Exploring Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Behavior in Junior High Schools: A Grounded Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
very minor comments on the article are found in the ;
1.Abstract
L4 – do not start the abstract with the phrase “This study”…
2.Keywords
L 14 – consider nouns only
3.Results
Figures 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, – “Translate” should be “Translation”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Generally: The article is interesting and important in the field of didactics of mathematics. Studying mathematical reasoning in problem-solving processes is a challenging research task, but this study has done a very good job of addressing it. The theoretical framework has been thoroughly developed and the conceptual framework of the study is excellent. This framework forms the basis for the analysis of the data and has been applied with care. The framework structures the results and discussion chapters. This is a successful solution for the reader, as the clear structure is easy to follow and presents important results. The sources used are good and have been used appropriately.
However, I have a few comments on the structure and content of the article, which I will set out below.
1. The researcher says that the methodology of the research based on grounded theory. I think that if the study uses a pre-constructed framework (Table 1) as a basis for the analysis of students' writings and interviews, then it is essentially a theory-driven content analysis. Grounded theory raises from data and theoretical models are build basis on the data. In grounded theory, theoretical models typically emerge from the data under study. I ask to consider changing the name of chosen methodology. Methodological choices should be presented and justified more extensively than at present (now only lines 113-117).
2. Introduction chapter includes also the description of the theoretical framework. It would be clearer to the reader if the Theoretical Framework chapter were separated into a separate chapter after the Introduction chapter. At the same time, the Introduction chapter could be supplemented by opening the text with a wealth of sources (e.g., on line 26, sources 5-12 in the same reference).
3. The three problem-solving tasks used in the study have now been placed in Appendix A. They should be introduced to the reader before the Analysis subsection 2.2. and a description of why just these tasks were chosen for the study should be provided.
4. In the lines 133-134: “The findings show that six students belong to the imitative level, nine algorithmic students, and three creative students.” In the Results there is “Student with Imitative Reasoning Behavior” (IS) (Line 162). Is this student one of the six students? How the students IS has been chosen? Or is the student IS typical representative of the group of the six students? Can you explain this to the reader in a little more detail - also the cases AS and CS.
5. I think that in the Figures 1, 4,7, 9 the original native text is not necessary and they could leave away.
6. The Discussion chapter is quite long. It would be easier for the reader if you divide it to smaller subchapters e.g. using Table 1.
7. Qualitative research also needs to consider the limitations and ethical considerations of the study. These issues need to be discussed in more detail.
I hope the above comments will help to further improve the quality of the article, because the article is definitely worth of publishing after some improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is well written and can be published in this form. Only minor corrections
In Figure 4, The expression "Pola angka satuan dari hasil perpangkatan bilangan 3:" needs to be translated into English.
Change in all the figures the term "translate" for "Translation"
Congratulations to the authors
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
