Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The topic is of actuality. Please explain the notions from the title in your text.

Lines 1 -12 successful rewording to shape research focus, materials under study

Line 13 research themes – how they were analysed?

 

Line 13 country of origin – why is it important to consider country of origin?

 

Line 7 the teaching. A total of 50 specific mathematical content.

Line 16 in-service mathematics teachers at the primary, secondary, and university levels, as well as preservice teachers. What is the target audience for your research? Are subjects important?  

 

Line 7 digital technologies (DTs). what is meant by DTs for your research?

 

Lines 18 -19: include teacher education through digital technologies, the analysis of lesson planning and tasks designed by teachers using DTs. Perhaps the specifics should be in the title?

Lines 18 -20 objectives of AI application:

 teacher knowledge include teacher education through digital technologies, the analysis of lesson planning and tasks designed by teachers using DTs, and the assessment of their knowledge through self-perception questionnaires. How is this part related to lines 462-463 about two main approaches?

 

methods in lines 22-23 non-participant observation, audio and/or video recordings, and semi-structured interviews.

Keywords: TPACK; MTSK - perhaps specifics of their application can be translated into key words. What was the purpose of putting the models in key words? Why hybrid models are not in key words?

Please explain in your text what criteria helped you to choose TPACK and MTSK models for your research? Lines 118-119 This entails considering not only studies based on the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) but also those grounded in the Mathematics Teacher’s Specialized Knowledge (MTSK) model proposed by Carrillo et al. (2018).

This sentence does not explain your choice of models.

 

Line 58 pedagogical practice - what does it mean for your research?

Line 60 pedagogical competencies – what does it imply for your research?

Lien 62 classroom practice - what does it mean for your research?

 

New text in introduction lines 71 – 114 in yellow, thank you for adding data here, – please explain if you planned for literature review or discussion of models application and their choice for your work or explain the number of papers under consideration for your work?

Line 116: Unlike previous reviews, the present study seeks to examine. Please be more specific in newly introduced text in lines 71-114 in this respect.

Lines 144, 156, 280 “hybrid approaches”. What is meant by “hybrid approaches”? please organize your text with reference to subsection 4.5 if this is the case.

line 441 “The emergence of hybrid frameworks that articulate TPACK and MTSK stands out” – the sentence does not provide for explanation of your approach to selecting models, hybrid approach, what are your findings here? Why you need hybrid framework or here, in line 411 in plural: frameworks or hybrids in line 457.

Line 459 the technological pedagogical emphasis – what does it mean for your research?

Line 464 observation units – what is it for your research? Mentioned three times in the text.

Line 472 While different authors contextualize their use – please be specific. Line 476 Representative examples include – very broad statement, what is this about?  Line 495 “Taken together, the evidence suggests that self-reports provide valuable insights” does not explain the examples given in lines 479 – 494

 

Section 6. Discussion. Please think if this is the section discussing the gaps for your literature review. Otherwise referencing is discussion seems out of place – if you are discussing your results.

Please consider, if, for example, Rivera-Robles, S., Salcedo-Lagos, P., Valdivia-Guzmán, J., y López-Lara, O. (2021). focused mainly on TPACK, as you put in line 588 or only? You may wish to consider each reference separately or provide their groupings?

From the reference Zambak, V., & Tyminski, A. (2020). …in the title …with Geometer’s Sketchpad  is using the software part for your research focus? What is your research focus? Again, in relation to Line 7 digital technologies (DTs).

 

Lines 83-85 : Noor-Kholid et al. (2023) analyzed 25 articles published between (2018 and 2022–83 2020)

In your referencing there is Noor-Kholid et al. (2023).

Please arrange referencing properly.

Dear authors, thank you for adding new passages your text. Please consider the purpose of your research and if you have explained all your decisions and choices. This will shape the text accordingly. What is the novelty and applications? How is a reader to benefit from the work done by you or how you plan to progress from your work, now, taking into consideration new passages and new ideas appearing in your text? Please, consider if this answer is within one manuscript text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for the thorough and insightful evaluation of our manuscript. The reviewer’s constructive feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and analytical precision of our work. All comments have been addressed comprehensively, and the corresponding revisions have been incorporated into the manuscript as detailed below.

Reviewer’s Comment	Author’s Response / Action Taken	Location in Revised Manuscript
Lines 1–12: Explain notions from the title	The introduction was reworded to align the focus with mathematics teachers’ knowledge when integrating digital technologies.	Abstract, Introduction (Lines 1–15)
Line 13: Research themes – how analyzed?	Detailed explanation in Section 5 describing inductive derivation of themes.	Section 5, Lines 385–420
Country of origin – importance	Clarified its significance for contextualizing research concentration.	Section 5.2, Lines 410–418
Digital Technologies (DTs)	Defined as digital tools and applications for mathematical representation and exploration.	Introduction, Line 10
Target audience	Clarified inclusion of both pre- and in-service mathematics teachers.	Introduction, Lines 16–18
Teacher education, lesson planning, task design	Clarified in abstract and introduction that these dimensions are considered.	Abstract, Lines 7–13
Relation to two main approaches	Clarified distinction between methodological tools (self-report vs observation).	Section 5.3, Lines 460–470
Non-participant observation, audio/video	Clarified that few studies used these methods and noted the resulting gap.	Abstract, Section 5.3
Keywords and model choice	Added hybrid frameworks as keyword and explained rationale for TPACK/MTSK selection.	Keywords, Introduction (Lines 110–118)
Pedagogical practice	Defined as the instructional processes mobilizing teacher knowledge with DTs.	Introduction, Lines 56–58
Pedagogical competencies	Clarified as observable teaching abilities involving digital tools.	Introduction, Line 60
Classroom practice	Defined as enacted teacher knowledge during DT-mediated instruction.	Introduction, Line 62
New text lines 71–114	Clarified conceptual background and justification of models.	Introduction, Lines 71–114
Line 116	Specified that review examines studies using TPACK, MTSK, and hybrid frameworks.	Introduction, Line 116
Hybrid approaches	Defined and reorganized under Section 4.5.	Section 4.5, Lines 280–298
Hybrid framework findings	Expanded rationale and summarized in Table 2.	Section 4.5, Table 2
Technological pedagogical emphasis	Clarified that it refers to predominance of technological-pedagogical focus.	Section 5.3
Observation units	Defined as analytical classroom episodes for competency-based assessment.	Section 5.3
Examples in self-report studies	Expanded and clarified illustrative studies and implications.	Section 5.3, Lines 470–495
Section 6 discussion	Linked explicitly to literature gaps and implications.	Section 6
Rivera-Robles et al. (2021)	Verified and corrected to reflect TPACK focus.	Section 6, Lines 580–590
Zambak & Tyminski (2020)	Clarified inclusion for its use of Geometer’s Sketchpad.	Section 6, Lines 595–600
Noor-Kholid et al. (2023)	Corrected year and citation format.	References, Section 2
Novelty and applications	Conclusion now states the study’s conceptual and methodological contributions.	Conclusion, Lines 635–650

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, in order to improve your manuscript, I would like to provide the following recommendations.

Since ResearchGate was not used for the record count (as indicated in lines 188–190), I suggest removing it from the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 1 and from the results section.

Given that the databases used are in English, it is unclear why Spanish terms were included. It is indicated that the terms were searched in the title, keywords, and abstract; therefore, using English should be sufficient.

It would be advisable to conduct a quantitative analysis (similar to what was done by year and country) of the articles according to the educational level. Although this is addressed in section 5.2, it would be useful to include percentages or absolute frequencies for each study.

Some studies classified as systematic reviews have been included (e.g., Seguí, J., & Alsina, A., 2023). These should be removed to maintain coherence with the objective of the study, and with other systematic reviews that were not included in the results (but are cited in the introduction).

In the conclusions, it should be specified that there are many other countries (whether developed or not) where no studies were identified. The statement in line 611 suggests that the lack of studies in Peru and Rwanda is due to them being developing countries, which may be misleading.

Please review the reference list. Some citations do not comply with APA 7th edition guidelines (unify the use of "&", "and", or "y") and some DOIs are not functional.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: education-3943395

Title: Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching with Digital Technologies: A Systematic Review of Studies from 2010 to 2025

Authors: Iván Andrés Padilla-Escorcia, Martha Leticia García-Rodríguez, Álvaro Aguilar-González

Journal: Education Sciences

 

Response to Reviewer 2

We extend our sincere appreciation to Reviewer 2 for their valuable and detailed feedback. The reviewer’s thoughtful observations have been instrumental in refining the methodological consistency, clarifying the scope of our data sources, and strengthening the overall rigor of the manuscript.

Reviewer’s Comment	Author’s Response / Action Taken	Location in Revised Manuscript
ResearchGate usage	ResearchGate was removed from PRISMA flow diagram and described only as a repository for retrieving full texts, not for record counting.	Section 3.2, Figure 1
Spanish search terms	Maintained only when present in indexed journals; clarified rationale for bilingual query design.	Section 3.2, Lines 210–230
Quantitative analysis by educational level	Added percentages and frequencies in Section 5.2 summarizing educational levels.	Section 5.2, Lines 415–420
Inclusion of systematic reviews (e.g., Seguí & Alsina, 2023)	Removed these records to maintain methodological coherence with empirical focus.	Section 4, PRISMA dataset
Conclusions—developed vs developing countries	Revised to indicate absence of studies in multiple regions, without linking to economic status.	Conclusion, Lines 620–630
References and APA 7th compliance	Reviewed and corrected inconsistencies in conjunctions and verified all DOIs.	Reference list

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the changes introduced and your contribution discussed.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic may be actual. Please consider if this is the knowledge under study and discussion.

 

Title and line 6 say this paper is systematic review. What are the characteristics for this?

 

Abstract: please name correctly as, for example, ResearchGate is not database

 databases such as Scopus, 8 ERIC, Web of Science, Scielo, and ResearchGate

please explain what is the criteria/approach to such selection, there are also https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

https://www.scirp.org and others

 

Please set the terminology for your research: line 7: articles, line 9: these studies

 

line 10 characteristics for analysis

 

 several characteristics, including research themes, country of origin, the digital technolo-10 gies used by teachers, and their academic and professional background

please see if you have covered all the characteristics

 

which abbreviation should be kept?

line 54 OECD (2019) ; in the references # 25 OCDE (2019). Estrategias de Competencia de la OCDE 2019. Competencias para construir un futuro mejor. Ed. 21 Fundación Santillana: 574 OCDE

 

 

line 58 the forefront XXXXX.  What is the forefront XXXXX?

Line 66 a systematic review of 107 articles published between 2011 and 2016

How was it decided that 50 articles is enough material for your research review?

 

Lines 66-118 there are several reviews of articles mentioned here. In some name number of articles is mentioned, in some not. Consider revising this section of your text to provide the same approach to discussing someone else`s reviews so that your criteria or requirements are the same for the purpose. What is the purpose of mentioning these reviews here?

 

Line 127 in research objectives about conceptual frameworks? What is the purpose of mentioning earlier in the text the PCK, MTSK and TPACK? Please align these parts of your text.

 

Title and lines 128 -129 mathematics teachers’ knowledge when integrating digital technologies – please explain why you have taken the level of knowledge for consideration.

 

 

Section 2 Research Questions. Please consider the style of putting research questions. Should question 3 about What patterns, categories, and connections emerge refer to teachers` knowledge?

Please consider how your research questions 1-3 relate to the paper title.

 

Please explain why country of authors is important in your research?

Figure 2 – provide more fine scale as it is difficult to read the scales of bars.

Line 226 you mention Indonesia (4). Earlier, in line 12-13 when mentioning countries/regions there is no mention for Indonesia as on the top list country.

 

With quite wide target audience line 12:

 in-service mathematics teachers at the primary, secondary, 13 and university levels, as well as preservice teachers and line 170 Research conducted at any educational level; you have quite small number of articles for review, that is 50. Please explain why.

 

Why do you need Section: 4.1. Characteristics of the Studies (Year, Country, and Purpose) ? with discussion of frequency of publications and countries?

 

Section 4.3 – 4.5 – what novelty is of your research here? Or application?

 

Section 4.6 4.6. Instruments for Assessing Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge in Using Digital Technologies 327 (DTs) for Teaching

What gap do you intend to overcome by this review? What is the review for?

e.g. Which theoretical frameworks have been used line 126; you have described theoretical frameworks earlier.

 

Lines 14-16:

 teacher education through digital technologies, the analysis of lesson planning and tasks designed by teachers using DTs, and the assessment of their knowledge through self-perception questionnaires

 

how is this revealed in your research? Please make alignment in the text

 

4.7. Self-Report Approach  the authors are mentioned for what research purpose? What conclusion is the reader to make?

 

 

 

Discussion

previous reviews done are discussed again; you also have it in introduction.

 

Conclusion

 

How is mathematics teachers’ knowledge in using digital technologies (DTs) (line 474) related or revealed within the frameworks? What is the relationship if any?

Among the resources mentioned, like https://www.geogebra.org/

https://www.tinkerplots.com/

https://sketch.io/sketchpad/

what digital knowledge or skills are important? What are you looking at in research? Do the resources actually mean teaching with digital technologies? What is your definition and focus as digital technologies is in the title?

 

In future directions dissertation texts resources are mentioned. How the focus of research should differ in this respect?

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. While the study addresses an important topic, I identified several concerns that must be addressed before it could be considered for publication. My detailed comments are presented below.

Abstract

Line 8: The date is inaccurate; it should read 2010 rather than 2020.

Lines 28–29: There is an APA formatting issue—references should be organized alphabetically. In addition, several in-text citations are inconsistently or carelessly presented.

Introduction

Between lines 66 and 98, the text primarily summarizes prior studies. Rather than providing summaries, this section should highlight and synthesize the underlying ideas that justify and support the present work.

The study references both the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and the Mathematics Teacher’s Specialized Knowledge (MTSK) framework. However, the rationale for combining these two models is weak and insufficiently articulated. A stronger and more convincing justification is necessary.

As indicated in line 106, if TPACK-related studies began appearing in 2006, it is unclear why the systematic analysis commenced only from 2010. The reasoning behind choosing 2010 as the starting point is inadequately explained.

Research Questions and Focus

The research questions emphasize “mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching specific content and using digital technologies.” While this focus is understandable, narrowing the study exclusively to TPACK and MTSK introduces confusion and ultimately weakens the contribution.

Search Strategy

The use of multiple keywords, as described, broadens the scope excessively and diminishes focus. A more targeted and coherent search strategy is recommended.

Results

At line 211, a claim is made regarding 2025. Since the year has not yet concluded, this generalization is premature and invalid. Greater caution should be exercised.

Presentation of Results

Several tables (e.g., Table 3) contain non-English expressions. These must be carefully revised for clarity and consistency.

Discussion

The discussion section reads largely as a restatement of findings. It does not sufficiently explain how this systematic review contributes to the field, why such an analysis is needed, how it may guide future work, or how it situates itself within the broader literature. Substantial revision is required. Moreover, the implications and recommendations presented are underdeveloped and should be expanded.

 

Although the manuscript identifies common characteristics across the reviewed studies, it does not adequately address their contribution to the field. A comprehensive and careful revision of the text is necessary. Regrettably, in its current form, the manuscript does not meet the standards of this journal, and I must recommend rejection.