Review Reports - Prospective Teachers’ Views on Mathematics Education Curriculum Transformation in Preschool in Latvia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Page 3. For those of us not familiar with the “short-cycle higher professional education study programme”, I suggest adding a brief discussion on the outcomes for students. I believe 120 ECTS is equivalent to 60 credit hours in the United States, comparable to a 2-year associate's degree that a student would earn in a community college. I found the information on your university’s website (https://www.lu.lv/en/studies/study-programmes-1/short-cycle-study-programmes/preschool-teacher/) helpful in understanding the nature of the programme.

Page 4: Please provide more detail on the specific sequence of questioning used to focus and structure the discussion so that there was consistency across groups.

Page 6. Is Figure 3 merely to illustrate the types of materials (data) used in analyzing participants' work? If not, an English translation would be helpful.

Page 7 Table 3. I obtain slightly different (but not statistically significant) percentages using n = 268 for some of the entries; the percentages match when I use the n = 271 reported on page 4, with one exception: Development of literacy and acquisition of skills (P2). 96 ÷ 271 = 35.4%, not 53.4%, which is a significant change from the reported percentage and an important difference between P1 and P2. This also raises the question of whether the data collected from focus group discussions, such as those shared in Figure 3, should be based on the sample size (81) or the number of group discussions, rather than the number of pre-service teachers.

Page 8. If the emphasis on the development of literacy skills did decrease as noted above, “The findings of this study suggest that teachers perceive mathematics not only as a discipline involving numbers, but also as a medium for developing more extensive cognitive abilities and fundamental literacy skills” is unsupported. Could you elaborate on the shift in pedagogical emphasis or curricular focus? Was this something that emerged from the student discussions? If not, can you support this inference in some way?

Page 9. Concept development strategies coding is described as incorporating practical, meaningful, and interesting activities for children; however, there is no mention of mathematical concepts foundational to building a child’s ability to use the language of mathematics and understand the relationships between quantities, properties, position, and characteristics of shapes. Based on the discussion provided, curriculum implementation or pedagogical strategies would be a better categorization. On pages 3 and 4, focus group participants are identified as second and third-year part-time students, and we learned that they take the "Content and Learning Approaches in Mathematics Education" course during the third and fourth semesters of the second academic year. Based on the discussion on page 4, am I correct in assuming that none of the participants have completed the mathematics education course? If so, is this the first time students have had the opportunity to analyze a mathematics curriculum?

Page 10, section 3.3 mentions “a thorough examination of the verbal contributions” and on page 12, section 3.4 we find “a thorough analysis of the discourse,” suggesting that either the discussion was recorded and transcribed or that the researcher observed the discussion (led the discussion?) and took notes. How, then, were data from the individual comments noted in the verbal discussions, and data from the group visual products used to come up with the reported percentages?

Page 11: Can you say more about the disconnect between the positive comments shared, pointing to a more active role of the child in the assessment process, and the negative comment shared in the next paragraph, "[...] a requirement for children to know and assess their knowledge."

Page 12: An example of the “overly complex terminology may hinder understanding of the learning standard” would be helpful in understanding the students' concerns.

Page 14: Skill development does not appear in the codes in sections 3.1 - 3.4. The first mention of skills appears in the last paragraph of section 3.4. “child feels the need to acquire new knowledge and skills,” and “the child, in collaboration with the teacher, develops an understanding of mathematical concepts and acquires problem-solving skills.” In the first full paragraph on page 14 the authors write, “An encouraging finding is the prospective teachers’ recognition of the importance of skill development, particularly foundational cognitive skills such as classification, pattern recognition, and problem-solving.” It is not clear how this finding emerged in this study based on the analysis provided.

Page 14: The authors write, “On the other hand, the findings point to areas where prospective teachers’ conceptual and practical understanding remains incomplete, particularly concerning formative assessment, problem-solving, higher-order thinking, and the integration of parental involvement. “ As the participants have not yet completed coursework in pre-school mathematics education, this should not be unexpected. It would be interesting to see how the participants' perspectives change if they were offered the opportunity to reassess the 2012 and 2019 curriculum standards after completing the course. Such a study would offer much stronger support for the implications for teacher education noted in the next paragraphs; all of which are loosely related at best to this study.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their meticulous reading, thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise invested in reviewing our manuscript, “Prospective Teachers’ Views on Mathematics Education Curriculum Transformation in Preschool in Latvia.” In revising the manuscript, we have carefully considered all comments and made the suggested corrections and clarifications throughout the text. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the point-by-point response letter. Please see the attachment.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, accuracy, and contribution of the manuscript. Once again, we are grateful for the reviewers’ valuable input and hope that the revised version meets the expectations of both the reviewer and the editorial team.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a huge study with over 80 focus group interviews,

In the introduction the authors refer to many different topics, as they address these in their research questions, but the single topics are not discussed first on a theoretical level before they look on the awareness of the prospective teacher’s in the different document.

The authors refer to children’s mathematical skills in general, to their achievements and to problem solving skills, here it would be nice if the focus would be clearer. Later on in the discussion many papers are referred to, which are not discussed in the theoretical section.
The first research question adresses quite more different concepts, which are not discussed earlier in theoretical section but later on in the discussion: How do prospective teachers perceive the aim, content, assessment and teaching/learning process of mathematics education in the mathematics curricula?

I have a few reservations to the method.

When prospective teacher’s view in differences are investigaed , the existing differences in the documentes should be made explicit in this paper, so that it can be traced back, what differences the prospective teachers do identify in mathematics pre reform curricula.
Focus group interviews are a qualitative research method.
These results are presented in broad categories mainly with percentages. Are these broad categories reflecting the over 80 focus group interviews? Can conclusions be drawn on the basis of percentages how often the categories are mentioned?

This concern relates to the paper in general: Many aspects are adressed in a broad way.

I recommend to focus on single aspects:
First to present the theoretical and empirical background of these aspects, than to report the qualitative data and maybe some quantitative results and then to discuss the results on the presented background,

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their meticulous reading, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and expertise dedicated to the evaluation of our manuscript, entitled "Prospective Teachers' Views on Mathematics Education Curriculum Transformation in Preschool in Latvia."

In consideration of the feedback received, the comments have been duly noted and the suggested corrections and clarifications have been incorporated into the manuscript. A comprehensive response is provided below, with the corresponding revisions clearly indicated in the point-by-point response letter. Please see the attachment.

It is our conviction that these amendments have served to enhance the clarity, precision, and overall contribution of the manuscript. We are truly grateful for the reviewer's valuable input and hope that the revised version meets the expectations of both the reviewer and the editorial team.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper offers valuable insights into how prospective preschool teachers in Latvia view the ongoing transformation of the mathematics education curriculum. Triggered by the 2019 curriculum reform, this transformation aligns with a global trend toward competence-based, child-centered approaches in early childhood education. The findings indicate that while future educators increasingly acknowledge and value these international pedagogical principles, there are still gaps in their conceptual understanding and practical implementation that require further development.

Two hundred and seventy-one undergraduate students from Latvia were recruited to participate in this study. A descriptive research design was employed, involving a focus group discussion with students from the University of Latvia and its regional branches. Participants analysed and compared the changes in aims, content, assessment practices, and instructional strategies in mathematics education at preschool level in mathematics curricula.

Overall, the paper is well-structured and presents a valuable contribution to the understanding of on the evaluation of the effectiveness of the recent reform of the preschool curriculum in Latvia.

The choice of theme is good, the study is very well developed and useful. It contains original results on an important topic.

Using an adequate literature review (42 items), the theoretical part of the paper is adequate, precise and the language is understandable. The research part of the thesis fulfils its objectives: three research questions were formulated.

The methodology used are correct, and the conclusions are valid.

The research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 formulated in the article are correct. In the discussion section, precise answers should be provided for the three research questions, stating whether the questions were ultimately confirmed or not.

The limitations of the research should be also discussed. Also the way forward.

It is a formally adequate paper. For the references, I have the following comments:

It is missed from references, but is in the article: (Vigule & Helmane, 2023) , (Helmane & Vigule, 2022).

In this sentences, we need only one parenthesis in case of references:

1.This echoes international research emphasizing the predictive power of early mathematical competencies for later academic achievement (Duncan et al., 2007), (OECD, 2018).

