All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulations, your paper is acceptable after the improvement and subsequent recommendations by the experts.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have made the raised comments.
The authors have made the raised comments.
The authors have made the raised comments.
The authors have made the raised comments.
The authors have accommodated the changes suggested by the reviewers
The authors have accommodated the changes suggested by the reviewers
The authors have accommodated the changes suggested by the reviewers
The authors have accommodated the changes suggested by the reviewers
Please careful revise and resubmit for further consideration.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
In order to achieve the accurate design of mathematics teaching activities, this paper proposes a design scheme MTCBO-LR based on multi-task optimization (EMTO), which can realize accurate knowledge transfer and data interaction between different teachers. Meanwhile, it combines the traditional TLBO algorithm to achieve multi-task optimization. It can provide different learning strategies for students to choose from in different stages of mathematics teaching. It simultaneously can realize self-adaptive strategy adjustment according to the actual teaching needs. However, it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.
(1) Why mathematics teaching task is a multi-objective optimization problem, and what constraints or conditions should be considered?
(2) Add more literature to prove some conclusive views, such as “Existing algorithms typically solve singular optimization tasks in isolation and seldom leverage knowledge gained from one task to help solve another”;
(3) The ranking of literature does not correspond to the name of the author, which needs to be paid attention to;
(4) The headings of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are too long, and they are difficult to understand;
(5) Briefly state the similarities and differences between different learning strategies (Section 3.2);
(6) Throughout the methodology, there is a lack of logical connection between the various titles. For example, why is the "Multi-objective Optimization Problem" placed at the end of this chapter?
(7) The distribution of paragraphs in each chapter is still not reasonable, and the author needs to distinguish the relationship between research methods and research objectives correctly;
(8) Discussion section needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what the authors have proposed;
(9) Author needs to contextualize the findings in the literature and be explicit about the added value of the study towards that literature.
In order to achieve the accurate design of mathematics teaching activities, this paper proposes a design scheme MTCBO-LR based on multi-task optimization (EMTO), which can realize accurate knowledge transfer and data interaction between different teachers. Meanwhile, it combines the traditional TLBO algorithm to achieve multi-task optimization. It can provide different learning strategies for students to choose from in different stages of mathematics teaching. It simultaneously can realize self-adaptive strategy adjustment according to the actual teaching needs. However, it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.
(1) Why mathematics teaching task is a multi-objective optimization problem, and what constraints or conditions should be considered?
(2) Add more literature to prove some conclusive views, such as “Existing algorithms typically solve singular optimization tasks in isolation and seldom leverage knowledge gained from one task to help solve another”;
(3) The ranking of literature does not correspond to the name of the author, which needs to be paid attention to;
(4) The headings of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are too long, and they are difficult to understand;
(5) Briefly state the similarities and differences between different learning strategies (Section 3.2);
(6) Throughout the methodology, there is a lack of logical connection between the various titles. For example, why is the "Multi-objective Optimization Problem" placed at the end of this chapter?
(7) The distribution of paragraphs in each chapter is still not reasonable, and the author needs to distinguish the relationship between research methods and research objectives correctly;
(8) Discussion section needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what the authors have proposed;
(9) Author needs to contextualize the findings in the literature and be explicit about the added value of the study towards that literature.
In order to achieve the accurate design of mathematics teaching activities, this paper proposes a design scheme MTCBO-LR based on multi-task optimization (EMTO), which can realize accurate knowledge transfer and data interaction between different teachers. Meanwhile, it combines the traditional TLBO algorithm to achieve multi-task optimization. It can provide different learning strategies for students to choose from in different stages of mathematics teaching. It simultaneously can realize self-adaptive strategy adjustment according to the actual teaching needs. However, it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.
(1) Why mathematics teaching task is a multi-objective optimization problem, and what constraints or conditions should be considered?
(2) Add more literature to prove some conclusive views, such as “Existing algorithms typically solve singular optimization tasks in isolation and seldom leverage knowledge gained from one task to help solve another”;
(3) The ranking of literature does not correspond to the name of the author, which needs to be paid attention to;
(4) The headings of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are too long, and they are difficult to understand;
(5) Briefly state the similarities and differences between different learning strategies (Section 3.2);
(6) Throughout the methodology, there is a lack of logical connection between the various titles. For example, why is the "Multi-objective Optimization Problem" placed at the end of this chapter?
(7) The distribution of paragraphs in each chapter is still not reasonable, and the author needs to distinguish the relationship between research methods and research objectives correctly;
(8) Discussion section needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what the authors have proposed;
(9) Author needs to contextualize the findings in the literature and be explicit about the added value of the study towards that literature.
In order to achieve the accurate design of mathematics teaching activities, this paper proposes a design scheme MTCBO-LR based on multi-task optimization (EMTO), which can realize accurate knowledge transfer and data interaction between different teachers. Meanwhile, it combines the traditional TLBO algorithm to achieve multi-task optimization. It can provide different learning strategies for students to choose from in different stages of mathematics teaching. It simultaneously can realize self-adaptive strategy adjustment according to the actual teaching needs. However, it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.
(1) Why mathematics teaching task is a multi-objective optimization problem, and what constraints or conditions should be considered?
(2) Add more literature to prove some conclusive views, such as “Existing algorithms typically solve singular optimization tasks in isolation and seldom leverage knowledge gained from one task to help solve another”;
(3) The ranking of literature does not correspond to the name of the author, which needs to be paid attention to;
(4) The headings of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are too long, and they are difficult to understand;
(5) Briefly state the similarities and differences between different learning strategies (Section 3.2);
(6) Throughout the methodology, there is a lack of logical connection between the various titles. For example, why is the "Multi-objective Optimization Problem" placed at the end of this chapter?
(7) The distribution of paragraphs in each chapter is still not reasonable, and the author needs to distinguish the relationship between research methods and research objectives correctly;
(8) Discussion section needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what the authors have proposed;
(9) Author needs to contextualize the findings in the literature and be explicit about the added value of the study towards that literature.
In this paper, the authors put forward the multi-objective optimization strategy and multi-objective strategy phased optimization method, which can give different teaching strategies according to different situations of students with different teaching strategies. The proposed three different learning strategies can expand the exploration scope, increase the exploration depth, improve the search accuracy, so as to effectively improve the optimization effect. It provides a new idea and method for solving multi-objective optimization problem.
The author lists a large number of documents in the literature review, but their numbers do not correspond to the information at the end of the manuscript, which needs to be checked thoroughly;
1. Clarify the author's work in the abstract, do not use some general description, such as "Multi-objective optimization has emerged as a crucial solution in various fields."
2. More quotes need to be added to the introduction.
3. Some sentences are incomprehensible， “Enable students to escape from local optima and utilizes a rank-based selection strategy？”
Authors should pay more attention to the introduction of data sets, and if necessary, should add the process or method of data preprocessing, which will help other scholars to reference and learn from this study.
Update and clearly state the major contributions of the work after the introduction to avoid overlapping with existing research conclusions;
1) The name of picture 1 is missing, please add.
2) Add an opening paragraph at the beginning of Section 4.2.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.