Changes in Support Intervention Practices in Mathematics for 5-Year-Old Preschool Education: The Importance of a Collaborative and Reflective Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a study focused on mathematical learning support in early childhood, employing a mixed-methods approach. The topic is timely and holds strong potential to contribute meaningfully to the literature. Overall, the study is methodologically good, but certain structural and content-related improvements are necessary.

The statements provided between lines 54–60 in the introduction section pertain directly to the findings of the current study. Such information should not be included in the introduction. Instead, it should be addressed in the discussion or conclusion sections. The introduction should be limited to summarizing relevant literature and presenting findings from previous studies. Therefore, it is recommended that this content be moved to the discussion section.

The methodology section provides a clear explanation of the mixed-methods design. Descriptions related to the validity and reliability of the data are satisfactory. The findings are presented in a logical order that effectively responds to the research questions.

However, to make sure the methodological framework is clear, it is best to include a diagram showing the research design typology. Adding this would improve the reader’s understanding of the study’s structure and process.

Author Response

Comments 1 : 

The statements provided between lines 54–60 in the introduction section pertain directly to the findings of the current study. Such information should not be included in the introduction. Instead, it should be addressed in the discussion or conclusion sections. The introduction should be limited to summarizing relevant literature and presenting findings from previous studies. Therefore, it is recommended that this content be moved to the discussion section.

Response 1 : 

The statistics mentioned in the research did not refer to the results of the study itself, but rather came from cited studies. To eliminate any ambiguity, I decided to remove these statistics and rephrase the relevant section. It is now highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments 2 :

However, to make sure the methodological framework is clear, it is best to include a diagram showing the research design typology. Adding this would improve the reader’s understanding of the study’s structure and process.

Response 2 : 

Figure 1, which illustrates the progression of the research project, has been added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent paper that explores the important topic of supporting math teaching and learning. Specifically, this paper explores the difficulties underlying continuously low Instructional Feedback scores on the class. Using Burchinal's the threshold analysis as a "goal" provided a clear reasoning behind why the increase in scores mattered. The qualitative analysis reveals important aspects of teaching and learning not easily uncovered by the CLASS, yet supported in research as important to children's learning.

Some ways that the paper might be improved are editing some of the headings in both the paper and tables seem to be repeated or misplaced - these minor typos should be corrected. The paragraphs following "Theoretical Framework" about the CLASS seem to indicate that the CLASS is part of the theoretical framework. 

Additionally, I did not see in the methods whether the CLASS observers were also the facilitators of the collaborative sessions, which could introduce some bias. 

Overall, excellent contribution to the early childhood education research literature. 

Author Response

Comments 1 : 

Some ways that the paper might be improved are editing some of the headings in both the paper and tables seem to be repeated or misplaced - these minor typos should be corrected. 

Response 1 :

The corrections have been made.

Comments 2 : 

The paragraphs following "Theoretical Framework" about the CLASS seem to indicate that the CLASS is part of the theoretical framework. 

Response : 2 

I rewrote this section so that the tool would not be seen as part of the framework.

Comments 3 :

Additionally, I did not see in the methods whether the CLASS observers were also the facilitators of the collaborative sessions, which could introduce some bias. 

Response 3 : 

A clarification to that effect has been added to the text.