Personas Characterising Secondary School Mathematics Students: Development and Applications to Educational Technology
, Martin Mayerhofer 2,*, Tony Houghton 1, Zsolt Lavicza 1, Michael Eichmair 2 and Markus Hohenwarter 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The description of the technology in Mathematics Education is too specific. Here, for example, handbook articles should be consulted that deal with this development.
For the importance of technology in curricula, perhaps at least two examples could be given, such as the USA and Australia or an important country from Europe. That would clarify the issue.
For the question of what exactly technology means, one should either use precise explanations or perhaps also examples. It could be videos as well as dynamic geometry software and much more.
Can you draw a parallel between personas and typing in qualitative research? Then this information would be interesting for the readers.
Grounded theory should perhaps be mentioned earlier in the paper so that readers who know it are already informed.
it remains open why it is better to collect additional secondary data than to interview the people themselves. it could be that this makes the pesonas even less accurate.
In the discussion, I would also look at the results of the personas in terms of content and not just focus on the method.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The strength of the research lies in targetting the use of the personas technology in education, which has been little studied. At the same time, the weakness of the research lies in the unclear results presented.
2. Probably, the authors need to add 'anxiety' to the keywords.
3. In a way, the design of the research is misleading. The methodology appears twice, by itself and in the results. It is suggested that it appears only in the methodology.
4. The structure of the results section is unclear. To the reader, it seems that there are no results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments from the review were taken up and considered accordingly in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I really thank you for explaining the rationale and goals of the study, but the design of the paper is still not clear. I suggest not using the term ' results' in your paper. In addition, I suggest not using the term 'procedur' or any other methodological terms twice in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the improvemnet.
