Math Anxiety, Math Performance and Role of Field Experience in Preservice Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I find your study to be engaging and of interest; however, I believe there are several aspects that require further development. My comments regarding your manuscript are as follows:

 

Abstract

Although the abstract outlines important factors contributing to math anxiety—such as memorization, testing, and prior experiences—it lacks specificity regarding its analytical approach. The reported positive correlation between anxiety-related associations in concept maps and A-MARS scores appears significant, yet it is not clear whether this was anticipated through a guiding research question or which statistical or qualitative methods confirmed the relationship. To ensure interpretive coherence, the abstract should be revised to explicitly state the research aim, the analytic technique, and how this finding contributes to understanding math anxiety.

 

Introduction

The statements in lines 56–59 propose that integrating field experiences and addressing anxiety during mathematics methods courses can reduce preservice teachers’ math anxiety and foster positive attitudes. While these suggestions are intuitively appealing and pedagogically sound, the claims are presented without citation or theoretical support. Given their centrality to the study's implications, it is important that they be anchored in existing literature or frameworks. Referencing prior research on early interventions for math anxiety or on the role of field experience in teacher confidence would strengthen the argument and provide a more rigorous foundation.

Moreover, the citations in lines 117, 122, and 135 need to be adjusted to meet APA conventions regarding in-text referencing and punctuation.

 

Methods

The study claims to follow a mixed-methods design, yet the specific type of design (e.g., convergent, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential) is not clearly identified. Clarifying the name of the mixed-methods design would enhance methodological transparency. Furthermore, it is unclear at which stages the qualitative and quantitative data were integrated, and whether the study followed a predetermined sequencing. Additionally, the text states that “three different instruments were used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data,” yet a fourth measure—the Math Praxis score—is also mentioned later. This discrepancy should be addressed. The Math Praxis score seems to function as an indicator of participants’ mathematical performance, but its timing and role within the research process remain vague. Was it used as a pre-existing measure, a posttest, or to validate other findings? Clarifying when and how this score was incorporated into the design is essential to ensure the consistency and rigor of the mixed-methods framework.

Furthermore, while the study employs multiple data collection tools, several important methodological clarifications are missing regarding the reliability, validity, and implementation of these instruments.

First, the Praxis Mathematics section is described as a critical measure of participants’ mathematical performance, yet no evidence is provided regarding its psychometric properties. Although it is mentioned that the assessment is conducted by the Educational Testing Service, the manuscript does not report established reliability coefficients, validation references, or any justification for its use with this particular population.

Second, the use of the Abbreviated Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (A-MARS) is not sufficiently supported. The authors should report whether the scale has been previously validated in similar contexts or provide evidence of internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) based on the current sample. Without such reliability statistics, the interpretive strength of the quantitative findings remains limited.

Third, the role of concept maps as a qualitative tool raises concerns regarding participants’ familiarity. It is not clear whether participants had prior experience with constructing concept maps or whether any training was provided. If this technique was introduced for the first time in this study, that should be stated, along with a justification of how conceptual understanding was elicited and interpreted reliably.

Lastly, the field placement reflection, which includes four open-ended questions, is briefly mentioned but not elaborated upon. The specific questions used, their alignment with the study’s goals, and the intended constructs being explored are all crucial details that need to be clearly articulated in the methodology section.

Results

The manuscript states that most participants exhibit high levels of mathematics anxiety, as measured by the A-MARS. However, several methodological and interpretive concerns remain unaddressed:

Interpretation of A-MARS Scores:

Since the A-MARS uses a 4-point Likert scale, it is crucial to report the possible score range (minimum–maximum), the total score obtained by participants, and the cut-off or descriptive criteria used to define “high” mathematics anxiety. Without this information, the claim that most participants have high anxiety remains vague and unsupported.

Appropriateness of Pearson Correlation:

If the A-MARS total score was derived by summing ordinal Likert items, the use of Pearson correlation requires justification. Ordinal data may violate assumptions of interval measurement. A brief explanation or citation supporting the use of Pearson in this context would strengthen the analysis.

Scoring and Interpretation of the Praxis Mathematics Measure:

The manuscript refers to the Praxis math test score but does not explain how this score is derived or interpreted. What is the scoring scale? What constitutes a strong vs. weak performance? This is critical for understanding the relationship between math anxiety and mathematical performance.

Timing of Measurement and Missed Opportunity for Longitudinal Insight:

Given that the field placement appears to have positively influenced preservice teachers’ teaching-related experiences and potentially reduced anxiety, it is a missed opportunity that the A-MARS was not re-administered at the end of the semester. Without a post-placement measure, it is difficult to interpret whether or how math anxiety may have changed over time or whether the field experience had any measurable impact on it. The inclusion of a follow-up A-MARS could have offered valuable longitudinal insight into the teaching-related dimension of math anxiety.

