Perception of Teachers’ Attitudes and Training Competence of Teachers in the Field of Mathematics
Linda Samek
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have several difficulties with this article.
1. PAM is not a common statistical procedure for most educators. "Partitioning Around Medioids" must be explained more fully in the data analysis section, as it is used heavily in your work.
2. The use of the phrase "influential factor" connotes causality. I do not believe you have proven any causality, only correlation. Please replace this phrase with something more appropriate.
3. In the context, please indicate what grade levels are considered "primary." This has influence on memories of participants.
4. How do you account for responses from participants who had, say, one wonderful teacher, and five incompetent math teachers in the primary grades? How do you expect they responded to questions? How might you address this phenomenon in this article?
5. The labels for academic grades do not work well for me, and potentially not for other readers. I would place "remarkable" above "outstanding" for level of accomplishment. It also seems to me that the second tier of accomplishment is very good. Your analysis should address why you only consider the top level (8.50 to 10) to be significantly above average
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is adequate, however, it does not always all flow well. There are some sentences that are too long, sentence structures that are awkward, and there are words whose connotations do not seem to fit the context. A small example is the use of "only" in line 311. More than 1/3 have failed a mathematics course. That is a high number, not an "only!"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
After reviewing this manuscript, I must point out that it is a research work in Mathematics Education framed within the topic of the analysis of the affective domain of future Primary Education teachers. It is a relevant research for the area given that it is necessary to study in depth the relationship between attitudes towards mathematics and the teaching that teachers develop at this educational stage. More specifically, it focuses on the analysis of the perception they have of Primary School teachers when they were pupils at this educational stage.
I would like to comment on some aspects that, perhaps, were not well explained or not properly understood after reading the manuscript.
- The work begins with an extensive justification of the need to improve the training of mathematics teachers who teach at the Primary Education stage. However, I believe that it is also necessary to include the state of the question in relation to the study of the affective domain, as it is a subject that has been widely analysed and for which there are very interesting results that are accepted by the scientific community.
- I believe that the research questions should be better delimited in relation to the results that can be extracted from the surveys. The future teachers are asked how they perceive the teaching of mathematics in primary school when they were students, i.e. between 7 and 12 years earlier at best, when it was not clear to them that they would be teachers. This analysis is interesting, but at the same time, complex, because of how selective our memory can be, remembering very good or very bad moments, while ignoring others that are not particularly relevant. How is this question addressed in the analysis of the results?
- This peculiarity (describing the perception of their teachers' attitude to mathematics) is something that should be made clear on more occasions, as the reading is followed and it seems that their attitude to mathematics is analysed.
- This leads me to a new question: how does the attitude observed about a teacher they had several years ago relate to their own attitude? This leap is not made in a clear way and is established as self-evident.
- The analysis of the instrument is explained in a complex way because it is based on a validated questionnaire, which is then modified and not only questions are added but also categories are established, ... based on another validated questionnaire. I believe that this part needs to be improved.
- The graduation offered around the answers of the questionnaire (line 232 and following) is not justified.
- From line 244-262 onwards, no relevant information is provided, only what is described at the end. The same is true between lines 325-341. And in lines 385-402
- In table 2 there is a column indicating the valid percentage, but I do not understand what information it presents. In table 3, this same column appears and changes the value to 100 in the answer No, which would need to be explained.
- In table 4, the last row is incomplete.
- In table 7, gl is indicated when it should be df (degree of freedom).
- In the discussion and conclusions, the analysis is carried out from the perspective of the future students' perception of mathematics, when it is the perception they have of their former teachers.
Some reference must be review to be at APA's.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of my concerns have been addressed. I would still add a more direct explanation of "PAM." The additional text provided still does not make clear why/how it was used.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is adequate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done. The paper has been improve and all the suggestions made has been taken into account.
Author Response
We are delighted that the changes made have been to your liking. Thank you very much for your time and for helping us to improve the quality of our article.
