Review’s Comment & Response Form on JRAMathEdu: [Code Paper]
Title of the manuscript: Teaching and learning process for mathematization activities: The case of solving maximum and minimum problems
Reviewer	Reviewer’s Comment	Respond to Reviewer	
1	Abstract:
Comment: Overall is okay. However there are two statements that should be revised.
1.	Delete: The question is how the learning and teaching process of the ECSM course implemented so as to strengthen students’ conceptual understanding and problem solving skills?
2.	How about the conclusion that relate with the visual represeantations and mathematical models?	Thank you for your suggestions. We have delete the question, rewrite the aim of the research, and clarify the conclusion. Overall, we have rewritten the abstract so it is clearer.	
	Introduction:
1.	The urgency and novelty of this research is unclear. Please explain the differences between this study and previous studies.
2.	What is the urgency of this research? Please explain	We have rewritten the text, added relevant references, showed research gap, and clarified aims of the research in the Introduction section. So this section is now clearer.	
	Research methods: Clear	Thank you.	
	Results and Discussion: Clear	Thank you.	
	Conclusion: Clear	Thank you.	
	Others:
This research is good, but the novelty of this research has not been seen and the usefulness of the results of this study is lacking	We have added more information, argument, and references in the introduction section. So, this is clearer about research gap, novelty, and the usefulness of this research.	
2	Abstract:
Writers should provide an explanation that gets to the point, especially the max/min problem	Thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten the Abstract, so it gets to the point to max/min problem.	
	Introduction:
1.	Paragraph 2: need reference support, and explanation about, no comparing other research about  max/min problem, no research gap, no research contribution
2.	Paragraph 3: the introduction should be fluid: why writers give a statement or main idea
3.	Need a research question as a crucial component in the introduction	We have rewritten the text, added relevant references, showed research gap/novelty, and clarified aims of the research in the Introduction. So this section is now clearer in terms of research gap and its contribution.	
	Research Methods:
1.	Give explanation about the instrument: max/min problems?
2.	Need explanation data collection tools and analysis method (e.g., preliminary analysis, open coding, and axial coding), 
3.	Reliability data and trustworthinesss	Thank you for this suggestion. In the method section, we have clarified about the instruments used in this study, validity of the problems, data collection, and data analysis. 	
	Results and Discussion:
1.	After Figure 4: Need reference support: why the writers perspective concludes that his approach is identical to the deductive approach

2.	Analysis of written work on solving a maximum or minimum problem  Please check the method. This part need think aloud or interview data
3.	After Figure 5  need data support (think aloud or interview)
4.	not the writers' interpretation	Thank you for comments and suggestions. We have added more information, interpretation, and references in the Results and Discussion section. So, this section is clearer.

Concerning the interview data, we have added limitations of this study in the conclusions section. 	
	Conclusion:
1.	No need references
2.	Need explanation about limitations and research contribution	Thank you for this suggestion. We have deleted unnecessary references, have added limitations of this study, and have added recommendations for further study.	
	Others:
Bibliography: The reference should be more improved  
	We have added more relevant references, including DOI’s. So, this part includes 26 references.	
3	Abstract:
1.	Research objectives and research results are not in synchronized.
2.	The aims of result did’nt linked to the title in this case “mathematizationactivities : The case of solving maximum andminimum problems”.
3.	There is no method result .	Thank you for your suggestions. We have rewritten the Abstract such that research objective/aim and results are in line, and are related to the title. Also the results and the method have been clarified.	
	Inroduction:
1.	One of students’ difficulties is ambigu.
2.	One of the courses for students
3.	In this article we present the results of an observation of the teaching and learning it doesn't fit in the introduction, it should put it in the method
4.	The question is how the learning and teaching process of the ECSM course implemented so as to strengthen students’ conceptual understanding and problem solving skills? In the introduction, no problems were asked.	We have rewritten the text, added relevant references, showed research gap, delete inappropriate statements particularly that related to method section, clarified aims of the research in the Introduction. So this section is now clearer.	
	Research Methods:
Should use RME mathematics instead of using inductive and deductive approaches	In the method section, we have clarified that mathematization perspective comes from the RME theory.  Concerning the learning and teaching approach, as the observation was conducted in a natural setting, we used a more general approaches of inductive and deductive teaching approaches.	
	Results and Discussion:
The teaching and learning process for the case of solving maximum and minimum problems. In problems one and two, the discussion should lead to how the mathematical cycle runs	Thank you for your comments. We have added more information, references, and discussion concerning mathematization process in the Results and Discussion section. So, it is now clearer.	
	Conclusion:
1.	In Conclusion there are two findings such as the sentence First, the observed teaching and learning process of the Essential Concept of School Mathematics (ECSM) .....; Second, the finding of difficulties in constructing mathematical models from the given maximum or minimum ....; The two findings should also be discussed in the formulation of the problem.
2.	The discussion should be related to the mathematical process.	Thank you for this suggestion. We have rewritten the Introduction section, so it now much related between the research aim, results, and conclusions. In the discussion, we have also added more information about mathematical processes.	
	Others:
The position should be like the one below:
Figure 6. An example of correct solution to the Problem 3 in Figure 5
Figure 6 presents an example of student’s written work with correct solution and its corresponding translation of Indonesian words into English. From the perspective of mathematization, this written work shows relatively clear steps of parts of mathematization cycle (De Lange, 2006; Jupri&Drijvers, 2016), i.e., subsequently showing a transformation from the problem to a visual geometric representation and to a mathematical model as well as to the solution process of the model within the world of mathematics.  However, the step of reinterpretation or conclusion of the mathematical solution into an original problem is not clearly stated.

Likewise with figure 7 and so on.

Some references do not have DOI

De Lange, J. (2006). Mathematical literacy for living from OECD-PISA perspective. Tsukuba Journal of Educational Study in Mathematics. Vol. 25. Special Issue on The APEC-TSUKUBA International Conference "Innovative Teaching Mathematics through Lesson Study" (pp. 13-35). Tokyo, Japan: University of Tsukuba.

Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jupri, A., & Herman, T. (2017). Theory and practice of mathematics teacher education: An explorative study at the department of mathematics education, Indonesia University of Education. In Proceedings ofInternational Conference on Mathematics and Science Education. Atlantis Press.

Prince, M.J., & Felder, R.M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.

Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction-The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 9-35.	Thank you for your suggestions. We have rewritten this part, have added relevant references; and have added DOI’s for each reference.	
Editor	Abstract:-	Thank you.	
	Introduction:
The novelty is not described well
No statement about the importance/contribution of the study
No explanation about research position
	We have rewritten the text, added relevant references, showed research gap, and clarified aims of the research in the Introduction. So this section is now clearer in terms of novelty, contribution, and research position.	
	Research Methods:
The validity needs to be described	Thank you for this suggestion. In the method section, we have clarified about the instruments used in this study, validity of the problems, data collection, and data analysis. 	
	Results and Discussion:
The result is too short. Authors may write more findings.
  Need more previous study to compare the result of the study	We have added more references of relevant studies, and added more description of results and discussion supported by relevant references.	
	Conclusion:
In conclusion authors do not need to compare prior study
No clue for further study	Thank you for this suggestion. We have deleted unnecessary references in this section. Also, we have added some recommendations for further study.	
	Others: -	Thank you.	

Other: -