Gifted Students’ Actualization of a Rich Task’s Mathematical Potential When Working in Small Groups
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is fascinating and the study is so promising.
The rationale and the data are the work's strengths, whilst the methodology is very weak.
The authors declare they employed the analysis using Radford's theory of objectification. However, they do not recall the main point or how they used it to analyse their data (transcript and written products).
I strongly recommend fixing it in such a way. That is recalling the framework and the methods of analysis. Moreover, I suggest renaming the Results section to Data Analysis.
Another major issue is the discussion and conclusion which are not connected with the data analysis. Indeed, the majority of the statements does not refer to the "result" but to the literature. Furthermore, some claims that concern the data are not so strong as the Authors said. For instance, in line 300: "Our findings show that the rich task we used opened opportunities to use multiple methods, some more sophisticated than others.", is not a novelty but a confirmation of the cited literature.
Finally, the Authors say that the work is guided by the RQ but it is not clear how. Indeed, they do not reply to the RQ in terms of Objectification, rather they restate two new "points of interest" which are not clearly related to the RQ. I recommend clarifying this part at the beginning of section 5.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No particular issues. But I suggest proofreading, in particular of RQ.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions, they have been really helpful for our revison of the text. We have revised the text substantially, and also added more information.
We have also sent it to language editing service.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsExcellent study on an important topic!
Author Response
We have revised the text substantially, and also added more information.
We have also sent it to language editing service.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses mathematical problem solving of gifted Norwegian students when using flexible grouping in an inclusive education system. The aim of the study was to examine how to better support gifted students’ mathematical learning opportunities. The data consisted of video recordings and students’ products. The findings indicate that gifted students constitute a heterogeneous group.
Overall, I appreciate the authors’ effort to design and test new solutions to support gifted students' learning in an inclusive education system. However, this manuscript lacks several components required for solid educational research. Moreover, the study does not answer the research question, and the results do not align with the content presented in the introduction and the discussion section: the introduction and the discussion sections approach the topic on a very general level, but the results describe students’ mathematical problem-solving procedures in detail – and these two “worlds” do not relate to each other.
However, the study could have some potential if the authors would focus only on a more detailed analysis of mathematical problem-solving procedures of gifted students. Alternatively, the authors could add new results of a similar study conducted in truly inclusive settings (gifted students study with mixed-ability students) and then compare these results with the ones presented in this manuscript. Additionally, the results of the interviews should be included. In all cases, the authors would have to change the entire approach and redesign the study. Should the authors decide to do so, I have provided some detailed comments below:
1. The title is somewhat misleading as it does not fully align with the content of the manuscript: The term “inclusive settings” typically refers to (truly) heterogeneous groups including students of different ability levels and backgrounds. However, in this study, gifted students were actually placed in a pull-out program in which they studied with other gifted students. I do not consider such an arrangement to be an “inclusive setting”. In fact, the authors themselves state (lines 124–125): “In this article, we include only the homogeneous groups.” I believe that the terms currently used in the abstract (e.g., flexible grouping, rich task, high-quality opportunities) would give a better (i.e., more accurate) idea about the content.
2. I wonder how the authors justify the statement in the abstract lines 11–12: “Moreover, our analysis illustrates how giftedness can be invisible, leading to unrealized potential and low achievement.” I understood that the participants had been selected to the program on the basis of teacher recommendation and high achievement (lines 110–112), which implies that the potential/giftedness of these students has not been invisible (at least to their teachers). Moreover, a low level of participation in groupwork does not necessarily lead to low achievement (in contrast, there is empirical evidence showing that many gifted students prefer to study alone and they still perform on a high level).
3. The authors define inclusion and inclusive practices in the introduction (lines 43–57) and again in the theory section (lines 73–76). However, in Discussion (lines 262–270), the authors – quite suddenly – give a new definition, and this new definition also includes a new concept of “flexible grouping”. The authors may wish to introduce and define all the main concepts in the introduction and/or the theory section. I also think that the term flexible grouping should be emphasized throughout the study, and it should be defined more accurately; perhaps the term could also be included in the title.
4. Please explain the meaning of the word “situated” in the context of this study (lines 13, 315, 334).
5. The research question is not answered in this manuscript. In fact, the research question emphasizes “groupwork” and how it supports learning opportunities. However, the theory or the results section do not mention/discuss the concept of groupwork. It is currently very confusing for the reader to perceive the exact issue or the question that the authors wish to investigate; is it inclusive education, collaborative learning (= interactions and issues related to “groupwork”), mathematical problem solving, rich tasks, or something else? Groupwork (or collaborative/cooperative learning/team work) is a separate topic in educational research that has been studied widely, and it certainly deserves more space in this manuscript if it was the (main) issue the authors wished to examine.
6. The text in lines 77–80 is difficult to understand. Instead of using a direct quote with a peculiar term “singular", the authors may wish to formulate the sentence in their own words.
7. Related to the previous comment: I suggest avoiding the use of (too many) direct quotes in the text. Please prefer using your own words.
8. I suggest mentioning the students’ age (or the grade levels) earlier in the study (and in the abstract).
9. I suggest using subtitles in the Methods section, for example Context of the Study, Participants, Data collection, and Data analysis.
10. The study lacks basic information of the participants (e.g., how many participants were involved, what are their backgrounds, etc.).
11. The study lacks basic information of the video-recordings (e.g., what was the duration of one recording, how many recordings were made, were there other type of mathematical problems recorded than the one presented in the manuscript).
12. The authors state that they have interviewed the students. Will these results be presented in another article?
13. Why were only some students tested with a WISC-V -test, and why did the authors report the results of only one student?
14. There is no information about the analysis of the data: what analysis methods were used and how were they used? For example, did the authors categorize the data, and if yes, how?
1 15. I strongly suggest removing Figure 7 from the Discussion section. It does not present any relevant new information, and the text does not explain the meaning of letters (A, B, etc.) presented in the figure. Alternatively, it should be presented and explained already in the theory section (one should avoid introducing new topics/concepts in the Discussion section).
16. How did the authors ensure validity and reliability of this research?
17. What are the limitations of this study?
To summarize, my main concern is that the results currently focus on gifted students working on a single math task when they study with other gifted students. However, the manuscript does not address the much broader issue presented in the research question. Moreover, the manuscript lacks relevant sections, such as the description of the analysis process and the considerations related to validity and reliability of this research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of English is good; only minor editing of language is required.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions, they have been really helpful for our revison of the text. We have revised the text substantially, and also added more information.
We have also sent it to language editing service.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI was delighted to notice that the authors have made significant improvements to the original manuscript. Most of my concerns have now been addressed, and the manuscript currently meets the requirements for coherent and solid educational research. However, in my opinion, there are still too many direct quotes in the introductory and theory sections - the manuscript would be much more elegant if the authors used their own words instead. As this is only a minor issue I'll leave it up to the editor to decide whether any changes are needed concerning this issue.
Author Response
Thank you for your careful and important comments. We will wait for the editor's decision on the quotes.