Early mathematical experiences have been shown to be strong predictors of later academic achievement, even surpassing the predictive value of early reading skills in forecasting school performance (ten Braak et al., 2022), (Duncan et al., 2007).

3.The development of foundational skills, such as number sense, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition, which occurs during early childhood, contributes significantly to children's logical think-ing and problem-solving abilities (Whitehead & Hawes, 2023), (Ginsburg et al., 2008)

Policy guidance from organizations like the OECD and UNESCO calls for curricula that go beyond rote learning to engage children in inquiry-based, playful exploration of con-cepts (OECD, 2018), (UNESCO, 2015).
The involvement of teachers in the development or refinement of curricula is therefore of paramount im-portance to ensure fidelity of implementation (Clayback et al., 2023), (Pajares, 1992), (Priestley et al., 2015).
Research indicates that when educators perceive the curriculum to be clear, relevant, and adaptable to their students' needs, they are more likely to adopt it with enthusiasm and commitment (Voogt et al., 2016), (Clayback et al., 2023), (Spillane et al., 2002).
The discussion is focused, with a specific sequence of questioning and their structure is such that consistent ques-tioning is used across groups (Vaugh et al., 1996), (Fern, 2001).
The process of content analysis entails two sequential cycles: initial coding and focused coding (Charmaz, 2006), (Miles et al., 2014).
The shift from summative, standardized assessments toward more formative, individualized approaches reflects international best practices in early childhood education (Shepard, 2000), (Snow & Van Hemel, 2008).

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work through the study Prospective Teachers View on Mathematics Education Curriculum Transformation in Preschool in Latvia. I found the idea of this study to be fascinating as transitions to a new curriculum are typically not implemented in the same way they were envisioned on paper. While the manuscript was well written, I did have many questions related to the design of the study that were not addressed. Please find my specific feedback below, broken into sections of the manuscript.

Page 2, paragraph 1. This paragraph could be separated into two distinct ideas as the end of the current paragraph transitions into defining the role of the pre-school teacher.

Page 2, paragraph 2. Add a citation to the sentence “The beliefs, experiences and attitudes of teachers have been demonstrated to directly influence how curricular changes are interpreted and enacted it the classroom.”

Page 3, paragraph 1. The last sentence of the paragraph tries to justify the use of prospective teachers in this study, but it needs to go deeper. Prospective teachers are learning and lack experience. Why does their opinions of the curricula shift matter if it is the only curricula they have taught with? Further, why were teachers with experience not used for this study? That demographic would have been much more impactful for this study.

Materials and Methods Section

Ensure consistency in capitalization (i.e. page 3, paragraph 4) in course name.

How does the criteria for the courses taken in this program relate to similar institutions?

The power dynamics of employs a focus group during a class session needs to be discussed and goes against research practices. What questions were posed by the researchers? What influence did the researchers have on the answers provided by the students? How was the focus group structured differently than a typical class session? Was data obtained through audio recordings or video recordings?

I found myself frequently asking myself how can this study be replicated? The purpose of research is to be able to replicate a study and many of the nuanced details are missing from the manuscript as written. This includes the specific data that was the selected and doubled coded by two independent coders, as well as the specific data that the students reviewed before the focus groups. Did they only review the three images? Why were those three images intentionally selected if so?

Separating the Methods and materials into two sections would make for a better flow to the manuscript.

Findings

Page 10, paragraph 1. Check tense use (i.e. “This indicate a lack of…..)

Page 10, paragraph 3. The sentence, “Within the education system, assessment is progressively regarded as a mechanism to encourage learning, as opposed to being solely utilized for the purpose of monitoring outcomes” is not true universally across all education systems in the world. This needs to be more specific to region and needs a citation.

Discussion

Page 13, paragraph 3. Be more specific on the “global shift” that is being described. It would be helpful to include citations.

Page 14. Many interpretations of the findings on this page cannot be generalizable to the broader population of higher education. They could be very specific to this course/university. I’m also not sure that this study “highlights both progress and persistent challenges in the transformation of preschool mathematics education in Latvia” as no other voices were represented or other studies were cited to support this claim.

When was the 2019 curriculum implemented? Teachers that transitioned from the 2012 to the 2019 curriculum would be a better demographic for this study because they have the background knowledge and expertise that prospective teachers are notably missing.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their meticulous reading, thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the considerable time and expertise invested in the review of our manuscript, entitled "Prospective Teachers' Views on Mathematics Education Curriculum Transformation in Preschool in Latvia." In revising the manuscript, meticulous attention has been paid to all comments received, and the suggested corrections and clarifications have been incorporated throughout the text. The detailed responses can be found below, with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the point-by-point response letter. Please see the attachment.

It is the contention of the present study that these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, accuracy, and contribution of the manuscript. We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again to the reviewers for their invaluable contributions, and it is our sincere hope that the revised version will be able to meet the expectations of both the reviewer and the editorial team.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A thoughtful and comprehensive response to my initial review, I have no substantive comments to the revision.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: In the introduction the authors refer to many different topics, as they address these in their research questions, but the single topics are not discussed first on a theoretical level before they look on the awareness of the prospective teacher’s in the different document

This comment is not addressed sufficiently. The framework is now not clearer. Just one sentence about the beliefs is added and some references.

Comment 2: The authors refer to children’s mathematical skills in general, to their achievements and to problem solving skills, here it would be nice if the focus would be clearer. Later on in the discussion many papers are referred to, which are not discussed in the theoretical section

The authors decided not to adress this comment with reference to their national context. But this paper is published in an international paper

Comment 3: The first research question addresses quite more different concepts, which are not discussed earlier in theoretical section but later on in the discussion: How do prospective teachers perceive the aim, content, assessment and teaching/learning process of mathematics education in the mathematics curricula?

This comment is not addressed sufficiently: The authors have now only added brief references to those earlier works in the manuscript but this did not provide context and support for the current analysis. The structure is not clear.

Comment 4 is addressed sufficiently

Comment 5 is addressed sufficiently

Comments 6 und 7: The authors decided not address these comments

Although the authors decided to stay on the broad focus and not to adress single aspects more deeply, still comment 3 could be addressed more sufficient. First the aspects can be analyzed on a theoretical level, than many aspects will not adressed the first time in the discussion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all comments. I recognize and appreciate the time and effort spent on revisions to this manuscript. Response 3 in the cover letter was well articulated and provided the justification I was originally seeking for the inclusion of preservice teachers only in this study. It would strengthen the justification for all readers if the two paragraphs in response 3 (see below) were added to the manuscript .

"However, we chose to focus on prospective teachers specifically because their perspectives offer unique insights into how the newly implemented curriculum is interpreted and internalized by those entering the profession. This demographic represents the next generation of educators, and their understanding of the curriculum—formed during their teacher education—is crucial to its successful implementation. Their responses reflect both how the curriculum is being communicated in teacher preparation programs and how it is perceived before significant classroom experience shapes their views.

While experienced teachers would certainly provide a different and valuable perspective, our study was designed to capture the initial reception and conceptualization of the curriculum transformation at the entry level. We acknowledge that this is one part of a broader picture and fully agree that future research should explore the views of in-service teachers to complement and deepen our findings."

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments : Thank you for addressing all comments. I recognize and appreciate the time and effort spent on revisions to this manuscript. Response 3 in the cover letter was well articulated and provided the justification I was originally seeking for the inclusion of preservice teachers only in this study. It would strengthen the justification for all readers if the two paragraphs in response 3 (see below) were added to the manuscript.

Response:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the justification provided in Response 3 of the cover letter. As suggested, we have now incorporated both paragraphs into the manuscript to ensure that the rationale for focusing exclusively on prospective teachers is clear to all readers.

These paragraphs have been added to the article (Section 4, page 5), immediately before the paragraph starting with "All of the pre-service teachers participating...".

We believe this addition strengthens the manuscript and provides better context for our methodological choices. Thank you again for this helpful recommendation.

These paragraphs have been added to the article (Section 4, page 5), immediately before the paragraph starting with "All of the pre-service teachers participating...".

We believe this addition strengthens the manuscript and provides better context for our methodological choices. Thank you again for this helpful recommendation.