Development and Experimentation of a New Mathematical Model for Teaching–Learning the Radioactive Decay Law

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors provide an interesting new mathematical model for teaching-learning the radioactive decay law. They show a good introduction and literature review. The proposed method, results and discussions are representative.

 

·         The study as far as this reviewer is concerned is novel and the results are representative.

·         The paper is well written.

·         The authors provide a good research.

·         The paper fits the scope of the Journal perfectly.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

 

 

Your comments and Suggestions for us are:

In this paper, the authors provide an interesting new mathematical model for teaching-learning the radioactive decay law. They show a good introduction and literature review. The proposed method, results and discussions are representative.

·         The study as far as this reviewer is concerned is novel and the results are representative.

·         The paper is well written.

·         The authors provide a good research.

·         The paper fits the scope of the Journal perfectly.

 

Our responses are follows:

 

Point 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? It can be improved.


 

Response 1: Without being exhaustive, we believe that we have made the requiered changes in order to explain the relationship between mathematics and physics at the historical, epistemological, didactic levels, and in the end, their teaching-learning with the mobilization of ICT.

 

Point 2: Is the research design appropriate? It can be improved

 

Response 2: We think that the design of this paper follows the fundamental steps of scientific research: title, introduction, problematic, paradigm research, methodology, preliminary study, validation study, conclusion and references.

 

Point 3: Are the results clearly presented? Yes

 

Response 3: As you have mentioned, the results were presented as clear as possible.

 

Point 4: Are the conclusions supported by the results? It can be improved

 

Response 4: As you have notified, we have introduced some modifications to most of the conclusions. We think they become expressive so far.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well written paper and I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing it:

·         The paper contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication.

·         The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources.

·         The results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately.

·         The paper clearly expresses its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership. The paper has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

 

 

You have qualified English language and style:

 

·         English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

 

Your comments and Suggestions for us are:

This is a well written paper and I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing it:

·         The paper contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication.

·         The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources.

·         The results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately.

·         The paper clearly expresses its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership. The paper has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

 

Our responses are follows:

 

Point 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? It can be improved.


 

Response 1: Without being exhaustive, we believe that we have made the requiered changes in order to explain the relationship between mathematics and physics at the historical, epistemological, didactic levels, and in the end, their teaching-learning with the mobilization of ICT.

 

Point 2: Is the research design appropriate? It can be improved

 

Response 2: We think that the design of this paper follows the fundamental steps of scientific research: title, introduction, problematic, paradigm research, methodology, preliminary study, validation study, conclusion and references.

 

Point 3: Are the results clearly presented? It can be improved

 

Response 3: We believe that the results were presented as clear as possible. We felt a constraint when presenting the results in tabular form. The original tables that we have designed better present the results than those imposed by the journal template.

 

Point 4: Are the conclusions supported by the results? It can be improved

 

Response 4: As you have notified, we have introduced some modifications to most of the conclusions. We think they become expressive so far.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well written paper.