Exploring the Effects of a Problem-Posing Intervention with Students at Risk for Mathematics and Writing Difficulties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment for response to the reviewers' comments. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments: The paper proposes a study focus on math problem posing with some students with difficulties with math and writing. An interesting topic, especially as it deals with the least-worked component of problem solving, which is problem posing. The reviewed article shows that significant improvements have already been made in its content and organization, and I congratulate the authors. However, I still have a few comments to make for authors think about, that can help clarify some aspects, contributing to a more robust article.
The Abstract summarizes the main ideas express in the manuscript. However, before identifying some of the results, it should, briefly, specify the focus of the nature of the study (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) as well as, to mention how the data was collected and analyzed.
Title: I suggest not use the word “Comorbid“ , it is more comprehensible to use instead the previous words “ (…) for Mathematics and Writing Difficulties“
Introduction: After a brief background and relevance of the study context, that it is done, this item must end with a formulation of the problem under study, that it is missing, and only appear at the p.4 and also its research questions. This is important to describe it here before the different items of the literature review that frame the study for we understand the relevance of those following items.
The Theoretical framework appears through the in items 2, 3, 4 and 5, which frame the purpose of the study that It is clear and sufficient using classical and more recent references.
The Methodology it is described through items 6 and 7. I would suggest that the formulation of the research questions should not start with "Is there a functional relation between ....." because the answer would be Yes or No. The work shows more than that. So, I would suggest that the research questions begin as "How can we characterize the relation between ......".
I would like to see right at the beginning of this item (and this is what the standards for a research study suggest) what the researchers' options were for the nature and design of the study (only appear at 7.4.) and it is incomplete (quantitative, qualitative, mixed; case study, ....??), as this allows us to analyze everything that follows about its adequacy both to the problem, which already appears right at the beginning, and to the design of the study adopted.
The procedures, context and intervention are described in great detail.
It would help to be clearer if the different methods/instruments used for data collection (e.g. surveys, questionnaires, interviews, tests, tasks, worksheets, other documents) were identified before the description. As appear an item Data analysis a Data collection item could appear because it would be broader than an item as Materials (7.3.)
The Results are clear and justified however it will be interesting that the items of performance (e.g. 9.1.) be completed with some illustrations of the students work (e.g. response to the questionnaire, or a problem solution; a creation of one problem; a difficulty).
The Discussion. It focuses the main results being many grounded in literature. The organization of the ideas through the research questions should help the reader.
The item Limitations: It is very useful when authors describe their encountered limitations or constraints in the implementation of a study. This mention allows the reader see the complexity of a study and helps when it is replicated a similar study.
Congratulations to the researchers for their work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
