Exploring How a University Mathematics Teacher’s Digital Relational Competence Can Be Manifested: A Micro-Analytical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

I find the study very relevant in this day and age of pandemic impact on education. It has great potential of bringing a broader understanding of what teaching online entails and how teacher educators can prepare new teacher students for this digital context, which we most certainly will see as a continuing part of education worldwide. Hence, it is important that we acknowledge that being relationally competent in a digital learning environment is impacted both by affordances and constraints of the digital context, as well as our own understanding of relational aspects of teaching. The study also has potential in broadening the operationalisation of what digital relational competence entails. Please find my suggestions for improvements below.

Theoretical considerations

You use the term digital relational competence (DRC) as a term to define the research target of the study. This term has recently been introduced in the research field by Annika Wiklund-Engblom, building on the work of, for instance, Jonas Aspelin, whose work does not address the digital context at all. In addition to this, you should build on prior research into distance education, such as the work of Randy Garrison and Terry Anderson and the theory of Community of Inquiry. On a quick search on this and mathematics ed, I found this article, which might help in finding further literature: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.18848/2327-7971/CGP/v29i01/17-28; or at least you need to acknowledge why you don’t consider this distance education theory (including teacher-student relations) relevant in your case.

In the research question you phrase the focus as “digital relational communicative competence”, which highlights the specific area of interest to be operationalised using the chosen theoretical lenses, i.e. communication. This phrasing should also be used in Figure 1 instead of the heading used now “Teachers’ digital relational competence”. I find this distinction of much importance, as the definition used is based on Wiklund-Engblom’s study, which operationalises digital relational competence in a much broader sense than just communication. The author also refers to Wiklund-Engblom’s definition as addressing didactical aspects, however, I see it as broader than didactics, as this operationalisation includes a wide range of student needs, involving theoretical perspectives from educational psychology and digital learning design, including “self-regulated   learning   (Winne   &   Perry,   2005;   Pintrich   & McKeachie, 2000; Azevedo, 2007; Azevedo, & Aleven, 2013), co-regulation and social   regulation   (Järvelä,   Järvenoja,   Malmberg   &   Hadwin,   2013), self-determination    theory    (Deci    &    Ryan,    2000), design-based    epistemic metareflection (Wiklund-Engblom, 2015), metacognitive monitoring (Järvelä et al., 2014), and learning technology design (Peters, 2013)” (see Wiklund-Engblom, 2018, p.193).

The article would gain from developing the operationalisation of Digital Relational Communicative Competence in relation to the earlier operationalisations of DRC by Wiklund-Engblom (2018). Also, this referred study (Wiklund-Engblom, 2018) is done in upper secondary school – not university. However, Wiklund-Engblom do have a study from the university distance education in Wiklund-Engblom, Björkell, Backa & Wihersaari (2016). http://www.designsforlearning2016.aau.dk/digitalAssets/198/198492_dfl_short-papers-final-2.pdf

Analysis

As a reader, I want to understand why the chosen sequence was selected out of all the hours of recordings? Are the analysis and findings in the article only based on this sequence? Please clarify this part more. How is the digital context included in the analysis of the communication? In researching digital learning context, it is important to describe affordances and constraints of the environment in relation to research targets. This is to ensure replicability of the study and generalisability/transferability of findings.

Findings and conclusions

Try to distil the scientific contribution more clearly. How are these findings bringing more understanding to how teachers can be relationally competent to teach mathematics online? What is the added understanding based on this specific operationalisation of DRC? What impact does that have for teaching and teacher education?

I expected a conclusion framed by how the communication was impacted by the digital context. I am missing the “digital” arguments. Try to frame the findings in relation to affordances and constraints of the digital context. For instance, as you are referring to the definition based on a teacher’s sensitivity and responsivity to learner needs - how do the findings relate to this definition and in relation to the digital context?

References

Number 10 and 11 are the same reference.

I am looking forward to reading the final text!

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1 for manuscript 1629820 in Education Science

Thank you for your comments. The comments have helped me to strengthen my arguments and improvement of the manuscript.

Please find below my responses in addition to the revised manuscript. Changes in the manuscript are marked in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research shows an interesting analysis of the communication processes used in virtual teaching and learning processes, in a pilot study. It is relevant and innovative, and of special interest at the present time in which the COVID19 pandemic has changed our usual way of working in the classroom. It is substantiated and the methodology used is appropriate. The episodes analyzed allow us to see the relationships sought and help answer the research questions. The conclusions are adequate, and the references used are relevant.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the mathematical content loses relevance in the research, its role being almost tangential in it, which does not reveal how the results obtained transcend the teaching and learning processes of the mathematical content immersed in the discourse. In this sense, it would be desirable to try to make these aspects more present, in the analysis, the discussion and the conclusions.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2 for manuscript 1629820 submitted Education Sciences

Thank you for your comments. The comments have helped me to strengthen my arguments and improvement of the manuscript.

Please find below my responses in addition to the revised manuscript. Changes in the manuscript are marked in green.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The text has been revised in a proper manner and is a very interesting read.