Analysis of Content Knowledge Categories in Preservice Teachers When Teaching the Concept of Number in Preschool

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear researcher,

The first part (introductory) is clear, relevant, and powerful. The reader can see and follow the what, why, and how of the research. 

But there are some aspects in the text that need more attention, and those are:

1 The introductory paragraph is missing a title.

 2 The place of the first paragraph of Chapter 2 in the text:  is it the contextualization of the research question or methodological information?  Lines 82-88, the first paragraph of Chapter 2, gives too much practical information about the working method. It could be moved to Chapter 4 - Methodology.

3 Chapter 5 presents the results and discussion. This is confusing for the reader as it is followed by a chapter on content analysis. In fact, Chapter 6 announces new analytical content. Alternatively, Chapter 6 could be part of Chapter 5.

4 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework is constructed very well (clear, relevant, and strong). however, the terms 'ontological, epistemological, and methodological' have been powerfully introduced at the beginning, but are not clearly defined further. For a better understanding, it would be better to explain these three concepts in the theoretical framework. Otherwise, they are nothing more than empty cries hanging in the air.

5 First paragraph of section 3.5. - Learning numerical knowledge in Mexican preschool education (lines 301-311) - seems to be in the wrong place. It doesn't belong in Chapter 3 'Theoretical Framework' because it provides information about the context of the research (Mexico). An alternative location might be Chapter 2 or 5.

6 The abbreviations for the dimensions of knowledge, section 3.6, CK, PCK, CCK, and RP are out of place. Because this is a new section and the explanation of the four dimensions is the main issue of the section, it is better to use the full words/names (so not CK but Content Knowledge, etc.).

7  The conclusion: In the Concluding Remarks, chapter 7, the conclusions and recommendations are intertwined. The recommendations (lines 672-678) could be given in a separate paragraph.

Author Response

Please find the comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting but a bit confusing. The dimension related to the specificities of Mexico is not really detailed compared to others. So it might be less important. The links between the different components observed are very generic. The indicators sought in the lesson plans to fill in the dimensions are not detailed. A few examples would help to better establish the empirical level. I think what's in the conclusion should be talking points. From a general point of view, I find the article a bit long, especially for the entry into the heart of the matter.

Author Response

Please find the comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Familiarization with the content of the article "Analysis of content knowledge categories in pre service teacher when teaching the concept of number in preschool" (authors -Rigoberto Chavira-Quintero, José Manuel Olais-Govea) has become a significant scientific event.

The article has a certain novelty in the study of the problem and has theoretical and practical significance for both researchers and practitioners.  The stated topic of the publication is relevant, since preschool education is the basis for further successful development and education of a child. The originality of the stated topic lies in the analysis of the categories of knowledge about the content of the teacher of preschool education.  The essence of the stated problem is fully revealed by the content of the article, confirmed by empirical material. The analysis of empirical material is a significant enrichment of research in this area.

The literary sources are selected adequately for the goals and objectives.

Author Response

Please find the comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the possibility to read a valuable research. Some improvements might be considered. 

The introduction might present most significant results and future research guidelines. The future research included in the paper might contribute to other researchers' future work and make sure the research field is more enriched.

Author Response

Please find the comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf