 2:  

Add a subsection on preschool teachers’ questions that promote children’s mathematical thinking, with clear design/usage guidelines, decision rules for when to use each type, and examples linked to your findings.

Response 2: 

We added a subchapter on literature review, which also includes the topic of teachers asking questions to preschool children. In this part, we discuss different types of questions that have been addressed by various researchers and present our classification of problems with examples, which served as a theoretical framework for the empirical part.

Comment 3: 

Adding more papers doesn’t fix the absence of a coherent literature review. Please add a dedicated Related Work/Literature Review section that synthesizes current literature and explicitly connects it to your study’s motivation, research questions, and contributions.

Response 3.

In line with the changes to the introduction, we have also changed the literature we used in preparing this chapter. As mentioned before we added a subsection that synthesizes current literature on posing questions in preschool mathematics education and connected it to our research problem.

In the Conclusions, we added the limitations of the study and excluded the last paragraph, which was no longer relevant due to the changes in the Introduction.

Comment 4:

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 4:

The article was proofread by a native speaker. If necessary, we can also send a proofread version of the document with the changes highlighted.  The attached document without track changes is proofread.