Discussion

The discussion section lacks a clear mapping between the findings and the research questions. It is difficult to determine which themes address which research questions, which weakens the analytical coherence of the manuscript. A more structured discussion—explicitly linking each thematic finding to the corresponding research question—would significantly improve clarity.

The section on "Key sources of anxiety" appears to reflect participants' experiences from a student perspective (e.g., test anxiety, memorization), while the "Field placement" findings pertain more to their emerging identities as teachers. This dual perspective (as both learners and future teachers) is conceptually rich but requires clearer articulation. Currently, the manuscript does not sufficiently distinguish between these frames, nor does it explain how anxiety experienced as a student may transfer into one’s teaching practice. The notion that preservice teachers' initial anxiety levels influence their future instructional decisions is compelling—indeed, lines 605–609 touch on this idea—but the claim needs stronger theoretical backing or longitudinal evidence.

Additionally, the conclusion that “field experiences help reduce mathematics anxiety in preservice teachers” is too strong given the current data. This is a potentially important finding, but it appears to be based primarily on qualitative reflections. Without pre- and post-intervention comparisons (e.g., A-MARS administered after field placement), this claim remains speculative. More robust evidence—such as longitudinal or mixed-data triangulation—would be needed to support this conclusion.

Implications

The current implications section incorporates extensive literature references, which is valuable; however, the integration often resembles a literature review rather than a focused interpretation of findings. While drawing from prior research strengthens the argument, the section needs to remain tightly aligned with the study’s results.

In particular, the relevance of topics such as parent involvement, STEM discipline, and female school teachers to the findings of this study is not sufficiently clear. Their inclusion appears disconnected from the specific research questions and data presented. For example, it is not explained how these factors directly influence preservice teachers’ mathematics anxiety or their field placement experiences.

The implications section requires revision to clearly articulate:

How the findings of this study (e.g., sources of anxiety, field placement effects) can inform teacher education practices.

Which aspects of the literature directly support the study’s conclusions, and which are peripheral or unnecessary.

Concrete recommendations for curriculum design, intervention strategies, or future research directions based on the data.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study addresses the valuable and under-explored topic of math anxiety in pre-service elementary teachers and the potential role of field placements in alleviating it. Including both quantitative (A-MARS, Praxis score) and qualitative (concept maps, reflective questionnaires) methods enriches the exploration of this multifaceted topic. However, significant issues must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Below are the key points that require revision:

1. The manuscript does not mention whether the study received approval from an Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee, nor does it report whether participants provided informed consent. Since the study involved human participants and the collection of psychological data and personal reflections, this omission is critical. The authors should clearly state the name of the approving ethics body and the approval number, if applicable, and confirm that participants gave informed consent in accordance with institutional and international guidelines. This information is mandatory and should be included in the Methods section.
2. Although the use of a mixed-methods design is appropriate, the small sample size and lack of randomization limit the study’s generalizability. The manuscript should acknowledge the absence of a comparison group, clarify the recruitment process, and explicitly discuss these limitations in the final section.
3. Although the use of A-MARS is well-founded, no reliability indices are reported for the current sample. There needs to be a clearer justification for using the Praxis math score as a proxy for mathematical performance, including information on whether the scores were self-reported or verified. Additionally, it is unclear why complete data were only available for 40 participants.
4. The analysis is limited to a simple correlation between anxiety and performance. Reporting confidence intervals and running a linear regression to control for basic covariates would improve the analysis's interpretability. A more transparent coding and presentation of the qualitative analysis of the concept maps would be beneficial, including a summary table of key categories and frequencies.
5. Although the design is mixed methods, there is minimal integration between the quantitative and qualitative findings. Strengthening the discussion would require directly linking anxiety scores with themes that emerge from concept maps and reflective narratives.
6. Despite the clear limitations of the study, the discussion section tends to generalize the findings. There is a need for a more critical engagement with contrasting evidence and clearer articulation of actionable recommendations for teacher education programs.
7. To enrich the theoretical and empirical context of the paper, I suggest citing the following relevant article, which supports the manuscript’s emphasis on the developmental and affective dimensions of math anxiety and offers continuity from earlier educational stages to pre-service teacher training: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103413. To expand the discussion of experiential factors and the emotional transmission of math anxiety in teacher education, I also recommend including the following two articles: 10.1177/0963721416672463 and 10.1111/ssm.12320.
8. There is at least one placeholder in the reference list ("Author, xxxx") that needs to be corrected. Please ensure that all citations are accurate and complete before resubmitting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs a thorough language revision to improve its academic tone and readability, especially in the methods and results sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions substantially improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretive balance of the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript is suitable for publication. Congratulations on your interesting work!