Digital and Physical Interactive Learning Environments: Early Childhood Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs about Technology through Reflective Writing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with an interesting issue as it explores early childhood teachers' beliefs concerning digital and physical technologies in teaching mathematics. I have included a few points below which I think would strenghten the paper:

The title needs rephrasing as the teachers' beliefs are not about reflective writing, but are expressed through it.

Line 11-14: In the summary it should be mentioned that the questionnaire was administered before and after the intervention program and that the analysis of reflective writing involved fewer participants.

In the introduction, despite the reference to STEAM education, the difference in the use of the instruction's medium is presented as a necessity (line 49) and the response to current social demands or existing children's knowledge is overlooked. In lines 57 and 60 relevant references need to be added.

Regarding the 2nd research question it seems that it is more about how the shift in the beliefs of the participating teachers is highlighted through reflective writing.

 Author/s don't explain why they choose to study only teachers' beliefs and not combine them with teachers' mathematical knowledge as it is closely related. Line 158 needs rephrasing.

Teachers' beliefs concerning technology and mathematics are described as if they are identical; they are not. A focused literature review on early childhood teachers' perceptions on technology integration and the specific topics in mathematics is missing. 

Line 198 Author/s need to define participants' characteristcs as well as the criteria for splitting them into experimental and control group. In addition, it is not described how the procedure followed by the control group differed from the experimental group or whether the course was taught by the same or different professors. It is not clear whether the control group was also involved in reflective writing.

Lines 282-284 Μore analysis is needed on the professor's role and how this intervention does not lead to guiding results. Also, it is not specified whether there were questions or statements/axes that the students were requested to reflect when they were enganged in the writing activity.

Line 377 & 381 multiple representations is the term used.

Line 423 This should also be mentioned in methods' section.

Lines 454-456 There are only more references to applications. Does this constitute deepening and improvement in her philosophy?

Lines 494-495 There is not sufficient discussion and interpretation about it.

Lines 525-529 This is not evident from the data presented.

Lines 587-589 These are not included in the data presented.

Line 595 The statements' pages reference?

Line 636 The recommendation lacks supporting data.

Author Response

please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-structured and presents an original subject matter. It provides a detailed analysis of early childhood mathematics teachers’ beliefs about technology and reflective writing.

The Introduction is well-structured with clear research questions. Specifically, it presents the topic in an analytical manner and highlights important research issues.

The theoretical framework sections provide a comprehensive and clear understanding of the topic under consideration.

The methodology follows basic research principles and is sound. Appropriate statistical tables are included for quantitative data. 

The Discussion presents detailed findings and answers the research questions effectively. 

The Conclusion is comprehensive and addresses the research questions posed using the collected data.

Additionally, the literature is up-to-date and accurately cited within the text.

Overall, the paper makes a significant contribution to the field and has implications for educational methods.

Therefore, I recommend that it be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the pleasant commentaries 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please refrain from splitting tables across two pages in the manuscript.

The year is missing from reference [18].

Best regards

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for the kind comments. For the references we added the year of publication as requested. for splitting tables across pages, I would like to leave them as they are (for now only ) to avoid empty spaces. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to the majority of the comments they received. However, I believe that a few clarifications are still needed.

Introduction: The addition in line 57-60 does not explain that the importance of interactive learning environments is strengthened by the fact that many children already have relevant experiences from their family and extended environment, so if the learning environment are enriched with technological tools they will be more meaningful for children.

Methodology: It would be helpful to the reader to know the basis of selection for membership in experimental and control group.

"the professors read the participants’ reflections, suggested several ways
to improve the essays, and encouraged the participants to rewrite the reflective essays when it was unclear or not sufficiently deep" Τhis sentence raises questions about the procedure (to what extent did he direct) which have not been answered.

Results: For the response "In the following lines we were stating the qualitative data without interpretation". I meant that there is no commenting of this in the discussion part.

"This perspective emerged from their understanding of children’s stages of development" is not shown in table 6.

line 595 If these are participant's statements please define (e.g. participant B). Otherwise it seems to be related to the reference.

Conclusion: Line 636 "this study recommends that practitioners collaborate to facilitate suitable uses of digital technology" The recommendation is more about collective access rather than collaborative practices.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf