Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comparative study of teaching and learning practices in Differential and Integral Calculus (DIC1) between Brazil and France, focusing on both teachers’ and students’ perspectives. The study address an important topic in mathematics education, namely the contrast between instructional traditions and emerging active learning methodologies. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly for readers interested in international comparisons of pedagogical approaches in higher education.

The manuscript demonstrates a solid empirical basis, with a detailed methodological section and a well-developed discussion. However, the paper would benefit from revisions to strengthen its theoretical framing, clarify certain methodological aspects, and improve the coherence and conciseness of its argumentation.

I reccommend changes detailed below.

1) The comparative perspective between the French and Brazilian systems offers valuable insight into how historical and institutional contexts influence pedagogical practices. However, the novelty of the research could be more clearly articulated in the introduction. The authors should specify what gap in existing literature this study fills. For instance, whether similar cross-national studies in mathematics education exist and how this one advances the field.

2) Although the paper references important sources (e.g., Bonwell & Eison, Freeman et al., Zandieh et al.), the theoretical grounding could be more cohesive. The concept of active learning appears repeatedly but is not sufficiently problematized or contextualized. Similarly, the paper refers to “higher-order thinking” but does not clearly define it in relation to established frameworks (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy).

I recommend to expand the section reviewing active learning methodologies, possibly distinguishing between different models (e.g., inquiry-based, cooperative, peer-instruction), and define explicitly what is meant by active learning and higher-order thinking, and explain how these concepts inform the analysis. I suggest to cite some key works:

• Spagnolo, C., Giglio, R., Tiralongo, S., & Bolondi, G. (2021). Formative assessment in LDL: A teacher-training experiment. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education-Volume 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 657-664). Science and Technology Publications, Lda.
• Ferretti, F., Gambini, A., & Spagnolo, C. (2024). Management of semiotic representations in mathematics: quantifications and new characterizations. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 11-20.

3) The methodological section is detailed and replicable, which is commendable. The use of observation and questionnaires is appropriate, and the inclusion of both teachers and students strengthens the study’s validity. However, the study would benefit from: clarifying the rationale for sample size and site selection (e.g., why these particular institutions were chosen, and to what extent they are representative), providing more details on data triangulation (how were observation results compared or integrated with questionnaire data?), explaining limitations—for example, how the “strike days” and differences in course structures between institutions may have affected comparability.

4) The comparative tables in the section results are informative, and the statistical tests (Mann-Whitney, effect size) are appropriately applied. However, the narrative occasionally becomes overly descriptive, making it difficult to identify key analytical insights.

5) The discussion section could be more critically reflective. It mostly restates results rather than offering deeper interpretation. The distinction between “reported” and “observed” teaching practices is an interesting finding that deserves more theoretical elaboration—perhaps linked to the concept of belief-practice misalignment or theory–practice gap in teacher education.

6) The reference list is thorough and includes relevant international sources. However, some citations are slightly outdated or descriptive rather than analytical. Adding recent works (post-2020) on active learning in calculus education or comparative mathematics pedagogy would strengthen the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your contribution. After reading your work, I feel that this could be a viable manuscript, but there are several areas that I feel need to be more concise and developed further. 

According to my opinion, the manuscript must be develop, see my comments as attach. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It’s a well written paper. The paper is clearly structured and the abstract points out all relevant aspects tackled in the paper. Literature review adequately provided and critically analysed.

The study investigates how teaching and learning practices in Differential and Integral Calculus 1 differ between France and Brazil, focusing on the perspectives of both teachers and students. It explores which teaching activities are used, how frequently they are applied, and which activities teachers and students believe most contribute to learning, comparing these beliefs with actual classroom observations. The topic is relevant to mathematics education. The cross-national comparison between France and Brazil adds originality: few studies juxtapose these two systems using parallel observation protocols and teacher–student perception data. The conclusions are generally consistent with the data presented, directly address the main research question relating to practices, perceptions, and cross-country comparisons. The claims are cautiously stated and well-supported by the descriptive statistics and qualitative observations. References are largely appropriate and up-to-date.

However, it needs some minor corrections, such as:

• research questions are implicitly addressed, though they could be more explicitly stated in the introduction;
• a few minor formatting inconsistencies in APA style could be corrected;
• the section "Conclusions" could be slightly shortened and more focused on the study’s main contributions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the revised version of the manuscript, together with the authors’ responses to the first round of reviews. The paper addresses a relevant topic in mathematics education by adopting a comparative perspective between the French and Brazilian higher education systems, and it is clear that the authors have made several efforts to respond to the reviewers’ comments. Some revisions have indeed improved the clarity of the manuscript, particularly in the methodological section and in parts of the discussion. However, substantial issues remain, especially at the level of theoretical framing and analytical depth. For these reasons, I still recommend major revisions before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. The authors state that they have clarified the contribution and novelty of the study in the introduction. While the revised text makes a general claim about the relevance of cross-national comparison, the positioning of the paper within existing research remains insufficiently precise. The manuscript still lacks a clear and explicit identification of the specific gap it addresses in the literature on comparative mathematics education and university-level teaching practices. In particular, the authors should more clearly articulate: whether similar comparative studies (France–Brazil or comparable contexts) already exist, how their study differs methodologically or conceptually from previous work, and what new theoretical or empirical insight is gained beyond a descriptive comparison.

2. The most critical unresolved issue concerns the theoretical grounding. In the first review, I recommended strengthening and problematizing the concepts of active learning and higher-order thinking. The authors’ response indicates that this was not their aim, and they have therefore limited themselves to adding brief definitions.

I find this response unsatisfactory. These concepts are not marginal to the study; on the contrary, they underpin the construction of the questionnaire, the observation grid, and the interpretation of results. Using them without sufficient theoretical elaboration weakens the analytical coherence of the paper. A minimal definition does not suffice when such constructs play a central role in the study.

In this respect, I reiterate that the suggested references (e.g., Spagnolo et al., 2021; Ferretti et al., 2024) are appropriate and theoretically relevant. These works do not merely add bibliographical volume; they offer conceptual tools to:

• distinguish different meanings and implementations of active learning,

• connect teaching practices with cognitive and semiotic dimensions,

• and frame higher-order thinking in a way that goes beyond generic or implicit usage.

3. The revisions to the methodological section are generally appropriate. The clarification of sample selection, site choice, and some limitations (e.g., strike days, institutional differences) improves transparency and replicability. This is a positive development.

However, the issue of data triangulation still deserves more explicit treatment. While observation and questionnaire data are both presented, the manuscript does not sufficiently explain how these data sources are analytically connected. This is particularly important given one of the key findings: the discrepancy between reported and observed practices. Making the triangulation strategy more explicit would strengthen the internal validity of the conclusions.

4. The authors maintain that a detailed presentation of statistical data is necessary, and I agree that the use of appropriate non-parametric tests and effect sizes is methodologically sound. Nonetheless, the concern raised in the first review remains largely unaddressed: the results section is still overly descriptive in places.

The paper would benefit from: clearer signposting of which results are analytically central, more explicit interpretation accompanying the tables, and a stronger connection between quantitative findings and the research questions. At present, readers are left to infer the significance of many results rather than being guided through a coherent analytical narrative.

6. The authors have added some recent references, which is welcome. However, given the centrality of active learning and comparative pedagogy in the manuscript, I still believe that the literature review would benefit from a more selective and analytical engagement with post-2020 studies, rather than simply adding citations. The inclusion of theoretically strong contributions (such as those previously suggested) is not optional but necessary to support the study’s claims.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment