From Online Video-Based Professional Development to Differentiated Teaching: A Case Study of Mathematics Teacher

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: From Online Video-Based Professional Development to Differentiated Teaching: A Case Study of Mathematics Teacher

Comments:

1. In abstract: For every sentence, please start with a subject, not a verb. Example: Using, Drawing, etc. All, I suggest to update this throughout the manuscript.
2. I suggest to incorporate the literature review section in the introduction section. While reading, its seems a independent body. Its better to have in Introduction which contains a background, literature review, novelty of the study, and then research questions.
3. Please add the ethical approval number and date in the method section.
4. Please add the demographic informations of the participants.
5. In the data analysis section, please mention, how did you do quantitative analysis?
6. What is the theoretical/conceptual framework?
7. Results showed: Figure 2 is the only quantitative results. Authors could do more.
8. Authors mentioned, “A total of seven mathematics teachers ...” participated in this study. But in section 3.3, authors mentioned that “The study participant was one female mathematics teacher ...”. Could you please explain this.
9. I understand that its a case study, so quantitative analysis does not make sense.
10. I think, there was a selection bias. The participant was chosen because she was strongly motivated, open to innovative approaches, and already had a willingness to reflect. The results may not be replicable for a typical teacher who lacks these intrinsic qualities.
11. Authors did not distinguish whether the improvement in DI came from the pedagogical reflection on videos or from the training on how to use these specific software tools to automate differentiation.
12. There is no data provided on actual student academic achievement or mathematical understanding.
13. Also, the teacher’s quotes about regaining lost self-confidence are subjective and difficult to verify objectively.
14. The study highlights the rural context as a key feature. However, the analysis does not deeply explore how the rural setting impacted the intervention. Authors should provide a comparison between rural and urban settings. 

Thanks

Author Response

Comment: In abstract: For every sentence, please start with a subject, not a verb. Example: Using, Drawing, etc. Also, I suggest updating this throughout the manuscript.

Response: The abstract has been revised so that each sentence begins with a subject rather than a verb. We have also carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and revised similar sentence constructions where necessary to improve clarity and readability.

Comment:I suggest incorporating the literature review section into the introduction section. While reading, it seems like an independent body. It is better to have it in the Introduction which contains background, literature review, novelty of the study, and then research questions.

Response: We revised the Introduction to more clearly present the background, the research gap, and the novelty of the study before introducing the research questions. We have added Literarture review about vide-based TPD, effective teaching mathematics and DI. Also we have added section about Research focus with research questions. 

Comment: Please add the ethical approval number and date in the method section.

Response: It is added below whole paper, but as well as other details that are excluded for the purpose of review. But we have also written the approval number in Method section.

Comment: Please add the demographic information of the participants.

Response: demographic information about the participants has been included in the Description of the TPD and Participant sections. The paper provides information about the number of teachers involved in the TPD, their teaching experience, and the school contexts in which they work (rural and urban schools).

Comment: What is the theoretical/conceptual framework?

Response: The study is guided by the four-dimensional model of teacher cognitive change proposed by Major and Watson (2018), which conceptualises how video-based professional development influences teachers’ cognition and teaching practices. The model includes four interrelated dimensions: self-efficacy, self-evaluation, knowledge of teaching, and challenging beliefs. In this study, the model was used to examine how participation in video-based TPD may support changes in teachers’ instructional practices related to differentiated instruction in mathematics. To clarify this, we have now explicitly stated the theoretical framework and further explained its role in guiding the analysis.

Comment: In the data analysis section, please mention, how did you do quantitative analysis?

Response: We have clarified the quantitative analysis procedure in the Data Analysis section of the manuscript. Specifically, COPUS codes were recorded in two-minute intervals for each observed lesson. For each code, the number of intervals in which the behaviour occurred was divided by the total number of coded intervals and expressed as a percentage. These percentages represent the proportion of lesson time in which particular teacher or student activities were observed and were used to illustrate patterns of classroom interaction across lessons.

We note here that calculations are incorporated in the COPUS protocol and the user of the protocol obtains the data without calculations. 

Comment: Results showed: Figure 2 is the only quantitative results. Authors could do more.

Comment: I understand that its a case study, so quantitative analysis does not make sense.

Response: We have combined these two comments in order to provide a more precise answer. The quantitative COPUS data were used primarily as descriptive indicators to show changes in interaction patterns and to support the qualitative findings and TOF protocol results. These indicators were not used for further statistical analysis but to document shifts in teaching practices over time and to triangulate interview-based interpretations of teacher cognition.

We included data related that are closely related to our case study, but we can offer, if necessary, broader data.

Comment: Authors mentioned that seven mathematics teachers participated in this study, but later state that the participant was one female mathematics teacher. Please explain this.

Response: Seven mathematics teachers participated in the online video-based TPD as part of the broader research project. However, the present paper focuses on a single-case study of one teacher (Ms. Maddie) whose teaching practice provided the most suitable opportunity to examine the development of differentiated instruction in depth. The paper has been revised to clarify this distinction between the full TPD group and the focal case analyzed in this study.

Comment: There is no data provided on actual student academic achievement or mathematical understanding.

Response: The purpose of the study was not to evaluate student learning outcomes but to investigate the development or change of teacher cognition and teaching classroom practice during participation in video-based professional development. In previous version of paper, in limitation section, we noted that we did not collect such data. In this version, we have explicitly stated this in Method section. Student-related data are interpreted as indicators of classroom participation rather than evidence of learning outcomes. Throughout the Results section, we revised wording to avoid outcome and to describe observable interactional changes (e.g., student-initiated participation). 

Comment: The teacher’s quotes about regaining lost self-confidence are subjective and difficult to verify objectively.

Response: We agree that interview statements represent subjective self-perceptions and not the objective measurements. The aim of the interview data was not to treat quotations as independent proof of change but as first-person interpretations of professional experience. Interview findings were interpreted along with classroom observation data (TOF, COPUS) and instructional materials. Claims about changes in self-confidence were considered meaningful only when accompanied by observable shifts in instructional behaviour.

Comment: The study highlights the rural context as a key feature. However, the analysis does not deeply explore how the rural setting impacted the intervention. Authors should provide a comparison between rural and urban settings. 

Response: In the revised manuscript, we clarified that the rural context was reported as part of the demographic description of the case, and not a central explanatory variable. Ms. Maddie worked in a rural school with limited opportunities for subject-specific collaboration and few colleagues teaching mathematics, so the online video-based TPD provided an important space for professional exchange and reflection that would otherwise have been difficult to sustain. Because the study focuses on a single case, it cannot provide a comparison between rural and urban settings. However, we have now clarified the role of the rural context in the text and added a statement in the Conclusion indicating that online video-based professional learning communities may be particularly valuable for teachers working in rural schools where access to subject-specific collaboration is limited.

Comment: I think there was a selection bias. The participant was chosen because she was strongly motivated, open to innovative approaches, and already had a willingness to reflect. The results may not be replicable for a typical teacher who lacks these intrinsic qualities.

Response: We agree that the teacher’s high motivation and openness to new instructional approaches may have influenced the outcomes of the study. However, she was not selected for the case study in advance; the case emerged during the project. Although several teachers participated in the TPD, Ms. Maddie was the only participant who implemented DI in her classroom, which made her case the most suitable opportunity to examine the development of DI practices within the TPD context. In line with case study methodology, the findings should be interpreted as illustrating what is possible under favourable conditions instead of as outcomes that can be expected for all teachers.

Comment: Authors did not distinguish whether the improvement in DI came from the pedagogical reflection on videos or from the training on how to use these specific software tools to automate differentiation.

Response: In the revised paper we clarify that the use of digital tools was not part of the TPD itself. The TPD focused on analyzing classroom practice through video recordings and collaborative reflection within the professional learning community. The digital tools were introduced independently by the teacher as practical resources for implementing ideas that emerged from these reflective discussions. This clarification has been added in the section “Digital tools enabling cognitive and instructional change.” We also acknowledge in the Limitations section that the study does not disentangle the specific contribution of video reflection from other contextual factors that supported the implementation of differentiated instruction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The opening of this paper does note the study is focused on one teacher.  On the other hand the study design and methods could be made much clearer.  After sharing the research design, The (Blinded Name) project was described with a number of participants. What part of this study is this paper.  

Clear purpose and research questions would help but would not be sufficient.

There was no rational starting this add-on study was limited to one participant.

The context for this study was not shared in any detail.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I'm only to note one; that is the title is lacking a word 

From Online Video-Based Professional Development to Differ-2 entiated Teaching: A Case Study of Mathematics Teacher

 

Author Response

Comment: The opening of this paper does note the study is focused on one teacher.  On the other hand the study design and methods could be made much clearer.  After sharing the research design, The (Blinded Name) project was described with a number of participants. What part of this study is this paper.  

Response: We acknowledge that the relationship between the (Blinded Name) project and the present case study was not sufficiently clear in the earlier version of this paper. The (Blinded Name) project involved several mathematics teachers participating in the same online video-based TPD. The present paper focuses on one participant as a single-case study, which emerged during the project rather than being planned in advance. We have revised the manuscript to make this relationship explicit and to clarify that this paper represents an in-depth case study nested within the broader (Blinded Name) project.

Comment: Clear purpose and research questions would help but would not be sufficient.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have added section Research focus section that clarifies the purpose of the study and explicitly states the two research questions guiding the investigation.

Comment: There was no rational starting this add-on study was limited to one participant.

Response: The study was not designed in advance as a single-participant study; rather, the case emerged organically during the project. While multiple teachers took part in the TPD, Ms. Maddie was the only one who consistently sought to implement DI in her classroom, making her case uniquely suited for examining how engagement in the TPD process translated into classroom practice over time. This rationale has been made explicit in the revised paper.

Comment: The context for this study was not shared in any detail.

Response: In earlier versions of the paper, contextual information was kept minimal. In the revised version, we have added a description of the broader research project context at the beginning of the Methods section, after having described the study design, as well as a more detailed profile of the case study participant. We hope this additional information provides sufficient context for the reader to situate the study appropriately.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reviewing this well-written, well-constructed paper.

Case studies play an important role in deepening our understanding of pedagogical practices. Studying the in situ developement of teachers is inherently challenging, as research protocols and procedures can easily overwhelm the natural processes we aim to observe and interpret. In this study, however, the teacher's professional growth was itself grounded in structured self-reflection informed by self- and peer feedback based on classroom video analysis. As a result, the research design is aligned closely with the teacher's authentic developmental practices, allowing the study to capture meaningful changes without distorting the processes it sought to understand. 

Case studies serve a second important function: they offer practicing teachers concrete role models to help them situate their own pedagogical growth within real classroom contexts. When implementing a new pedagogical practice, especially one that requires ongoing adjustment and refinement, teachers benefit from seeing how others navigate the iterative process of improvement. The case study presented in this paper provides an evidence-based framework that practicing teachers can draw upon to enhance the effectiveness of their own efforts at differentiated instruction.  

The literature review is relevant and succinct. The authors make clear links between the literature and the case study they are presenting. I appreciate that they have kept this review tight and perfectly aligned with their coming narrative. 

The methods section is clear and shows the authors have a strong command of the theory underlying the practices they are applying in this study. (I have wondered if they considered Hemmeter et al. (2015) Effects of Training and Coaching With Performance Feedback on Teachers' Use of Pyramid Model Practices. While it has a focus on coaching, it has a more developed presentation of the underlying theory Hemmeter uses in the 2011 paper.)

When I reached section 3.5.1 on classroom observations, I found myself wanting to know more characteristics of the lower-secondary class Ms Maddie was teaching. In particular, the COPUS protocol was developed and validated in the context of undergraduate STEM classrooms, and while I am willing to believe it can be applied with learners in a secondary school classroom, I do wonder if there are any adjustments needed to how the data need to be collected and interpreted. I would like to see the authors discuss the applicability of COPUS in the context of this case study. 

In section 3.5.2 Thematic analysis of interview data, the first bullet point references thematic coding as being "guided by" the Major and Watson (2018) model.  My recollection of the Major and Watson paper is that it uses a thematic analysis of about 80 studies, and not so much "thematic coding" directly, so I wonder what the authors mean by "guided by" in this bellet point. 

In the results section, the authors present clearly, and without unnecessary embellishments and without overstating the outcomes, what they see in the qualitative and quantitative data they have collected and analysed.  I find the outcomes they claim are well-supported by the data in this case study. 

One thing I particularly like about this case study is the authors considered the importance of sustained practice within a supported professional learning environment as a key feature for affecting true pedagogical improvements. This is critical, I believe, and needs to be well-understood by practicing teachers and those in school leadership who support them. This case study highlights that even a keen teacher like Ms Maddie can experience self-doubts about whether the efforts they make to improve their teaching are worthwhile.  This case study also shows us the value of working through those self-doubts with the support of professional peers in a deliberate program to examine and learn from one's classroom practices. 

I would like to have seen more of Ms Maddie's self-reflections on her struggles and development, as I think they would be valuable for teachers reading this study, but their absence does not detract from the main narrative of this paper. 

In their discussiom of the limitations of their study, the authors acknowledge they did not study the students' experiences of Ms Maddie's development through the year, nor did they study the learning outcomes of Ms Maddie's practices for the students. These would make an interesting new dimension to this work, but the case study as done stands on its own and as a valuable contribution to literature on teacher professional development. 

 

Author Response

Comment: When I reached section 3.5.1 on classroom observations, I found myself wanting to know more characteristics of the lower-secondary class Ms Maddie was teaching. In particular, the COPUS protocol was developed and validated in the context of undergraduate STEM classrooms, and while I am willing to believe it can be applied with learners in a secondary school classroom, I do wonder if there are any adjustments needed to how the data need to be collected and interpreted. I would like to see the authors discuss the applicability of COPUS in the context of this case study.

Response: We agree that the applicability of COPUS in a lower-secondary school context warrants discussion. While the protocol was originally developed and validated for undergraduate STEM classrooms, its coding categories focus on observable, content-neutral behaviours, such as lecturing, group work, and whole-class discussion, that are not specific to higher education and are equally relevant to lower-secondary school contexts.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors addressed all my comments and I am happy to recommend it for publication. Thanks